[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]
[C. House-Senate Relations]
[Â§ 26. Senate Amendments to House Bills and Amendments; Conference Agreements]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8422-8484]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                       C. HOUSE-SENATE RELATIONS
 
Sec. 26. Senate Amendments to House Bills and Amendments; Conference 
    Agreements

    Rules in effect in the 93d Congress permitted any Member to demand 
a separate vote in the House on any motion, order, or rule to dispose 
of any Senate amendment which would be subject to a point of order 
under the germaneness rule and permitted a separate vote in the House 
on any nongermane Senate amendment or portion thereof included in a 
conference agreement.(18) If as a result of such a vote, any 
such Senate amendment was rejected, the conference agreement as a whole 
was considered rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See former Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 
        (1973); Rule XXVIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b 
        (1973). From 1971 until 1973, clause 3 of Rule XX, which had 
        been enacted as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
        1970, provided that House conferees could not agree, without 
        prior permission of the House, to Senate amendments that would 
        violate clause 7 of Rule XVI if offered in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By changes adopted in the second session of the 93d 
Congress,(19) the procedure permitting separate debate and 
votes on nongermane Senate amendments was extended to nongermane matter 
that (1) originally appeared in a Senate bill, (2) was not included in 
the House-passed version of that bill, and (3) appeared again in the 
conference report. The test for identifying such matter is whether it 
would have been ruled nongermane if offered in the House as an 
amendment to the House-passed version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Res. 998, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each such matter contained in a conference report is subject to a 
point of order that it is not germane to the House-passed version. If 
the Speaker sustains the point of order, Members are permitted to offer 
a privileged motion to reject the nongermane matter specified in the 
point of order. The motion is decided by majority vote after 40 minutes 
of debate, equally divided between those in favor and those opposed to 
the motion.
    Furthermore, the procedure for dealing with nongermane Senate 
amendments was extended to permit separate debate and votes on 
nongermane matter in Senate amendments reported in disagreement by a 
conference committee or pending before the House, the stage of 
disagreement having been reached. The provision relates to motions to 
recede and concur in a Senate amendment, with or without an amendment.

[[Page 8423]]

    On a motion to recede and concur, the rule permits points of order 
against nongermane matter in the Senate amendment, provided such points 
are raised immediately after the motion is offered and before debate 
begins. Each sustained point of order may be followed by a privileged 
motion to reject, 40 minutes of debate, and a vote.
    In the case of a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment, it is in order, immediately after the 
motion is offered and before debate begins, to raise the same kind of 
points of order. However, these apply to the version of the amendment 
as it would appear if the motion were adopted. That is, the entity 
against which points of order can be raised is the proposed amended 
version of the Senate amendment. Copies of this version must be 
available on the floor when the motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment is offered.
    As a result of another change in the rules, all procedures relating 
to nongermane Senate amendments are now consolidated in a single 
rule.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule XXVIII clause 5, including matter transferred from Rule XX 
        clause 1 relating to the procedure concerning disposition of 
        Senate nongermane amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to adoption of the rules described above, it was held that a 
Senate amendment to a House bill is not subject, in the House, to the 
point of order that it is not germane to the House bill.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 113 Cong. Rec. 34032, 34033, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 28, 
        1967, especially remarks of Mr. Jones and Mr. Colmer, for 
        discussion of efforts to modify this principle. For a 
        discussion in the House concerning the Senate practice of 
        adding nongermane amendments to House bills, including specific 
        instances thereof prior to 1970, see 115 Cong. Rec. 34305-309, 
        91st Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 1969. For an instance in which 
        the House, by unanimous consent, concurred in a nongermane 
        Senate amendment to House amendments to a Senate bill, see 116 
        Cong. Rec. 12874, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 23, 1970. Under 
        consideration was S. 3253 (Committee on Public Works), to name 
        certain buildings in Chicago after Everett McKinley Dirksen, 
        with a Senate amendment authorizing emergency payments to 
        ``impacted area'' educational agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has also been held, and is still true, that, when a Senate 
amendment reported in disagreement by conferees or otherwise before the 
House is under consideration, a proposal to amend must be germane to 
the Senate amendment.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 27.35, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendments to Senate amendments reported from conference in

[[Page 8424]]

disagreement are subject to the same test of germaneness under clause 7 
of Rule XVI applicable to any other amendment in the House, and 
conferees' motions are given no wider latitude regarding 
germaneness.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 27.30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII, a point of order against a 
nongermane Senate provision included in a conference report may be made 
before debate begins on the report, and if the Chair sustains the point 
of order, a motion to reject that portion of the conference report, 
debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled, is in order; 
it is then in order, following the disposition of that motion, to make 
further points of order and motions to reject. If any such motion is 
adopted, the conference report is considered as rejected and the 
pending motion (which is offered by the manager of the conference 
report) is, in the case of a House bill with a Senate amendment, to 
recede from disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur therein 
with an amendment consisting of the portion of the conference report 
not rejected. Such a motion is debatable for one hour, equally divided 
and controlled by the majority and minority (pursuant to clause 2(a) of 
Rule XXVIII).
    If the conference report is on a Senate bill with a House amendment 
and a motion to reject a nongermane Senate portion of the conference 
report is agreed to, the pending question under clause 4 of Rule XXVIII 
is on House insistence upon its original amendment, the House being 
unable at that stage to amend its own amendment to the Senate bill.
    By unanimous consent, the proceedings by which the House had agreed 
to a motion to reject a nongermane Senate provision included in a 
conference report, pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII, by a voice 
vote, were vacated in order to allow full debate and a recorded vote on 
the motion to reject.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the proceedings of Oct. 15, 1986, discussed in Sec. 26.31, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the motion to reject a nongermane portion of the conference 
report is not agreed to, debate commences on the conference report 
itself.                          -------------------

Separate Vote on Nongermane Senate Provisions Agreed to in Conference, 
    Where Senate Bill is Amended by Inserting House Bill in Lieu 
    Thereof

Sec. 26.1 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the

[[Page 8425]]

    Speaker indicated that under clause 4(a)(2), Rule XXVIII, a point 
    of order could be made against a portion of a conference report on 
    a Senate bill containing Senate matter not germane to the House-
    passed version, which point of order if sustained would permit a 
    separate vote on the nongermane portion of the conference report, 
    in the absence of a special rule waiving that point of order.

    On Aug. 22, 1980,(5) the House had under consideration 
S. 2719 (6) when a parliamentary inquiry was addressed to 
the Chair as described above. The inquiry and the Speaker's response 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 126 Cong. Rec. 22660, 22661, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2719) 
    to amend and extend certain Federal laws relating to housing, 
    community and neighborhood development and preservation, and 
    related programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Wylie: If we take up the Senate bill and amend it by 
    striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu 
    thereof the House bill, do we limit the ability of any Member of 
    this House to require a separate vote on any possible Senate 
    provision agreed to in conference which would have been ruled 
    nongermane if offered as an amendment to the House bill on the 
    House floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would respond that a 
    Member's right would not be limited by those circumstances. Under 
    rule XXVIII, clause 4, a point of order may be made against a 
    provision in a conference substitute which would not have been 
    germane to the House-passed bill. If the Chair holds that the 
    Senate amendment or provision would not have been germane, then a 
    motion to reject that provision may be made. Therefore, the 
    gentleman's rights are protected by the rule.
        Mr. Wylie: Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, 
    then any nongermane Senate provision brought back from conference 
    may be subjected to a separate vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The answer is that it may be subjected 
    to a separate vote under the rules of the House. The only way in 
    which it would not be subject to a separate vote would be if the 
    conference committee were to come under a rule adopted by the House 
    which would waive points of order.

[[Page 8426]]

Point of Order Against Provision as Constituting Appropriation on 
    Legislative Bill To Be Disposed of Before Germaneness Point of 
    Order Under Rule XXVIII

Sec. 26.2 A point of order under clause 2 of Rule XX or under clause 5 
    of Rule XXI which, if sustained, would vitiate an entire conference 
    report or motion to dispose of a Senate amendment as constituting 
    an appropriation on a legislative bill, must be disposed of prior 
    to points of order against a portion of a motion under clause 4 or 
    5 of Rule XXVIII alleged to contain a nongermane Senate provision 
    to a House measure and which, if sustained, would merely permit a 
    separate vote on rejection of that portion of the conference report 
    or motion.

    The proceedings of Oct. 1, 1980, during consideration of H.R. 5612 
(relating to assistance for small business), are discussed in 
Sec. 26.26, infra.

Germaneness of Senate Amendment Modified by House Amendment Prior to 
    Conference Not Determined by Relationship to Original House-passed 
    Bill

Sec. 26.3 The test of germaneness under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, of a 
    portion of a conference report originally contained in a Senate 
    amendment is its relationship to the final House version of the 
    bill committed to conference, and not to the original House-passed 
    bill which may have been superseded by a House amendment to the 
    Senate amendment prior to conference; thus, where the House (by 
    unanimous consent) amended a Senate amendment to include matter 
    germane to the Senate amendment although not germane to the 
    original House-passed bill, the Chair stated that a germaneness 
    point of order would not lie against the Senate amendment as so 
    modified in a conference report.

    On July 28, 1983,(8) during consideration in the House 
of the conference report on H.R. 2973 (inter

[[Page 8427]]

est and dividend tax withholding repeal], the principle described above 
was demonstrated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 21401, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: . . . I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John J. Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Speaker, under rule 28, it seems to me that 
    after the reading of any conference report a point of order lies 
    if, in fact, there is a provision in the conference report that is 
    not germane to the bill that was passed by the House, and I do not 
    think CBI is germane to the repeal of withholding.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In answer to the gentleman, by 
    unanimous consent the House, prior to sending the bill to 
    conference, joined both issues as a House amendment to the Senate 
    amendment, so there is no germaneness question. . . .
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Speaker, in other words, a unanimous-consent 
    request was offered on the floor of the House during a House 
    session to join both these issues and no one objected to that 
    unanimous-consent request?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.

Motion To Reject Nongermane Portion of Conference Report To Be Disposed 
    of Before Other Points of Order Allowed

Sec. 26.4 Pursuant to clause 4(b) of Rule XXVIII, where a point of 
    order against a portion of a conference report has been sustained 
    on the ground that it was not germane to the House-passed version, 
    the Speaker will not entertain another point of order against the 
    conference report or against another portion thereof until a motion 
    to reject the portion held nongermane, if made, has been disposed 
    of.

    The proceedings of Dec. 15, 1975, relating to the conference report 
on S. 622, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, are discussed in 
Sec. 26.15, infra.

Point of Order That Conferees Exceeded Scope of Matters Committed to 
    Them--Timeliness After Adoption of Motion To Reject and Recognition 
    for Motion To Recede and Concur With Amendment

Sec. 26.5 Once a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a conference 
    report has been adopted by the House pursu

[[Page 8428]]

    ant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII, a point of order against the entire 
    conference report under clause 3 of that rule comes too late if the 
    Speaker has recognized a Member to offer a motion to recede and 
    concur in the pending Senate amendment with an amendment consisting 
    of that portion of the conference report not rejected.

    Proceedings relating to consideration of the conference report on 
S. 622, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, are discussed in detail 
in Sec. 26.15, infra. After the motion discussed therein, to reject a 
nongermane portion of the conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII, 
clause 4, had been adopted, the following motion was made: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 40681, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 15, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Staggers moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the Senate amendments to the House amendment 
        and concur with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the 
        following:

        That this Act may be cited as the ``Energy Policy and 
    Conservation Act''

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

            Sec. 2. Statement of purposes.
            Sec. 3. Definitions. . . .

        Mr. Staggers [during the reading]: (11) Mr. Speaker, 
    I ask unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and 
    printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 40710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from West Virginia?. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reserving the right to object, several Members engaged in colloquy 
with the Speaker as to the parliamentary status of the motion, the 
effect of the prior rejection of the conference report, and the rules 
governing debate on the motion. John B. Anderson, of Illinois, 
indicated during the exchange (13) that he was prepared to 
make a point of order against a section of the bill on the ground that 
it was in violation of clause 3 of Rule XXVIII, in that it contained a 
proposition beyond the scope of the matters committed to the conference 
committee. Subsequently, the following inquiry raised the issue of the 
timeliness of such a point of order when the conference report had been 
rejected pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII and the Staggers motion to 
recede and concur with an amendment was pending:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 121 Cong. Rec. 40711, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker I have 
    asked the

[[Page 8429]]

    gentleman [Mr. John H. Rousselot, of California] to yield so that I 
    may make this parliamentary inquiry.
        Should the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot), who is 
    now maintaining a reservation of objection, formally object, would 
    it then be in order for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) 
    to make a point of order against the language presently in the 
    conference report which is under consideration on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) on the 
    basis of scope?
        The Speaker: It would not be in order.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, is that not in order under any 
    circumstances?
        The Speaker: Not at this point, the report has been rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A possible issue arising under Rule XXVIII, 
clause 4, is whether the point of order based on clause 3, that the 
conferees have exceeded the scope of the matters committed to them, may 
be made following the adoption, pursuant to clause 4, of the first 
motion to reject nongermane matter. Rule XXVIII, clause 4(d) states 
that ``if any such motion to reject has been adopted, after final 
disposition of all points of order and motions to reject under the 
preceding provisions of this clause, the conference report shall be 
considered as rejected and the question then pending before the House 
shall be whether to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an 
amendment which shall consist of that portion of the conference report 
not rejected.'' Thus, under the rule, there is a hiatus between the 
adoption of the first motion to reject and the final disposition of all 
other such motions, during which time one might consider the report as 
still technically before the House, and thus a point of order under 
clause 3 would be in order during that time. But while the report is 
not technically rejected until after the final disposition of further 
points of order, the rule states that the points of order in order at 
that time (after the adoption of the first motion to reject) are those 
made in order under the preceding provisions of the clause, those based 
on germaneness. Such an interpretation would preclude the point of 
order under clause 3 after adoption of the first motion to reject.

Debate on Motion To Reject Nongermane Portion of Conference Report

Sec. 26.6 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, 40 minutes for debate on a 
    motion to reject a nongermane portion of a conference report is 
    equally divided between the proponent and an opponent of the motion 
    to reject, and rec

[[Page 8430]]

    ognition is not based upon party affiliation; and the House 
    conferee who has been recognized for 20 minutes in opposition to a 
    motion to reject a nongermane portion of a conference report is 
    entitled to close debate on the motion to reject.

    H.R. 5247, a bill reported from the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, consisted of one title relating to grants to state and 
local governments for local public works construction projects. A new 
title added by the Senate and contained in a conference report provided 
grants to state and local governments to assist them in providing 
public services. On Jan. 29, 1976,(14) a point of order was 
made in the House, pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, against the title 
added by the Senate. The title was held to be not germane, because it 
proposed a revenue-sharing program within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Government Operations, and because the approach taken in 
the Senate version was not closely related to the methods used to 
combat unemployment as delineated in the House bill.(15) 
After the Speaker had ruled on the point of order, a motion was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. For further discussion of the ruling on the issue of germaneness, 
        see Sec. 4.99, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Brooks moves that the House reject title II of H.R. 
        5247, as reported by the committee of conference.

