[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§ 24. Amendment Proposing Permanent Legislation Offered to Temporary Legislation]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8396-8419]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 24. Amendment Proposing Permanent Legislation Offered to Temporary 
    Legislation

    This section (18) discusses precedents which support the 
principle that an amendment proposing a permanent change in law 
(19) or in procedures under House rules, (20) is, 
in general, (1) not germane if of

[[Page 8397]]

fered to legislation of a temporary character or to provisions 
affecting funds authorized for a limited time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also, for example, Sec. 39, infra, discussing amendments to 
        bills that extend existing law. And see Sec. 15, supra, 
        discussing amendments to appropriation bills, especially 
        Sec. Sec. 15.23-15.25 (amendments providing permanent 
        legislation offered to provisions affecting funds appropriated 
        for one year); and Sec. 23.4 (instructions, affecting permanent 
        law, contained in a motion to recommit a joint resolution 
        continuing appropriations).
19. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 24.4 and 24.5, infra.
20. See Sec. 24.3, infra.
 1. For an instance, on the other hand, in which the Chair took the 
        view that an amendment apparently permanent in form could in 
        fact be construed to amount to a temporary measure, see 
        Sec. 24.7, infra. See also Sec. 24.8, 
        infra.

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

Bill Authorizing Appropriations for Armed Forces for One Year--
    Amendment Imposing Permanent Restrictions on Troop Withdrawals From 
    Korea

Sec. 24.1 To a proposition authorizing appropriations for one fiscal 
    year, an amendment making permanent changes in law is not germane; 
    thus, where a bill reported from the Committee on Armed Services 
    authorized appropriations and personnel strengths for the armed 
    forces for one fiscal year and contained minor conforming changes 
    to existing law, a section of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute imposing permanent restrictions on troop withdrawals 
    from the Republic of Korea, in part making reduction of troop 
    strength contingent upon the conclusion of a peace agreement on the 
    Korean peninsula, was held to be not germane (pursuant to a special 
    order allowing such a point of order) since proposing permanent law 
    to a one-year authorization, and containing statements of policy 
    contingent on the administration and enactment of laws within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations.

    On May 24, 1978,(2) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration a bill (H.R. 10929) reported from the Committee on Armed 
Services authorizing appropriations and personnel strength for the 
armed forces for one fiscal year and containing minor conforming 
changes to existing law. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was, pursuant to a special rule, to be read as original text for 
amendment. A section of the amendment imposed permanent restrictions on 
troop withdrawals from the Republic of Korea, in part making reductions 
in troop strength contingent upon the conclusion of a peace agreement 
with North Korea. The terms of the special rule permitted a point of 
order based on the germaneness rule to be made against that section of 
the amendment. The special rule (H. Res. 1188) stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 124 Cong. Rec. 15293-95, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. See 124 Cong. Rec. 15094, 15095, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., May 23, 1978.

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

[[Page 8398]]

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 10929)) to authorize appropriations during the 
    fiscal year 1979, for procurement of aircraft, missiles . . . and 
    other weapons . . . and to prescribe the authorized personnel 
    strength to each active duty component . . . of the Armed Forces 
    and of civilian personnel of the Department of Defense . . . and 
    for other purposes. After general debate . . . the bill shall be 
    read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order 
    to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill as an 
    original bill for the purposes of amendment, said substitute shall 
    be read for amendment by titles instead of by sections and all 
    points of order against said substitute for failure to comply with 
    the provisions of clause 5, rule XXI and clause 7, rule XVI, are 
    hereby waived, except that it shall be in order when consideration 
    of said substitute begins to make a point of order that section 805 
    of said substitute would be in violation of clause 7, rule XVI if 
    offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as introduced. If 
    such point of order is sustained, it shall be in order to consider 
    said substitute without section 805 included therein as an original 
    bill for the purpose of amendment, said substitute shall be read 
    for amendment by titles instead of by sections and all points of 
    order against said substitute for failure to comply with the 
    provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 5, rule XXI are hereby 
    waived. . . .

    The proceedings of May 24, 1978, were as follows:

        The Chairman: (4) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, May 23, 1978, all time for general debate on the bill had 
    expired. Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles 
    the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the reported bill 
    as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense Appropriation 
        Authorization Act, 1979''.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin] Mr. Chairman, in 
    accordance with the rule, House Resolution 1188, I make a point of 
    order that section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute, if offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as 
    introduced, would be in violation of clause 7 of House Rule XVI 
    regarding germaneness. This provision which deals with the 
    withdrawal of troops from Korea, and section 805 which deals with 
    the withdrawal of troops from Korea, is not germane to the 
    Department of Defense authorization bill.
        Mr. Chairman, a key criterion in determining germaneness is a 
    committee's jurisdiction over a matter. The Korean troop withdrawal 
    issue falls clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations. Both sections 805(a) and 805(b) fall

