[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10, Chapter 28 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11, Chapter 28 (Sections 25-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 28. Amendments and the Germaneness Rule]
[B. Application of Ruke to Particular Forms of Amendment or Proposition]
[Â§ 23. Instructions in Motion To Commit or Recommit]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8377-8396]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 23. Instructions in Motion To Commit or Recommit

    An amendment incorporated in a motion to recommit with instructions 
must be germane to the bill sought to be amended.(1) Thus, 
it is not in order to propose, as part of a motion to recommit, any 
proposition which would not be germane if proposed as an amendment to 
the bill. (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 23.7 and 23.10, infra.
 2. See Sec. 23.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 22, 1949, when the reading of the engrossed copy of a

[[Page 8378]]

bill was the unfinished business before the House, the 
Speaker(3) stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
that instructions accompanying a motion to recommit were required to be 
germane to the engrossed copy (perfected version) of the bill. 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 4. See the proceedings at 95 Cong. Rec. 2936, 2937, 81st Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Mar. 22, 1949. Under consideration was H.R. 1437 
        (Committee on Armed Services), the Army and Air Force Act of 
        1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order against a motion to recommit with instructions has 
been made prior to completion of the reading of such motion where the 
matter contained in the instructions had been ruled out as not germane 
when offered as an amendment in the Committee of the 
Whole.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 23.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the precedents indicate that a motion to recommit a bill with 
instructions may not direct the committee to report back forthwith with 
a nongermane amendment, it may be in order to incorporate in such 
motion an amendment that is identical to one that had been made in 
order for consideration pursuant to a waiver of the germaneness rule, 
and then rejected in Committee of the Whole. See the proceedings of 
Aug. 4, 1976,(6) relating to the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, 
wherein the House adopted a motion to recommit the bill with 
instructions in order to restore a perfecting committee amendment which 
had been tentatively adopted in Committee of the Whole but then not 
reported to the House because of adoption in Committee of an amendment 
striking out the language of the committee amendment. (The House had 
subsequently rejected the amendment striking out such language.) House 
Resolution 1242 had specifically waived points of order under the 
germaneness rule to permit the consideration of the amendment 
recommended by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy printed in the 
bill. The amendment was not germane because it provided for a rules 
change to permit privileged consideration of resolutions of 
disapproval, whereas the original bill provided no such mechanism. 
Pursuant to such waiver, the identical language was restored by 
incorporation in the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 122 Cong. Rec. 25425-27, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instructions in the motion to recommit must be germane to the 
subject matter of the bill even though not proposing a direct amendment 
thereto.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 23.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While instructions must be germane to the section of the bill to

[[Page 8379]]

which offered (see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2709), an amendment in 
the form of a new title at the end of a bill need only be germane to 
the bill as a whole. (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 23.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendments to a motion to recommit must be germane to the subject 
matter of the bill (and not necessarily to the motion to recommit to 
which offered).(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6888; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2711.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a motion to recommit with instructions is ruled out on a 
point of order because containing matter not germane to the bill, 
another motion to recommit may be offered.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 23.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair does not rule on hypothetical questions, and therefore 
declines to rule in advance as to the germaneness of instructions 
accompanying a motion to recommit.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 109 Cong. Rec. 25249, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 1963 
        (remarks of Speaker John W. McCormack (Mass.) in response to 
        parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Charles A. Halleck 
        (Ind.)).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instructions Must Be Germane to Bill

Sec. 23.1 Instructions included in a motion to commit or recommit the 
    pending proposition must be germane thereto.

    The principle that instructions included in a motion to commit or 
recommit must be germane to the bill is illustrated by the proceedings 
of July 12, 1978, discussed in Sec. 23.2, infra. .

Concurrent Resolution Related to Domestic Situation in Soviet Union--
    Instructions To Address Diplomatic Initiatives by United States

Sec. 23.2 To a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress 
    that trials of Soviet dissidents are matters of concern to the 
    American people and impose obstacles to cooperation and confidence 
    between the United States and Soviet Union, and urging the Soviet 
    leadership to seek humanitarian resolutions to those cases and to 
    improve the climate in relations between the two countries, 
    amendments contained in three consecutive motions to commit with 
    instructions, to urge the recall of United States negotiators at 
    the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT), and/or urging that no 
    further negotiations at such talks proceed until

[[Page 8380]]

    the Soviet Union indicates the reliability of entering into a SALT 
    agreement, were held not germane as unrelated to the subject matter 
    of the resolution, which addressed only specific domestic actions 
    by the Soviet Union and not general or specific diplomatic 
    initiatives by the United States towards the Soviet Union.