        The Speaker: (16) The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
    Jones) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Brooks) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Do 
    we have 20 minutes on the minority side?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the division of time is 
    between those in favor and those opposed to the motion to reject 
    title II. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Jones] has 20 minutes and 
    the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] has 20 minutes.
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas, on behalf of Mr. Jones:] 
    Mr. Speaker, I have one other speaker, the majority leader. I do 
    not know what the courtesy is, or the appropriate protocol, in a 
    matter of this kind.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Wright] may close debate.

Sec. 26.7 The House conferee who has been recognized for 20

[[Page 8431]]

    minutes in opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane portion of 
    a conference report is entitled to close debate on the motion to 
    reject.

    The proceedings of June 23, 1976, relating to the conference report 
on S. 3201, to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act, are 
discussed in Sec. 26.23, infra.

After Rejection of Nongermane Portion of Conference Report--Motion To 
    Recede and Concur in Senate Amendment With Amendment Consisting of 
    Remainder of Conference Report

Sec. 26.8 Where the House agrees to a motion to reject a nongermane 
    portion of a conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, 
    the pending question, in the form of a motion offered by the 
    manager of the conference report, is to recede from disagreement to 
    the Senate amendment and concur with an amendment consisting of the 
    remaining portions of the conference report not rejected on the 
    separate vote, and one hour of debate, equally divided between the 
    majority and minority parties, is permitted on that pending 
    question.

    The proceedings of Dec. 12, 1979,(17) during 
consideration of H.R. 595 (18) in the House, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 35522, 35527, 35528, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. A bill authorizing the General Services Administration to dispose 
        of tin from the national stockpile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Mollohan [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 595) to authorize 
    the Administrator of General Services to dispose of 35,000 long 
    tons of tin in the national and supplemental stockpiles, to provide 
    for the deposit of moneys received from the sale of such tin, and 
    for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Larry] McDonald [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    matter contained in clause 3 of section 3 of the substitute for the 
    text of the bill recommended in the conference report would not be 
    germane to H.R. 595 under clause 7 of rule XVI if offered in the 
    House and is therefore subject to a point of order under clause 
    4(a) of rule XXVIII. . . .
        Mr. Mollohan: . . . I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 8432]]

        Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. McDonald moves, pursuant to the provisions of clause 
        4(b) of rule XXVIII, that the House reject clause 3 of section 
        3 of the substitute for the text of the bill recommended in the 
        conference report.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McDonald) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia 
    (Mr. Mollohan) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McDonald). 
    . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. McDonald].
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I object 
    to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    272, nays 122, not voting 39, as follows: . . .
        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. Mollohan: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mollohan moves pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII and 
        the actions of the House, that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the text of the 
        bill and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill insert the 
        following:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Strategic and Critical 
        Materials Transaction Authorization Act of 1979''.

            Sec. 2. There is authorized to be appropriated the sum of 
        $237,000,000 for the acquisition of strategic and critical 
        material under section 6(a) of the Strategic and Critical 
        Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98e). Before any 
        acquisition using funds appropriated under the authorization of 
        this section may be carried out, a list of the materials to be 
        acquired shall be submitted to the Committees on Armed Services 
        of the Senate and House of Representatives, and such 
        acquisition may not then be carried out until the end of the 
        60-day period beginning on the date such list is received by 
        such committees.
            Sec. 3. The President is hereby authorized to dispose of 
        materials determined to be excess to the current requirements 
        of the National Defense Stockpile in the following quantities:
            (1) 35,000 long tons of tin. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Mollohan) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Maine (Mr. Emery) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Mollohan).

Sec. 26.9 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, where the House adopts a 
    motion to reject a

[[Page 8433]]

    portion of a conference report containing a modification of a 
    nongermane Senate amendment, the conference report is considered as 
    rejected and the manager is recognized to offer a motion 
    (considered to be the pending question) to recede and concur in the 
    Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the remainder of 
    the conference report.

    The proceedings of Dec. 2, 1982, relating to rejection of matter 
found to be nongermane in the conference report on H.R. 2330 (the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorization), are discussed in more 
detail in Sec. Sec. 26.34 and 26.35, infra. The following exchange 
(20) occurred after adoption of the motion to reject a 
portion of the conference report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 128 Cong. Rec. 28552, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore [William H. Natcher, of Kentucky]: 
    Pursuant to clause 4, rule XXVIII, a motion to reject section 23 of 
    the conference report having been adopted, the conference report is 
    considered as rejected and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Udall] 
    is recognized to offer an amendment consisting of the remainder of 
    the conference report.
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    clause 4, rule XXVIII, and the action of the House, I move that the 
    House recede from its disagreement and concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Udall moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        Senate amendment with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, insert the 
        following.

After Rejection of Nongermane Portion of Conference Report Originally 
    Contained in Senate Bill--Pending Motion To Insist Upon House 
    Amendment to Senate Bill

Sec. 26.10 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that under Rule XXVIII clause 4, the adoption by the House of a 
    motion to reject a nongermane portion of a conference report 
    originally contained in a Senate bill would require the House to 
    vote on a pending motion to insist upon the House amendment to the 
    Senate bill. [Note: Under that rule, the House cannot amend its own 
    amendment to a Senate bill.)

    The proceedings of June 23, 1976, relating to the conference report 
on S. 3201, to amend the Public Works and Economic De

[[Page 8434]]

velopment Act, are discussed in Sec. 26.23, infra.

Motion To Recede and Concur With Amendment--Point of Order Permitted 
    Under Rule XXVIII Against Portion of Motion Containing Senate 
    Amendment

Sec. 26.11 Pursuant to clause 5(b) of Rule XXVIII, a Member may make a 
    point of order against a portion of a motion to recede and concur 
    in a Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement, 
    with a further amendment, on the ground that that portion of the 
    Senate amendment contained in the motion was not germane to the 
    House-passed measure; and a motion rejecting that portion of the 
    motion to recede and concur with an amendment is in order if the 
    point of order is sustained.

    The proceedings of July 31, 1974, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 8217, to provide exemptions from tariff duty of certain 
equipment on United States vessels, are discussed in section 26.30, 
infra.

Point of Order Based on Nongermaneness of House Amendment to Senate 
    Amendment Should Be Under Rule XVI, Clause 7, Not Rule XXVIII

Sec. 26.12 Where a motion is made to concur in a Senate amendment with 
    an amendment, and such proposed House amendment contains new matter 
    and is not germane to the Senate amendment, any point of order 
    against the House amendment should be based on Rule XVI, clause 7, 
    rather than on Rule XXVIII, clauses 5(a) and 5(b), which permits 
    points of order against Senate matter (including Senate amendments 
    proposed to be amended by a motion to concur with an amendment); 
    thus, where a point of order is based on the contention that a 
    House amendment would not be germane to the Senate amendment, under 
    Rule XXVIII, the Chair may treat the point of order as having been 
    raised under Rule XVI, clause 7.

    On June 30, 1987,(21) during consideration of H.R. 1827 
(sup

[[Page 8435]]

plemental appropriations for fiscal year 1987), the motion described 
above was offered to the following amendment in disagreement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 133 Cong. Rec. 18294, 18295, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 5: Page 3, after line 7, insert:

                            Administrative Provision

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
        funds appropriated for fiscal year 1987 shall be used for the 
        purpose of granting any patent for vertebrate or invertebrate 
        animals, modified, altered, or in any way changed through 
        engineering technology, including genetic engineering.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the motion.
        The text of the motion is as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 5 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:

                      Economic Development Administration

                    economic development assistance programs

            Not to exceed $14,100,000 appropriated and available for 
        obligation and expenditure under section 108(a)(1) of Public 
        Law 99-190, as amended, shall remain available for obligation 
        through September 30, 1988: Provided, That the Economic 
        Development Administration shall close out the audits 
        concerning grants to New York, New York pursuant to title I of 
        the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        of 1976, not later than August 1, 1987.

                        Patent and Trademark Office

                           salarles and expenses

            None of the funds appropriated by this or any prior Act to 
        the Patent and Trademark Office shall be used to purchase the 
        mass storage requirement (PTO-10) portion of the U.S. Patent 
        and Trademark Office Automation Project. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against amendment No. 5 reported in disagreement of the 
    supplemental appropriation conference report on page 13 of the 
    report, and on page 3 lines 19 through 23 of the printed bill now 
    before us which relates to procurement by the U.S. Patent and Trade 
    Market Office automation project pursuant to rule XXVIII, clause 
    5(a)(1). This rule relates to nongermane matter in amendments in 
    disagreement.
        As I interpret it, the rule states that any matter introduced 
    as a new issue in a conference committee which would have been 
    otherwise ruled out of order if it came before the House, would 
    likewise be made eligible for a point of order as reported in 
    amendments in disagreement from the conference committee should 
    there be a motion from the House to recede from its disagreement 
    with the Senate.
        Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment introduced as new material in 
    the con

[[Page 8436]]

    ference committee would delay procurement funds for the Patent 
    Office for the purchase of mass storage requirement equipment. The 
    purchase is part of the overall automation of the U.S. Patent 
    Office and I urge my point of order be sustained.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
    Frenzel] is raising a point of order against the motion, is that 
    correct, as being not germane to the Senate amendment under rule 
    XVI, clause 7?
        Mr. Frenzel: Yes, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] 
    concedes the point of order and the point of order is sustained 
    against the motion.

Rejection of Previous Question on Special Rule Waiving Points of Order 
    Against Conference Report--Amendment Permitting Motion To Reject 
    Nongermane Portion and Allowing an Amendment Adding Language of 
    Original Nongermane Senate Amendment

Sec. 26.13 The House rejected the previous question on a special rule 
    which waived all points of order against a conference report, thus 
    permitting an amendment allowing a point of order against, and 
    motion to reject, a nongermane portion therein, and, upon adoption 
    of the motion to reject, a motion to amend that portion of the 
    conference report not rejected by adding the language of the 
    original nongermane Senate amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 5 (2) in the House on Apr. 
19, 1988,(3) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Communications Act 
        amendments.
 3. 134 Cong. Rec. 7345, 7346, 7354, 7355, 7484, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Martin] Frost [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 427 and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 427

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider the conference report on the bill 
        (H.R. 5) to improve elementary and secondary education, and all 
        points of order against the conference report and against its 
        consideration are hereby waived, and the conference report 
        shall be considered as having been read when called up for 
        consideration. A motion to recommit the conference report may 
        not contain instructions.
            Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
        the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare 
        the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole

[[Page 8437]]

        House on the State of the Union for the consideration of a bill 
        containing the text printed in section three of this 
        resolution, and the first reading of the bill shall be 
        dispensed with. After general debate, which shall be confined 
        to the bill and which shall not exceed thirty minutes, equally 
        divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, the bill 
        shall be considered as having been read for amendment under the 
        five-minute rule. No amendment to the bill shall be in order in 
        the House or in the Committee of the Whole. At the conclusion 
        of the consideration of the bill, the Committee shall rise and 
        report the bill to the House, and the previous question shall 
        be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to commit, which may not 
        contain instructions.

    Subsequently, the previous question was moved, but upon a vote the 
motion was rejected.

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Lott: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: ``That upon the adoption of this 
        resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference 
        report on the bill (H.R. 5) to improve elementary and secondary 
        education, and all points of order against the conference 
        report and against its consideration, except as provided by 
        section 2 of this resolution are hereby waived, and the 
        conference report shall be considered as having been read when 
        called up for consideration.
            ``Sec. 2. It shall be in order pursuant to clause 4 of rule 
        XXVIII of the Rules of the House to raise a point of order 
        against sec. 6101 of the conference report. If, pursuant to 
        such clause, the point of order is sustained and the section is 
        then rejected by a vote of the House, it shall immediately be 
        in order, without intervening motion, for any Member to offer a 
        preferential motion to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
        H.R. 5, together with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
        recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment 
        which shall consist of the text of that portion of the 
        conference report not rejected together with the text of sec. 
        7003 of said Senate amendment as a substitute for sec. 6101 of 
        the conference report as rejected by the House, said motion 
        shall be considered as having been read, and all points of 
        order against said motion are hereby waived.''. . . .

        Mr. Lott: . . . I would like to urge the adoption of this 
    substitute rule which would provide for the consideration of the 
    ban on dial-a-porn language in the conference report and also, of 
    course, the conference report on H.R. 5, the education bill. . . . 
    Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute and the resolution.
        The Speaker: (4) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The queston is on the resolution, as amended.
        The resolution, as amended, was agreed to. . . .

[[Page 8438]]

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Bliley [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, 
    pursuant to the rule just adopted and clause 4 of rule XXVIII, I 
    make a point of order against section 6101 of the conference 
    report, and ask to be heard on my point of order.
        [There was no argument on the point of order, as the Speaker 
    ruled immediately as follows:)
        The Speaker: The gentleman's point of order is well-taken, the 
    modification of the Senate provision in question is not germane to 
    the bill as passed by the House. The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Bliley: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bliley moves pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVIII and 
        House Resolution 427 as adopted by the House that the House do 
        now reject section 6101 of the conference report on the bill 
        H.R. 5. . . .

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. Bliley: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bliley moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
        H.R. 5 together with the Senate amendment thereto, and recede 
        and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting 
        of the text of that portion of the conference report on the 
        bill H.R. 5 not rejected by the House together with the text of 
        section 7003 of the Senate amendment in place of section 6101 
        as rejected by the House, as follows: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the 
        following:
        Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.

            (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Augustus 
        F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School 
        Improvement Amendments of 1988''.
            (b) Table of Contents.--. . .

                       PART B--PROHIBITION OF DIAL-A-PORN
        Sec. 6101. Amendment to the Communications Act of 1934.

            Section 223(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended
            (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking out ``under eighteen 
        years of age or to any other person without that person's 
        consent''; . . .

        Mr. Bliley: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) that the 
    House recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment 
    consisting of the text of that portion of the conference report on 
    the bill H.R. 5 not rejected by the House together with the text of 
    section 7003 of the Senate amendment in place of section 6101 as 
    rejected by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Bliley: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 8439]]

        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas 
    397, nays 1, not voting 34.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Lott's amendment to the special rule 
was necessary if the measures affecting education and communications 
issues respectively were to be combined in one measure for 
consideration. Otherwise, upon rejection of the nongermane portions on 
a separate vote under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, the pending question would 
have been whether to concur with an amendment not including the 
nongermane communications portion.

Amendment Regulating Telephone Communications Not Germane to Education 
    Bill

Sec. 26.14 To a bill relating to education, an amendment regulating 
    telephone communications within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee is not germane.

    The proceedings of Apr. 19, 1988, relating to H.R. 5 (the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act), are discussed in Sec. 26.13, 
supra.

Bill Imposing Fuel Economy Standards on Manufacturers--Amendment To 
    Provide Loan Guarantees for Automotive Research and Development

Sec. 26.15 To a title of a House-passed bill reported from the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce containing a program 
    to improve automotive fuel efficiency by imposing fuel economy 
    standards upon manufacturers, a modified portion of a Senate 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute contained in a conference 
    report providing loan guarantees for automotive research and 
    development (a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Science and Technology) was conceded to be nongermane, and a motion 
    was agreed to pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4 rejecting that 
    portion of the conference report.