[[Page 8399]]

    clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations, pursuant to clause 1, subparagraph (k) of House Rule X.
        Compelling evidence of the primary jurisdiction of the 
    International Relations Committee over the issue of troop 
    withdrawal from Korea is found in the fact that all legislation, 
    the President's arms transfer request, and related reports have 
    been referred solely to the International Relations Committee.
        Thus, there can be no doubt that the issue of the Korean troop 
    withdrawal lies within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations, and accordingly section 805 is not germane 
    to this bill.
        In addition, the issue of U.S. troop withdrawal from Korea is 
    not relevant to either the subject matter or to the purpose of H.R. 
    10929, as introduced. As introduced, H.R. 10929 consists entirely 
    of provisions relating to the annual authorizations for the 
    Department of Defense. It contains no general policy provisions for 
    the Department of Defense. It contains no general policy provisions 
    of any type, let alone any policy provisions relevant to the 
    withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea. It is well established that 
    an amendment of a general and permanent nature is not germane to a 
    bill containing only temporary authorizations.
        Thus, by whatever test of germaneness one examines, section 805 
    is not germane to H.R. 10929. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki), makes the point of order 
    that section 805 is not germane on the ground that it deals with a 
    matter that is related to something that has been before his 
    committee. As he indicated before the Committee on Rules, if this 
    had been introduced as an original bill, it would have been 
    referred sequentially to the Committee on International Relations 
    as well as to the Committee on Armed Services.
        I submit, Mr. Chairman, that, first of all, the question of 
    germaneness does not depend on what committee it might be referred 
    to sequentially. In fact, the whole idea of sequential referral is 
    a relatively new concept. I believe, in fact, that it has only been 
    practiced in this House during this present Congress, and perhaps a 
    few times previously.
        H.R. 10929, is the annual authorization bill for the Department 
    of Defense. It traditionally covers a wide variety of topics 
    relating to defense. I would point out that the title of the bill 
    after it lists the various items that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    has already referred to concludes, ``and for other purposes.''
        Traditionally, matters related to the defense of our country 
    which the Committee on Armed Services has regarded as being of 
    importance have been included in this annual legislation year after 
    year. Section 805 is no different from any of the other matters we 
    have traditionally handled under ``general provisions.''
        It is true that the gentleman's committee has had legislation 
    before it regarding the transfer of American equipment to Korean 
    forces; but section 805 refers to the stationing and positioning of 
    U.S. ground forces; ``no ground combat units of the 2d Infantry 
    Division,'' and so on and so forth. It

[[Page 8400]]

    makes no reference to any transfer of equipment to Korean forces. 
    We are providing here for the stationing of troops in an area that 
    is of great importance to our national security. If that is not 
    something which is within the concern of the Committee on Armed 
    Services, then I do not know what our proper area of responsibility 
    is.
        Subsection (b) of section 805 spells out the recommendations of 
    the committee as to what the minimum ground combat strength of our 
    Armed Forces stationed in the Republic of Korea should be based on 
    information we gleaned in an on-the-spot visit to Korea in January; 
    so it is clearly within the province of the Committee on Armed 
    Services. The gentleman from Wisconsin does not dispute that. The 
    gentleman could not dispute it; but to suggest that because if it 
    were introduced as a bill under today's procedures it might have 
    been referred sequentially to the gentleman's committee or to some 
    other committee, completely misses the point. If the size and 
    location of Armed Forces of the United States are not a 
    responsibility of the Committee on Armed Services, and are instead 
    the responsibility of the Committee on International Relations, 
    then something is very drastically wrong in this House.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, the authority to determine where 
    American Forces shall be stationed is clearly within the province 
    of the Congress. The Constitution provides that Congress shall not 
    only ``raise and support armies,'' but that we shall provide for 
    the 'regulation and governing of the land and naval forces,'' in 
    section 8 of article I.
        Congress has previously enacted the war powers bill, which 
    limits the authority of the President as far as the stationing of 
    troops abroad is concerned. The Constitution does not give a broad 
    grant of power to the Commander in Chief alone in stationing troops 
    abroad. He has no constitutional power to put troops wherever he 
    wants to, because Congress has determined that he cannot put troops 
    abroad under certain conditions without the expressed approval of 
    the Congress of the United States.
        Well, if we can limit the President's ability to send troops 
    overseas, it follows that we can also limit his ability to bring 
    those troops back home, if in the opinion of the Congress, we 
    determine that that withdrawal action, which certainly is the case 
    of Korea, would increase the risks of war.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that the point of order be overruled. 
    Section 805 is clearly within the authority of the committee. It is 
    clearly germane to the broad purposes of the bill and the House 
    should have the right to vote on this important question.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    Wisconsin makes a point of order against section 805 of the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Armed Services, on the grounds that section 805 of 
    said amendment would not have been germane if offered to the bill 
    H.R. 10929, as introduced.
        As indicated by the gentleman from Wisconsin, the special order 
    providing for consideration of this measure, House Resolution 1188, 
    allows the Chair to entertain a point of order on