    On July 12, 1978,(12) during consideration of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 95, it was demonstrated that instructions 
included in a motion to commit or recommit a proposition must be 
germane to that proposition. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  124 Cong. Rec. 20500-05, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Without objection, the 
    previous question is ordered on the Senate concurrent resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.  Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on concurring in the 
    Senate concurrent resolution. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker . . . I have a 
    motion to commit under the rule. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    commit with instructions.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. Ashbrook moves to commit Senate Concurrent Resolution 95 to 
    the Committee on International Relations with instructions to 
    report the concurrent resolution back forthwith with the following 
    amendment: Strike period after last paragraph and insert the 
    following: ``and it is further resolved that the Congress urges the 
    President of the United States to recall our representatives at the 
    SALT talks as further evidence of the commitment of this nation to 
    the principles set out in this resolution, and that no further 
    negotiations proceed until the Soviet Union by its actions more 
    clearly indicates the reliability of entering into a SALT treaty 
    with that nation.''
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I raise 
    a point of order on the motion to commit with instructions. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the instructions go beyond the scope of Senate 
    Concurrent Resolution 95 now before us. The instructions would add 
    a further resolving clause that the Congress urge the President of 
    the United States to recall our representatives at the SALT talks.
        This clearly goes beyond the resolution, which is intended to 
    express a condemnation of the Soviet Union, that is, the 
    unhappiness of the Congress with the manner in which they are 
    trying one Anatoly Shcharansky for treason and for what we believe 
    is his right to express his opinion, and violations on the part of 
    that government of the Helsinki Final Act. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . Mr. Speaker, in the first place, it is not 
    a motion to recommit. Under rule XVII it is clearly stated:

            It shall be in order, pending the motion for, or after the 
        previous question shall have been ordered on

[[Page 8381]]

        its passage, for the Speaker to entertain and submit a motion 
        to commit, with or without instructions, to a standing or 
        select committee.

        I would hold and suggest that the motion is completely 
    consistent with the language of the concurrent resolution. We are 
    going so far in the concurrent resolution in the Congress to urge 
    that the Supreme Soviet, not even in this country, but the Supreme 
    Soviet and its leadership take certain actions, and certainly that 
    the President of the United States take action. Again, we are not 
    telling him he has to; we are merely urging him to take an action 
    which, by the basic sense of the concurrent resolution, cannot be 
    in itself a law. It is a resolution expressing the intentions, the 
    desires, the wishes of Congress urging anyone, whether it be the 
    President of the United States or the Supreme Soviet, to take 
    action. It is consistent with that, and I would hope that the Chair 
    would hold it in order. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Speaker, if I may be heard further on the 
    point of order I raised, the motion to commit that the gentleman 
    from Ohio has made, with instructions, goes not only beyond the 
    scope of the resolution before us, but the language of the 
    instructions is not germane to the Senate resolution, Senate 
    Concurrent Resolution 95 that is before us. Therefore, I again 
    submit that it is out of order. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    desire to be heard further? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule 
    on the point of order made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) against the motion to commit with instructions offered by 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook).
        The motion to commit offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    provides that instructions will be given to the Committee on 
    International Relations to report the concurrent resolution back 
    with an amendment.
        Therefore, the terms of the amendment must be taken into 
    account in order to ascertain the germaneness of the motion to the 
    resolution pending before the House. . . .
        The resolution before the House is an expression of the sense 
    of Congress with respect to the actions now underway in the Soviet 
    Union. It is not a matter relating to the President of the United 
    States, nor does it relate to all matters of negotiations between 
    this country and the Soviet Union and to this country's conduct of 
    those negotiations.
        Furthermore, the last clause in the proposed amendment provides 
    that:

            No further negotiations proceed until the Soviet Union by 
        its actions more clearly indicates the reliability of entering 
        into a SALT Treaty with that nation.

        In the opinion of the Chair, that language, together with the 
    fact that the instructions relate to matters pertaining to the 
    President and not to an expression of the sense of Congress 
    contained in the resolution itself, renders the proposed amendment 
    beyond the scope of the original resolution and, therefore, it is 
    not germane.
        The point of order is sustained. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: At this point, the Chair will restate 
    the question before the House in view of the proceedings which have 
    intervened.
        The question is on the adoption of the Senate concurrent 
    resolution.

[[Page 8382]]

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I offer a further motion to commit, 
    which I think will be consistent with the objections raised by the 
    Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ashbrook moves to commit Senate Concurrent Resolution 
        95 to the Committee on International Relations with 
        instructions to report the concurrent resolution back forthwith 
        with the following amendment: Strike period after last 
        paragraph and insert the following:'' and it is further 
        resolved that it is the sense of Congress that the 
        representatives of the United States at the SALT talks be 
        withdrawn as further evidence of the commitment of this nation 
        to the principles set out in this resolution, and that no 
        further negotiations proceed until the Soviet Union by its 
        actions more clearly indicates the reliability of entering into 
        a SALT treaty with that nation.''. . .