    On Dec. 15, 1975,(6) during consideration of the 
conference report on S. 622 (the Energy Policy and Conservation Act) in 
the House,

[[Page 8440]]

the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 40671, 40676, 40677, 40680, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 622) to 
    increase domestic energy supplies and availability; to restrain 
    energy demand; to prepare for energy emergencies; and for other 
    purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report. . . .
        Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order to that part of section 301 which adds to the new 
    motor vehicle improvements and cost saving account a new title V, 
    part B, entitled ``Application Advanced Automotive Technology.''
        My point of order is that it is nongermane, pursuant to clause 
    4, rule XXVIII.

        Part B of title V was not in the House bill, as passed in H.R. 
    7014, but it was in the Senate version and it is in the conference 
    report.
        If the section had been offered as an amendment on the House 
    floor, it would have been subject to a point of order as 
    nongermane. Hence, it is subject to a nongermaneness point of order 
    now under rule XXVIII, clause 4.
        May I point out to the Speaker that the automotive R & D part 
    of title V is wholly unrelated to the oil pricing and conservation 
    thrust of the bill. Besides, the Science and Technology Committee 
    has jurisdiction of all nonnuclear energy R. & D. matters, and this 
    is an R. & D. incentive program which clearly falls in that 
    jurisdiction.
        The original Senate version of section 546 was contained in 
    title II of the Senate bill (S. 1883). H.R. 9174 was introduced on 
    July 31, 1975, by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McCormack) and 
    was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology. H.R. 9174 
    basically included all of title II of the Senate bill (S. 1883), 
    specifically the loan guarantee provision. The committee 
    jurisdiction was positively established by that referral.
        Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I think that 
    this is not a good point of order, but out of grace and in order to 
    give the House a chance to vote on this as an orderly procedure--I 
    protested the disorderly procedure with the ERDA bill which was 
    before us--but in order to have orderly procedure I will not 
    contest the point of order, and I do not think my good friend from 
    West Virginia, the chairman of the committee (Mr. Staggers) will 
    contest it. Under those circumstances, I think it is appropriate 
    for the Chair to rule on the point of order with regard to 
    germaneness in order that we may proceed. . . .
        The Speaker: The point of order is conceded and sustained.
        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, may I reserve the 
    right to make a point of order? I am going to make a point of order 
    against the whole conference report.
        The Speaker: (7) That would come later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Teague: But the Speaker will reserve my right?
        The Speaker: Could the Chair make himself clear to the 
    gentleman? That

[[Page 8441]]

    might depend upon the outcome of the motion the gentleman from 
    California will make.
        Mr. Dingell: I think the gentleman wants to be heard; he 
    desires to be heard.
        I ask unanimous consent that he be heard at this time on the 
    point of order. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair has no authority to hear arguments on 
    matters not related to the point of order made by the gentleman. If 
    the gentleman from California makes a motion, the business which 
    transpires after the motion made by the gentleman will determine 
    whether certain other points of order will be in order. . . .
        Mr. Goldwater: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Goldwater moves that part B, title V in section 301 of 
        S. 622 be rejected.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) is 
    recognized for 20 minutes and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers) is recognized for 20 minutes.

    The motion was agreed to.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 40681, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Bill Providing for Disposal of Tin From National Stockpile--
    Amendment Providing for Disposal of Silver

Sec. 26.16 To a House bill providing for the disposal of tin from the 
    national stockpile, a Senate amendment included in the conference 
    report providing for the disposal of silver from the stockpile was 
    conceded to be nongermane and held to be subject to a motion to 
    reject under Rule XXVIII clause 4.

    The proceedings of Dec. 12, 1979, relating to H.R. 595, authorizing 
the Administrator of General Services to dispose of tin from the 
national stockpile, are discussed in Sec. 26.8, supra.

Bill Amending Internal Revenue Code To Provide Tax Credits--Amendment 
    Regarding Tax Credits for Home Purchases

Sec. 26.17 To a House bill containing several sections amending diverse 
    portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and 
    business tax credits, that part of a Senate amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute which added a new section relating to tax credits 
    for new home purchases and amended a portion of the law amended by 
    the House bill was held to be germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(9) it was demonstrated that the test 
of the ger

[[Page 8442]]

maneness of a portion of a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
substitute adding a new section to a House bill is the relationship of 
that section to the subject of the House bill as a whole. The 
proceedings during consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2166, 
the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 8900, 8902, 8930, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)

        The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
    Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2166) to 
    amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a refund of 
    1974 individual income taxes, to increase the low income allowance 
    and the percentage standard deduction, to provide a credit for 
    certain earned income, to increase the investment credit and the 
    surtax exemption, and for other purposes, having met, after full 
    and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
    their respective Houses as follows:
        That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of 
    the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In 
    lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
    insert the following: . . .

           TITLE II--REDUCTIONS IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES . . .

        Sec. 208. Credit for purchase of new principal residence. . . .

    TITLE VI--TAXATION OF FOREIGN OIL AND GAS INCOME AND OTHER FOREIGN 
                                INCOME . . .

        Sec. 602. Taxation of earnings and profits of controlled 
    foreign corporations and their shareholders. . . .

                    TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

        Sec. 701. Certain unemployment compensation.
        Sec. 702. Special payment to recipients of benefits under 
    certain retirement and survivor benefit programs. . . .
    Sec. 208. Credit for Purchase of New Principal Residence

        (a) Allowance of Credit.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A 
    of chapter 1 (relating to credits allowed) is amended by 
    redesignating section 44 as section 45 and by inserting after 
    section 43 the following new section:
    ``Sec. 44. Purchase of New Principal Residence.

        ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual there is 
    allowed, as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for 
    the taxable year, an amount equal to 5 percent of the purchase 
    price of a new principal residence purchased or constructed by the 
    taxpayer. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the conference report on the ground it 
    contains matter which is in violation of . . . clause 7, of rule 
    XVI. The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is that 
    section of the report dealing with the tax credit on sales of new 
    homes. It ap

[[Page 8443]]

    pears in section 208 of the conference report, on page 14, as 
    reported by the Committee on Conference. . . .
        [A] careful scrutiny of the titles of the House bill, as it was 
    sent to the Senate, shows many types of tax measures, but nothing 
    relating to the sale of homes. This clearly is an addition of a 
    very divergent nature to the bill and deals with the nonbusiness 
    and nonpersonal type of credit. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak 
    against the point of order.
        Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad bill. It was a broadly based 
    bill when it left this House to go to the other body. It has many 
    diverse sections and many different kinds of tax treatments. It 
    does deal with tax credits. It did deal with tax credits when it 
    left the House, both for individuals and for corporations.
        Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this falls totally within the 
    purview of the bill as we passed it in the House and should be 
    considered germane to the bill.
        The Speaker: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) makes the point of 
    order against section 208 of the conference report on the bill H.R. 
    2166 on the ground that it would not have been germane to H.R. 2166 
    as passed by the House and is thus subject to the provisions of 
    clause 4, rule XXVIII.
        In passing upon any point of order against a portion of the 
    Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute which the conferees 
    have incorporated in their report, the Chair feels it is important 
    to initially characterize the bill H.R. 2166 in the form as passed 
    by the House. The House-passed bill contained four diverse titles, 
    and contained amendments to diverse portions of the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954. Title I of the House bill provided a refund 
    of 1974 individual income taxes. Title II provided for reductions, 
    including credits, in individual income taxes. Title III made 
    several changes in business taxes, and title IV further affected 
    business taxes by providing for the repeal of the percentage 
    depletion for oil and gas.
        The Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute contained 
    provisions comparable to all four titles in the House-passed bill, 
    and also contained a new title IV amending other portions of the 
    Internal Revenue Code, making further amendments to the code with 
    respect to tax changes affecting individuals and businesses, and a 
    new title VI and title VII, relating to taxation of foreign and 
    domestic oil and gas income and related income, and to the tax 
    deferment and reinvestment period extension, respectively. The 
    provision against which the gentleman makes the point of order was 
    contained in section 205 of title II of the Senate amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chair would call the attention of the House to the 
    precedent contained in Cannon's VIII, section 3042, wherein the 
    Committee of the Whole ruled that to a bill raising revenue by 
    several diverse methods of taxation . . . an amendment in the form 
    of a new section proposing an additional method of taxation--a tax 
    on the undistributed profits of corporations--was held ger

[[Page 8444]]

    mane. The Chair would emphasize that the portion of the Senate 
    amendment included in the conference report against which the point 
    of order has been made was in the form of a new section to the 
    House bill, and was not an amendment to a specific section of the 
    House bill. As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, 
    section 14.4, the test of germaneness in such a situation is the 
    relationship between the new section or title and the subject 
    matter of the bill as a whole.
        The Chair would also point out that section 203 of the House 
    bill, on page 10, amends the same portion of the code which this 
    part of the conference report would amend.
        For these reasons, the Chair holds that section 208 of the 
    conference report is germane to the House-passed bill and overrules 
    the point of order.

Amendment Authorizing Payments to Social Security Recipients

Sec. 26.18 To a House bill containing several diverse amendments to the 
    Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and business tax 
    credits, that part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute contained in a conference report which authorized 
    appropriations for special payments to social security recipients 
    was deemed not to be related to tax benefit provisions in the 
    Internal Revenue Code and was held to be not germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(11) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 2166,(12) it was held that to a 
proposition seeking to reduce tax liabilities of individuals and 
businesses by providing diverse tax credits within the Internal Revenue 
Code, an amendment to provide rebates to recipients under retirement 
and survivor benefit programs was not germane. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 8911, 8912, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Tax Reduction Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sec. 702. Special Payment to Recipients of Benefits Under Certain 
                 Retirement and Survivor Benefit Programs.

        (a) Payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, at the 
    earliest practicable date after the enactment of this Act, make a 
    $50 payment to each individual, who for the month of March, 1975, 
    was entitled . . . to--
        (1) a monthly insurance benefit payable under title II of the 
    Social Security Act,
        (2) a monthly annuity or pension payment under the Railroad 
    Retirement Act of 1935, the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, or the 
    Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, or
        (3) a benefit under the supplemental security income benefits 
    program established by title XVI of the Social Security Act; . . .
        (c) Coordination With Other Federal Programs.--Any payment made

[[Page 8445]]

    by the Secretary of the Treasury under this section to any 
    individual shall not be regarded as income (or, in the calendar 
    year 1975, as a resource) of such individual (or of the family of 
    which he is a member) for purposes of any Federal or State program 
    which undertakes to furnish aid or assistance to individuals or 
    families, where eligibility to receive such aid or assistance (or 
    the amount of such aid or assistance) under such program is based 
    on the need therefor of the individual or family involved. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable Jr., [of New York]: I make a point of 
    order against the conference report on the ground that it contains 
    matter which is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI.
        The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is that 
    section of the report dealing with a rebate to social security 
    recipients. This section appears as section 702 of the conference 
    report on page 55. . . .
        There is clearly nothing in the House bill dealing with social 
    security matters. There is nothing relating to a trust fund or the 
    relationship of trust fund and general fund.
        For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this . .  . 
    is clearly outside the scope of the House bill. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: . . . In the House-passed bill 
    there was a provision very specifically rebating funds to 
    individuals under title I. The measure included in this conference 
    report does not affect the trust fund in any way. It does not in 
    any way amend the Social Security Code.
        In the statement of the managers we say the following:

            The conferees emphasize that these payments are not Social 
        Security benefits in any sense, but are intended to provide to 
        the aged, blind, and disabled a payment comparable in nature to 
        the tax rebate which the bill provides to those who are 
        working.

        Therefore, in a broadly based bill such as this kind, where 
    various kinds of rebates are passed along to different segments of 
    the public, it seems to me that this is perfectly within the scope 
    of the bill and should be determined germane to the bill. . . .
        The Speaker: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title V of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    ``Miscellaneous Provisions'' contained sections which did not amend 
    the Internal Revenue Code and which could not be considered germane 
    to any portion of the House-passed bill or the bill as a whole. 
    Specifically, section 501 of the Senate amendment providing a 
    special payment to recipients of benefits under certain retirement 
    and survivor benefit programs, a modification of which was 
    incorporated into section 702 of the conference report, is not 
    germane to the House-passed bill. That provision is not related to 
    the Internal Revenue Code and would provide an authorization of 
    appropriations from the Treasury.
        For this reason, the Chair holds that the section 702 of the 
    conference report is not germane to the House bill and sustains the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Conable: Mr. Speaker, I move the House reject the 
    nongermane amendment covered by my point of order.

[[Page 8446]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 20 
    minutes in support of his motion.

--Amendment To Provide Unemployment Benefits

Sec. 26.19 To a House bill amending diverse portions of the Internal 
    Revenue Code to provide individual and business tax credits, a 
    portion of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    contained in a conference report providing certain unemployment 
    compensation benefits--a matter not within the class of tax 
    benefits contained in the House bill--was conceded to be not 
    germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(14) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 2166,(15) a point of order against 
a Senate matter in the report was conceded and held to be not germane. 
The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 8911, 8933, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The Tax Reduction Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

                Sec. 701. Certain Unemployment Compensation.

        (a) Amendment of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 
    1974.--Section 102(e) of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 
    Act of 1974 is amended--
        (1) in paragraph (2) thereof, by striking out ``The amount'' 
    and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as provided in paragraph 
    (3), the amount''; and
        (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
        ``(3) Effective only with respect to benefits for weeks of 
    unemployment ending before July 1, 1975, the amount established in 
    such account for any individual shall be equal to the lesser of--
        ``(A) 100 per centum of the total amount of regular 
    compensation (including the dependents' allowances) payable to him 
    with respect to the benefit year (as determined under the State 
    law) on the basis of which he most recently received regular 
    compensation; or
        ``(B) twenty-six times his average weekly benefit amount (as 
    determined for purposes of section 202(b)(i)(C) of the Federal-
    State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970) for his 
    benefit year.''
        (b) Modification of Agreements.--The Secretary of Labor shall, 
    at the earliest practicable date after the enactment of this Act, 
    propose to each State with which he has in effect an agreement 
    entered into pursuant to section 102 of the Emergency Unemployment 
    Compensation Act of 1974 a modification of such agreement designed 
    to cause payments of emergency compensation thereunder to be made 
    in the manner prescribed by such Act, as amended by subsection (a) 
    of this section. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order

[[Page 8447]]

    against the conference report on the ground that it contains matter 
    which is in violation of the provisions of clause 7 of rule XVI. 
    The nongermane matter that I am specifically referring to is that 
    section of the report dealing with section 701, providing certain 
    unemployment compensation benefits. . . .
        I have looked over the House bill, and I can find no reference 
    therein to unemployment compensation benefits. As nearly as I can 
    figure it, this particular section came from a Senate nongermane 
    amendment and has no relation whatsoever to anything that was 
    contained in the House bill.
        I, therefore, say the point of order should be sustained.
        The Speaker: (16) Does the gentleman from Oregon 
    desire to be heard upon the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Oregon concedes the point of 
    order, and the point of order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, although a point of order 
against the nongermane Senate matter contained in the conference report 
was sustained, no motion was made under Rule XXVIII clause 4 to reject 
that matter.