[[Page 8401]]

    the basis stated by the gentleman, that section 805 of the 
    committee amendment would not have been germane as a separate 
    amendment to H.R. 10929 in its introduced form.
        The bill as introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed 
    Services contains authorizations of appropriations and personnel 
    strengths of the Armed Services for fiscal year 1979. It contains 
    no permanent changes in law or statements of policy except for 
    minor conforming changes to existing law relating to troop and 
    personnel strengths.
        Section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute prohibits: First the withdrawal of ground combat units 
    from the Republic of Korea until the enactment of legislation 
    allowing the retention in Korea of the equipment of such units, and 
    second, the reduction of combat units below a certain level in the 
    Republic of Korea until a peace settlement is reached between said 
    Republic and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea ending the 
    state of war on the Korean peninsula.
        The subject matter of section 805 of the committee amendment is 
    unrelated to H.R. 10929 as introduced. The strength levels 
    prescribed in the bill are for 1 fiscal year only and deal with the 
    overall strength of the Armed Forces, not with the location of 
    Armed Forces personnel. As indicated in the argument of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin, the withdrawal of American Forces 
    stationed abroad pursuant to an international agreement, and the 
    relationship of that withdrawal to peace agreements between foreign 
    nations and to the transfer of American military equipment to 
    foreign powers, are issues not only beyond the scope of the bill 
    but also within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations. Although committee jurisdiction over an amendment is not 
    the sole test of germaneness, the Chair feels that it is a 
    convincing argument in a case such as the present one where the 
    test of germaneness is between a limited 1-year authorization bill 
    and a permanent statement of policy contingent upon the 
    administration of laws within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the Chair may have just stated a 
    novel concept which has never before been heard in a ruling. That 
    is that the sequential referral rule somehow serves as the basis 
    for jurisdiction, and thus can support a point of order dealing 
    with a section in a bill such as the one before us.
        The parliamentary inquiry I have is this: Simply because under 
    the new procedure adopted for the first time in this Congress the 
    rules allow sequential referral at the discretion of the Speaker, 
    does that mean that a committee that has primary jurisdiction, such 
    as the Committee on Armed Services, may be challenged on the floor 
    and have a point of order sustained removing a provision that might 
    be partially under the jurisdiction of another committee on a 
    sequential referral?
        The Chairman: The ruling of the Chair does not stand for that 
    proposition.

[[Page 8402]]

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland 
    understood the Chair to say that the argument of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin was persuasive to the Chair regarding jurisdiction. If 
    that is the case, it seems to me every committee of this House is 
    somehow going to be challenged on the floor henceforth if its 
    jurisdiction is shared to the slightest degree by another 
    committee.
        The Chairman: All the Chair has stated is that section 805 is 
    not germane to the introduced bill, and the rule provides that the 
    point of order would lie on that ground.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I have this further parliamentary 
    inquiry:
        Then the ruling of the Chair is based on germaneness of this 
    amendment to this bill and does not go to any effect the sequential 
    jurisdiction would have on the provision?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    The point of order having been sustained against the nongermane 
portion of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, the 
Chair directed the Clerk to read the substitute without the nongermane 
portion as original text for amendment, pursuant to the special rule.

Bill Authorizing Annual Appropriation for Agency--Amendment Permanently 
    Affecting Organization of Agency

Sec. 24.2 An amendment making permanent changes in the law relating to 
    the organization of an agency is not germane to a title of a bill 
    which only authorizes annual appropriations for such agency for one 
    fiscal year.

    On Nov. 29, 1979,(5) during consideration of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission Authorization Act (6) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 34083, 34089, 34090, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. H.R. 2608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title I reads as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980

            Sec. 101. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated 
        to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with the 
        provisions of section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
        U.S.C. 2017)), and section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act 
        of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5875), for the fiscal year 1980 the sum of 
        $374,785,000 to remain available until expended. Of the total 
        amount authorized to be appropriated: . . .

        Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 8403]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lujan: On page 8, after line 11, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 107. Section 201(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act 
        of 1974 as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841) is amended by adding 
        immediately after paragraph (5) of that section a new paragraph 
        to read as follows:
            (6) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1) 
        regarding decisions and actions of the Commission, the 
        Commission may delegate to an individual Commissioner, 
        including the Chairman, such authority concerning emergency 
        response management as the Commission deems appropriate. . . .

        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Arizona 
    (Mr. Udall) insist upon his point of order against the amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Arizona desire to be 
    heard on his point of order?
        Mr. Udall: Very briefly, the amendment amends section 201 of 
    the Energy Reorganization Act. Neither title I we are now 
    considering or the bill under consideration amends that law. While 
    the rule does waive germaneness with respect to three amendments, 
    nothing in that rule otherwise modifies the germaneness 
    requirement, and I urge the point of order be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Lujan: Mr. Chairman, let me point out that as to the 
    germaneness and the appropriateness of this amendment, the rule 
    makes out of order amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and not to 
    the Energy Reorganization Act. For that reason I believe that the 
    amendment is germane and in order.
        The Chairman: Does anyone else desire to be heard on the point 
    of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        Title I of the bill before the Committee provides for a 1-year 
    authorization for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while this 
    amendment seeks to permanently amend the Energy Reorganization Act 
    of 1974. Title I does not in any way amend the Energy 
    Reorganization Act of 1974. Therefore, the Chair finds the 
    amendment to be nongermane under general germaneness rule, which is 
    applicable to this bill, and the point of order is sustained.

Department of Energy Annual Authorization Bill--Amendment Requiring 
    Secretary To Issue Regulations and Permanently Affecting Law and 
    House Rules

Sec. 24.3 To that title of an annual Department of Energy authorization 
    bill authorizing funds for the Economic Regulatory Administration 
    within the Department, an amendment requiring the Secretary of the 
    Department to issue regulations, pursuant to authority delegated to 
    him by the President under permanent law, to control the price and 
    allocation of oil, and making such regulations subject to 
    congressional review under procedures changing the Rules of the 
    House, was held to be not

[[Page 8404]]

    germane, being a permanent change in law and in the Rules of the 
    House.