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    motion.
        Mr. Speaker, this relates to the negotiations of SALT, which is 
    not in any way within the scope of Senate Concurrent Resolution 95.
        The gentleman from Ohio attempts to meet the objection or 
    ruling of what the Speaker has pointed out in the first sentence of 
    the gentleman's motion to instruct by changing it, that it is the 
    sense of Congress rather than that the Congress urges the 
    President; but the amended instructions do not in any way, Mr. 
    Speaker, meet the Speaker's concern that the last sentence that the 
    Speaker points out in this ruling, that no further negotiations 
    proceed until the Soviet Union . . . indicates the reliability of 
    entering into a SALT treaty with that nation.
        Mr. Speaker, I submit this is far and beyond the scope of the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . As far as the point of order is concerned, 
    one of the tests is whether or not it would have been germane if it 
    had been offered in committee. I think clearly it would have been 
    germane if it had been offered in committee, whether it had been 
    accepted or rejected.
        Again we go back to the original statement and the original 
    reasons. They are matters of deep concern to the American people. I 
    am referring to the deplorable actions of the Soviet Union and we 
    are talking about building confidence in our negotiations with the 
    Soviet Union.
        I think, consistent with the ruling of the Chair on the other 
    point of order, this amendment would be germane at this point, 
    because it calls for the sense of Congress, and it calls for no 
    action on the part of the President. It is consistent with the 
    entire body of the concurrent resolution, and I would urge the 
    Chair to uphold my right to offer this motion to commit. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The resolution before the House does not address the matter of 
    the SALT treaty or the reliability of the Soviet Union with respect 
    to the SALT treaty. And, in addition to that, the amendment to the 
    resolution would provide that no further negotiations by the State 
    Department proceed with respect to a specific area of foreign 
    relations, which is not a subject matter of the concurrent 
    resolution. . . .
        Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment 
    contained in the motion to commit is broader

[[Page 8383]]

    than the subject matter of the resolution and is, therefore, not 
    germane to the resolution.
        The point of order is therefore sustained.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I offer a further motion to commit.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ashbrook moves to commit Senate Concurrent Resolution 
        95 to the Committee on International Relations with 
        instructions to report the concurrent resolution back forthwith 
        with the following amendment: Strike period after last 
        paragraph and insert the following: ``and it is further 
        resolved that it is the sense of Congress that the United 
        States recall our representatives at the SALT talks. . . .

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against 
    the instructions in this motion to commit Senate Concurrent 
    Resolution 95 for the same reasons that I pointed out and stated 
    before. . . . We are not dealing with SALT negotiations in this 
    resolution. . . . [T]he instructions to recall our United States 
    representatives at the SALT talks truly have no basis. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined the motion to commit offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook), which would commit the 
    concurrent resolution to the Committee on International Relations 
    with instructions to report back the concurrent resolution with an 
    amendment. The amendment that would be reported back provides as 
    follows:

            It is further resolved that it is the sense of Congress 
        that the United States recall our representatives at the SALT 
        talks as further evidence of the commitment of this Nation to 
        the principles set out in this resolution.

        As stated in the last ruling by the Chair, there is nothing in 
    the concurrent resolution before the House pertaining to the SALT 
    talks or to this country's diplomatic initiatives toward the Soviet 
    Union. It is for that reason that the Chair believes that any 
    reference to a specific diplomatic relationship between the two 
    countries, be it the SALT talks or space exploration or cooperation 
    in the International Olympics, would not be germane to a resolution 
    which merely expresses congressional concern over actions of Soviet 
    leaders.
        For that reason, it is the opinion of the Chair that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio in his motion to 
    commit is broader than the scope of the concurrent resolution and, 
    therefore, is not germane.
        Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.

Supplemental Military Authorizations--Instructions To Address Foreign 
    Policy Objectives

Sec. 23.3 During consideration of a bill authorizing military 
    expenditures, a motion to recommit with instructions was ruled out 
    on a point of order because it contained provisions seeking to 
    prescribe foreign policy objectives.

[[Page 8384]]

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of supplemental military 
authorizations for fiscal 1967,(14) the following motion was 
reported.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 4515 (Committee on Armed Services).
15.  113 Cong. Rec. 5155, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin] moves to recommit the bill 
    H.R. 4515 to the Committee on Armed Services with instructions to 
    report the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
    amendment:
        On page 4, line 10, after ``$624,500,000'', insert:

                   Title I--Statement of Congressional Policy

            Sec. 401. None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be 
        used except in accordance with the following declaration by 
        Congress of . . .
            (2) its support of efforts being made by the President of 
        the United States and other men of good will throughout the 
        world to prevent an expansion of the war in Vietnam. . . 
        .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  Mr. Reuss had previously offered the declaration of policy stated 
        above as an amendment during consideration of the bill; the 
        amendment had been held to be not germane. See Sec. 4.32, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order was made, as follows:

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the instructions contained in the motion to 
    recommit are not germane to the bill under consideration. . . . 
    (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Parliamentarian's Note: In the actual proceedings, Mr. Rivers made 
        the above point of order prior to completion of the reading of 
        the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
19. 113 Cong. Rec. 5155, 5156, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill presently before the House authorizes appropriations 
    for military procurement, research, development, and military 
    construction, both in the United States and abroad.
        The amendment in the motion to recommit with instructions 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, provides for a new section 
    to be added at the end of the bill which would contain a 
    ``Statement of congressional policy''. . . .
        Because of the nature of this amendment, the Chair is of the 
    opinion that it deserves the attention and consideration of a 
    committee of this House other than armed services, which reported 
    the bill now before the Committee. Were this amendment introduced 
    as a bill, it would be within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs.
        The bill before the House deals with military authorizations; 
    the motion to recommit goes to the foreign policy of the United 
    States. . . .
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    After such ruling, another motion to recommit was made and 
rejected. During the proceedings, the following exchange occurred: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 5156.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 8385]]

        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: I respectfully ask the Speaker 
    if the rule which made this bill in order provided for only one 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state it applies to one valid 
    motion to recommit. The other motion was ruled out of order.

Amendment Containing Change    in Permanent Law Not Germane to Joint 
    Resolution Continuing Appropriations

Sec. 23.4 To a joint resolution reported from the Committee on 
    Appropriations continuing appropriations and containing diverse 
    legislative provisions relating to funding directions and 
    limitations, an amendment in the form of a motion to recommit with 
    instructions containing a permanent change in existing law (within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service) 
    relating to salaries and allowances of certain federal employees 
    was conceded to be nongermane.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 370 (continuing 
appropriations) in the House on Dec. 10, 1981,(1) the 
Speaker (2) sustained a point of order against a motion to 
recommit with instructions, as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 127 Cong. Rec. 30497, 30500-02, 30530, 30536-38, 97th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the order of the House of yesterday, I call up the joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 370)) making further continuing 
    appropriations for the fiscal year 1982, and for other purposes, 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 370

            Resolved . . . That the following sums are appropriated, 
        out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
        and out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, 
        and funds, for the several departments, agencies, corporations, 
        and other organizational units of the Government for the fiscal 
        year 1982, and for other purposes, namely:
            Sec. 101. (a)(1) Such amounts as may be necessary for 
        projects or activities (not otherwise specifically provided for 
        in this joint resolution) for which appropriations, funds, or 
        other authority would be available. . . .
            Sec. 118. Notwithstanding any other provision of the joint 
        resolution, the funds made available by this joint resolution 
        which would be available under H.R. 4560, the Departments of 
        Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related 
        Agencies Appropriation Act, 1982, as reported to the Senate on 
        November 9, 1981, for Student Financial Assistance shall be 
        subject to the following additional conditions:
            (1) The maximum Pell Grant a student may receive in 1982-
        1983 academic year is $1,800, notwith

[[Page 8386]]

        standing section 411(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Higher Education 
        Act of 1965. . . .
            Sec. 132. Notwithstanding any other provision of title 23, 
        United States Code, or of this joint resolution, the Secretary 
        of Transportation shall approve, upon the request of the State 
        of Indiana, the construction of an interchange to appropriate 
        standards at I-94. . . .
            Sec. 135. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 305 
        of H.R. 4120 made applicable by section 101(h) of this joint 
        resolution, but subject to subsection (b) of this section, 
        nothing in section 101(h) shall (or shall be construed to) 
        require that the rate of salary or basic pay, payable to any 
        individual for or on account of services performed after 
        December 31, 1981, be limited to or reduced to an amount which 
        is less than--
            (1) $59,500, if such individual has an office or position 
        the salary or pay for which corresponds to the rate of basic 
        pay for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 
        of title 5, United States Code;
            (2) $58,500, if such individual has an office or position 
        the salary or pay for which corresponds to the rate of basic 
        pay for level IV. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a motion to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves to recommit House Joint Resolution 370 to 
        the Committee on Appropriations, with instructions to that 
        Committee to report the joint resolution back to the House 
        forthwith, with the following amendment:

            Strike out all after the resolving clause, and insert in 
        lieu thereof: . . .
            Sec. 141. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
        this joint resolution:
            (a) Section 4109 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1) of this section, 
        the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, may pay an 
        individual training to be an air traffic controller of such 
        Administration, during the period of such training, at the 
        applicable rate of basic pay for the hours of training 
        officially ordered or approved in excess of 40 hours in an 
        administrative workweek.''.
            (b) Section 5532 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        retired or retainer pay of a former member of a uniformed 
        service shall not be reduced while such former member is 
        temporarily employed, during the period described in paragraph 
        (2) or any portion thereof, under the administrative authority 
        of the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, to 
        perform duties in the operation of the air traffic control 
        system or to train others to perform such duties.
            ``(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection 
        shall be in effect for any period ending not later than 
        December 31, 1984, during which the Administrator, Federal 
        Aviation Administration, determines that there is an unusual 
        shortage of air traffic controllers performing duties under the 
        administrative authority of such Administration.''. . . .
            (g) Section 8344 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(h)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, 
        subsections (a), (b),