--Amendment Affecting Certain Foreign Tax Credits

Sec. 26.20 To a House bill containing several sections amending diverse 
    portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide certain individual 
    and business tax credits, a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute contained in a conference report, which added a new 
    section to the House bill and which dealt with earnings and profits 
    of controlled foreign corporations and included limitations on the 
    use of foreign tax credits from foreign oil-related income, was 
    held germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(17) the House had under consideration 
the conference report on H.R. 2166, the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. A 
point of order, raised against language in the report on grounds of 
nongermaneness, was overruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 8909, 8915, 8933, 8934, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sec. 602. Taxation of Earnings and Profits of Controlled Foreign 
                    Corporations and Their Shareholders.

        (a) Repeal of Minimum Distribution Exception To Requirement of 
    Current Taxation of Subpart F Income.--
        (1) Repeal of Minimum Distribution Provision.--Section 963 
    (relating to receipt of minimum distributions by domestic 
    corporations) is hereby repealed.

[[Page 8448]]

        (2) Certain Distributions by Controlled Foreign Corporations to 
    Regulated Investment Companies Treated as Dividends.--Subsection 
    (b) of section 851 (relating to limitations on definition of 
    regulated investment company) is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following new sentence:
    ``For purposes of paragraph (2), there shall be treated as 
    dividends amounts included in gross income under section 
    951(a)(1)(A)(i) for the taxable year to the extent that, under 
    section 959(a)(1), there is a distribution out of the earnings and 
    profits of the taxable year which are attributable to the amounts 
    so included.''. . .

    limitation on foreign tax credit for taxes paid in connection with 
                         foreign oil and gas income

        House bill.--No provision.
        Senate amendment.--The Senate amendment repeals the foreign tax 
    credit on all foreign oil-related income and allows any taxes on 
    that income as a deduction. The amendment also provides that 
    foreign oil-related income is to be taxed at a 24-percent rate.
        Conference substitute.--The conference substitute modifies the 
    Senate amendment and applies a strict limitation on the use of 
    foreign tax credits from foreign oil extraction income and foreign 
    oil-related income. . . .
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the conference report on the ground that it 
    contains matter which is in violation of the provisions of clause 7 
    of rule XVI. The nongermane matter that I am specifically referring 
    to is that section of the report dealing with taxation of earnings 
    and profits of controlled foreign corporations and their 
    shareholders in section 602 as reported by the committee of 
    conference. . . .
        As the Speaker well knows, I am sure, from listening carefully 
    to the explanations regarding previous points of order, at no point 
    during the consideration of the House-passed bill is there any 
    mention of foreign taxation and the dealings of foreign taxes 
    insofar as American corporations and their subsidiaries are 
    concerned.
        Title I of the 1975 tax bill dealt with the refund for 1974 
    taxes. Title II dealt with reductions in individual income taxes. 
    Title III dealt with certain changes in business taxes, the title 
    which dealt with the investment tax credit or income tax total, 
    particularly as related to small businesses.
        This particular provision, Mr. Speaker, in no way deals with a 
    matter that was covered, mentioned, or dealt with by the bill that 
    is presented to the House, or voted upon by the House. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Speaker, the bill that 
    the House passed had a great many diverse sections in it; it had 
    credits. The matter that has been raised is an amendment to the 
    Internal Revenue Code very clearly, and much of it is in the way of 
    a credit. We have dealt with credits here both for individuals and 
    for corporations in the bill that the House passed.
        It seems to me that in a bill of this scope and in a bill that 
    deals as broadly with tax credits and matters such as this that 
    does involve an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code, it is

[[Page 8449]]

    very clearly within the province of the bill, and should be ruled 
    germane.
        The Speaker: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.  Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated in the opinion of the Chair on a similar 
    point of order made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) 
    and for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Oregon, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Bill Relating to Boating Safety--Amendment to Internal Revenue Code To 
    Promote Reforestation

Sec. 26.21 A point of order pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, that a 
    conference report on a House bill relating to boating safety, 
    reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
    contained a nongermane Senate amendment amending the Internal 
    Revenue Code to promote reforestation, was conceded and sustained.

    On Sept. 25, 1980,(19) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the conference report on H.R. 4310, the 
Recreational Boating Safety and Facilities Improvement Act of 1980. The 
conference report stated in part: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 126 Cong. Rec. 27410, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 25572, 25574, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 16, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Conference Report (H. Report No. 96-132)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        4310) to amend the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 to improve 
        recreational boating safety and facilities through the 
        development, administration, and financing of a national 
        recreational boating safety and facilities improvement program, 
        and for other purposes, having met, after full and free 
        conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
        respective Houses as follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill and agree to 
        the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the 
        following:

        TITLE I--RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY AND FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT

            Sec. 101. This title may be cited as the ``Recreational 
        Boating Safety and Facilities Improvement Act of 1980.''
            Sec. 102. The Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 (Public Law 
        92-75, 85 Stat. 213), as amended, is amended as follows:
            (1) In section 2 by striking the first sentence and 
        inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``It is declared to be 
        the policy of Congress and the purpose of this Act to improve 
        recreational boating safety and facilities and to foster 
        greater development, use, and enjoyment of all the waters of 
        the United States by encouraging and assisting participation by 
        the several States, the boating industry, and the boating 
        public in the development, administration, and financing of a 
        national recreational boating safety and facilities improvement 
        program; by authorizing the establishment of national 
        construction

[[Page 8450]]

        and performance standards for boats and associated equipment; 
        and by creating more flexible authority governing the use of 
        boats and equipment.'' . . .

                            TITLE III--REFORESTATION
        Sec. 301. Amortization of Reforestation Expenditures.

            (a) In General.--Part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
        the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to itemized 
        deductions for individuals and corporations) is amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following new section:
        ``Sec. 194. Amortization of Reforestation Expenditures.

            ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--In the case of any qualified 
        timber property with respect to which the taxpayer has made (in 
        accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary) an 
        election under this subsection, the taxpayer shall be entitled 
        to a deduction with respect to the amortization of the 
        amortizable basis of qualified timber property based on a 
        period of 84 months. Such amortization deduction shall be an 
        amount, with respect to each month of such period within the 
        taxable year, equal to the amortizable basis at the end of such 
        month divided by the number of months (including the month for 
        which the deduction is computed) remaining in the period. Such 
        amortizable basis at the end of the month shall be computed 
        without regard to the amortization deduction for such month. 
        The 84-month period shall begin on the first day of the first 
        month of the second half of the taxable year in which the 
        amortizable basis is acquired. . . .
            ``(c) Definitions and Special Rule.--For purposes of this 
        section--
            ``(1) Qualified timber property.--The term `qualified 
        timber property' means a woodlot or other site located in the 
        United States which will contain trees in significant 
        commercial quantities and which is held by the taxpayer for the 
        planting, cultivating, caring for, and cutting of trees for 
        sale or use in the commercial production of timber products.

    The proceedings on Sept. 25, 1980, were as follows:

        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 4310) to amend the Federal Boat 
    Safety Act of 1971 to improve recreational boating safety and 
    facilities through the development, administration, and financing 
    of a national recreational boating safety and facilities 
    improvement program, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Under the rule, the 
    conference report is considered as read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order under clause 4 of rule XXVIII that title III of the 
    conference report accompanying H.R. 4310 is a nongermane amendment.
        Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4310, as it passed the House, related to 
    boating safety. It did not amend the Internal Revenue Code. Title 
    III now in the conference report relates to a trust fund for 
    reforestation and contains a significant amendment to the Internal 
    Revenue Code. It would have been nongermane to H.R. 4310 when that 
    bill was originally considered by the House.
        The purpose of the bill before us is to amend the Federal Boat 
    Safety Act to improve recreational boating safety

[[Page 8451]]

    and facilities through the development and financing of a national 
    improvement program. Title III provides several Federal initiatives 
    to promote reforestation on both private and public timberlands by 
    providing an amortization schedule and investment credit for a 
    limited amount of qualifying reforestation expenditures each year, 
    as well as the establishment of a trust fund to finance the 
    reforestation activities.
        There should be no question that title III is nongermane to the 
    purposes of the bill. It has been a long established principle of 
    germaneness that--

            An amendment changing existing law in order to achieve one 
        individual purpose is not germane to a proposition which does 
        not amend that law and which seeks to accomplish another 
        individual purpose. (Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28)

        This is exactly the case before us today. In general the bill 
    would amend the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 whereas title III 
    would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. There is 
    no relationship or similarity of purpose between boat safety and 
    reforestation, except that some boats are made of wood. I contend, 
    Mr. Speaker, that title III should be ruled nongermane and 
    considered in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI. . . .
        Mr. Biaggi: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Frenzel moves that the House reject title III of the 
        conference report accompanying H.R. 4310.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
    Frenzel) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Biaggi) will be recognized for 20 minutes.

Grants to States for Local Public Works Construction Projects--Grants 
    To Assist States in Providing Public Services

Sec. 26.22 Where a House bill reported from the Committee on Public 
    Works and Transportation consisted of one title relating to grants 
    to state and local governments for local public works construction 
    projects, a new title added by the Senate and contained in a 
    conference report providing grants to state and local governments 
    to assist them in providing public services was held not germane to 
    the House bill as proposing a revenue sharing program within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations and as using 
    an approach not closely related to that (public works construction) 
    contained in the House version.

    On Jan. 29, 1976,(2) during consideration of the 
conference report

[[Page 8452]]

on H.R. 5247,(3) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, held that 
a title added by the Senate in the conference report was not germane to 
the House bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones, Jr. of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5247) to authorize a local 
    public works capital development and investment program, and ask 
    unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in 
    lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order that title II of the conference report to H.R. 5247 
    constitutes a nongermane Senate amendment to the House-passed bill 
    and is in violation of clause 4 of rule XXVIII of the House rules. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 5247 was before the House in May, it was 
    for the sole purpose of authorizing appropriations for the 
    construction of public works projects to help alleviate 
    unemployment. Along with 312 other Members of the House, I 
    supported that legislation.
        However, when the bill was before the Senate, title II, an 
    entirely different and unrelated matter, was added. Title II is not 
    a public works provision. Title II simply authorizes appropriations 
    for the basic day-to-day support of the budgets of State and local 
    governments. It is, in short, a revenue sharing provision.
        Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, must have recognized this as 
    revenue sharing legislation when you referred identical legislation 
    introduced in the House exclusively to the Government Operations 
    Committee. Title II clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the 
    Government Operations Committee, not the Public Works Committee.
        Even in the Senate, this provision came out of the Government 
    Operations Committee, not the Public Works Committee. Perhaps if 
    the Senate had a rule on germaneness as we do, we would not be 
    facing this problem right now.
        Had title II been offered in the House when this bill was 
    before us on the floor, it would clearly have been subject to a 
    point of order as nongermane under clause 7 of rule XVI. It, 
    therefore, continues to be nongermane under clause 4 of House rule 
    XXVIII dealing with conference reports.
        Mr. Speaker, I recognize that committee jurisdiction is not the 
    exclusive test of germaneness. I do not base my point of order on 
    this issue alone. This provision simply has nothing to do with 
    public works, the only matter which was before the House in H.R. 
    5247. To the contrary, the use of title II funds for construction 
    purposes is specifically prohibited. Furthermore, there is not one 
    word in title II to guarantee that the funds will be used to 
    stimulate employment, the primary purpose of H.R. 5247.
        Mr. Speaker, title II does not come within the jurisdiction of 
    the Public Works Committee. It does not constitute public works or 
    emergency employment legislation, and it could not have been 
    incorporated into the bill

[[Page 8453]]

    when it was previously before the House. For these reasons, I 
    respectfully request that my point of order be sustained. . . .
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: . . . There has been a 
    certain confusion presented here, and that is in the meaning of the 
    rule which this House passed and which my esteemed chairman, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) referred to. Clause 4, rule 
    XXVIII, was passed by this House in 1970 and 1972. This procedure 
    which the House adopted in 1972 was intended to do away with the 
    situation wherein the Senate . . . attached to a House-passed bill 
    matter that was wholly unrelated to the subject on which the House 
    had acted. . . .
        The bill as reported from the conference does not contain 
    provisions whose subject and substance is different. Title I of the 
    conference report version is almost identical with the House-passed 
    bill. Title II, upon which there is now brought a question of a 
    separate vote, is the conference version and is also directed, as 
    is title I, to the question of assistance in unemployment, and is 
    so aimed at correcting it at the local level. . . . The allocation 
    of funds is dependent on the extent to which unemployment in any 
    area exceeds the national average, so that both the public works, 
    title I, and title II, countercyclical assistance, have the same, 
    identical goal. That is, to ease the current recession. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: . . . The 
    fundamental method used in the original bill to stimulate the 
    economy is to provide for the construction of public works 
    projects. The methods used in the amendment provide for the 
    stabilization of budgets of general purpose governments, the 
    maintenance of basic services ordinarily provided by the State and 
    local governments, emergency support grants to State and local 
    governments to coordinate budget-related actions with the Federal 
    Government. Clearly, the methods provided for in the Senate 
    amendment are on their face so different from those in the House 
    bill as to preclude their being considered as the same or closely 
    allied. For this reason, then, the amendment is in violation of 
    clause 4, rule XVI.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) makes the point of order 
    that title II of the conference report, which was contained in the 
    Senate amendment to H.R. 5247, would not have been germane if 
    offered as an amendment in the House and is thus subject to a point 
    of order under rule XXVIII, clause 4.
        The test of germaneness in this case is the relationship 
    between title II of the conference report and the provisions of 
    H.R. 5247 as it passed the House. The Chair believes that had title 
    II been offered as an amendment in the House it would have been 
    subject to a point of order on two grounds.
        First, one of the requirements of germaneness is that an 
    amendment must relate to the fundamental purpose of the matter 
    under consideration and must seek to accomplish the result of the 
    proposed legislation by a closely related means--Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 28, sections 5 and 6. The fundamental purpose of 
    the bill when considered by the House was to combat

[[Page 8454]]

    unemployment by stimulating activity in the construction industry 
    through grants to States and local governments to be used for the 
    construction of local public works projects.
        While the fundamental purpose of title II of the conference 
    report is related to the economic problems caused by the recession, 
    specifically unemployment, the means proposed to alleviate that 
    problem are not confined to public works construction. Title II 
    authorizes grants to States and local governments to pay for 
    governmental services such as police and fire protection, trash 
    collection and public education. The managers, in their joint 
    statement, specifically state that the grants under title II are 
    for the ``maintenance of basic services ordinarily provided by the 
    State and local governments and that State and local governments 
    shall not use funds received under the act for the acquisition of 
    supplies or for construction unless essential to maintain basic 
    services.'' An additional purpose of this title is to reduce the 
    necessity of increases in State and local government taxes which 
    would have a negative effect on the national economy and offset 
    reductions in Federal taxes designed to stimulate the economy. The 
    Chair therefore finds that the program proposed by title II of the 
    report is not closely related to the method suggested in the House 
    version of the bill.
        Second, title II of the report proposes a revenue sharing 
    approach to the problems faced by State and local governments 
    during the present recession. General revenue sharing is a matter 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations 
    under rule X, clause 1(h)(4), and a bill, H.R. 6416, in many 
    respects identical to title II of the report, was introduced in the 
    House on April 28, 1975, and referred to that committee. While 
    committee jurisdiction is not the exclusive test of germaneness--
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 4.16--it is a relevant 
    test where, as here, the scope of the House bill is within one 
    committee's jurisdiction. The precedents indicate that as a bill 
    becomes more comprehensive in scope the relevance of the test is 
    correspondingly reduced. The bill, as it passed the House, was not 
    a comprehensive antirecession measure overlapping other committees' 
    jurisdictions, but proposed a specific remedy, local public works 
    construction assistance, to a complex problem. Given the limited 
    scope of the bill as it passed the House, the Chair finds the 
    jurisdiction test quite persuasive in this instance.
        For the reasons just stated, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 26.23 Where a House amendment reported from the Committee on 
    Public Works and Transportation consisted of one title relating to 
    grants to state and local governments for local public works 
    construction projects, a new title contained in the Senate bill and 
    in the conference report providing grants to state and local 
    governments to assist them in providing public services was held 
    not germane to the House amendment, as proposing a revenue-sharing 
    program within

[[Page 8455]]

    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations, and not 
    closely related to the public works construction provisions 
    contained in the House version.