    On Oct. 12, 1979,(8) during consideration of H.R. 3000 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 28097-99, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Add the following new 
        section 202:
            ``Sec. 202(a) There are authorized to be appropriated such 
        funds as may be necessary to the Department of Energy for the 
        fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, for a study by the 
        Department of Energy to consider exercising the authority 
        granted to the President, and by delegation from him, to the 
        Department of Energy, under section 12(g) of the Emergency 
        Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, as amended, pursuant to which 
        the Energy Department may reimpose price and allocation 
        controls.
            (b) Not later than fifteen days from the date of the 
        enactment of this Act the Secretary of Energy shall file a 
        report to both Houses of Congress in which the Secretary shall 
        examine the middle distillate situation and, in so doing, make 
        detailed findings with respect to all matters required to be 
        addressed in findings made pursuant to section 12(d)(1)) of the 
        Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973. In making the 
        report, the Secretary shall examine the middle distillate 
        situation as though he were reaching an initial decision to 
        decontrol the product. . . .
            (c)(1) If the Secretary finds in accordance with section 
        12(d)(1) of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 that 
        a decontrol decision is not warranted he shall, without regard 
        to any administrative procedural requirements which ordinarily 
        apply to such action, immediately exercise the authority 
        delegated to him under section 12(f) of the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973 and order reimposition of price and 
        allocation controls.
            (2)(A) The controls the Secretary shall order reimposed 
        pursuant to subsection (c)(1) of this section shall be those 
        which existed at the time middle distillate controls were 
        effectively removed from the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act 
        of 1973 requirements in 1976, unless the Secretary shall find 
        that any part of such requirements is inequitable or 
        inappropriate, in which case the Secretary shall modify such 
        part as he deems necessary and appropriate; provided however, 
        that the Secretary shall submit a detailed explanation of each 
        such modification to both Houses of Congress pursuant to the 
        Procedures of section 551 of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
        Act, and that such modification shall not take effect if either 
        House of Congress disapproves such modification within twenty-
        one days under the Procedures of section 551 of the Energy 
        Policy and Conservation Act. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is recognized on his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, first of 
    all, the amendment is a very complex amendment, as the Chair is 
    well aware.
        Amongst the problems, from the standpoint of germaneness, which 
    exist

[[Page 8405]]

    with regard to the amendment, subsection (c)(2))(A) of the 
    amendment states that the Secretary shall do certain things if the 
    Secretary makes certain findings. So the first problem we have is 
    that the Secretary is required to make findings--and this is not 
    germane to the bill--and that he must then reimpose controls on 
    middle distillates under regulations in effect in 1976. This, then, 
    requires that the regulations relate back to a time earlier than 
    the effective date of the legislation.
        It also requires, I believe, that the price controls carry 
    forward after the effective date for the expiration of the 1-year 
    authorization which is before the House. The Secretary then could 
    only modify these regulations if neither House vetoes the 
    regulations.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, the Chair will observe that there is no 
    provision for one-House vetoes or for this kind of action in the 
    bill.
        To repeat, the amendment is not germane to the bill, which only 
    authorizes funds for fiscal year 1980.
        There are further reasons. First, it modifies prior pricing 
    laws by subjecting certain regulations to a one-House veto. These 
    regulations are not otherwise subject to a one-House veto on the 
    basis of the statute, and the Chair will find there is no reference 
    to one-House vetoes anywhere in the bill.
        The proposal further is nongermane by waiving procedural 
    requirements of law, and, further, it is not germane by requiring 
    reimposition of controls based on a finding different from that 
    which is required by the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act.
        The amendment is further nongermane because it is a limitation 
    on all regulations which modify the reimposed regulations. Thus 
    once the President reimposes controls, which under the amendment 
    must be reimposed as they appeared in the Code of Federal 
    Regulations in 1976, he may only modify the regulations by 
    subjecting them to a one-House veto. This limitation would apply to 
    all future regulations, including regulations prescribed after 
    fiscal year 1980.
        So the amendment goes beyond the term of the bill before us. 
    Thus the requirements in the regulations extend beyond the fiscal 
    year 1980, and again this renders the proposal nongermane.
        It provides new regulatory powers, not contained in existing 
    law, in a bill which is simply a 1-year extension of financial 
    authorizations to the Department of Energy, since it requires 
    regulation of middle distillates without making the findings 
    required under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act.
        Next, it permits additional regulatory actions without being 
    subject to statutory procedures, a good number of which, I believe, 
    would clearly be in contravention of existing law, again being 
    nongermane by reason of imposing new statutory powers on a 
    Secretary and new statutory duties on a Secretary in a proposal 
    which is simply a 1-year authorization for the funding of the 
    Department of Energy. . . .
        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, in the opening of the amendment it 
    deals with the appropriation of such funds in this act. They are 
    authorized to be appropriated and to be expended for the purpose of 
    this study.
        Mr. Chairman, indeed the amendment is complex, but the study 
    that is