[[Page 8387]]

        (c), and (d) of this section shall not apply to any annuitant 
        receiving an annuity from the Fund while such annuitant is 
        employed, during any period described in section 5532(f)(2) of 
        this title or any portion thereof, under the administrative 
        authority of the Administrator, Federal Aviation 
        Administration, to perform duties in the operation of the air 
        traffic control system or to train other individuals to perform 
        such duties. . . .
            (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, or 
        any other provision of law, payments under this section shall 
        be made only from appropriations provided in appropriation 
        Acts. . . .

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I raise the 
    point of order against the motion to recommit on the basis that the 
    instructions contain matter which is not germane to the joint 
    resolution.
        The general rule, as stated in section 18.1 of chapter 28 of 
    Deschler's Procedure, is as follows:

            It is not in order to propose, as part of a motion to 
        recommit, any proposition which would not be germane if 
        proposed as an amendment to the bill.

        Mr. Speaker, section 141 of the amendment in the motion to 
    recommit with instructions contains matter which clearly is not 
    germane to the joint resolution.
        Specifically, section 141 authorizes additional pay for air 
    traffic controllers and certain other employees of the Federal 
    Aviation Administration, exempts such employees from the limitation 
    on premium pay, and exempts military and civil service retirees who 
    are reemployed by FAA from those provisions of existing law which 
    prohibit the simultaneous receipt of civil service pay and 
    retirement pension.
        The provisions of section 141 are nongermane for several 
    reasons.
        First, section 141 permanently authorizes payment of additional 
    compensation whereas the provisions of the continuing resolution 
    are limited to fiscal year 1982.
        Second, the subject matter of all of the provisions of section 
    141 of the amendment are within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Post Office and Civil Service--not the Committee on 
    Appropriations.
        Finally, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of section 141 of the 
    amendment are not germane to the fundamental purpose of the 
    continuing resolution.
        The fundamental purpose of House Joint Resolution 370 is to 
    appropriate funds for certain programs and activities in fiscal 
    year 1982 or to limit the use of funds for certain programs and 
    activities. Section 141 which authorizes additional pay for certain 
    employees of the FAA clearly is not germane to that purpose of the 
    resolution. . . .
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Michigan, my good 
    friend, insists on his point of order and wants to deny the air 
    traffic controllers this pay raise before Christmas, I must concede 
    the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment Providing for Transfer of Unexpended Balances of Funds 
    Previously Appropriated, in Lieu of Appropriation of New Budget 
    Authority

Sec. 23.5 It is not germane to change a direct appropria

[[Page 8388]]

    tion of new budget authority from the general fund of the Treasury 
    into a reappropriation (in effect a rescission) of funds previously 
    appropriated for an entirely different purpose in a special reserve 
    account; thus, to a bill providing new budget authority for 
    emergency agricultural credit, an amendment contained in a motion 
    to recommit with instructions to provide, in lieu of that new 
    budget authority, for a transfer of unexpended balances of funds 
    previously appropriated for a totally unrelated purpose was held to 
    be not germane.

    The proceedings of Feb. 28, 1985, relating to H.R. 1189, the 
Emergency Farm Credit Appropriation for fiscal 1986, are discussed in 
Sec. 15.39, supra.

Amendment in Motion To Recommit as Waiving Laws Within Other 
    Committees' Jurisdiction

Sec. 23.6 While ordinarily an amendment waiving provisions of law 
    within another committee's jurisdiction is not germane to a bill 
    reported by a different committee, where the bill as amended 
    already contains diverse provisions relating to the subject of the 
    amendment, a waiver of other provisions of law on that subject may 
    be germane; thus, to a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture relating to registration of pesticides but also 
    including provisions on liability under other federal law and on 
    judicial review of regulations and pesticide use, an amendment in 
    the form of a new title included in a motion to recommit waiving 
    any other law otherwise requiring payment of attorneys' fees for 
    civil actions brought under the law being amended was held germane 
    to the bill as a whole, committee jurisdiction no longer being the 
    exclusive test of germaneness since the bill as a whole and as 
    amended contained matters within another committee's jurisdiction.

    On Sept. 19, 1986,(3) during consideration of H.R. 2482 
(4) in the House, Speaker Pro Tempore Steny A. Hoyer, of 
Maryland, overruled a point of order against

[[Page 8389]]

the amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 132 Cong. Rec. 24741, 24742, 24746, 24747, 24769, 99th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
 4. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    sec. 811. review of regulations.