    During consideration of the conference report on S. 3201 
(4) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that 
to be germane, an amendment must not only seek to accomplish the same 
result as the matter proposed to be amended but must contemplate a 
method of achieving that end which is closely related to the method 
contained in the proposition to which offered. The proceedings of June 
23, 1976,(5) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. A bill to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act.
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 20020-29, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 3201) to amend the 
    Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, to increase the 
    antirecessionary effectiveness of the program, and for other 
    purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order that title II of the conference report constitutes a 
    nongermane Senate provision to the House-passed version of the 
    bill, in violation of rule XXVIII, clause 4. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, we are in the identical position we were in last 
    January when a House-passed bill authorizing grants for public 
    works construction projects was brought back to the House 
    containing a Senate amendment that established an entirely new 
    program of Federal assistance to State and local governments.
        The Chair will recall that at that time I raised the same point 
    of order and the Chair sustained it on two grounds: First, that the 
    program proposed in title II did not relate sufficiently to the 
    fundamental purpose of the House-passed bill; and second, that 
    title II proposes a revenue-sharing program which is within the 
    jurisdiction of the Government Operations Committee.
        Mr. Speaker, we have precisely the same situation here. The 
    House has passed H.R. 12972, providing solely for the construction 
    of public works projects to help cut unemployment. The Senate added 
    a provision for grants to State and local governments to pay for 
    basic governmental services, and that provision has been brought 
    back again as title II of the conference report.
        Title II is still a form of revenue sharing and clearly not 
    germane to the subject matter of H.R. 12972. Also, it is not within 
    the jurisdiction of the Public Works and Transportation Committee. 
    . . .
        Mr. Jones of Alabama: . . . Mr. Speaker, this proposition has 
    been resolved before. We concede the point of order.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
    Jones) concedes the

[[Page 8456]]

    point of order. The point of order is sustained. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Brooks moves the House reject title II of S. 3201 as 
        reported by the Committee of Conference.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) is 
    recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Brooks) has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Wright) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Wright) has the right to close debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that in the event that 
    title II would be voted down, the recourse for the House would be 
    to send this bill, as amended, back to the Senate, and they could 
    then appoint another conference committee and we could proceed with 
    the bill and pass the bill without even having to get it vetoed?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the House 
    could insist upon its amendment and return the bill to the Senate.

House Bill Authorizing Funds for States To Create Public Works Jobs--
    Amendment Mandating Expenditure of Previously Appropriated Funds 
    Deferred Under Impoundment Control Act

Sec. 26.24 In a conference report on a House bill (originally reported 
    from the Committee on Public Works and Transportation) authorizing 
    funds for state and local governments to create new public works 
    jobs, a Senate amendment adding a new title to mandate the 
    expenditure of previously appropriated funds for public works and 
    reclamation (as a purported disapproval of the deferral of such 
    funds under the Impoundment Control Act) and to set a discount rate 
    for reclamation and public works projects--matters within the 
    respective jurisdictions of the Committees on Appropriations and 
    Interior and Insular Affairs--was conceded to be nongermane and 
    subject to a point of order under clause 4 of Rule XXVIII and to a 
    motion to reject that portion.

[[Page 8457]]

    On May 3, 1977,(8) the House had under consideration the 
conference report on H.R. 11 when the situation described above 
occurred; the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 13242, 13243, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 11) to increase the 
    authorization for the Local Public Works Capital Development and 
    Investment Act of 1976, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Robert A.] Young of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the inclusion of title II 
    of the conference report on H.R. 11 is in violation of clause 4 of 
    rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
        Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious to my colleagues that this 
    bill--H.R. 11--has come back from conference with an unrelated, 
    nongermane amendment.
        Title 1 of this bill authorizes $4 billion to be channeled to 
    State and local governments throughout the country to create new 
    public works jobs. The goal is to reduce the Nation's high 
    unemployment rate.
        In contrast, title 2 concerns previously approved water 
    projects, with a principal goal of providing new flood control, 
    water management and recreational benefits.
        The jurisdiction over title 2 currently rests with the 
    Appropriations Committee, and no longer involves the Public Works 
    Committee. Therefore, title 2 should be excluded from consideration 
    now and allowed to be handled by the appropriate committee.
        My argument of nongermaneness is based on several precedents 
    cited in Deschler's Procedure. May I call your attention to 4.25 of 
    Deschler's chapter 28 which reads:

            To a bill reported by the Committee on Public Works 
        authorizing funds for highway construction and for mass 
        transportation systems which use motor vehicles on highways, an 
        amendment relating to urban mass transit (a subject within the 
        jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency) and to 
        rapid rail transportation and assistance to the railroad 
        industry (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce) was ruled out as not germane. 
        118 Congressional Record 34111, 34115, 92d Congress, 2nd 
        Session, Oct. 5, 1972.

        I would also like to cite [4.9] reading:

            An amendment relating to railroads generally, which was 
        offered to a bill pertaining solely to urban transportation, 
        was ruled out as not germane. 116 Congressional Record 34191, 
        91st Congress, 1st Session, Sept. 29, 1970.

        Finally I ask you to refer to 4.12 which reads:

            To a bill establishing penalties for desecration of the 
        American flag, an amendment establishing certain restrictions 
        upon exporting the flag was ruled out as not germane. 113 
        Congressional Record 16495, 90th Congress, 1st Session, June 
        20, 1967.

[[Page 8458]]

        These precedents form the basis of my point of order--that 
    title 2 is simply not germane to the local public works bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    (Mr. Roe) wish to be heard in debate on the point of order?
        Mr. Roe: No, Mr. Speaker. We concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
    Roe) concedes the point of order. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move, in conformity with 
    the matter involved in the point of order, that the House reject 
    title II of the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Young) is recognized for 20 minutes on his motion.

Bill Restricting Antitrust Remedies Against Local Governments--
    Amendment To Repeal Limitation on Agency's Use of Funds To Conduct 
    Antitrust Actions Against Local Governments

Sec. 26.25 To a House bill restricting remedies under existing 
    antitrust law against local governments, but not addressing 
    authority of a federal agency to prosecute antitrust actions or the 
    availability of appropriated funds to that agency for that purpose, 
    a Senate amendment included in a conference report repealing a 
    limitation in an appropriation law for that year on the use of 
    funds by that agency to conduct antitrust actions against local 
    governments was held not germane, since the amendment related to 
    agency activities and funds not addressed in the House bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 6027 (10) in the House on 
Oct. 11, 1984,(11) the Speaker Pro Tempore sustained a point 
of order in the circumstances described above. The conference report, 
submitted on Oct. 10,(12) and the proceedings of Oct. 11, 
were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984.
11. 130 Cong. Rec. 32219, 32220, 32223, 32224, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Id. at p. 31441.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey] submitted the 
    following conference report and statement on the bill (H.R. 6027) 
    to clarify the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the 
    official conduct of local governments:

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. No. 98-1158)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        6027) to clarify the application of the Federal

[[Page 8459]]

        antitrust laws to the official conduct of local governments, 
        having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to 
        recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as 
        follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill and agree to 
        the same with an amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment insert the following. . . .
            Sec. 5. Section 510 of the Department of Commerce, Justice, 
        and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation 
        Act, 1985 (Public Law 98-411), is repealed. . . .

        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 616, I 
    call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 6027) to clarify 
    the application of the Clayton Act to the official conduct of local 
    governments, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .
        Mr. Rodino (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the conference report be considered as read.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Charles] Wilson [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of 
    order.
        I make the point of order that the last section of the 
    conference report contains nongermane matters within the definition 
    of clause 4 of rule XXVIII.  . . .
        Mr. Speaker, if the objectionable section had been offered to 
    the House bill, it would have been in violation of the provisions 
    of clause 7 of rule XVI of the House rules. The provision is a 
    repeal of appropriations law.
        That provision deals with spending levels for the Federal Trade 
    Commission for this fiscal year. The legislation is a permanent 
    piece of legislation that amends our antitrust laws. These 
    amendments reduce monetary damages that local governments may be 
    liable for in antitrust suits.
        That has nothing to do with the provision of the last section 
    of this conference report to which my point of order is directed.
        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order against section 5 of the conference report. The fundamental 
    purpose of this conference report is to provide for continued 
    enforcement of the antitrust laws without severely damaging local 
    governments. This legislation before us continues to ensure that 
    antitrust violations will be prosecuted; but limits the amount of 
    damages which can be assessed in such a case against a local 
    governmental unit. It allows the aggrieved party to ensure that 
    injunctive relief will be available to terminate anticompetitive 
    activity of a local government.
        The fundamental purpose of the section against which the 
    gentleman raises a point of order is to permit the Federal Trade 
    Commission to continue to bring antitrust suits against 
    municipalities. The Federal Trade Commission is limited in the 
    remedies that it may pursue: The FTC cannot seek damages, only 
    injunctive relief. That is what this bill is all about, preventing 
    damage suits while leaving injunctive remedies in place.

[[Page 8460]]

        Mr. Speaker, I believe that the provisions of section 5 are 
    wholly consistent with the fundamental purpose of the rest of the 
    conference report and are therefore germane and the point of order 
    should not be sustained. . . .
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: . . . The so-called 
    taxicab rider which would be repealed by section 5 of this bill 
    currently impedes the ability of the FTC to bring the very type of 
    injunctive relief enforcement which the bill before us envisions 
    and presumes. While removing the threat of money damages, we do not 
    intend that local governments be totally immune from Federal 
    antitrust laws. Suits for injunctive relief will be a safety net 
    against potential anticompetitive activities by localities.
        Thus, repeal of section 510 of Public Law 98-411 is fully 
    consistent with the overall purposes of this bill. To remove 
    section 5 from this legislation would, ironically, prevent the FTC 
    enforcement when a locality is involved in anticompetitive conduct.

        Again, the FTC would not recover money damages under the 
    structure of H.R. 6027, but it could seek an injunction to bring 
    anticompetitive activities by localities to a halt. The fair 
    balance in this legislation would be distorted if the FTC remains 
    unable to exercise its normal statutory responsibilities to enforce 
    compliance with our antitrust laws.
        Section 5 is consistent with the fundamental purposes of this 
    legislation and should remain in this bill. It is germane in a 
    logical, substantive sense. This is an antitrust bill. The FTC is 
    an antitrust enforcement agency. H.R. 6027 is an amendment to the 
    Clayton Act. The FTC, along with the Department of Justice, 
    enforces that very same Clayton Act.
        Section 510 of Public Law 98-411 was, in reality, legislation 
    on an appropriation bill, so its repeal is germane, but the fact is 
    that its original enactment was not germane. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . [T]he Chair has had the 
    opportunity of reviewing the point of order raised by the gentleman 
    from Texas that pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVIII, the conferees 
    on H.R. 6027 have agreed to a nongermane Senate provision. Section 
    5 of the conference report on H.R. 6027 contains the substance of 
    section 3 of the Senate amendment, which repealed section 510 of 
    Public Law 98-411, the State, Justice, Commerce Appropriation Act 
    for fiscal year 1985. The section proposed to be repealed prohibits 
    the expenditure of funds in that appropriation act for the Federal 
    Trade Commission to conduct antitrust actions against 
    municipalities or other units of local government.
        H.R. 6027 as passed by the House only addresses the issue of 
    antitrust remedies for claims against local governments, and merely 
    limits monetary relief for a Federal or private cause of action 
    against a local government under the Clayton Act. While the House 
    bill may limit the remedies which the FTC may obtain in such suits, 
    in the same way it limits any claimant, the House bill does not 
    address the general authority of the FTC to prosecute antitrust 
    actions, or the conditions under which the FTC may use its 
    appropriated funds for the coming fiscal year.
        The Chair would also point out that the conference report and 
    Senate

[[Page 8461]]

    amendment directly amend a general appropriation act not addressed 
    in the House bill.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order. 
    . . .
        Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to clause 4(b) of 
    rule XXVIII, to strike section 5 of the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] 
    is entitled to 20 minutes in support of his motion.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the Chair sustains a point of order that 
conferees have agreed to a nongermane Senate provision, a motion to 
reject that provision is in order pursuant to clause 4(b) of Rule 
XXVIII, and is debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided between the 
Member making the motion and a Member opposed; if the motion to reject 
is not agreed to, debate commences on the conference report itself.

House Bill Narrowly Amending Small Business Act--Senate Amendment 
    Providing for Payment of Attorney Fees to Parties Prevailing 
    Against United States in Court

Sec. 26.26 To a House bill narrowly amending the Small Business Act 
    reported from the Committee on Small Business, a Senate amendment 
    adding a new title providing for the payment of attorney fees and 
    other court expenses to parties prevailing against the United 
    States in court litigation on any subject matter, and amending 
    title 28 (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary) was held not germane, pending a motion to recede and 
    concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment including such 
    provisions, after the conference report on the bill had been ruled 
    out of order.

    The proceedings of Oct. 1, 1980,(14) during 
consideration of H.R. 5612 in the House, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 126 Cong. Rec. 28638-42, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Smith of Iowa moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        5612) to amend section 8(a) of the Small Business Act and 
        concur therein with the following amendment:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        Senate, insert the following:

[[Page 8462]]

           ``Part A. Small Business Administration Minority Business 
                         Development Program Amendments

                     TITLE II--EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT

            Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the ``Equal Access to 
        Justice Act''.

                              findings and purpose

            Sec. 202. (a) The Congress finds that certain individuals, 
        partnerships, corporations, and labor and other organizations 
        may be deterred from seeking review of, or defending against, 
        unreasonable governmental action because of the expense 
        involved in securing the vindication of their rights in civil 
        actions and in administrative proceedings. . . .

           award of fees and other expenses in certain agency actions

            (Sec. 203. (a)(1) Subchapter I of chapter 5 of title 5, 
        United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
        ``Sec.  504. Costs and fees of parties

            ``(a)(1) An agency that conducts an adversary adjudication 
        shall award, to a prevailing party other than the United 
        States, fees and other expenses incurred by that party in 
        connection with that proceeding, unless the adjudicative 
        officer of the agency finds that the position of the agency as 
        a party to the proceeding was substantially justified or that 
        special circumstances make an award unjust.''
            ``(d)(1) Fees and other expenses awarded under this section 
        may be paid by any agency over which the party prevails from 
        any funds made available to the agency, by appropriation or 
        otherwise, for such purpose. If not paid by any agency, the 
        fees and other expenses shall be paid in the same manner as the 
        payment of final judgments is made pursuant to section 2414 of 
        title 28, United States Code. . . .''