[[Page 8406]]

    anticipated here tracks Public Law 94-163, which indeed is covered 
    and affected by this 1-year authorization that we have before us.
        The fact of the matter is that the opposition of the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) raises substantive points which are 
    not, in my judgment, points of order, but insofar as he has, the 
    law does provide for a congressional review and indeed a veto of 
    the actions by the Secretary. The powers assumed in this are powers 
    that the Secretary now possesses.
        This simply talks in terms of using those powers for purposes 
    designed in this particular measure.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendment clearly is in 
    order. The entire title and the legislation itself deal with the 
    Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act. This deals with the Emergency 
    Petroleum Allocation Act, just as does the entire title of the 
    bill.
        So clearly I think, since we have considered such regulation, 
    decontrol, and reimposition of controls, this amendment is 
    certainly in the tenor and the nature of the legislation and the 
    amendments we have considered today. . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler [of Texas)] . . . Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. Although the 
    amendment is cast in the form of a study, it requires the 
    reimposition of price controls if the Secretary of the Department 
    of Energy makes certain findings, and it requires that ``the 
    Secretary shall modify'' such findings of the Emergency Petroleum 
    Allocation Act ``as he deems necessary and appropriate.'' This is 
    the language in the gentleman's amendment.
        This language in the amendment has the effect of changing 
    existing law. There is a mechanism already under existing law, the 
    Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act, which allows the President to 
    make this determination.
        Finally, the provisions dealing with the reimposition of price 
    controls under EPAA, while being vested with the President, are in 
    existing law.
        In addition, the application of this amendment would extend 
    beyond the fiscal year 1980, which is the period of time that the 
    authorization bill addresses. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair concurs with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) 
    that the first part of the amendment authorizing a study during 
    fiscal year 1980 is indeed in order.
        The Chair rules, however, based on two other observations. 
    Subsection (c) of the amendment would require the Secretary under 
    certain circumstances to reimpose price allocation controls. This 
    is a requirement that constitutes a permanent change in law and is 
    not in order in a bill which is essentially a 1-year 
    reauthorization of the Economic Regulatory Administration.
        Moreover, the Chair would observe that on the second page of 
    the amendment, in the first paragraph, the procedural changes 
    constitute a change in the rules of the House by changing the time 
    for Congressional review as specified in the Energy Policy and 
    Conservation Act, and would not be germane in title II, and the 
    Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

[[Page 8407]]

Bill Extending Time Limit for Negotiation of Disputes Under Railway 
    Labor Act--Amendment Providing Permanent Procedures for Settlement 
    of Disputes

Sec. 24.4 To a bill extending the time limit for negotiation of labor 
    disputes under the Railway Labor Act for purposes of permitting 
    additional time for negotiation of a particular labor dispute, an 
    amendment providing permanent procedures for the settlement of all 
    emergency labor disputes by amendment of the Railway Labor Act was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration which related to settlement of a labor dispute between 
certain railroad companies and their union employees. An amendment was 
offered (11) whose purpose was explained by the proponent, 
Mr. William E. Brock 3d, of Tennessee, as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.J. Res. 559 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
11. See 113 Cong. Rec. 15912, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1967.
12. Id. at p. 15914.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I propose to do two things: first, to put off the strike 
    for 90 days as is proposed in the bill, and second, during this 
    period, to take an entirely different approach, based upon the 
    problem, not the symptom that we are treating with compulsory 
    arbitration. I would prohibit industrywide bargaining and require 
    as an alternative carrier-by-carrier negotiations.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . First, the amendment 
    goes beyond the fundamental purpose of the legislation before the 
    committee today. As such it is not germane to the fundamental 
    purposes of the measure.
        I would cite that the amendment deals with sections of the 
    Railway Labor Act other than those presently before us. . . .
        . . . [T]he pending measure is limited to a specific labor 
    dispute, whereas the amendment . . . deals with all labor disputes.
        The legislation pending before the committee today deals with 
    railroads in one specific instance . . . whereas the amendment . . 
    . deals with every industry covered by the Railway Labor Act, which 
    would also include the airlines. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, in addition to this I would point out that 
    legislation dealing with a specific subject or a specific set of 
    circumstances under the rules may not be amended by a provision 
    which is general in nature even when of the class or the specific 
    subject involved.

    The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).

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

[[Page 8408]]

        . . . The Chair will call attention to ``Cannon's Precedents,'' 
    volume 8, page 479, section 2912, which reads as follows:

            To a bill proposing measures to meet a declared emergency 
        and limited in operation to a period of five years an amendment 
        proposing permanent legislation of the same character was held 
        not to be germane.

        Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
    is permanent legislation and the resolution before the committee is 
    limited to an existing situation and is not permanent in nature, 
    the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane.

Ceiling on District of Columbia Employees for One Year--Amendment 
    Proposing Hiring Preference System as Permanent Law

Sec. 24.5 To a proposition establishing a ceiling on the number of 
    employees in the District of Columbia government for one year, an 
    amendment proposing a hiring preference system as permanent law is 
    not germane, as going beyond the year and the issue of the number 
    of employees covered by the measure to which offered.

    During consideration of the District of Columbia Appropriations for 
fiscal 1990 (14) in the House on Oct. 11, 
1989,(15) it was held that to a Senate amendment raising a 
ceiling on the number of employees of the District of Columbia 
government during the fiscal year funded by the bill, a House amendment 
proposing also to address in permanent law a hiring preference system 
for such employees was not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 3026.
15. 135 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: 6 The Clerk will designate 
    the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 15: Page 21, line 24, strike out 
        ``38,475'' and insert ``39,569''.