        Section 16 (7 U.S.C. 136n) is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following:
        ``(e) Review of Regulations.--
        ``(1)(A) Any regulation issued under this Act and first 
    published in the Federal Register in final form after the effective 
    date of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
    Amendments of 1986 shall be reviewable only as provided by this 
    subsection. Any person may obtain judicial review of the regulation 
    by filing a petition for review in the United States court of 
    appeals for the circuit wherein the person resides or has its 
    principal place of business or in the United States Court of 
    Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Any petition under 
    this paragraph for review of a regulation shall be filed within 120 
    days after the date of promulgation of the regulation as designated 
    by the Administrator in the Federal Register.''. . .
    sec. 821. liability.

        (a) Pesticide Use.--An agricultural producer shall not be 
    liable in any action brought after the effective date of this Act 
    under any Federal statute for damages caused by pesticide use 
    unless the producer has acted negligently, recklessly, or 
    intentionally. Proof that the agricultural producer used the 
    pesticide in a manner consistent with label instructions shall 
    create a rebuttable presumption that the agricultural producer did 
    not act negligently. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Bedell as a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Roberts: Section 821(a) of the text of 
    H.R. 5440 (the Amendment in the nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
    2482), is amended (page 138, lines 2 through 10) to read as 
    follows:
    sec. 821. liability for lawful application.

            (a) Pesticide Use and No Private Right of Action.--(1) 
        Liability under Federal environmental statutes for the costs of 
        response or damage incurred with respect to a release or 
        threatened release into the environment of a pesticide shall, 
        in any case where the application was in compliance with label 
        instructions and other applicable law, be imposed on the 
        registrant or other responsible parties, not the agricultural 
        producer, unless the producer has acted negligently, 
        recklessly, or with the intent to misuse such pesticide. There 
        shall be a rebuttable presumption that the application was in 
        compliance with label instructions and otherwise lawful. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. 
    Bedell as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Roberts.
        The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Ron] Marlenee [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Clerk will report the motion 
    to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 8390]]

            Mr. Marlenee moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2482 (as 
        amended by H.R. 5440) to the Committee on Agriculture with the 
        instructions that it adopt the following amendment and 
        forthwith report it back to the House:
            Amendment to the text of H.R. 5440 (the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute to H.R. 2482), after page 163, line 21, 
        insert the following new title:

                     TITLE XII--LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS

                       fees and expenses in civil actions

            Sec. 1201. The Act is amended by inserting the following 
        new section after section 31:
            ``Sec. 32. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
        attorneys fees or expenses shall be awarded for any civil 
        action brought under section 3(a) of this Act for failure to 
        meet deadlines.''. . . .

        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order on the motion to recommit that the motion is not germane 
    under clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Marlenee: . . . Mr. Speaker, my amendment, I submit, is 
    germane for the following reasons:
        The title of the bill is for ``other purposes'' than amending 
    FIFRA.
        Other examples of enactments amended by this bill or by the 
    underlying FIFRA Act are the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act.
        The bill authorizes a program and funding for the pesticide 
    program. It also adds a new program, reregistration, new section 
    3(a) of FIFRA. Both this section and the bill relate to fees and 
    funding for the Reregistration Program. Some of that funding for 
    the Reregistration Program will come from fees assessed against 
    registrants (see page 42 of H.R. 5440) and some will come from 
    appropriated funds.
        My amendment would state how some of those funds could not be 
    utilized, and I submit does not violate the rules of the House on 
    that germaneness.
        The bill (title VIII) is rife with references to courts and 
    court review. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] makes a point of order 
    that the amendment proposed by the instructions in the motion to 
    recommit offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Marlenee] is 
    not germane. Volume III, section 2709 of Cannon's Precedents 
    indicates that it is not in order to include in a motion to 
    recommit instructions to insert an amendment not germane to the 
    section of the bill to which offered. While an earlier version of 
    this amendment was held not germane when offered as an amendment to 
    title I of the bill being read title by title, this amendment 
    proposes to add a new title at the end of the bill limiting the 
    award of attorneys' fees in certain civil actions brought under 
    section 16 of the FIFRA law. The test of germaneness is now 
    properly measured against the bill taken as a whole. The Chair 
    notes that section 202 of the bill deals with civil actions against 
    the United States for just compensation, and that the bill 
    extensively amends other sections of the FIFRA law in titles VIII 
    and IX. In the opinion of the Chair, since the bill already deals 
    with issues relating to adminis

[[Page 8391]]

    trative procedure and judicial review of actions taken under this 
    act, the amendment is germane to the bill as a whole, and the point 
    of order is overruled.