        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, this amendment retains all of 
    the language agreed to by the conferees, but it specifically 
    provides that the provisions for the payment of judgments, 
    attorney's fees and other expenses are effective only to the extent 
    and in the amounts approved in advance in appropriations acts. . . 
    .
        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I will 
    again raise a point of order of an appropriation in a legislative 
    bill, for the reason that this amendment, if adopted, would require 
    an affirmative action at any time against, for example, the 
    Comptroller General before he could issue a voucher authorizing the 
    payment of funds from the Treasury as to whether or not the award 
    of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to this proposed bill was 
    something heretofore authorized and for which funds had theretofore 
    been appropriated.
        This would be an added burden and an added activity on the part 
    of the Comptroller General and would constitute, I respectfully 
    submit, an appropriation on a legislative bill. . . .
        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I further 
    make a point of order. . . .
        [T]he amendment, as I understand it, further allows for 
    attorneys' fees to be paid in excess of what was prescribed for in 
    the legislation out of the Small Business Committee. The general 
    application of the bill is far in excess. I still think that the 
    germaneness of the amendment of the gentleman is in question. . . .

[[Page 8463]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The Chair will dispose 
    of the appropriation point of order first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Then the Chair will take up the matter of germaneness.
        On page 22 of the motion the following limitation under section 
    207 is included:

            The payment of judgments, fees and other expenses in the 
        same manner as the payment of final judgments as provided in 
        this act is effective only to the extent and in such amounts as 
        are provided in advance in appropriation acts.

        Therefore, the point of order is overruled under clause 5 rule 
    XXI.
        The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Rostenkowski) if he desires to make a point of order as to the 
    germaneness of a portion of the motion offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa.
        Mr. Rostenkowski: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the attorneys' 
    fees is not germane to the narrow small business bill.
        Therefore, the gentleman's amendment strikes at the germaneness 
    of the bill that is being considered before us. Therefore, Mr. 
    Speaker, if it is in excess, I would deem that the amendment is not 
    germane.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is now ready to rule. While 
    the motion is germane to the Senate amendment which contains the 
    provision concerning attorneys' fees, the Chair would rule that the 
    language is not germane to the original House bill which narrowly 
    amended the Small Business Act in an unrelated way. That is, under 
    clause 5 of rule XXVIII, the Chair would sustain a point of order 
    as to title II of the motion.
        Does the gentleman from Illinois have a motion to reject that 
    portion?
        Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rostenkowski moves to strike title II of the motion 
        offered by the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Smith.

Housed-passed Bill Relating to Employment and Training--Senate 
    Provision To Promote Formation of Labor-Management Committees

Sec. 26.27 A Senate provision contained in a conference report, 
    proposing the establishment of programs to encourage the formation 
    of joint labor-management committees, was held not germane to the 
    House-passed bill, which amended the Comprehensive Employment and 
    Training Act with respect to improved employment and training 
    services but did not address labor-management relations.

    During consideration of the conference report on S. 2570 in the 
House on Oct. 14, 1978,(16) a point of order against the 
provision de

[[Page 8464]]

scribed above was conceded. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 38559-62, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 2570) to amend the 
    Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 to provide 
    improved employment and training services, to extend the 
    authorization, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Pursuant to the rule, 
    the statement of the managers is considered as read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
    of order with respect to the conference report on S. 2570, 
    Comprehensive Employment and Training Act Amendments of 1978, on 
    the grounds that the conference report contains nongermane matter. 
    Specifically, section 6 of the report proposes to include a ``Labor 
    Management Cooperation Act of 1978.''. . .
        Mr. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order. I think 
    it is valid.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I make a motion of high privilege to 
    reject the nongermane matter which was the subject of the point of 
    order just sustained.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ashbrook moves to reject section 6 of the conference 
        report.

    In speaking on his motion, Mr. Ashbrook further addressed the 
issues affecting the germaneness of the Senate provision:

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, the point of order was conceded for 
    obvious reasons. It is a statutory enactment.
        Mr. Speaker, this section has absolutely nothing to do with the 
    Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. Further it was not 
    contained in the House bill H.R. 12542 nor was it contained in the 
    amendments of the House to the bill S. 2570.
        This section was added by the Senate. In examining the 
    substance of this section, it is quite clear that it is not germane 
    to the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. The joint 
    statement of managers accompanying the conference report 
    specifically notes that it is: ``a separate statute to provide for 
    the establishment of programs to encourage the formation of joint 
    labor management committees.''
        The purpose of such committees would be to improve 
    communications between labor and management, to enhance job 
    security and organizational effectiveness and to assist labor 
    organizations and employers in resolving problems not susceptible 
    to resolution within the collective bargaining process. These joint 
    labor management committees would operate on a plant, area and 
    industrywide basis.
        Significantly, this section of the conference report amends 
    several sections of existing law in the Labor-Management Relations 
    Act of 1947. It amends section 203 and 205 to provide for 
    administration of this new program by Federal mediation and 
    conciliation services.
        In addition, section 6 of the conference report amends section 
    203(C) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The effect of this 
    amendment is to

[[Page 8465]]

    make employer payments to such joint labor management committees a 
    mandatory subject of bargaining.
        I believe that the precedents unequivocally establish that this 
    section of the conference report is nongermane. For instance, under 
    section 799 of the annotation of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives--on page 539--it is stated:

            Generally to a bill amending one existing law, an amendment 
        changing the provisions of another law or prohibiting 
        assistance under any other law is not germane (May 11, 1976).

        Further in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 33, 
    precedents are cited with respect to amendments changing existing 
    law to bills not citing the law. For instance the precedent cited 
    at section 33.2 holds that to a bill amending two sections of the 
    Fair Labor Standards Act an amendment proposing changes in the 
    Tariff Act of 1930 was ruled out as nongermane (113 Cong. Rec. 
    27214, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 28, 1967).
        In sum, because section 6 of the conference report amends 
    existing law that was not the subject of the House passed bill to 
    reauthorize the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, such 
    section should be ruled out as nongermane. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) to reject section 6 of 
    the conference report.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker Pro Tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it. . . .
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Symms) there were--ayes 61, noes 
    96.
        So the motion was rejected.

House Bill Concerning Foreign Relations and Operation of State 
    Department and Other Agencies--Senate Amendment To Provide 
    Guidelines for Acceptance of Foreign Gifts

Sec. 26.28 To a House bill containing diverse amendments to existing 
    laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations, relating to foreign relations and the operation of the 
    Department of State and related agencies, a portion of a Senate 
    amendment thereto contained in a conference report, amending the 
    Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (within the jurisdiction of the 
    same committee) to provide guidelines and procedures for the 
    acceptance of foreign gifts by United States employees and to 
    provide that the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
    adopt regulations governing acceptance by Members and House 
    employees of foreign gifts, was held germane when a point of order 
    was raised against a portion of the conference report under Rule 
    XXVIII clause 4.

[[Page 8466]]

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 6689 
(18) in the House on Aug. 3, 1977,(19) the 
Speaker Pro Tempore overruled a point of order in the circumstances 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 1978.
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 26532, 26533, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       foreign gifts and decorations

        Sec. 515. (a)(1) Section 7342 of title 5, United States Code, 
    is amended to read as follows:
    ``Sec. 7342. Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and 
    decorations

        ``(a) For the purpose of this section--
        ``(1) `employee' means--
        ``(A) an employee as defined by section 2105 of this title and 
    an officer or employee of the United States Postal Service or of 
    the Postal Rate Commission . . .
        ``(F) a Member of Congress as defined by section 2106 of this 
    title (except the Vice President) and any Delegate to the Congress 
    . . .
        ``(6) `employing agency' means--
        ``(A) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the 
    House of Representatives, for Members and employees of the House of 
    Representatives, except that those responsibilities specified in 
    subsections (c)(2)(A), (e), and (g)(2)(B) shall be carried out by 
    the Clerk of the House . . .
        (D) the department, agency, office, or other entity in which an 
    employee is employed, for other legislative branch employees and 
    for all executive branch employees . . .
        ``(b) An employee may not-- . . .
        ``(2) accept a gift or decoration, other than in accordance 
    with the provisions of subsections (c) and (d).
        ``(c)(1) The Congress consents to--
        ``(A) the accepting and retaining by an employee of a gift of 
    minimal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of 
    courtesy; and
        ``(B) the accepting by an employee of a gift of more than 
    minimal value when such gift is in the nature of an educational 
    scholarship or medical treatment or when it appears that to refuse 
    the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise 
    adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, except 
    that--
        ``(i) a tangible gift of more than minimal value is deemed to 
    have been accepted on behalf of the United States and, upon 
    acceptance, shall become the property of the United States. . . .
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Caputo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        I would like to make a point of order and I regret that it 
    comes at so late an hour and after the previous discussion. I make 
    the point of order that the matter contained in section 515 of the 
    conference report would not be germane to H.R. 6689 under clause 7 
    of rule XVI if offered in the House and is therefore subject to a 
    point of order under clause 4 of rule XXVIII.
        Let me state that the language in the conference report 
    substantially changes the terms under which the Members of Congress 
    can accept or authorize acceptance of things of value from foreign 
    governments.
        The Constitution clearly provides in article I that each House 
    shall write its

[[Page 8467]]

    own rules. The House has a rule of its own on this matter, rule 44, 
    which we only recently modified, under which Members of Congress 
    could receive things of value from foreign governments.
        The conference report changes that rule because it is a 
    subsequent act of this House and in direct conflict with that rule. 
    In Jefferson's Manual, section 335 and Deschler's Procedures, 
    chapter 5, that is clearly improper. We cannot change the rules of 
    the House in that manner. Let me read from Jefferson's Manual, 
    section 335 briefly. It says:

            But a committee may not report a recommendation which, if 
        carried into effect, would change a rule of the House unless a 
        measure proposing amendments to House rules has initially been 
        referred to the Committee of the Whole by the House.

        This has not been referred to the Committee of the Whole by the 
    House as required by the precedents. Indeed, this is the first time 
    the House has viewed this matter and it would have been impossible 
    for us to have referred it to the Committee of the Whole. It was 
    put in by the other body. We never considered it.
        If the Chair does not sustain my point of order, he will be in 
    effect sustaining the other body in writing the rules of this 
    House. . . .
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, clause 4 of 
    House rule 43 deals only with gifts to employees. It does not deal 
    with gifts of foreign governments, which is the subject of this 
    amendment.
        Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we have specifically provided that 
    nothing in this section shall be construed in derogation of any 
    regulations prescribed by any Member or agency, and in this 
    instance it would be the Congress or the Ethics Committee, which 
    provides for more stringent limitations on the receipt of gifts and 
    declarations by employees.
        We are dealing with this in this amendment, because it deals 
    with the foreign gifts and declarations section which affects other 
    members of the Government not having anything to do incidentally 
    with Members of the House and in no way changes the rules of the 
    House.
        Mr. Caputo: Mr. Speaker, on page 21 of the committee report, 
    section 515 says such act is amended and then it says, ``a Member 
    of Congress.'' It clearly applies to Members of Congress.
        Let me state what it does. It permits Members of Congress to 
    accept gifts of more than minimum value.
        Page 22, section (c)(1)(B) clearly changes rule 24.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order that the 
    conference report contains, in section 515, matter contained in the 
    Senate amendment which would not have been germane to the bill if 
    offered in the House.
        Section 515 amends the Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act to 
    provide new guidelines and procedures relating to the acceptance by 
    employees of the United States of gifts and awards from foreign 
    governments. The section provides that the Committee on Standards

[[Page 8468]]

    of Official Conduct shall have the functions of regulating the 
    minimum value of an acceptable gift for Members and employees of 
    the House of Representatives, of consenting to the acceptance by 
    Members and employees of gifts in certain circumstances, and of 
    disposing of unacceptable gifts through the General Services 
    Administration. H.R. 6689, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
    as passed by the House, contained a wide variety of amendments to 
    existing laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations relating generally to the foreign relations 
    of the United States and the operations of the Department of State, 
    the U.S. Information Agency, and the Board for International 
    Broadcasting. It thus appears to the Chair that an amendment to the 
    Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act, a law within the jurisdiction 
    of the committee and relative to our foreign relations, would have 
    been germane to the bill if offered in the House, particularly 
    since section 111 of the House bill dealt with foreign employment 
    by officers of the United States notwithstanding article I, section 
    9 of the Constitution. The Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act arose 
    from the identical constitutional provision. The fact that the 
    Senate amendment placed new responsibilities on a standing 
    committee of the House does not render the provision subject to a 
    point of order, since no attempt is made to amend the rules of the 
    House or to otherwise exceed the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The point of order was based on the grounds 
that the provision had the effect of amending the Rules of the House, 
to allow the acceptance of gifts prohibited by House Rule 43, the Code 
of Official Conduct. The actual effect of the provision, however, was 
merely to assign the regulatory authority under the Act in relation to 
the House of Representatives, not to supersede a more restrictive 
standard imposed by the Rules or standards of the House of 
Representatives.

Bill Requiring Oil Imports To Be Carried on United States Vessels--
    Amendment Relating to Construction of Vessels in Domestic and 
    Foreign Commerce

Sec. 26.29 To a House bill requiring that a percentage of United States 
    oil imports be carried on United States-flag vessels, a modified 
    portion of a Senate amendment contained in a conference report 
    dealing with the construction of vessels in either domestic or 
    foreign commerce to meet certain antipollution requirements was 
    held not germane.