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dixon moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 15, and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the number stricken 
        and inserted by said amendment, insert the following 
        ``39,262.''
            Sec. 110A. (a) No funds appropriated by this Act may be 
        expended for the compensation of any person appointed to fill 
        any vacant position in any agency under the personnel control 
        of the Mayor unless:
            (1) The position is to be filled by a sworn officer of the 
        Metropolitan Police Department; or
            (2) The position is to be filled as follows:

[[Page 8409]]

            (A) By a person who is currently employed by the District 
        of Columbia government at a grade level that is equal to the 
        grade level of the position to be filled; or
            (B) By a person who is currently employed by the District 
        of Columbia government at a grade level higher than the grade 
        level of the position to be filled, and who is willing to 
        assume a lower grade level in order to fill the position. . . .
            Sec. 110B. (a) Application for Employment, Promotions, and 
        Reductions in Force.
            (1) In general.--The rules issued pursuant to the 
        amendments to the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive 
        Merit Personnel Act of 1978 made by the Residency Preference 
        Amendment Act of 1988 (D.C. Law 7-203) shall include the 
        provisions described in paragraph (2).
            (2) Description of policies.--
            (A) Policy regarding application for employment.--The Mayor 
        of the District of Columbia may not give an applicant for 
        District of Columbia government employment in the Career 
        Service who claims a District residency preference more than a 
        5 point hiring preference over an applicant not claiming such a 
        preference, and, in the case of equally qualified applicants, 
        shall give an applicant claiming such a preference priority in 
        hiring over an applicant not claiming such a preference.
            (B) Policy regarding promotions and reductions in force for 
        career service employees.--In calculating years of service for 
        the purpose of implementing a reduction in force, the Mayor may 
        not credit an employee in the Career Service who claims a 
        District residency preference with more than 1 year of 
        additional service credit . . . .
            (C) Individuals subject to provisions.--The amendments to 
        the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit 
        Personnel Act of 1978 made by the Residency Preference 
        Amendment Act of 1988 shall apply only with respect to 
        individuals claiming a District residency preference or 
        applying for employment with the District of Columbia on or 
        after March 16, 1989.
            (b) Scope of 5-Year District Residency Requirement for 
        Employees Claiming Preference.--
            (1) Career service employees.--Section 801(e)(5) of the 
        District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel 
        Act of 1978 (section 1-608.1(e)(5), D.C. Code), as amended by 
        the Residency Preference Amendment Act of 1988 (D.C. Law 7-
        203), is amended by adding at the end the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(7)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Mayor 
        may not require an individual to reside in the District of 
        Columbia as a condition of employment in the Career Service. . 
        . .''
            (2) Educational service employees.--Section 801A(d) of such 
        Act (section 1-609.1(d), D.C. Code), as amended by the 
        Residency Preference Amendment Act of 1988 (D.C. Law 7-203), is 
        amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 
        ``(7)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Boards may 
        not require an individual to reside in the District of Columbia 
        as a condition of employment in the Educational Services. . . .

        Mr. [Walter E.] Fauntroy [Delegate from the District of 
    Columbia]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the amendment 
    contained in the motion is not germane to Senate amendment 15 and 
    therefore violates clause 7 of House rule XVI, for the reason that 
    Senate amendment 15 merely relates to the employment ceiling for 
    the District of Columbia government, while this amendment inserts 
    language in section 110B under section 132 of the District's 
    budget.

[[Page 8410]]

        That language relates to a hiring preference system for career 
    and educational employees of the District government and among 
    other things, makes the new D.C. preference system effective as of 
    March 16, 1989, provides for a maximum five-point hiring preference 
    for new employees, provides that residency will be a tie-breaker 
    rather than a point advantage to a resident who claims preference 
    on promotions, provides that the 5-year residency requirement will 
    apply only to applicants who claim preference and are appointed on 
    or after March 16, 1989, and for educational service, provides that 
    residency will be required of only those employees who receive a 
    preference on or after March 16, 1989.
        In short, Mr. Speaker, the amendment introduces an entirely new 
    subject and is therefore not germane. . . .
        Mr. [Steny H.] Hoyer [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, on the point 
    of order of the gentleman from the District of Columbia (Mr. 
    Fauntroy), the amendment in question, amendment No. 15, is added to 
    section 110 of the bill, line 6, which deals with personnel levels. 
    The amendment itself deals with the preference system that has been 
    discussed by the District of Columbia.
        Mr. Speaker, in last year's District of Columbia bill there was 
    a requirement that the District of Columbia promulgate a preference 
    system. In point of fact, on March 16, 1989, they issued a 
    preference system. That preference system, however, was to be 
    modified subsequent to the adoption of the bill on the House floor, 
    but then went to the Senate. The Senate dealt with personnel 
    levels. It did not deal, however, with the preference system.
        In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, the preference system was drawn, 
    in this Member's opinion, to an extent that in fact the residency 
    requirement is still in effect because of the substantial 
    discrepancies between the preference between the District of 
    Columbia residents and nonresidents, effectively making 
    nonresidents second-class employees, which of course obviates the 
    substitute of the residency requirement by preference system.
        I, therefore, submit to the Chair that the amendment at this 
    point in the bill is relevant to the personnel system and the 
    personnel levels and who are eligible for those personnel positions 
    in the District of Columbia, and I would, therefore, submit to the 
    Chair that it is not nongermane and was, in fact, germane to the 
    subject matter before the conference. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the arguments of the gentleman 
    from the District of Columbia (Mr. Fauntroy) are accurate 
    pertaining to the point of order, and so his point of order is 
    sustained.