Injunctions Against Deprivation of Voting Rights--Amendment Providing 
    for Jury Trials in Resulting Contempt Cases

Sec. 23.7 To a bill giving federal courts authority to entertain civil 
    actions for injunctive relief in cases of deprivation of voting 
    rights, a motion to recommit with instructions to report back with 
    an amendment providing for jury trials in contempt cases arising 
    from actions instituted under the act was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (5) 
to provide means of further securing and protecting the civil rights of 
persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, a motion to 
recommit was offered (6) as described above. A point of 
order was raised against the motion, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 9517, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the wording of the motion to recommit is not 
    germane to the bill. We have already debated the germaneness of the 
    wording of this motion in Committee of the Whole. But, I have this 
    additional observation to make . . . that this proposed amendment 
    is to the act, whereas it is inserted as an amendment to a section 
    of the act. . . .
        I urge that if the amendment were to the act, as it purports to 
    be, it would have to be at some other point in the bill and could 
    not be an amendment to the act in the middle of one of the sections 
    of the act.

    The Speaker (7) overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Prohibiting Poll Tax--Instructions To Change Form to Joint 
    Resolution To Amend Constitution

Sec. 23.8 During consideration of a bill, reported by the Committee on 
    House Administration, prohibiting poll taxes, a motion to recommit 
    the bill with instructions to report it back in the form of a joint 
    resolution amending the Constitution to accomplish the purpose of 
    the bill, was held to be not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill (8) 
prohib

[[Page 8392]]

iting poll taxes, a motion to recommit with instructions was reported 
(9) as described above. The Speaker,(10) stating 
that, ``a constitutional amendment involving this question would lie 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary and not 
within the Committee on House Administration,'' sustained a point of 
order raised by Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 3199 (Committee on House Administration).
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 10247, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1949.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instructions Not Proposing Direct Amendment to Bill

Sec. 23.9 Instructions contained in a motion to recommit must be 
    germane to the subject matter of the bill whether or not the 
    instructions propose a direct amendment thereto; thus, a motion to 
    recommit a joint resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment 
    for representation of the District of Columbia in Congress, with 
    instructions that the Committee on the Judiciary consider a 
    resolution retroceding populated portions of the District to 
    Maryland, was held not germane to the joint resolution.

    On Mar. 2, 1978,(11) the Speaker (12) 
sustained a point of order against the following motion to recommit 
House Joint Resolution 554 (a Constitutional amendment for District of 
Columbia representation in Congress):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 5272, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the joint resolution?
        Mr. Wiggins: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Wiggins of California moves to recommit the joint 
        resolution (H.J. Res. 554) to the Committee on the Judiciary 
        with instructions that it consider a resolution to retrocede 
        the populated portions of the District of Columbia to the State 
        of Maryland.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, do not motions to recommit have to be 
    germane to the legislation before us?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that he is 
    correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    motion to re

[[Page 8393]]

    commit on the ground that it is not germane to the legislation 
    before us because it suggests retrocession of the territory of the 
    District of Columbia to the State of Maryland, which is not at any 
    point encompassed in this legislation. The bill deals only with the 
    creation of the offices of two Senators and of Members of Congress 
    for the District of Columbia. Since this proposition would not have 
    been germane to the bill as an amendment, it is not now germane.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Wiggins) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Wiggins: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, I am trodding on what is virgin ground for me. I 
    am not sure what the rules of germaneness are with respect to a 
    motion to recommit with instructions, the focus of which is to 
    instruct the Committee on the Judiciary, from whence the joint 
    resolution came, to reconsider an alternative means of achieving 
    the objective of the legislation.
        It would strike me, as a matter of first blush, that an 
    alternative means of achieving a common result is, of course, quite 
    germane; but I have no doubt that the precedents of the House have 
    previously considered this measure, and I will yield to those 
    precedents.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) 
    desire to be heard further?
        Mr. Bauman: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        Upon that subject, Mr. Speaker, I question the appropriateness 
    of the instructions in view of the fact that the retrocession, as I 
    understand it, would not require a constitutional amendment, but, 
    in fact, a simple statutory act by the Congress.
        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Speaker, if I may be heard just a few moments 
    longer to clarify the situation, I am advised by my parliamentary 
    experts on either side that the rules of the House require that 
    amendments be germane. This motion to recommit is, of course, not 
    an amendment.
        Secondly, it is my view, contrary to the position taken by the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman), that a retrocession 
    procedure, which I personally favor, would require a constitutional 
    amendment and may not be achieved solely by reason of legislation.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        With regard to germaneness, an amendment of a similar type 
    would not have been germane to the joint resolution.
        Furthermore, the principle of germaneness is applicable to the 
    extent that the House cannot direct a committee to consider another 
    unrelated subject under the guise of a motion to recommit whether 
    or not the motion is in the form of a direct amendment to the bill 
    (Cannon's VIII, 2704).
        Therefore, the gentleman's point of order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Instructions in this form, since not 
proposing an amendment, do not technically fall within Rule XVI, clause 
7, prohibiting nongermane amendments. But the rule has been applied to 
prohibit instructions directing a committee to study or consider a 
nongermane

[[Page 8394]]

approach (see Sec. 796, House Rules and Manual, 101st Cong.), and to 
prohibit instructions directing the committee not to report back to the 
House until an unrelated contingency occurs (see 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 2704).

Repeal of Oleomargarine Tax--Amendment To Repeal Other Revenue Laws

Sec. 23.10 To a bill seeking the repeal of the tax on oleomargarine, an 
    amendment which was contained in a motion to recommit with 
    instructions and which sought the repeal of certain provisions of 
    the general revenue laws affecting substances other than 
    oleomargarine was held not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration to repeal the tax on oleomargarine. A motion was made 
(14) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the motion, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 2245 (discharged from the Committee on Agriculture).
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 5007, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 28, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: The proposed motion 
    is not germane to the bill. It seeks to amend a provision of law 
    with which this bill does not deal.

    The Speaker,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair would hold that the bill under consideration is 
    one which deals solely with oleomargarine. The instructions 
    contained in the motion to recommit deal with a part of the general 
    revenue laws and other substances which do not include 
    oleomargarine. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Prescribing Amounts of Coverage Under Federal Deposit Insurance 
    Act--Amendment To Limit Coverage Except Where Collateral Pledged

Sec. 23.11 To a bill prescribing the amount and extent of deposit 
    insurance coverage for various savings institutions, an amendment 
    to a motion to recommit limiting the insurance coverage under the 
    bill as to time deposits, and permitting coverage in excess of that 
    limitation upon the pledging of sufficient collateral, was held 
    germane.

    On Feb. 5, 1974,(16) during consideration of H.R. 11221, 
amending the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the House defeated an 
amendment reported from Committee of the Whole striking out a section, 
rejected the previous question on a straight motion to

[[Page 8395]]

recommit, and then amended the motion to include instructions to 
reinsert in the bill amendments which had tentatively been adopted in 
Committee of the Whole but then deleted by the amendment striking out 
that section as so amended. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 2079-81, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben B.] Blackburn [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (17) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the procedure, with 
    the defeat of the Wylie amendment in the Whole House, we have now 
    before us the original bill, and the original bill did not contain 
    the provision which would have permitted credit unions to share in 
    such deposits.
        Now, Mr. Speaker, am I correct in that? If the credit union 
    provision was added by the committee, are we not now back to the 
    original bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the committee amendment 
    on page 7 is no longer in the bill, as it was not reported from 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the 
    bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and 
    was read the third time.
        Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Blackburn moves to recommit the bill H.R. 11221 to the 
        Committee on Banking and Currency.

        [The previous question was voted down.]
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the motion to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
    motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashley to the motion to recommit 
        offered by Mr. Blackburn: At the end of the motion, add the 
        following instructions: With instructions to report back 
        forthwith with the following amendment: On page 7, immediately 
        after line 2, insert the following new subsection:
            (d) Section 107(7) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 
        U.S.C. 1757(7)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following: ``; and to receive from an officer, employee, or 
        agent of those nonmember units of Federal, State, or local 
        governments and political subdivisions thereof enumerated in 
        section 207 of this Act (12 U.S.C. 1787) and in the manner so 
        prescribed payments on shares, share certificates, and share 
        deposits''.
            And on page 2, section (2) lines 16 through 25 be 
        eliminated and on page 3, lines 1 through 10 be eliminated and 
        that the following language be inserted in lieu thereof:
            ``(i) an officer, employee, or agent of the United States 
        having official custody of public funds and lawfully investing 
        or depositing the same in time deposits in an insured bank. . . 
        .
            And that on page 3, section (B), lines 13 through 17 be 
        eliminated and the following language be inserted:

[[Page 8396]]

            ``(B) The Corporation may limit the aggregate amount of 
        funds that may be invested or deposited in time deposits in any 
        insured bank by any depositor referred to in subparagraph (A) 
        of this paragraph on the basis of the size of any such bank in 
        terms of its assets. Provided, however, such limitation may be 
        exceeded by the pledging of acceptable securities to the 
        depositor referred to in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph 
        when and where required.''. . .

        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make [a] point of 
    order on the amendment to the motion to recommit . . . . The last 
    part of the amendment to which I refer is entitled ``B'', beginning 
    with, ``The corporation may limit'' and so forth. I say that the 
    final language is not germane to the bill.
        That language is as follows:

            Provided, however, such limitation may be exceeded by the 
        pledging of acceptable securities to the depositor referred to 
        in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph when and where required.

        Mr. Speaker, since the bill deals basically with insuring of 
    accounts and has nothing to do with pledging of collateral, it, 
    therefore, is not germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I wish 
    to state that the gentleman had not made a point of order on this 
    matter in the committee when this first came up, and it is not 
    timely now. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, in response to the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Stephens) I will only say that the fact 
    that the point of order was not raised against the amendment in the 
    Committee of the Whole does not preclude me from offering one in 
    connection with the motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order is 
    timely and it appears clear to the Chair that the question of 
    limitation of funds is in the first section of the bill; and the 
    Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.