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 8193 
(1) in

[[Page 8469]]

the House on Oct. 10, 1974,(2) it was held that to a bill 
imposing vessel cargo preference rules for the importation of certain 
products in foreign commerce, a Senate amendment relating to 
construction of vessels used in foreign and domestic commerce was not 
germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The Energy Transportation Security Act.
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 35181, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the bill (H.R. 8193) to require that a 
    percentage of United States oil imports be carried on United 
    States-flag vessels, and ask unanimous consent that the statement 
    of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [of Delaware]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against section 6 of the conference report under 
    rule 28, clause 4(a), and rule 16, clause 7, the germaneness rule.
        Section 6 is not germane because it deals with a different 
    subject matter--the construction requirements of vessels--than the 
    bill which deals with the regulation of oil imports.
        The conference report amends section 901 of the Merchant Marine 
    Act of 1936 (46 U.S.C. 1241) which deals with the operation, 
    charter, and cargo of vessels.
        Section 6 of the conference report--originally adopted by the 
    Senate and not in the House bill--deals with the construction of 
    vessels and antipollution procedures contained in the Ports and 
    Waterways Safety Act of 1972.
        Section 6 has nothing to do with vessel cargoes. It requires 
    construction of vessels with double bottoms for use on certain 
    limited waters of the United States. This is in no way related to 
    the purpose or intent of the bill which is to place cargo 
    preference rules on the importation of oil and oil products.
        Under the precedents of the House under rule 16, clause 7 
    similar amendments have been held nongermane. See precedents V, 
    5884 and decisions of Chairman Garrett, May 6, 1913 (page 1234) and 
    Speaker Clark, May 8, 1913 (page 1381). . . .
        Mrs. Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, the bill as amended by the Senate, 
    and as modified by the conferees, makes explicit the fact that the 
    U.S.-flag tankers subject to the bill must be constructed and 
    operated using the ``best available pollution technology.'' In any 
    case, this would in all probability be inferred from the term 
    ``U.S.-flag commercial vessels'' in the House-passed bill--see 
    Public Law 92-340.
        In addition, the provision requires that certain tankers have 
    double bottoms, but the requirement in no way changes the thrust of 
    the House bill. In all candor, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see how it can 
    be argued that a provision requiring pollution prevention 
    technology and standards on the vessels carrying the preference 
    cargo mandated by the bill can be considered nongermane. . . .
        The Speaker: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Delaware makes a point of order against 
    section

[[Page 8470]]

    6 of the conference report on H.R. 8193 on the ground that the 
    section is not germane to the provisions of the bill as passed by 
    the House.
        The bill as passed by the House related solely to the 
    requirement that a percentage of U.S. oil imports to be carried on 
    U.S.-flag vessels and provided regulations in relation thereto. 
    Section 7 of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    directed to the construction of vessels transporting oil either in 
    foreign or domestic commerce. As modified by section 6 of the 
    conference report, that portion of the conference report is clearly 
    not related to the subject matter of the House bill, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order that section 6 of the conference report 
    is not germane to H.R. 8193.
        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. du Pont moves that the House reject section 6 of the 
        bill, H.R. 8193, as reported by the committee of conference.

        (Mr. du Pont asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Speaker, the Chair has just ruled that section 
    6 of the bill as reported by the committee of conference is not 
    germane. Let me say to my colleagues what this means. This is not a 
    point of order similar to a point of order made in a regular House 
    procedure. In that case section 6 would simply be stricken from the 
    bill under consideration and that would be the end of it, but that 
    is not the situation we have here.
        We are dealing with a conference report and because we are 
    dealing with a conference report we are entitled to a separate vote 
    on the nongermane section, so even though section 6 of the 
    conference report was ruled not germane, the debate now occurs on 
    that section, and at the end of 40 minutes we will have a vote 
    solely on section 6, and then we will go on to consider the rest of 
    the conference report.

Certain Exemptions From Tariff Duty Applicable to United States 
    Vessels--Amendment To Extend Unemployment Benefits

Sec. 26.30 To a bill exempting from tariff duty certain equipment and 
    repairs for vessels operated by or for agencies of the United 
    States, a modified section of a Senate amendment thereto extending 
    benefits under the unemployment compensation program was held to be 
    not germane.

    On July 31, 1974,(4) the House had under consideration 
the conference report on H.R. 8217, a bill exempting from tariff duty 
certain equipment and repairs for vessels operated by or for agencies 
of the United States. A Senate amendment, reported from conference in 
disagreement, had added nongermane provisions, including pro

[[Page 8471]]

posed changes relating to unemployment compensation and the Social 
Security program. Some modification of the Senate provisions was 
proposed, by means of a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment with a further amendment. A point of order was made on the 
grounds that such portion of the Senate amendment as was contained in 
the motion was not germane to the House-passed measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 26082, 26083, 26088, 26089, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 8217) to exempt from duty 
    certain equipment and repairs for vessels operated by or for any 
    agency of the United States, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arkansas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the statement.
        (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the 
    House of July 16, 1974.) . . .
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mills moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, H.R. 8217, and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment to the text of the bill (page 2, after line 6)), 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 3. The last sentence of section 203(e)(2) of the 
        Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 
        (as added by section 20 of Public Law 93-233 and amended by 
        section 2 of Public Law 93-256 and by section 2 of Public Law 
        93-329) is amended by striking out ``August 1, 1974'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``April 30, 1975''.
            Sec. 4. (a) The second sentence of section 204(b) of the 
        Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1971 is amended to 
        read as follows: ``Amounts appropriated as repayable advances 
        and paid to the States under section 203 shall be repaid, 
        without interest, as provided in section 905(d) of the Social 
        Security Act.''. . .
            Sec. 5. Section 1631 of the Social Security Act is amended 
        by adding the following at the end thereof:

           ``reimbursement to states for interim assistance payments

            ``(g)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (d)(1) and subsection 
        (b) as it relates to the payment of less than the correct 
        amount of benefits, the Secretary may, upon written 
        authorization by an individual, withhold benefits due with 
        respect to that individual and may pay to a State (or a 
        political subdivision thereof if agreed to by the Secretary and 
        the State) from the benefits withheld an amount sufficient to 
        reimburse the State (or political subdivision) for interim 
        assistance furnished on behalf of the individual by the State 
        (or political subdivision). . . .

        Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order on section 3 of this bill because it does not conform to the 
    House germaneness rule, rule 28, clause 5(b)(1).
        In no way can this section be germane to the House-passed H.R. 
    8217.

[[Page 8472]]

        The House bill dealt with exempting from duty certain equipment 
    and repairs for vessels operated by or for any agency of the United 
    States where the entries were made in connection with vessels 
    arriving before January 5, 1971.
        Section 3 deals with the unemployment compensation program as 
    it relates to extended benefits. This has nothing to do with the 
    ``repair of vessels.''
        Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is necessary to take time to 
    explain why the Senate unemployment compensation amendment is 
    nongermane to the House-passed tariff bill.
        It is nongermane on its face, and I ask that my point of order 
    be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the point of order is 
    well taken. I cannot resist the point of order.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Pickle: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Pickle moves that the House reject section 3 of the 
        proposed amendment to the Senate amendment to the text of the 
        bill H.R. 8217.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Mills) will be recognized for 20 minutes.

Bill Authorizing Appropriations to Carry Out Commodity Exchange Act--
    Senate Provisions Authorizing Transfer of Forest Lands and Changing 
    Basis for Computing Emergency Compensation Under Agricultural Act

Sec. 26.31 On a conference report on a Senate amendment to a House 
    bill, where the House bill only authorized appropriations to carry 
    out the Commodity Exchange Act and made technical improvements in 
    that Act, the Chair sustained points of order and entertained 
    motions to reject two nongermane Senate provisions included in the 
    conference report, pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII, as follows: 
    (1) a provision authorizing the transfer of national forest lands 
    in Nebraska; and (2) a provision changing the basis for computation 
    of emergency compensation for the 1986 wheat program under the 
    Agricultural Act of 1949.

    On Oct. 15, 1986,(6) the House had under consideration 
the con

[[Page 8473]]

ference report (7) on H.R. 4613, the Futures Trading Act of 
1986, when the proceedings described above occurred, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 132 Cong. Rec. 31498, 31499, 31502-06, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. For complete conference report and statement, see the proceedings 
        of the House of Oct. 14, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. de la Garza submitted the following conference report and 
    statement on the bill (H.R. 4613) to reauthorize appropriations to 
    carry out the Commodity Exchange Act, and to make technical 
    improvements to that Act:

                      Conference Report (H. Rept. 99-995)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        4613) to reauthorize appropriations to carry out the Commodity 
        Exchange Act, and to make technical improvements to that Act, 
        having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to 
        recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as 
        follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment 
        as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment, insert the following:
        Section 1. Short Title and Table of Contents.

            (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Futures 
        Trading Act of 1986''.
            (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as 
        follows:
            Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

                                   Amendments

                            TITLE I--FUTURES TRADING
        Sec. 101. Fraudulent Practices.

            Section 4b of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6b) is 
        amended--
            (1) by striking out ``on or subject to the rules of any 
        contract market,'' the second place it appears in the first 
        sentence; and
            (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``Nothing in this section shall apply to any activity that 
        occurs on a board of trade, exchange, or market, or 
        clearinghouse for such board of trade, exchange, or market, 
        located outside the United States, or territories or 
        possessions of the United States, involving any contract of 
        sale of a commodity for future delivery that is made, or to be 
        made, on or subject to the rules of such board of trade, 
        exchange, or market''. . . .
            Sec. 202. Basis for Computation of Emergency Compensation 
        Under the 1986 Wheat Program.
            Section 107D(c)(1)(E)(ii) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 
        (7 U.S.C. 1445b-3(c)(1)(E)(ii)) is amended by striking out 
        ``marketing year for such crop'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``first 5 months of the marketing year for the 1986 crop and 
        the marketing year for each of the 1987 through 1990 crops''. . 
        . .
        Sec. 207. Transfer of Land.

            (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d), 
        the Secretary of Agriculture shall convey to the Nebraska Game 
        and Parks Commission, all right, title, and interest of the 
        United States in approximately 173 acres of National Forest 
        System land in Dawes County, Nebraska, as depicted on a 
        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service map entitled `Land 
        Conveyance, Nebraska National Forest', dated October, 1985. The 
        map and legal description of the land conveyed by this section 
        shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 
        office of the Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 
        . . .

[[Page 8474]]

        Mr. [Charles O.] Whitley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    make a point of order against the nongermane amendment contained in 
    the conference report relating to the transfer of national forest 
    lands in the State of Nebraska.
        The Speaker: (8) The gentleman from North Carolina 
    (Mr. Whitley) will identify that portion of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitley: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is specifically 
    made against section 207 of title II of the conference report. . . 
    .
        Mr. [E] de la Garza [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Speaker, the 
    committee and the conference committee agreed on the text of the 
    legislation which is the Commodity Futures Trade Commission.
        The other body then added various and sundry other bills and we 
    have to concede the point that they were not germane and they were 
    extraneous to the matter. Therefore, I find myself in the situation 
    where I could not but otherwise yield to the point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The point of order is conceded and sustained. . . 
    .
        Mr. Whitley: Mr. Speaker, I move to delete section 207 from the 
    conference report. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Whitley].
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the conference report to H.R. 4613 under 
    rule XXVIII, clause 4, of the House rules for the reason that it 
    contains a Senate amendment that is in violation of rule XVI, 
    clause 7, because it contains matter nongermane to H.R. 4613 as 
    passed by the House.
        H.R. 4613, as reported by the Committee on Agriculture, and 
    adopted in the House, was a bill 'to authorize appropriations to 
    carry out the Commodity Exchange Act, and to make technical 
    improvements in that act.'
        The Senate added a nongermane amendment to H.R. 4613, section 
    504, entitled ``Basis For Computation Of Emergency Compensation 
    Under the 1986 Wheat Program'' that amends the Agricultural Act of 
    1949 relating to the wheat program for cooperating farmers. It is 
    an amendment that would have violated rule XVI, clause 7, had such 
    matter been offered as an amendment in the House. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) . . . In the opinion of 
    the Chair, section 202 of the conference report as added in the 
    Senate would not have been germane to the House-passed bill; so the 
    point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John J. Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Speaker, I move to reject the matter in the 
    conference report originally contained in section 504 of the Senate 
    amendment to H.R. 4613 and now contained in section 202 of the 
    conference report entitled ``Basis for Computation of Emergency 
    Compensation Under the 1986 Wheat Program'' (H. Rept. 99-995). . . 
    .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Madigan]. . . .
        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a

[[Page 8475]]

    quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
    not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present. . . 
    .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    162, nays 239, not voting 31.
        So the motion was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: By unanimous consent, the proceedings above 
by which the House had agreed to Mr. Whitley's motion to reject the 
nongermane Senate provision included in the conference report, pursuant 
to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII, by a voice vote, were vacated in order to 
allow full debate and a recorded vote on the motion to reject. 
Subsequently, the motion was adopted and the conference report was 
rejected. .

House Amendment to Senate Joint Resolution Authorizing Conference on 
    Library and Information Services--Senate Amendment Rendering 
    Prohibition Against Sex Discrimination Inapplicable to College 
    Fraternities and Sororities

Sec. 26.32 To a House amendment in the nature of a substitute for a 
    Senate joint resolution, authorizing the President to call a White 
    House Conference on Library and Information Services, a portion of 
    a Senate amendment contained in the conference report which 
    provided that the prohibition against sex discrimination contained 
    in title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 shall not apply to 
    college social fraternities and sororities and to certain voluntary 
    youth service organizations was held not germane, thereby 
    permitting a motion under clause 4 of Rule XXVIII to reject that 
    portion of the conference report.

    On Dec. 19, 1974,(10) the House had under consideration 
the conference report on Senate Joint Resolution 40, to authorize and 
request the President to call a White House Conference on Library and 
Information Services. The conference report stated in part as follows: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 41389, 41392, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
11. See 120 Cong. Rec. 40547-50, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 17, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. No. 93-1619)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the amendments of 
        the House to the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 40) to authorize 
        and request the President to call a White House Con

[[Page 8476]]

        ference on Library and Information Services in 1976, having 
        met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend 
        and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate to the amendment of the House to the 
        text of the joint resolution and agree to the same with an 
        amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be 
        inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following:
        That (a) the President of the United States is authorized to 
        call a White House Conference on Library and Information 
        Services not later than 1978.

            (b)(1) The purpose of the White House Conference on Library 
        and Information Services (hereinafter referred to as the 
        ``Conference'') shall be to develop recommendations for the 
        further improvement of the Nation's libraries and information 
        centers and their use by the public. . . .
            Sec. 3. (a) Section 901(a) of the Education Amendments of 
        1972 is amended by striking out ``and'' at the end of clause 
        (4) thereof and by striking out the period at the end of clause 
        (5) thereof and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and'', and by 
        inserting at the end thereof the following new clause:
            ``(6) This section shall not apply to membership 
        practices--
            ``(A) of a social fraternity or social sorority which is 
        exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1954, the active membership of which consists 
        primarily of students in attendance at an institution of higher 
        education, or
            ``(B) of the Young Men's Christian Association, Young 
        Women's Christian Association, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Camp 
        Fire Girls, and voluntary youth service organizations which are 
        so exempt, the membership of which has traditionally been 
        limited to persons of one sex and principally to persons of 
        less than nineteen years of age''. . . .

           Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference

            The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the 
        conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
        amendments of the Senate to the amendments of the House to the 
        joint resolution (S.J. Res. 40) to authorize and request the 
        President to call a White House Conference on Library and 
        Information Services in 1976, submit the following joint 
        statement to the House and the Senate in explanation of the 
        effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and 
        recommended in the accompanying conference report:
            The House amendment to the text of the joint resolution 
        struck out all after the resolving clause and inserted a 
        substitute text. The Senate concurred with the amendment of the 
        House to the text of the joint resolution with an amendment 
        which was a substitute for both the House amendment to the text 
        of the joint resolution and the Senate joint resolution. The 
        House recedes from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
        Senate to the amendment of the House to the text of the joint 
        resolution with an amendment which is a substitute for both the 
        House amendment and the Senate amendment thereto. The 
        differences between the House amendment, the Senate amendment 
        to the House amendment, and the substitute agreed to in 
        conference are noted below except for minor technical and 
        clarifying changes made necessary by reason of the conference 
        agreement. . . .
            16. Amendment to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 
        1972. The Senate amendment amends section 901(a) of the 
        Education Amendments

[[Page 8477]]

        of 1972 (Public Law 92-318, 86 Stat. 373), relating to the 
        prohibition of sex discrimination, to provide that section 901 
        shall not apply to membership practices of (1) certain social 
        fraternities and social sororities consisting primarily of 
        students in attendance at an institution of higher education; 
        and (2) voluntary youth service organizations, including the 
        YMCA, the YWCA, Girl Scouts, Campfire Girls, and Boy Scouts, 
        the membership of which traditionally has been limited to 
        persons of one sex and to persons 19 years of age or less.
            The Senate amendment also provides that this amendment 
        shall be effective on, and retroactive to July 1972.
            There is no comparable House provision. The House recedes 
        with an amendment clarifying the exemption from the provisions 
        of title IX of the membership practices of the YMCA's, YWCA's, 
        Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Campfire Girls. The conferees 
        agree that any reference to fraternities, sororities, or 
        organizations exempted under section 501(a) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1954 shall be limited to those fraternities, 
        sororities, or organizations which are socially oriented and do 
        not engage in political activities. Social fraternities which 
        are service oriented shall also qualify under clause 6(A) of 
        section 901(a). For purposes of section 901(a), alumni of 
        fraternities and sororities shall not be deemed to be active 
        members.

    A point of order was made against a portion of the conference 
report, as follows:

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against section 3 of the conference report, that 
    section which amends section 901(a) of the Education Amendments of 
    1972, on the basis that had this been offered as an amendment 
    during the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 40 in the 
    House, it would have been a nongermane amendment.
        Under clause 4, rule XXVIII a motion can be offered to handle 
    this matter separately. Thus I make a point of order that that 
    section of the conference report is nongermane under the rules of 
    the House. . . .
        The Speaker: (12) It is obvious to the Chair that 
    section 3 of the conference report is not germane to the House 
    amendment. The point of order is sustained. Does the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger) have a motion to reject the section?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: I do have a motion to reject, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to strike.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin moves to strike section 3 of the 
        conference report. . . .

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to strike section 3, 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Steiger of Wisconsin) there were--yeas 37, nays 102.
        So the motion to strike was rejected.

[[Page 8478]]

Bill Addressing Official Conduct of Federal Officials--Amendment 
    Authorizing Appointment of Prosecutor To Investigate Public and 
    Private Conduct

Sec. 26.33 The Speaker sustained a point of order, under Rule XXVIII 
    clause 4, that a Senate provision contained in a conference report, 
    authorizing the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate 
    and prosecute alleged criminal conduct of certain federal 
    officials, including but not limited to conduct directly related to 
    their official duties, would not have been germane if offered to 
    the House-passed bill, which addressed in various ways only the 
    official conduct of federal officials.

    On Oct. 12, 1978,(13) during consideration in the House 
of S. 555, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, a point of order was 
sustained against a provision contained in the conference report. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 36459-61, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against title VI of the conference report. That, for 
    the Speaker's information, is the title dealing with the special 
    prosecutor language in the conference report. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, my point of order is based upon rule XXVIII, which 
    is the germaneness section. It is my position, Mr. Speaker, that 
    title VI is a nongermane Senate amendment and it violates that 
    section of the House rules which I have cited. . . .
        [T]he language in the special prosecutor amendment added by the 
    Senate is so broad and sweeping that it covers in several respects 
    private individuals, that is to say, new classes of people who are 
    not covered under the sweep of the ethics bill. . . .
        The special prosecutor bill, which is tacked onto the ethics 
    bill, is a complicated and important piece of legislation. It was 
    considered in detail by a different subcommittee in the Committee 
    on the Judiciary which did not consider the ethics bill. It is true 
    that the Committee on the Judiciary reported out a special 
    prosecutor bill but it was never brought to the floor of the House 
    and, indeed, has never been debated nor subject to amendment by 
    Members of this House.
        It is a far-reaching piece of legislation, it is complicated, 
    different in form, different in purpose, different in all respects 
    from the ethics bill which we did consider several days ago.
        I hope that the Speaker, when the Speaker is prepared to rule, 
    will recognize that germaneness, if it is to have any meaning at 
    all, is offended in a fundamental way by allowing the Senate to 
    tack on an issue which is so basically different and unrelated to 
    the ethics bill which we considered earlier. . . .

[[Page 8479]]

        Mr. [James R.] Mann [of South Carolina]: . . . The House 
    amendment to S. 555 is actually the text of H.R. 1 as passed by the 
    House. The text of H.R. 1, as finally approved, was actually the 
    text of an amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. 
    Thus, the issue, as I understand it, is whether the provisions of 
    title VI of the conference report would have been germane to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute which eventually became the 
    text of House bill, H.R. 1, had the provisions of title VI been 
    offered as an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. I believe that the provisions of title VI would have 
    been germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute and 
    that the Chair should therefore overrule the point of order. . . .
        The basic test for determining germaneness is whether the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment is germane to the fundamental 
    purpose of the bill. The question here, then, is whether the 
    fundamental purpose of title VI is germane to the fundamental 
    purpose of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I submit 
    that it is. The purpose of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, which is subtitled the ``Ethics in Government Act,'' is 
    to promote ethical conduct by Federal Government officials and 
    certain other private citizens. The purpose of title VI of the 
    conference report is also to promote ethical conduct.
        A second test for germaneness is whether the subject matter of 
    the amendment relates to the subject matter of the bill. The 
    question here is whether the subject matter of title VI of the 
    conference report relates to the subject matter of the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. I submit that it does.
        The subject matter of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was broad. It encompassed ethical standards and conduct 
    involving officials in all three branches of the Federal 
    Government--legislative, executive, and judicial--as well as 
    certain private citizens.
        With regard to Federal Government employees and officials, it 
    required detailed financial disclosure statements to be filed by 
    people in all three branches of Government. It established an 
    Office of Government Ethics with broad authority, including the 
    power to promulgate regulations pertaining to ``conflicts of 
    interest and ethics in the executive branch.'' It amended our 
    Federal criminal law in the area of conflicts of interest. . . .
        The gentleman from California concedes that the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute encompasses private citizens. He argues, 
    however, that those private citizens are connected in some way with 
    the Government.
        Mr. Speaker, I submit that the private citizens covered in 
    title VI of the conference report encompass only one narrow group. 
    The President's campaign manager is connected to the Government 
    just as much as the partner of some Government employee who may be 
    violating some law in appearing before some Government agency. He 
    is connected in the same way as the business partner of a 
    Government employee would be connected. . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) . . . In looking at 
    the gentleman's point of

[[Page 8480]]

    order in this instance the gentleman from California makes two 
    points, one as title VI relates to new classes of persons not 
    covered by the House-passed bill, and the other in terms of the 
    breadth of the types of conduct subject to investigation by the 
    special prosecutor. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It seems that under what is being considered here, the breadth 
    of the investigation which the special prosecutor may undertake, 
    goes far beyond the scope of the activity regulated by the House-
    passed bill. In looking at title VI, it authorizes the special 
    prosecutor to investigate any violation of any Federal criminal law 
    other than a violation constituting a petty offense--conduct which 
    may or may not directly relate to the official duties of the 
    persons covered. For that reason . . . the Chair does sustain the 
    point of order.

Bill Authorizing Appropriations for Nuclear Regulatory Commission--
    Amendments to Organic Law Governing Commission

Sec. 26.34 To a House bill authorizing appropriations for two years for 
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission but not directly or indirectly 
    amending the Atomic Energy Act regarding nuclear energy policy, a 
    modification of a Senate amendment contained in a conference report 
    providing a ten-year review and monitoring program to limit foreign 
    uranium imports, thereby proposing an extensive change in policy 
    under the organic law governing that agency's operations, was 
    conceded to be not germane.

    On Dec. 2, 1982,(15) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 2330, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
authorization for 1982 and 1983, a point of order was made, pursuant to 
Rule XXVIII, clause 4, against a Senate amendment contained in the 
conference report. The Senate amendment as modified in the conference 
report stated in part as follows, and the point of order was made by 
Mr. Bill Frenzel, of Minnesota, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 28537, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Uranium Supply

        Sec. 23. (a)(1) Not later than 12 months after the date of 
    enactment of this section, the President shall prepare and submit 
    to the Congress a comprehensive review of the status of the 
    domestic uranium mining and milling industry. This review shall be 
    made available to the appropriate committees of the United States 
    Senate and the House of Representatives. . . .
        (b)(1) Chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended 
    by adding the following new section at the end thereof:
        Sec. 170B. Uranium Supply.
        ``a. The Secretary of Energy shall monitor and for the years 
    1983 to 1992

[[Page 8481]]

    report annually to the Congress and to the President a 
    determination of the viability of the domestic uranium mining and 
    milling industry and shall establish by rule, after public notice 
    and in accordance with the requirements of section 181 of this Act, 
    within 9 months of enactment of this section, specific criteria 
    which shall be assessed in the annual reports on the domestic 
    uranium industry's viability. The Secretary of Energy is authorized 
    to issue regulations providing for the collection of such 
    information as the Secretary of Energy deems necessary to carry out 
    the monitoring and reporting requirements of this section. . . .

        ``e. (1) During the period 1982 to 1992, if the Secretary of 
    Energy determines that executed contracts or options for source 
    material or special nuclear material from foreign sources for use 
    in utilization facilities within or under the jurisdiction of the 
    United States represent greater than thirty-seven and one-half 
    percent of actual or projected domestic uranium requirements for 
    any two consecutive year period, then the Secretary shall 
    immediately revise criteria for services offered under paragraph 
    (A) of section 161 v. to enhance the use of source material of 
    domestic origin for use in utilization facilities licensed, or 
    required to be licensed, under section 103 or 104b. of this Act 
    within or under the jurisdiction of the United States arising under 
    existing contracts or option contracts. . . .
        ``f. In order to protect essential security interests of the 
    United States, upon the initiation of an investigation under 
    subsection e. to determine the effects on the national security of 
    imports of source material or special nuclear material pursuant to 
    section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it shall be 
    unlawful to execute a contract or option contract resulting in the 
    import of additional source material or special nuclear material 
    from foreign sources, which is intended to be used in domestic 
    utilization facilities licensed, or required to be licensed, under 
    section 103 or 104b. of this Act. This prohibition shall remain in 
    effect for a period of two years or until the President has taken 
    action to adjust the importation of source material and special 
    nuclear material so that such imports will not threaten to impair 
    the national security, whichever first occurs.''. . .
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order against 
    section 23 of the conference report substitute. . . .
        I make a point of order that the matter contained in section 23 
    of the conference substitute recommended in the conference report 
    would not be germane to H.R. 2330 under clause 7 of rule XVI if 
    offered in the House and is, therefore, subject to a point of order 
    under clause 4 of rule XXVIII.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) Does the gentleman 
    from Arizona (Mr. Udall) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, we concede the 
    substance of the point of order the gentleman is making.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of clause 
    4, rule XXVIII, I move that the House reject section 23 of the 
    conference substitute recommended in the conference report.

[[Page 8482]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
    Frenzel) is recognized for 20 minutes on his motion.

Sec. 26.35 To a House bill authorizing appropriations for two years for 
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission but not amending the Atomic 
    Energy Act with respect to nuclear energy policy, provisions in a 
    Senate amendment contained in a conference report amending several 
    sections of that Act making permanent changes in the law relating 
    to limitation on use of special nuclear material, disclosure of 
    Department of Energy information, and deadlines for promulgation of 
    environmental standards by EPA and NRC for uranium mill tailings 
    were conceded to be nongermane under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, 
    permitting a divisible motion to reject those portions of the 
    conference report.

    On Dec. 2, 1982,(17) a point of order was made against 
portions of a conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 4, 
which permits such points of order against nongermane matter contained 
in conference reports. The conference report stated in part as follows, 
and the point of order was made by Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 28544, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               LIMITATION ON USE OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL

        Sec. 14. Section 57 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
    2077) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsection:
        ``e. Special nuclear material, as defined in section 11, 
    produced in facilities licensed under section 103 or 104 may not be 
    transferred, reprocessed, used, or otherwise made available by any 
    instrumentality of the United States or any other person for 
    nuclear explosive purposes.'' . . .
        Sec. 18. (a) Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is 
    amended--
        (1) by striking in subsection a. ``one year after the date of 
    enactment of this section''
        (B) the Commission's requirements are modified to conform to 
    such standards.
        Such suspension shall terminate on the earlier of April 1, 1984 
    or the date on which the Commission amends the October 3 
    regulations to conform to final standards promulgated by the 
    Administrator under subsection b. During the period of such 
    suspension, the Commission shall continue to regulate by product 
    material (as defined in section 11 e. (2)) under this Act on a 
    licensee-by-licensee basis as the Commission deems necessary to 
    protect public health, safety, and the environment.
        ``(3) Not later than 6 months after the date on which the 
    Administrator promulgates final standards pursuant to

[[Page 8483]]

    subsection b. of this section, the Commission shall, after notice 
    and opportunity for public comment, amend the October 3 
    regulations, and adopt such modifications, as the Commission deems 
    necessary to conform to such final standards of the Administrator. 
    . . .
        (b)(1) Section 108(a) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 
    Control Act of 1978 is amended by adding the following new 
    paragraph at the end thereof:
        ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 
    subsection, after October 31, 1982, if the Administrator has not 
    promulgated standards under section 275 a. of the Atomic Energy Act 
    of 1954 in final form by such date, remedial action taken by the 
    Secretary under this title shall comply with the standards proposed 
    by the Administrator under such section 275 a. until such time as 
    the Administrator promulgates the standards in final form.''.
        (2) The second sentence of section 108(a)(2) of the Uranium 
    Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 is repealed. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
    matter contained in sections 14, 17, and 18 of the substitute for 
    the Senate amendment in the conference report would not be germane 
    to H.R. 2330 if offered in the House and is, therefore, subject to 
    a point of order under the rules of the House.
        I make this point of order, Mr. Speaker, because sections 14, 
    17, and 18 would be permanent changes in law and this bill is a 2-
    year authorization bill; also, the three sections contain matters 
    that fall within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I concede the 
    point of order and wish to be heard in the regular order on the 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Stratton moves that the House reject sections 14, 17, 
        and 18 of the substitute recommended in the conference report.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Arizona (Mr. Udall) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton).

    Mr. Stratton, in the ensuing debate, further addressed the issue of 
germaneness:

        Section 14 of the conference report . . . is nongermane as an 
    amendment to the House bill authorizing appropriations for the 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Section 14 was a Senate amendment 
    that deals with special nuclear material by amending the Atomic 
    Energy Act of 1954, but special nuclear material is material that 
    is used for the purpose of making nuclear weapons and is, 
    therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
    Services.

[[Page 8484]]

        The language of section 14, as adopted by the conferees, would 
    therefore have been nongermane had such an amendment been offered 
    in the House.
        Section 17, which was a Senate amendment to the House bill, is 
    also nongermane since it would revise permanent law through a 2-
    year authorization. This section would revise a statute dealing 
    with the release of information concerning security measures by the 
    Secretary of Energy, and other matters that involve the nuclear 
    weapons program of the Department of Energy.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to reject the nongermane 
portions of the conference report was substantively and grammatically 
divisible, so that a division of the question on any of the three 
sections could have been demanded by any Member prior to the Chair's 
putting the question on the motion to reject, in order to avoid a 
subsequent point of order against one of the sections just to obtain a 
separate subsequent vote on a motion to reject that one section.