Bill Relating to Deployment of Missile Systems--Amendment Permanently 
    Making Expenditures Contingent on Certifications by Secretary of 
    Defense

Sec. 24.6 To a title of a bill authorizing the procurement, research 
    and development of certain military missile systems for one fiscal 
    year,

[[Page 8411]]

    broadened by amendment to restrict deployment beyond that fiscal 
    year of one system pending tests and reports to Congress, an 
    amendment permanently making expenditure of any funds for that 
    missile system contingent upon certification made by the Secretary 
    of Defense with respect to the impact of United States grain sales 
    on Soviet military preparedness was held to be not germane being an 
    unrelated contingency involving agricultural exports.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for 
fiscal 1984 (17) in the Committee of the Whole on July 21, 
1983,(18) the Chair, in sustaining a point of order against 
the amendment described above, reiterated the principle that it is not 
germane to make the authorization of funds in a bill contingent upon 
unrelated events or policy determinations. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 2969.
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 20050, 20184, 20189, 20190, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 301. In addition to the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 103 for procurement of missiles for the 
        Air Force, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Air Force for fiscal year 1984 for procurement of missiles the 
        sum of $2,557,800,000 to be available only for the MX missile 
        program.

        research, development, test, and evaluation for mx missile and 
                          small mobile missile systems

            Sec. 302. (a) In addition to the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 201 for research, development, test, 
        and evaluation for the Air Force, there is hereby authorized to 
        be appropriated to the Air Force for fiscal year 1984 for 
        research, development, test, and evaluation for the land-based 
        strategic ballistic missile modernization program--
            (1) $1,980,389,000 to be available only for research, 
        development, test, and evaluation for the MX missile program. . 
        .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (19) Are there amendments 
    to title III?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Price: Page 16, after line 18, 
        insert the following new section:

                       limitation on expenditure of funds

            Sec. 303. (a) None of the funds authorized by clause (2) of 
        section 302(a) may be obligated or expended for research, 
        development, test, or evaluation for an intercontinental-range 
        mobile ballistic missile that would weigh more than 33,000 
        pounds or that would carry more than a single warhead.
            (b) The Secretary of Defense may not deploy more than 10 MX 
        missiles until--
            (1) demonstration of subsystems and testing of components 
        of the small mobile intercontinental ballistic missile system 
        (including missile guidance and propulsion subsystems) have 
        occurred . . .

[[Page 8412]]

            (c) The Secretary of Defense may not deploy more than 40 MX 
        missiles until--
            (1) the major elements (including the guidance and control 
        subsystems) of a mobile missile weighing less than 33,000 
        pounds as a part of an intercontinental ballistic missile 
        system have been flight tested . . .
            (d)(1) Not later than January 15 of each year from 1984 
        through 1988, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
        Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
        Representatives a report--
            (A) on the progress being made with respect to the 
        development and deployment of the MX missile system.

    The amendment offered by Mr. Price was agreed to.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 20. 129 Cong. Rec. 20187, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: At the end of title III, 
        add the following new section:

                            limitation on mx program

            Sec 303. No funds may be expended for the MX missile 
        program during any fiscal year during which United States grain 
        suppliers make sales of grain to the Soviet Union, except that 
        the preceding limitation shall not apply during any fiscal year 
        if the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the sale 
        of grain to the Soviet Union by United States grain suppliers 
        during that year will not assist the Soviet Union in preparing, 
        maintaining, or providing for its armed forces. . . .

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: . . . I make a point of order 
    that the amendment is not germane to title III. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is not germane to title III. 
    Although title III was originally a 1-year authorization, it has 
    been amended by the Price amendment to go beyond fiscal year 1984.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver) would 
    be a permanent change in the law making the MX program conditional 
    upon an unrelated contingency involving agricultural exports. Under 
    the precedents the amendment is not germane and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price).

Temporary Increase in Debt Ceiling--Amendment Construed as Having 
    Temporary Effect Despite Form

Sec. 24.7 Although the Chair will not ordinarily look behind the text 
    of a bill and consider the probable effects of its provisions, or 
    amendments thereto, in determining issues of germaneness, the Chair 
    has ruled that an amendment the fundamental purpose of which 
    amounted to a permanent change in law could in fact be understood 
    to be a temporary change in law, in light of prior legislative 
    treatment of the subject in question (the

[[Page 8413]]

    statutory ceiling on public debt), and thus could properly be 
    offered to a bill whose fundamental purpose was to provide a 
    temporary increase in the statutory ceiling on the 
    debt.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The proceedings of May 13, 1987, relating to H.R. 2360, extension 
        of the public debt limit, are discussed in Sec. 46.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Making Expiration Date in Bill Inapplicable to Certain 
    Provisions

Sec. 24.8 On one occasion, it was held that, to that section of a bill 
    providing that the provisions of the bill shall remain in force 
    only until a certain date, an amendment making such expiration date 
    inapplicable to particular provisions of the bill was held germane.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
to expedite the payment for land acquired during the war period. An 
amendment was offered (3) whose purpose was described by the 
proponent, Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, in these terms:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. S. 919 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 3. 90 Cong. Rec. 9363, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [The] amendment merely provides in the event it becomes a 
    law it shall be permanent insofar as creating a right of trial by 
    jury for those persons whose property is taken for flood control 
    and river and harbor improvements.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Clarence E.] Hancock [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment. This bill by its terms is 
    temporary. The amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
    Whitten] would affect one small section of the bill and make it 
    permanent, without consideration by the committee having 
    jurisdiction thereof.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John M. Coffee (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Mississippi is germane. It properly refers to the section of 
    the bill referred to in the amendment. The Chair overrules the 
    point of order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See also Sec. 40.1, infra, for discussion of amendments continuing 
        temporary law offered to bills amending such law.

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

[[Page 8414]]


                                 

[[Page 8415]]


                               CHAPTER 28


                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule

                               VOLUME 10

A. General Principles

    Sec. 1. Introduction
    Sec. 2. Proposition to Which Amendment Must be Germane
    Sec. 3. Amendment as Relating to Subject Matter Under Consideration
    Sec. 4. Committee Jurisdiction of Subject Matter as Test
    Sec. 5. Fundamental Purpose of Amendment as Test
    Sec. 6. Amendment Accomplishing Result of Bill by Different Method
    Sec. 7. Amendment Substituting Different Agency To Administer 
            Provisions
    Sec. 8. Individual Proposition Offered as Amendment to Another 
            Individual Proposition
    Sec. 9. General Amendments to Specific or Limited Propositions; 
            Amendments Enlarging Scope of Proposition
   Sec. 10. Specific Amendments to General Propositions; Amendments as 
            Within Scope
   Sec. 11. Amendment Adding to Two or More Propositions of Same Class
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by Evan Hoorneman, J.D. Manuscript editing 
by Joan Deschler Bamel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Sec. 12. Amendment Extending Coverage of Bill to Other Subjects of 
            Same Class
   Sec. 13. Proposition and Amendment as Affecting Different Classes of 
            Persons or Entities

[[Page 8416]]

   Sec. 14. Amendments Conferring Powers Not granted in Bill
   Sec. 15. Amendments to Appropriation Bills; Rescission Bills
   Sec. 16. Consent Calendar Bills

B. Application of Rule to Particular Forms of Amendment or Proposition

   Sec. 17. In General; Amendment to Special Rule; Amendment to 
            Concurrent Resolution
   Sec. 18. Amendment Offered to Particular Paragraph, Section, or 
            title
   Sec. 19. Amendment Adding New Section or Title to Bill
   Sec. 20. Amendment Striking Portion of Text of Bill or Amendment
   Sec. 21. Substitute Amendment; Amendment in Nature of Substitute; 
            Amendment to Amendment
   Sec. 22. Committee Amendment
   Sec. 23. Instructions in Motion To Commit or Recommit
   Sec. 24. Amendment Proposing Permanent Legislation Offered to 
            Temporary Legislation



                               VOLUME 11

C. House-Senate Relations

   Sec. 25. Rule of Germaneness in the Senate
   Sec. 26. Senate Amendments to House Bills and Amendments; Conference 
            Agreements
   Sec. 27. --Amendment to Senate Amendment
   Sec. 28. Requirement That Amendments to Motions To Instruct 
            Conferees Be Germane

D. Amendments Imposing Qualifications or Restrictions

   Sec. 29. In General; Amendments Providing for Exceptions or 
            Exemptions

[[Page 8417]]

   Sec. 30. Amendments Providing for Conditions or Qualifications
   Sec. 31. --Amendment Postponing Effectiveness of Legislation Pending 
            Contingency
   Sec. 32. Amendments Providing for Restrictions or Limitations
   Sec. 33. --Amendments Affecting Powers Delegated in Bill
   Sec. 34. --Restrictions on Use or Availability of Funds

E. Relation of Amendment or Bill to Existing Law

   Sec. 35. Amendments to Bill Which Amend Existing Law
   Sec. 36. Amendments Repealing Existing Law to bill Amending that Law
   Sec. 37. Amendments to Bills Which Repeal Existing Law
   Sec. 38. Amendments to Bills Which Incorporate Other Law or Matter
   Sec. 39. Amendments to Bill Extending Existing Law or Authority 
            Under Existing Law
   Sec. 40. Amendment Continuing Temporary Law to Bill Amending That 
            Law
   Sec. 41. Amendment Changing Existing Law to Bill Citing or Making 
            Minor Revisions in That Law
   Sec. 42. Amendment Changing or Citing Existing Law to Bill Not 
            Citing That Law

F. Procedural Matters

   Sec. 43. Generally; Point of Order and Debate Thereon
   Sec. 44. Timeliness of Point of Order
   Sec. 45. Consideration Under Special Rule; Waiver of Points of 
            Order; Effect on Germaneness Requirement
   Sec. 46. Factors in Chair's Ruling; Refusal by Chair To Rule; 
            Anticipatory and Hypothetical Rulings

Index to Precedents at end of Volume 11





[[Page 8419]]


                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule