[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§ 27. Amendment to Senate Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8484-8543]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                       C. HOUSE-SENATE RELATIONS
 
Sec. 27. --Amendment to Senate Amendment

    The reader will note from prior sections in this chapter that when 
judging the germaneness of an amendment to a proposition under 
consideration and originating in the House, the amendment must relate 
to the subject matter and to the pending text under immediate 
consideration. For example, in sections 2 and 18, supra, it is 
demonstrated that an amendment must be germane to the pending portion 
of the bill to which offered, or to the amendment to which offered, as 
the case may be, whether in the form of a motion to strike out and 
insert, to strike out, or to insert. Similarly, section 21, supra, 
indicates that perfecting amendments to amendments in the nature of a 
substitute or to substitute amendments need only be germane to the 
inserted language contained in said substitutes, it being irrelevant 
whether or not the perfecting amendment might be germane to the 
underlying (perhaps broader) bill which said substitute seeks to strike 
out and replace. In that contest, the language of the underlying bill 
proposed to be stricken is not taken into consideration when 
determining the germaneness of a second degree amendment to a 
substitute proposing to insert other language. It is only the pending 
text under immediate consideration against which the germaneness of 
proposed amendments thereto is judged. This test of germaneness is 
consistent with Rule XIX governing the permis

[[Page 8485]]

sible degree of amendments in the House (see Chapter 27, Amendments, 
supra). At this stage, the House has not finally adopted any version of 
a House-passed bill and is free to reject the pending amendment(s) and 
proceed to other differently drafted amendments which may present 
another test of germaneness to the bill as a whole.
    With respect to proposed House amendments to Senate amendments to a 
House-passed bill, however, the language of the underlying House-passed 
bill may be relevant to the question of the germaneness of a 
subsequently proposed amendment to a Senate amendment, especially where 
the Senate amendment has stricken out language in the House-passed 
bill, since in such a situation the House should not be bound only to 
language or a modification thereof which is germane to Senate inserted 
provisions, but should be permitted to insist upon retention of all or 
a portion of House-passed stricken language without having to insist 
upon disagreement with the entire Senate-inserted language, in an 
effort to reach a germane compromise with the Senate. Thus where a 
Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in a House bill, the 
test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment is the relationship between the language in the motion and 
the provisions in the House bill proposed to be stricken, as well as 
those to be inserted (if any) by the Senate amendment.(19) 
On the other hand, it is not sufficient that an amendment to a Senate 
amendment be germane to the original House bill if it is not germane to 
the subject matter of a Senate amendment which merely inserts new 
matter and does not strike out House provisions.(20) In that 
case, House-passed text may have no direct bearing on the germaneness 
of a House amendment to the Senate-inserted amendment. Therefore, while 
it is generally true that a proposed House amendment must always be 
germane to the particular Senate amendment to which 
offered,(1) the form of the Senate amendment is relevant in 
determining whether underlying House-passed text is also language to 
which the proposed amendment must relate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 27.9, 27.10, 27.13, 27.22, 27.25 and 27.41, infra.
20. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6188 and 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2936.
 1. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6188-91, 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2936 and Sec. Sec. 27.2 and 27.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test of the germaneness of an amendment to a motion to concur 
in a Senate amendment with

[[Page 8486]]

an amendment is the relationship between the amendment and the motion, 
and not between the amendment and the Senate amendment to which the 
motion has been offered,(2) since at that stage the 
amendment is being offered to a proposition initially pending in and 
not yet adopted by the House, rather than directly to a Senate 
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 27.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Formerly, a Senate amendment was not subject to the point of order 
that it was not germane to the House bill,(3) but under 
recent changes in the rules points of order may be made and separate 
votes demanded on portions of Senate amendments and conference reports 
containing language which would not have been germane if offered in the 
House. Clause 4 of Rule XXVIII permits points of order against language 
in a conference report which was originally in the Senate bill or 
amendment and which would not have been germane if offered to the 
House-passed version, and permits a separate motion to reject such 
portion of the conference report if found nongermane.(4) For 
purposes of that rule, the House-passed version, against which Senate 
provisions are compared, is that finally committed to conference, 
taking into consideration all amendments adopted by the House, 
including House amendments to Senate amendments.(5) Clause 5 
of Rule XXVIII permits points of order against motions to concur or 
concur with amendment in nongermane Senate amendments, the stage of 
disagreement having been reached, and, if such points of order are 
sustained, permits separate motions to reject such nongermane matter. 
Clause 5 of Rule XXVIII is not applicable to a provision contained in a 
motion to recede and concur with an amendment (the stage of 
disagreement having been reached) which is not contained in any form in 
the Senate version, the only requirement in such circumstances being 
that the motion as a whole be germane to the Senate amendment as a 
whole under clause 7 of Rule XVI.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3425.
 4. See Sec. 26, supra.
 5. See Sec. 26.3, supra.
 6. See Sec. Sec. 27.4 and 27.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a Senate amendment reported in disagreement by conferees is 
under consideration, a proposal to amend must, under clause 7 of Rule 
XVI, be germane to the Senate amendment.(7) A point of order 
may therefore be sustained against a motion to concur in a Senate 
amendment with

[[Page 8487]]

an amendment, on the grounds that the proposed amendment is not germane 
to the Senate amendment.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 27.35, infra.
 8. See Sec. 27.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, where a Senate amendment proposing legislation on a 
general appropriation bill is reported back in disagreement and a 
motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment is offered, 
the proposed amendment is subject to the rule of 
germaneness.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senate amendments proposing legislation on appropriation bills may 
be amended by germane amendments. And while it has been held that a 
Senate amendment proposing legislation on a general appropriation bill 
may be subject to an amendment of a similar nature offered in the 
House, the requirement remains in such circumstances that the House 
amendment be germane to the Senate amendment.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See the proceedings at 116 Cong. Rec. 41504, 41505, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Dec. 15, 1970, in which a Senate amendment proposing 
        legislation on a general appropriation bill (H.R. 17755, 
        Committee on Appropriations, comprising Department of 
        Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1971) was reported 
        back from conference in disagreement, pursuant to provisions of 
        Rule XX clause 2 (House Rules and Manual Sec. 829) prohibiting 
        conferees from agreeing to certain Senate amendments. A motion 
        to concur in the amendment with a further amendment was held to 
        be in order, even though such further amendment was also 
        legislative in nature.
            See the ruling of Speaker McCormack at p. 41505. For 
        further discussion of the rules with respect to legislation on 
        appropriation bills, see Ch. 26, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where, in the consideration of a Senate bill reported from 
conference in total disagreement, a motion to concur in Senate 
amendments to a House amendment to the bill is pending or is rejected, 
the Senate amendments are open to germane amendments.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See the remarks of Speaker McCormack at 113 Cong. Rec. 19033, 90th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1967, made in response to the 
        parliamentary inquiry of Mr. Adams. The bill under 
        consideration was S.J. Res. 81, providing for settlement of a 
        railway labor dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment to a Senate amendment is germane if it merely changes 
the effective date of provisions of law contained in the Senate 
amendment.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See the ruling of Speaker pro tempore John J. O'Connor (N.Y.) at 81 
        Cong. Rec. 976, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1937, quoted in 
        Sec. 27.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While it is normally not in order under the guise of an amendment

[[Page 8488]]

to a numbered Senate amendment to amend an unamended portion of the 
House engrossed bill,(13) a motion to delete all funding for 
a program has been offered as an amendment to a Senate amendment which 
reduced the funding in the original House bill--thus necessitating 
either an amendment to the House engrossed bill to strike the entire 
paragraph or some other drafting technique to eliminate the 
funding.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 27.8, infra.
14. See 133 Cong. Rec. 18297, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1987 
        (motion offered by Mr. Whitten during consideration of H.R. 
        1827, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
        1987).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Amendment Appropriating Funds for Asbestos Hazards Abatement--
    House Amendment Earmarking Funds for Refinancing Municipal Bond 
    Debt

Sec. 27.1 When a motion is offered that the House recede from its 
    disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur therein with an 
    amendment, the proposed amendment must be germane to the Senate 
    amendment; and where a Senate amendment appropriated funds for 
    abatement of asbestos hazards in schools, a proposed House 
    amendment to such amendment which would also have earmarked a 
    portion of those funds for the refinancing of the bond debt of the 
    recycle energy system of a specified city was ruled out as 
    nongermane, being totally unrelated to the issue of asbestos 
    hazard.

    On Aug. 10, 1984,(15) during consideration in the House 
of a motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate amendment and 
concur with an amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 
6040,(16) Speaker Pro Tempore Doug Barnard, Jr., of Georgia, 
ruled that the House amendment was not germane to the Senate amendment. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 130 Cong. Rec. 23988, 23989, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 55: Page 17, after line 23, insert:

                       abatement, control, and compliance

            For an additional amount for ``Abatement, control, and 
        compli

[[Page 8489]]

        ance'', $50,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, That this amount shall be available for the purposes 
        of the Asbestos School Hazards Abatement Act of 1984.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 55 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:

                       abatement, control, and compliance

            For an additional amount for ``Abatement, control, and 
        compliance'', $63,000,000, to remain available until expended. 
        Of this amount, $50,000,000 shall be available for the purposes 
        of the Asbestos School Hazards Abatement Act of 1984 (including 
        up to ten percent for administrative expenses as provided for 
        in said Act): Provided, That this sum shall not be available 
        for asbestos removal projects until the Environmental 
        Protection Agency develops comprehensive guidelines to classify 
        and evaluate asbestos hazards and appropriate abatement 
        options. And of this amount, $13,000,000 shall be available to 
        the City of Akron, Ohio, to refinance the bond debt of the 
        recycle energy system of such city: Provided, That such sum may 
        not exceed sixty percent of such debt: Provided further, That 
        the facilities of such recycle energy system shall be made 
        available to the Federal Government as a laboratory facility 
        for municipal waste to energy research. . . .

        Mr. [Robert L.] Livingston [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order that the amendment in the motion is not germane to 
    the Senate amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Livingston: Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment provided $5 
    million for abatement, control, and compliance, to remain available 
    until expended for the purposes of the Asbestos School Hazards 
    Abatement Act of 1984.
        The amendment in the motion not only provides funds for the 
    same product as the Senate amendment, but goes far beyond the scope 
    of the Senate amendment by earmarking $13 million for the city of 
    Akron, OH, to refinance the bond debt of the recycle energy system 
    of that city.
        A motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an 
    amendment must be germane to the Senate amendment. This amendment 
    introduces a new and wholly unrelated purpose and subject into the 
    Senate amendment. There is no relationship whatever between the 
    subject and purpose of the original Senate amendment, which is 
    asbestos hazards, and the bond debt of the city of Akron for its 
    recycle energy system. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The proposed amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment. 
    Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Computation of Civil Service Retirement Annuities--House Amendment 
    Regarding Mortgage Bond Taxability

Sec. 27.2 An amendment to a Senate amendment must be germane thereto; 
    and where a

[[Page 8490]]

    Senate amendment, reported from conference in disagreement on a 
    joint resolution making continuing appropriations, provided for 
    computation of civil service retirement annuities, an amendment 
    (proposed in a motion to recede and concur with an amendment) which 
    sought to amend provisions of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act 
    relating to mortgage bond taxability under the Internal Revenue 
    Code was held not germane.

    On Dec. 13, 1980,(17) during consideration of H.J. Res. 
637 (further continuing appropriations, fiscal year 1981), the Chair 
sustained a point of order against a motion that the House recede from 
its disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur with an amendment. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 34097, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment 129: Page 64, after line 21, insert:
            Sec. 196. (a) The annuity of an employee retiring under the 
        civil service retirement system with at least five years but 
        less than twenty years of service as a law enforcement officer 
        or firefighter under the civil service system, or any 
        combination thereof, shall be computed with respect to the 
        service of such employee as such a law enforcement officer or 
        firefighter, or any combination thereof, by multiplying 2\1/2\ 
        percent of such employee's average pay by the years of such 
        service.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 129 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment insert the following:
            Sec. 196. The table contained in paragraph (1) of 
        subsection (n) of section 1104 of the Omnibus Reconciliation 
        Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-499, approved December 5, 1980) is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item:
            ``San Bernardino, California--225,000,000 Financing owner-
        occupied residences in the overall Shandin Hills Project of the 
        State College Redevelopment Project Number 4.''. . .

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I renew my 
    point of order . . . on the grounds that [the amendment] is not 
    germane to the Senate amendment or a House amendment on any 
    provision passed in either House, and therefore amounts to 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Mississippi 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I cannot argue the point of order. 
    The basis for the committee bringing this to the Congress is that 
    this really fits as an

[[Page 8491]]

    emergency situation which must be handled. If we wait it will force 
    an 8- or 10-month delay. It was thought that we should bring it to 
    the Members on emergency grounds. I have no defense against the 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The motion is not germane to the Senate amendment, and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order for that reason.

Special Census in Areas Impacted by Influx of--Legal Aliens--Amendment 
    Prohibiting Counting of Aliens in Determining Reapportionment

Sec. 27.3 When a Senate amendment reported from conference in 
    disagreement is under consideration, an amendment thereto must be 
    germane to the Senate amendment; thus, to a Senate amendment 
    authorizing the President to order a special census in state or 
    local government areas determined to have been significantly 
    impacted by an influx of legal aliens within 6 months of a regular 
    census, an amendment not only modifying that provision but also 
    prohibiting the counting of all aliens (legal and illegal) in 
    determining reapportionment of the House of Representatives was 
    held to be not germane because broadening the scope of the Senate 
    amendment beyond the issue of a special census in those areas 
    impacted by legal aliens.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 610 (continuing 
appropriations for fiscal 1981) in the House on Sept. 30, 
1980,(19) the proceedings described above occurred as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 126 Cong. Rec. 28503, 28504, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (20) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 35: Page 12, after line 4, insert:
            Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when 
        the President determines that a State, county, or local unit of 
        general purpose government is significantly affected by a major 
        population change due to a large number of legal immigrants 
        within six months of a regular decennial census date, he may 
        order a special census, pursuant to section 196 of title XIII 
        of the United States Code, or other method of obtaining a 
        revised estimate of the population, of such jurisdiction or 
        subsections of that jurisdiction in which the immigrants are 
        concentrated. Any such special census of revised estimate shall 
        be conducted solely at Federal expense. Such special census or 
        revised estimate shall be conducted no later than twelve months 
        after the regular census date

[[Page 8492]]

        and shall be designated the official census statistics and may 
        be used in the manner provided by applicable law.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 35 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:
            Sec. 118. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
        when the President determines that a State, county, or local 
        unit of general purpose government is significantly affected by 
        a major population change due to a large number of legal 
        immigrants within six months of a regular decennial census 
        date, he may order a special census, pursuant to section 196 of 
        title XIII of the United States Code. . . .
            (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the number 
        of Representatives in Congress to which each State would be 
        entitled under the twentieth decennial census shall be 
        determined only on the basis of the number of persons in each 
        State who are citizens of the United States.

        Mr. [Robert] Garcia [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
    of order against the motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment.
        Mr. Speaker, the motion to recede and concur is not in order 
    because it does not meet the germaneness test under clause 7 of 
    rule 16 of the rules of the House which provide that, ``no motion 
    or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration 
    shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
        Under the precedents of the House germaneness is determined by 
    the text of the amendment and the burden of proof must be carried 
    by the proponent of the amendment.
        The Senate amendment is limited to situations such as the 
    unprecedented influx of Cuban refugees who were lawfully admitted 
    into the country after the census got underway. Senator Chiles' 
    amendment is limited in scope and addresses a unique problem not 
    heretofore encountered in the census.
        The amendment is limited to a specific period of time and to a 
    specific category of people who enter the country lawfully around 
    the time the census is taken.
        Specifically, the Senate amendment authorizes the Secretary of 
    Commerce to conduct a special census, within 6 months of the 
    decennial census, in order where there has been an unprecedented 
    influx of legal aliens. The number of legal aliens counted in this 
    special census would then be added to the official census figures 
    and used for all legal purposes. The House amendment on the other 
    hand would fundamentally alter and enlarge the purpose of the 
    Senate amendment, and accordingly, the entire motion to recede and 
    concur with an amendment is not in order.
        The House amendment directly impacts on the reapportionment of 
    the House following the decennial census. Specifically, the 
    amendment to the Senate amendment would base the apportionment of 
    seats in the House on the number of citizens counted in the census. 
    It would exclude legal as well as illegal aliens counted in the 
    census and incorporated into the apportion

[[Page 8493]]

    ment base. Unlike the Senate amendment which is limited to a 
    specific situation, the amendment to the Senate amendment 
    encompasses legal as well as illegal aliens counted in the census. 
    Moreover, it is not restricted to any time frame so that any alien 
    who enters the country regardless of the circumstances and legality 
    of their entry are subject to exclusion from the census.
        Thus, the amendment is not germane because it vitiates the 
    applicability of the Senate amendment for all legal purposes. Mr. 
    Speaker, for the foregoing reasons, I must insist on my point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph M.] McDade [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I 
    rise in opposition to the point of order. Under the precedents, 
    when a motion is made to recede and concur in an amendment of the 
    Senate with a further amendment, the only test is whether the 
    proposed amendment is germane to the Senate amendment reported in 
    disagreement.
        This amendment is germane to the Senate amendment. Both the 
    Senate amendment, and the amendment in the motion, constitute 
    permanent law, since they both contain the phrase ``Notwithstanding 
    any other provision of law.''
        Both of the amendments deal with the same subject, that is, the 
    census. Both deal with the question of who shall be included in the 
    census.
        The amendment is germane, and the point of order should be 
    overruled. . . .
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York makes the point of 
    order that the amendment contained in the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) is not germane to the 
    Senate amendment No. 35. Under the precedents as cited in 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 21, when a Senate 
    amendment reported in disagreement by conferees is under 
    consideration, a proposal to amend must be germane to the Senate 
    amendment.
        Senate amendment No. 35 provides that the President may order a 
    special census to be taken if he determines that a State or local 
    unit of government is significantly impacted by a major population 
    change due to a large number of legal aliens within 6 months of a 
    regular decennial census, and that such census in those areas when 
    conducted would be designated as the official census under all 
    applicable law.
        The proposed amendment to the Senate amendment, in addition to 
    a slight modification of the Senate language, contains, the 
    additional requirement that representation in Congress to which 
    each State would be entitled under the 20th Decennial Census shall 
    be determined only on the basis of the number of persons in each 
    State who are U.S. citizens. In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    proposed amendment represents a significant broadening of the issue 
    presented by the Senate amendment No. 35, as it addresses not only 
    those areas impacted by legal immigrants within 6 months of a 
    general census, but attempts to legislate on the issue of whether 
    legal and illegal aliens in all areas of the United States should 
    be counted for reapportionment of the House of Representatives. The 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 8494]]

Point of Order Should Be Based on Rule XVI, Not Rule XXVIII

Sec. 27.4 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 
    Senate amendment as proposed to be amended would not have been 
    germane to the House bill, under Rule XXVIII, the Chair may treat 
    the point of order as having been raised under Rule XVI, clause 7.

    On June 30, 1987,(1) during consideration of H.R. 1827 
(supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1987), the motion 
described above was offered to the following amendment in disagreement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 133 Cong. Rec. 18294, 18295, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 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

[[Page 8495]]

        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

                             salaries 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 conference 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.

Point of Order, Based on Nongermane Senate Matter, Against Portion of 
    Motion To Recede and Concur With Amendment

Sec. 27.5 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 re

[[Page 8496]]

    cede 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, 
supra.

Test of Germaneness of Amendment to Motion To Concur in Senate 
    Amendment With Amendment

Sec. 27.6 The test of the germaneness of an amendment to a motion to 
    concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment is the relationship 
    between the amendment and the motion, and not between the amendment 
    and the Senate amendment to which the motion has been offered.

    On Aug. 3, 1973,(3) there was pending a motion to concur 
in a Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate bill with a 
further amendment. The Speaker indicated in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry that any amendment offered to the pending motion upon rejection 
of the previous question thereon must be germane to the amendment 
contained in the motion. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 28121, 28122, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (S. 1888) to extend and amend the 
    Agricultural Act of 1970 for the purpose of assuring consumers of 
    plentiful supplies of food and fiber at reasonable prices.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: (4) The Clerk will read the conference 
    report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the conference report.
        (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the 
    House of July 31, 1973.)
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the Senate amendment to the 
    House amendment.
        The Clerk proceeded to read the Senate amendment to the House 
    amendment.
        (For Senate amendment to House amendment, see proceedings of 
    the Senate of July 31, 1973.) . . .
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Poage moves to concur in the Senate amendment to the 
        House amendment to the bill, S. 1888, with an amendment as 
        follows: On page 48, line 14, in the engrossed Senate 
        amendment, insert the following new subsection (d) to section 
        815 of paragraph 27:
            ``(d) The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to implement 
        policies under this Act which are designed to encourage 
        American farmers to produce to their full capabilities dur

[[Page 8497]]

        ing periods of short supply to assure American consumers with 
        an adequate supply of food and fiber at fair and reasonable 
        prices.'' . . .

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, as I 
    understand the situation now, it is a very delicate parliamentary 
    situation. What we are voting on is a Senate amendment to a House 
    amendment to a Senate bill. That means it has been amended to the 
    first degree, and with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture 
    adding this innocuous amendment, that is an amendment to the second 
    degree, and no more are allowed.
        My question is, On the motion for the previous question, if the 
    question is voted down, should a substitute or an amendment be 
    offered to the motion of the chairman, must it be germane to the 
    innocuous amendment?
        The Speaker: The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Texas 
    is now before the House. The amendment contained in the motion of 
    the gentleman from Texas would be subject to a germane amendment if 
    the previous question on this motion were rejected.

Test of Germaneness of Portion of Conference Report Originally 
    Contained in Senate Amendment--Effect of House Amendment to Senate 
    Amendment Prior to Conference

Sec. 27.7 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.

    The proceedings of July 28, 1983, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 2973 (interest and dividend tax withholding repeal), are 
discussed in Sec. 26.3, supra.

Amendment to Provisions Not in Disagreement

Sec. 27.8 During consideration of a Senate amendment in disagreement, a 
    motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an 
    amendment is not in order if its effect is to amend a part of the 
    House-passed bill not in disagreement.

[[Page 8498]]

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1944. During consideration of certain Senate 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement, Mr. Stephen Pace, 
of Georgia, made a motion that ``the House recede and concur in the 
amendment of the Senate'' with an amendment striking out unamended 
language passed by the House, in addition to language stricken by the 
Senate, and inserting language in lieu thereof not relevant to the 
language stricken by the Senate.(6) A point of order was 
made as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 2481 (Committee on Appropriations).
 6. See motion reported at 89 Cong. Rec. 7041, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 2, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order against the language of the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Georgia that it is not relevant to the subject 
    matter. The motion is offered in part in lieu of language which has 
    not been stricken from the bill and in regard to which the two 
    Houses are not in disagreement. . . .

    The Speaker,(7) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the matter stands, the gentleman has offered a motion to 
    strike out certain language that the two Houses have agreed to. The 
    Chair sustains the point of order. . . .

Senate Amendment Striking Language in House Bill--Test of Germaneness 
    of House Amendment

Sec. 27.9 Where a Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in a 
    House bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and 
    concur with an amendment is the relationship between the language 
    in the motion and the provisions in the House bill proposed to be 
    stricken by the Senate amendment.

    The proceedings of Dec. 12, 1974, relating to H.R. 16901, the 
agriculture, environment and consumer appropriations bill for fiscal 
1975, are discussed in Sec. 27.14, infra.

Reinserting or Amending Provisions Stricken by Senate Amendment

Sec. 27.10 Where a Senate amendment struck language of a House bill and 
    inserted language in lieu thereof, an amendment offered in the 
    House substantially retaining both the Senate language and the 
    language of the

[[Page 8499]]

    House bill was held to be germane. The Speaker in making his ruling 
    relied in part on the relationship between the House amendment and 
    the language proposed to be stricken from the House bill by the 
    Senate amendment.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill (8) 
comprising Treasury and Post Office appropriations for 1944, the 
following amendment was reported in disagreement: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 1648 (Committee on Appropriations).
 9. 89 Cong. Rec. 5899, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment No. 26: On page 52, line 11, strike out the 
    following:

            Sec. 204. No part of the money appropriated in this title 
        shall be expended for the purpose of collecting, sorting, 
        handling, transporting, or delivering free the mail of any 
        officer in any executive department or administrative agency of 
        government.

        And insert in lieu thereof the following:

            Sec. 204. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the 
        Postmaster General are hereby directed to conduct jointly a 
        study of the use of the mails free of postage by the 
        departments and independent establishments of the executive 
        branch of the Government, and shall report to the Congress not 
        later than 60 days after the passage of this act such actions 
        as may be considered in the best interests of the Government 
        toward reduction in the volume and cost of handling such 
        penalty mail.

    As part of a motion offered by Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, an 
amendment was introduced containing substantially the same provisions 
as the Senate version of the section under consideration, and adding 
the following language:

        . . . Provided further, That after January 1, 1944, no part of 
    the money appropriated in this title shall be expended for the 
    purpose of collecting, sorting, handling, transporting, and 
    delivering free the mail of any officer in any executive department 
    or administrative agency of the Government.

    The following points of order were raised against the amendment:

        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to the paragraph under 
    discussion. It goes beyond the matters considered in the paragraph.
        Mr. [Louis] Ludlow [of Indiana]: I supplement that with the 
    suggestion, Mr. Speaker, also that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

    Mr. O'Neal further stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 5899, 5900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Senate amendment has only to do with a study of 
    penalty mail, unless the Senate amendment includes the matter 
    stricken from the House bill. The Keefe amendment deals with the 
    use of the money after January 1, 1944, and this seems to go beyond 
    the

[[Page 8500]]

    scope of paragraph 204, the amendment of the Senate, in that among 
    other matters there is a wide degree of prohibition as to all 
    agencies of the Government. . . .

    The Speaker (11) overruled the point of order, stating 
that: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 5900, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The only difference that the Chair can see between the 
    motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin and what was in the House 
    bill and is now in the bill as it comes from the Senate is fixing 
    the dates January 1, 1944, and June 30, 1944. . . .

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker apparently rejected the view 
implicit in Mr. O'Neal's argument, that the Keefe amendment was 
required to be germane to the language inserted by the Senate 
amendment.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 27.14, infra, supporting the view that the test of 
        germaneness under such circumstances is the relationship 
        between the language in the motion and the provision in the 
        House bill proposed to be stricken by, and/or the language 
        inserted by, the Senate amendment. Clearly the language 
        proposed to be stricken is part of the subject under 
        consideration under such circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test of Germaneness as Affected by Whether Amendment to Senate 
    Amendment is--Modification' of Senate Amendment or Entirely New 
    Provision

Sec. 27.11 Clause 5(b) of Rule XXVIII is not applicable to a provision 
    contained in a motion to recede and concur with an amendment which 
    was not contained in any form in the Senate version and which is 
    not therefore a ``modification'' of the Senate provision, the only 
    requirement in such circumstances being that the motion as a whole 
    be germane to the Senate amendment as a whole under clause 7, Rule 
    XVI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For discussion of the requirement of germaneness of Senate 
amendments to House bills and amendments and related procedures under 
Rule XXVIII clause 5, see Sec. 26, supra.
    The proceedings of Oct. 4, 1978, relating to H.R. 7843, the Omnibus 
Judgeship Bill, are discussed in Sec. 27.12, infra.

Diverse Provisions Affecting Organization and Administration of Federal 
    Courts

Sec. 27.12 To a Senate amendment to a House bill con

[[Page 8501]]

    taining diverse provisions relating to the organization and 
    administration of the federal courts, including appointment of 
    additional district and circuit judges, a split of the fifth 
    circuit into two new circuits, assignments, terms and 
    jurisdictional requirements, an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute containing comparable provisions, omitting any split of 
    the fifth circuit but permitting courts of appeals of a certain 
    size to establish administrative units, was held germane to the 
    Senate amendment as a whole.

    On Oct. 4, 1978,(14) during consideration of the 
conference report on the Omnibus Judgeship Bill (15) in the 
House, the Speaker Pro Tempore overruled a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 124 Cong. Rec. 33502-06, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. H.R. 7843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 7843) to provide for the 
    appointment of additional district and circuit judges, and for 
    other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Clerk will read 
    the conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the conference report [in total disagreement].
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the Senate 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
            That (a) the President shall appoint, by and with the 
        advice and consent of the Senate, two additional district 
        judges for the northern district of Alabama, one additional 
        district judge for the middle district of Alabama, three 
        additional district judges for the district of Arizona, two 
        additional district judges for the eastern district of 
        Arkansas, one additional district judge for the northern 
        district of California, three additional district judges for 
        the eastern district of California. . . .
            Sec. 6. On the effective date of this Act the nine active 
        circuit judges of the fifth circuit whose official station is 
        located in the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and 
        Mississippi are assigned as circuit judges of the fifth 
        judicial circuit as redesignated by this Act; and the six 
        active circuit judges whose official station is located in the 
        States of Louisiana or Texas are assigned as circuit judges of 
        the eleventh judicial circuit as constituted by this Act. The 
        seniority in service of each of the judges so assigned shall 
        run from the date of his original appointment to be a judge of 
        the fifth circuit as it existed prior to the effective date of 
        this Act. . . .
            Sec. 10. Section 48 of title 28 of the United States Code 
        is amended to read in part as follows:
        ``Sec. 48. Terms of court

            ``Terms or sessions of courts of appeals shall be held 
        annually at the places listed below, and at such other places 
        within the respective circuits as may be designated by rule

[[Page 8502]]

        of court. Each court of appeals may hold special terms at any 
        place within its circuit.
            [Fifth circuit sessions to be held in Atlanta, Birmingham, 
        Jackson, Jacksonville, Miami, and Montgomery. . . .]
            Sec. 11. Section 46 of title 28, United States Code, is 
        amended to read in part as follows:
        ``Sec. 46. Assignment of judges; panels; hearings; quorum
                               * * * * *

            ``(c) Cases and controversies shall be heard and determined 
        by a court or panel of not more than three judges, unless a 
        hearing or rehearing before the court en banc is ordered by a 
        majority of the circuit judges of the circuit who are in 
        regular active service. A court en banc shall consist of all 
        circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service.''. . .
        Sec.15. (a) Section 1337, of title 28 of the United States 
        Code, is amended to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 1337. Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in 
        controversy, costs

            ``(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction 
        of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of 
        Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce 
        against restraints and monopolies: Provided however, That the 
        district courts shall have original jurisdiction of an action 
        brought under and by virtue of paragraph (11) of section 20, 
        chapter 1, or section 319, chapter 8 of title 49 of the United 
        States Code, only if the matter in controversy for each receipt 
        or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and 
        costs. . . .

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

            Mr. Rodino moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 7843 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 shall appoint, by and with the advice 
        and consent of the Senate, three additional district judges for 
        the northern district of Alabama, one additional district judge 
        for the middle district of Alabama, three additional district 
        judges for the district of Arizona, two additional district 
        judges for the eastern district of Arkansas, one additional 
        district judge for the northern district of California, three 
        additional district judges for the eastern district of 
        California. . . .

        Sec. 6. Any court of appeals having more than 15 active judges 
    may constitute itself into administrative units complete with such 
    facilities and staff as may be prescribed by the Administrative 
    Office of the United States Courts, and may perform its en banc 
    function by such number of members of its en banc courts as may be 
    prescribed by rule of the court of appeals.  . .
        Sec. 9. (a) Section 1337 of title 28 of the United States Code 
    is amended to read as follows:
        `` Sec. 1337. Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in 
        controversy, costs

            ``(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction 
        of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of 
        Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce 
        against restraints and monopolies: Provided however, That the 
        district court shall have original jurisdiction of an action 
        brought under section 20(11) of part I of the Interstate

[[Page 8503]]

        Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 20 (11)) or section 219 of part II of 
        such Act (49 U.S.C. 319), only if the matter in controversy for 
        each receipt or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, exclusive of 
        interest and costs. . . .

        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that section 6 of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey is not a germane modification of the 
    House bill and the Senate amendment thereto. Section 6 is an 
    entirely new subject introduced under color of amendment contrary 
    to clause 7 of rule XVI. Section 6 is not what is commonly known as 
    a nongermane Senate amendment but rather is a nongermane House 
    amendment.
        Section 6 treats with the subject of ``administrative units.'' 
    Neither the House bill nor the Senate amendment treat with that 
    subject. The Senate amendment did create a new 11th circuit. But 
    the creation of new administrative units are very different 
    subjects, the former being quite fundamental and the latter being--
    in the chairman's view--much less so. Moreover, while the Senate 
    amendment dealt with the creation of one new circuit, the pending 
    amendment deals with all circuits.
        Finally, section 6 sets new law for en banc courts. The House 
    bill did not. The Senate amendment did not. But the pending 
    amendment says that the number of members of an en banc court may 
    be set by rule of court. Current law--which neither body has sought 
    to change--requires en banc courts comprised of all the judges.
        For these reasons, section 6 is not germane.  . .
        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I urge, first of all, that the matter 
    in section 6 is wholly appropriate to the subject matter of the 
    bill, which includes matters pertaining to all 11 circuits, and 
    there is no issue of germaneness, therefore. If it is outside of 
    the scope of the conference, that is not relevant. We are in 
    technical disagreement. . . .
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Speaker, I just point this out, as I did: It 
    is not a question of technical disagreement: it is a question that 
    there was nothing in the Senate bill and nothing in the House bill. 
    The Senate bill did provide for splitting the fifth circuit. I 
    guess that is what they are trying to accomplish here, but what in 
    fact is occurring is that they are trying to develop an 
    administrative procedure which will set up the courts themselves 
    without any law, without any act on the part of this body, to do 
    something.
        In a sense, we are delegating a legislative authority to 
    administrative bodies of the courts to enact legislation. So, it is 
    for all circuits throughout the country. It is something that is 
    entirely new. It is new in the Senate, it is new here, and it is 
    entirely nongermane as far as our House rules are concerned in my 
    opinion, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Miss [Barbara] Jordan [of Texas]: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, on 
    the point of order, the question of germaneness is inappropriate to 
    be raised at this time. This bill has as its total subject matter 
    the creation of new district court judges and the creation of 
    circuit judges, so ``circuits'' is viable, relevant subject matter 
    of this conference.
        The fact that this compromise proposal which is reported in the 
    technical disagreement amendment proposed by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey, the

[[Page 8504]]

    point that we did not talk about administrative units when the bill 
    was before the House, is not applicable to a germaneness question. 
    The question of circuits was a question with us, and we can do 
    anything within the context of that general subject matter of 
    circuits which is desirable to be done.
        This particular administrative unit amendment is apropos and 
    germane to the subject matter of circuits. The gentleman from 
    Illinois is arguing the scope of the conference rather than a point 
    of germaneness. Mr. Speaker, on the issue of germaneness, the 
    gentleman from Illinois must be overruled.
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Speaker, may I just respond to that statement 
    simply in this way: We are not dealing in this bill with the 
    subject of circuits. We are dealing with the subject of additional 
    district court and additional circuit court judges for the Federal 
    courts. The limited effect of the legislation before us was an 
    amendment on that judgeship bill in the Senate with respect to one 
    circuit, not all the circuits; so that this is not legislation 
    dealing with division of the circuits. It is legislation dealing 
    with additional judges.
        May I say further that the subject of en banc courts is 
    something upon which this body had better legislate independently. 
    I do not see how we could possibly be delegating to an 
    administrative body authority to decide legislation with respect to 
    what is and what is not an en banc court, in contradistinction to 
    what the law presently is, which is to the effect that all of the 
    circuit judges represent the en banc court.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair agrees with the gentlewoman from Texas on the essence 
    of her argument. The essential question, since the conferees 
    reported in disagreement, is whether the proposed motion is germane 
    to the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment was much broader than 
    the House version.
        The Chair has a little difficulty in really pinpointing the 
    point that the gentleman from Illinois makes. It may be that he 
    intends his point of order to lie against the motion under rule 
    XXVIII, clause 5. Clause 5(b)(2) of rule XXVIII provides that a 
    point of order may be made upon the offering of a motion to recede 
    and concur with an amendment in an amendment of the Senate reported 
    from conference in disagreement, but only if the Senate amendment 
    or a portion thereof as proposed to be amended by such motion 
    contains matter which would not have been germane if offered to the 
    House bill when it was under consideration.
        The Chair would note, however, that the nongermane Senate 
    matter to which the gentleman refers, the split of the 5th circuit 
    into a 5th and an 11th circuit, is not proposed to be included even 
    in modified form in the motion offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey.
        The amendment proposed to the Senate amendment provides, in 
    section 6, for the establishment of administrative units in any 
    court of appeals with more than 15 active judges, but deletes any 
    mention of an adjustment of the fifth circuit.
        Section 6 appears to the Chair to be a new proposition, not a 
    modification of the portion of the Senate amend

[[Page 8505]]

    ment dealing with the fifth circuit. Therefore, a point of order 
    under clause 5 of rule XXVIII does not apply in this instance.
        The only appropriate test is whether the entire amendment 
    proposed by the gentleman from New Jersey in his motion is germane 
    to the Senate amendment as a whole, and it appears to the Chair 
    that it is germane since the Senate amendment dealt with diverse 
    subjects including appointment of additional district and circuit 
    judges, a split of the fifth circuit, assignments and terms of the 
    courts, and jurisdictional requirements.
        For all of these reasons, the Chair will very respectfully 
    overrule the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair mentioned the inapplicability of 
clause 5 of Rule XXVIII, although Mr. McClory did not specifically 
mention that clause, because the point of order was based on the 
argument that section 6 of the Rodino motion, taken alone, was not 
germane to the provision in the Senate amendment for a split of the 
fifth circuit. As the Chair indicated, that was not the proper test of 
germaneness where the provision complained of is an entirely new 
provision in an amendment to a Senate amendment rather than a 
``modification'' of the Senate amendment.

Striking Appropriation for Missile Program--House Amendment Reinserting 
    Funds and Earmarking Other Funds for Unrelated Grants

Sec. 27.13 To a Senate amendment striking an appropriation for a 
    missile program from a general appropriation bill, a House 
    amendment not only reinserting a portion of those funds but also 
    earmarking other funds in the bill for specific grants unrelated to 
    that missile program and waiving provisions of law otherwise 
    restricting such grants was conceded to be nongermane.

    On Nov. 15, 1989,(17) during consideration of the 
Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal 1990 (18) in 
the House, it was demonstrated that an individual proposition is not 
germane to another individual proposition when a point of order was 
conceded and sustained against the amendment described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 135 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 3072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Al Swift (Wash.).

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

[[Page 8506]]

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 94: Page 32, line 17, strike out all 
        after ``diseases'' down to and including ``program'' in line 
        20.

        Mr. [John P.] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Murtha moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 94, and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter stricken by said amendment, insert ``: Provided further, 
        That of the amount herein provided for the Strategic Defense 
        Initiative, $52,000,000 shall be available only for the Arrow 
        missile program: Provided further, That of funds appropriated 
        in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense Agencies 
        in fiscal year 1989, $46,000,000 shall be available only for 
        grants as follows:
            (1) $15,000,000 for the National Center for Industrial 
        Innovation at Lehigh University . . .
            Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated in 
        this appropriations account for fiscal year 1990, $15,200,000 
        shall be available only for grants, as follows:
            (1) $5,200,000 for the proposed Center for Environmental 
        Medicine at the Medical College of Ohio;
            (2) $8,000,000 for the proposed Center for commerce and 
        Industrial Expansion at Loyola University of Chicago; and
            (3) $2,000,000 for the Pilot Program for Combat Casualty 
        Care Management and Research at the Martin Luther King, Jr. 
        General Hospital-Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and 
        Science . . .
        Provided further, That the grants provided for in the preceding 
        provisions shall be made without regard to, and (to the extent 
        necessary) in contravention of, subsection (a) of section 2361 
        of title 10, United States Code (which is hereby superseded to 
        the extent necessary to make such grants), and shall be made 
        without regard to subsection (b)(2) of such section, and shall 
        be made without regard to the requirements of section 2304 of 
        title 10, United States Code. . . .

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order on the amendment.
        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) violates 
    clause 7 of rule XVI in that it is not germane to the subject 
    matter under consideration, and I would seek to speak to my point 
    of order.
        Mr. Murtha: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.

Senate Amendment Striking Prohibition Against Use of Funds To Control 
    Air Pollution by Regulating Parking Facilities--House Amendment To 
    Prohibit Use of Funds for Plans Requiring Review of Indirect 
    Sources of Air Pollution

Sec. 27.14 A specific proposition may not be amended by a proposition 
    more general in scope; thus, to a Senate amendment striking a 
    provision in a general appropria

[[Page 8507]]

    tion bill which precluded the use of funds therein by the 
    Environmental Protection Agency to control air pollution by 
    regulating parking facilities, a motion in the House to recede and 
    concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment which temporarily 
    prohibited the use of such funds to implement any plan requiring 
    the review of any indirect sources of air pollution was held more 
    comprehensive in scope and was held to be not germane.

    On Dec. 12, 1974,(20) during consideration in the House 
of the conference report on H.R. 16901,(1) it was 
demonstrated that where a Senate amendment proposed to strike out 
language in a House bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to 
recede and concur with an amendment was the relationship between the 
language in the motion and the provisions in the House bill proposed to 
be stricken by the Senate amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 39272, 39273, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. Agriculture, Environment and Consumer Appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (2) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 8: Page 52, line 20, strike: ``Sec. 
        510. No part of any funds appropriated under this Act may be 
        used by the Environmental Protection Agency to administer any 
        program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking 
        facilities.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 8 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
            ``Sec. 510. No part of any funds appropriated under this 
        Act may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to 
        implement or enforce any provision of a state implementation 
        plan promulgated or approved pursuant to Section 110 of the 
        Clean Air Act that requires the review of indirect sources, as 
        defined in 40 CFR 52.22(b)(1), pending completion of judicial 
        review, pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, of the 
        indirect source regulations set forth in 40 CFR 52.22, or any 
        other such regulation relating to indirect sources.''. . .

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
    of order on the ground of nongermaneness.
        The House provision provided only for parking, and the Senate 
    struck completely the House provision.
        This language is not germane in that it goes far beyond 
    parking. The amendment would cover airports, it would cover 
    highways, it would cover shopping centers, and it would cover 
    sports arenas, regardless of whether any parking facilities are 
    attached or associated.

[[Page 8508]]

        There is no question but what this is not germane. It is far 
    beyond what the House had stated, and I think it is not appropriate 
    to be in an appropriation bill at all. Therefore I ask that it be 
    stricken in accordance with the arguments used against the 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: . . . Mr. Speaker, the legislation to which the 
    gentleman from Florida has referred has had the effect of stopping 
    employment in the cities of this country. It has done this because 
    they have to have a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency 
    for parking. It has prevented new buildings in universities, 
    hospitals, shopping centers--and this at a time of great 
    unemployment in the United States.
        It was felt when the bill passed in the House that in order to 
    prevent that effect upon our economy and upon the growth of our 
    cities, and in order to protect the inner cities so that efforts 
    could be made to live there, that we, in turn, should keep this one 
    item from being used to effect this legislation.
        In the Senate it was felt that since there are lawsuits pending 
    throughout the United States, I think in at least four instances, 
    that this legislation covering parking was the key, that that part 
    which had parking in it should be included in the conference and 
    the conferees felt that in the interest of the Nation that those 
    related matters which are a part and parcel of the provisions to 
    which we were trying to direct our attention, should be accepted, 
    and it was accepted by the conferees.
        So, Mr. Speaker, on that basis I respectfully submit that while 
    we touched on only one part of this provision, that the other parts 
    thereby came before the conference, and on that basis we have gone 
    along with delaying this, not to prohibit, but to restrict EPA from 
    causing such delays or work stoppages in this area until such time 
    as the courts determine the issue. And, as I said, the question is 
    now pending before the Federal courts in at least four cases. Of 
    course neither of these provisions, either the House or the 
    conference provision, affects the rights of the cities, towns or of 
    a State from taking such action as they wish. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        There is only one issue involved here and that is whether the 
    amendment included in the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi 
    is germane. It obviously is far more comprehensive than the House 
    provision, and is not germane thereto. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

Rule Against Offering Amendments Which Change Existing Law to 
    Appropriation Bills as Not Applicable to Motion To Dispose of 
    Senate Amendment

Sec. 27.15 Where a Senate amendment proposing legislation on a general 
    appropriation bill is, pursuant to Rule XX, clause 2, reported back 
    from conference in disagreement, a proposed House amendment to the 
    Senate amendment adding further legislation is in order if germane

[[Page 8509]]

    thereto, as clause 2(c) of Rule XXI proscribing amendments to 
    general appropriation bills which change existing law has been held 
    not to apply to motions to dispose of Senate amendments; thus, to a 
    Senate amendment providing for prepayment of certain loans by Rural 
    Electrification Administration borrowers serving a specified 
    density of population, a proposed House amendment eliminating the 
    population density criterion to broaden the applicability of the 
    Senate amendment to additional borrowers within the same class was 
    held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 1827 (supplemental appropriations, 
fiscal 1987) in the House on June 30, 1987,(3) the Chair 
overruled points of order in the circumstances described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 133 Cong. Rec. 18307, 18308, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:
        Senate amendment No. 223: Page 49, after line 17, insert:

                      Rural Electrification Administration

            Notwithstanding the amount authorized to be prepaid under 
        section 306A(d)(1) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 
        U.S.C. 936a(d)(1)), a borrower of a loan made by the Federal 
        Financing Bank and guaranteed under section 306 of such Act (7 
        U.S.C. 936) that serves 6 or fewer customers per mile may, at 
        the option of the borrower, prepay such loan (or any loan 
        advance thereunder) during fiscal year 1987 or 1988, in 
        accordance with section 306A of such Act.

        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 223 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter inserted by said amendment, insert the following:

                      Rural Electrification Administration

            Hereafter, notwithstanding section 306A(d) of the Rural 
        Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 936(d)), a borrower of a 
        loan made by the Federal Financing Bank and guaranteed under 
        section 306 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 936) may, at the option of 
        the borrower, prepay such loan (or any loan advance thereunder) 
        in accordance with section 306A of such Act. . . .

        Mr. [Ron] Packard [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order, the following points of order, actually:
        No. 1, that subject to rule 21, clause 2, this amendment is 
    legislating on appropriation bills.

[[Page 8510]]

        No. 2, that this amendment is not germane to the supplemental 
    appropriations bill. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order. This amendment is germane to the amendment of the Senate.
        What the amendment does is quite straightforward. It removes 
    the phrase ``that serves 6 or fewer customers per mile'' from the 
    Senate amendment. This has the direct result of allowing REA's that 
    have population density of up to 12.4 customers per mile to 
    qualify, rather than just 6 customers per mile.
        The amendment does not change the class of borrowers that can 
    prepay; it simply enlarges the same class. It does not add some 
    other type of borrower.
        The Senate amendment allows Rural Electrification 
    Administration borrowers who serve 6 or fewer customers per mile of 
    line to refinance their REA guaranteed debt with the Federal 
    Financing Bank without being assessed a prepayment penalty.
        There are 51 borrowers whose loans bear an interest rate such 
    that they would be worthwhile to refinance at present interest 
    rates.
        At present there are 31 borrowers with loans whose density is 6 
    or fewer per mile.
        There are 20 borrowers with loans whose density is greater than 
    6 customers per mile of line.
        The conference agreement would allow all 51 borrowers to 
    refinance their loans rather than only 31 borrowers.
        This type of amendment is clearly in order and is germane.
        Cannon's procedures states, ``A general subject may be amended 
    by specific proposition of the same class.'' Mr. Speaker, this is 
    exactly what is being done.
        In fact, the amendment is even stricter. In effect, what is 
    involved is a proposition being amended by the same proposition in 
    the same class. Clearly, such an amendment expands the scope, but 
    is germane. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        With respect to the issue of whether this motion constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriations bill, the Chair rules that it is 
    not in violation of clause 2 [of Rule XX], since the amendment was 
    brought back in disagreement for a separate vote, not as part of 
    the conference report. . . .
        With respect to the germaneness issue that the gentleman 
    raises, the motion is germane to the Senate amendment since 
    relating to the same class of borrowers covered by the Senate 
    amendment and the Senate amendment itself is being brought back in 
    disagreement for a separate vote. Therefore, there is no valid 
    germaneness point of order with respect to the motion disposing of 
    the Senate amendment. . . .
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the various points of order.

Amending Senate Amendment Comprising Legislation on Appropriation Bill

Sec. 27.16 Where a Senate amendment on a general appropriation bill 
    proposes an expenditure not authorized by law, it is in order in 
    the House to

[[Page 8511]]

    perfect the Senate amendment by germane amendments.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a deficiency 
appropriation bill,(5) a Senate amendment as described above 
was reported in disagreement.(6) Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, of 
Virginia, made a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an 
amendment, and Mr. Henry Ellenbogen, of Pennsylvania, made the point of 
order that the motion constituted ``legislation on an appropriation 
bill.'' (7) The Speaker pro tempore (8) responded 
that, ``the Senate amendment is legislation, and the amendment to that 
amendment . . . is not out of order because it contains legislation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 3587 (Committee on Appropriations).
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 975, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1937. See 
        Sec. 27.10, supra, for discussion of a similar instance in 
        which a Senate amendment comprising legislation on an 
        appropriation bill was sought to be amended.
 7. Id. at p. 976.
 8. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following exchange then occurred:

        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia is 
    not germane, since it limits the Senate amendment by date.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that it deals 
    with the same subject matter, and the mere limitation of the Senate 
    amendment by date does not destroy its germaneness, and the Chair 
    therefore overrules the point of order.

Amendment to Special Order From Committee on Rules

Sec. 27.17 To a resolution providing that the House disagree to a 
    Senate amendment that directed a joint committee to conduct a study 
    of excess-profits tax legislation and further directed the 
    appropriate committee to report such legislation and agree to a 
    conference, an amendment providing that the House concur in the 
    Senate amendment with an amendment actually enacting excess-profits 
    tax legislation was held to be not germane, as a special order 
    providing for consideration of a certain subject may not be amended 
    by a proposition providing for consideration of another nongermane 
    subject.

    On Sept. 14, 1950, the House had under consideration a resolution 
providing for action on a tax

[[Page 8512]]

bill.(9) The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 96 Cong. Rec. 14832 et seq., 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 
        1950. The bill, to reduce excise taxes and for other purposes, 
        was H.R. 8920 (Committee on Ways and Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Resolution 842 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill (H.R. 8920) to reduce excise taxes, and for 
        other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and the 
        same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate 
        amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to; that the 
        conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of 
        the two Houses on the said bill be, and hereby is, agreed to; 
        and that the Speaker shall immediately appoint conferees 
        without intervening motion.

    Following rejection of the previous question on the resolution, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered which sent all 
other Senate amendments to conference and which amended, in particular, 
a Senate amendment relating to a study of excess-profits tax 
legislation. The Senate amendment stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 96 Cong. Rec. 14054, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            (a) The House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate 
        Committee on Finance are hereby directed to report to the 
        respective Houses of Congress during the first session of the 
        Eighty-second Congress, and as early as practicable during said 
        session, a bill for raising revenue by the levying, collection, 
        and payment of corporate excess-profits taxes with retroactive 
        effect to October 1, or July 1, 1950, said bill to originate as 
        required by article I, section 7, of the Constitution.
            (b) The Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, or 
        any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is hereby authorized 
        and directed to make a full and complete study of the problems 
        involved in the taxation of excess profits accruing to 
        corporations as the result of the national defense program in 
        which the United States is now engaged. The joint committee 
        shall report the results of its study to the House Committee on 
        Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance as soon as 
        practicable.

    Mr. Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, offered the amendment to 
the resolution:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Eberharter: Strike out all after the 
    word ``Resolved'' and insert in lieu thereof the following:

            ``That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, 
        the bill H.R. 8920 with Senate amendments thereto be, and the 
        same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end--
            ``(1) That all Senate amendments other than amendment No. 
        191 be, and the same are hereby, disagreed to and the 
        conference requested thereon by the Senate is agreed to; and
            ``(2) That Senate amendment No. 191 be, and the same is 
        hereby, agreed to with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert the 
        following:

[[Page 8513]]

                       `` `Title VII--Excess-Profits Tax

            `` `Sec. 701. Excess-profits tax applied to taxable years 
        ending after June 30, 1950.
            `` `Notwithstanding section 122(a) of the Revenue Act of 
        1945, the provisions of subchapter E of chapter 2 of the 
        Internal Revenue Code shall apply to taxable years ending after 
        June 30, 1950.
            `` `Sec. 702. Computation of tax in case of taxable year 
        beginning before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950.
            `` `Section 710 (a) (relating to imposition of excess-
        profits tax) is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new paragraph:
            `` ` ``(8) Taxable years beginning before July 1, 1950, and 
        ending after June 30, 1950: In the case of a taxable year 
        beginning before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950, 
        the tax shall be an amount equal to that portion of a tentative 
        tax, computed without regard to this paragraph, which the 
        number of days in such taxable year after June 30, 1950, bears 
        to the total number of days in such taxable year.'' . . .
            `` `Sec. 704. Unused excess-profits credit
            `` `(a) Definition of unused excess-profits credit: Section 
        710 (c) (2) (relating to definition of unused excess-profits 
        credit) is hereby amended to read as follows:
            `` ` ``(2) Definition of unused excess-profits credit: The 
        term `unused excess-profits credit' means the excess, if any, 
        of the excess-profits credit for any taxable year ending after 
        June 30, 1950, over the excess profits net income for such 
        taxable year, computed on the basis of the excess-profits 
        credit applicable to such taxable year. The unused excess-
        profits credit for a taxable year of less than 12 months shall 
        be an amount which is such part of the unused excess-profits 
        credit determined under the preceding sentence as the number of 
        days in the taxable year is of the number of days in the 12 
        months ending with the close of the taxable year. The unused 
        excess-profits credit for a taxable year beginning before July 
        1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950, shall be an amount 
        which is such part of the unused excess-profits credit 
        determined under the preceding provisions of this paragraph as 
        the number of days in such taxable year after June 30, 1950, is 
        of the total number of days in such taxable year.'' . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 14843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that the 
    amendment is neither germane to the resolution sought to be 
    amended, nor to the Senate amendment No. 191. The language of the 
    Senate amendment would direct the Committee on Ways and Means of 
    the House and the Finance Committee of the Senate to conduct a 
    study of excess-profits-tax legislation during the Eighty-second 
    Congress, ostensibly to report back to the House and Senate for 
    passage with a retroactive date of July 1, 1950, or October 1, 
    1950.
        The provision of the bill does not in any way attempt to 
    legislate an excess-profits tax in connection with H.R. 8920. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania proposes an 
    excess-profits tax in connection with H.R. 8920. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 14843, 14844.

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

[[Page 8514]]

        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: In the first 
    place, Mr. Speaker, this amendment seeks to amend the resolution 
    reported out by the Committee on Rules. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules is to waive a rule requiring that matter subject 
    to a point of order in the first place in the House if put in in 
    the Senate shall be considered in the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union. The resolution of the Committee on Rules 
    waives that. It is our contention, Mr. Speaker, that this being so 
    the House has a right by its vote on this substitute resolution to 
    waive the rule pertaining to germaneness, which my substitute 
    amendment attempts to do.

    The Speaker,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 14844, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is a rule long established that a resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill 
    relating to a certain subject may not be amended by a proposition 
    providing for the consideration of another and not germane subject 
    or matter.
        It is true that in Senate amendment No. 191 to the bill, which 
    came from the Senate, there is a caption ``Title VII,'' which 
    states ``Excess Profits Tax.'' But in the amendment which the 
    Senate adopted to the House bill there is no excess-profits tax.
        The Chair is compelled to hold under a long line of rulings 
    that this matter, not being germane if offered to the Senate 
    amendment it is not germane here. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Special Rule Waiving Points of Order Against Nongermane House 
    Amendments Proposed in Joint Statement of Managers

Sec. 27.18 Prior to consideration of a conference report, a special 
    order was reported from the Committee on Rules waiving points of 
    order against nongermane House amendments proposed in the joint 
    statement of managers to be offered to certain numbered Senate 
    amendments reported from conference in disagreement.

    On July 28, 1983,(15) the House agreed to House 
Resolution 284, waiving germaneness points of order against certain 
House amendments to Senate amendments to H.R. 3069 (supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 21478-80, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jonas M.] Frost [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 284 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 8515]]

                                  H. Res. 284

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the amendments 
        reported from conference in disagreement on the bill (H.R. 
        3069) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending September 30, 1983, and for other purposes, all points 
        of order under clause 7 of rule XVI are hereby waived against 
        the proposed House amendments printed on the following pages of 
        the joint statement of managers accompanying the conference 
        report, to the following numbered Senate amendments reported 
        from conference in disagreement: on pages 9 through 10, to 
        number 1; on page 11, to number 8; on page 35, to number 83; on 
        page 45, to number 119; on page 48, to numbers 128 through 132; 
        on page 56, to number 164; on page 57, to number 168; and on 
        page 67, to number 231. . . .

        Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has reported 
    House Resolution 284 to provide for the orderly and expeditious 
    disposition of the conference report on the fiscal year 1983 
    supplemental appropriation and its amendments in disagreement. The 
    rule specifically waives points of order on proposed House 
    amendments to certain amendments in disagreement. The rule waives 
    clause 7 of Rule XVI, the germaneness rule, against 12 specified 
    amendments to the Senate amendments reported from the conference in 
    disagreement.
        This unusual procedure is necessary in order that the House 
    might consider these 12 amendments on their merit, for otherwise, 
    it would be possible for any one Member of the House to raise a 
    point of order against consideration of each of these amendments 
    and would thereby preclude the House the opportunity to come to a 
    decision on these amendments. The waivers granted in the rule in no 
    way change the normal procedure under which conference reports of 
    the Appropriations Committee are considered, and as is customary, 
    the conference report will be considered in the House under the 
    hour rule. Once it has been adopted, the manager of the conference 
    agreement, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations, Mr. Whitten, will then bring up each of the 105 
    amendments in disagreement which will be considered and subject to 
    a vote. In the 12 specific instances where waivers have been 
    granted in the special order reported by the Committee on Rules, 
    the waiver will enable each amendment to be called up, debated and 
    voted on without a point of order being raised and sustained. Each 
    of the amendments in disagreement is allowed 1 hour of debate, 
    equally divided and each is subject to a rollcall vote. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore [Mr. Dennis E. Eckart, of Ohio]: The 
    question is on ordering the previous question. . . .
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the resolution.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Thomas of California) there were--ayes 161, noes 63.
        Mr. [William M.] Thomas of California: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    recorded vote. . . .
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    267, noes

[[Page 8516]]

    138, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 27. . . .
        So the resolution was agreed to.

Senate Prohibition on Use of Funds in Appropriation Bill--House 
    Amendment Adding Nongermane Authorization

Sec. 27.19 While a point of order against a motion to amend a Senate 
    legislative amendment to a general appropriation bill reported from 
    conference in disagreement will not lie merely because the proposed 
    House amendment adds legislation, the amendment must be germane to 
    the Senate amendment; thus, to a Senate amendment prohibiting use 
    of funds in a general appropriation bill for only one basing mode 
    for the MX Missile, a motion in the House to recede and concur with 
    an amendment adding to that prohibition an authorization of 
    appropriations for research and development of another weapons 
    system (PARCS) was ruled out of order as not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 5359 (16) in the House on 
Dec. 12, 1979,(17) the Speaker sustained a point of order in 
the circumstances described above. The amendment in disagreement and 
the point of order thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal 1980.
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 35520, 35521, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (18) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 56: Page 29, line 7, insert: None of 
        the funds appropriated under this paragraph to continue 
        development of the MX Missile may be used in a fashion which 
        would commit the United States to only one basing mode for the 
        MX missile system.

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Addabbo moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 56 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter inserted by said amendment, insert: . . .
            In addition to any other funds authorized to be 
        appropriated under this heading, there is hereby authorized to 
        be appropriated during fiscal year 1980 an additional amount of 
        $5,000,000 only for research and development on the Perimeter 
        Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization System (PARCS). . . .

        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Addab

[[Page 8517]]

    bo) for the reason that this calls for an authorization. The 
    amendment calls for an authorization in an appropriation bill.
        . . . Mr. Speaker, the amendment is not germane, and I would 
    point out for the edification of the Chair that the authorization 
    for the PARCS radar was rejected by both the Committee on Armed 
    Services of the House and the permanent Select Committee on 
    Intelligence of the House, which are the authorizing committees for 
    this particular weapons system. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I hate to find 
    myself at odds with my subcommittee chairman, but I do not believe 
    that I can concede the point of order.
        This is a point of order raised against an amendment brought 
    back in disagreement. It is not a point of order raised to a bill, 
    and my understanding of the rules is that a point of order would 
    not lie to an amendment brought back in disagreement.
        The Speaker: The Chair will rule that the germaneness point of 
    order is well taken. It is very obvious that the motion is not 
    germane as it relates to the Senate amendment 56, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Amendment Affecting Funds in Other Acts

Sec. 27.20 To a Senate amendment prohibiting the use of funds 
    appropriated for a fiscal year for a specified purpose, a proposed 
    House amendment prohibiting the use of funds appropriated by ``this 
    or any prior Act'' for a different unrelated purpose is not 
    germane.

    The proceedings of June 30, 1987, relating to H.R. 1827, 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1987, are discussed in section 
27.4, supra.

Sec. 27.21 To a Senate amendment reducing the amount and restricting 
    the availability of a certain appropriation in the bill, a House 
    amendment proposing (1) to make a portion of the appropriation 
    available for a specified purpose notwithstanding any other 
    provision of law and (2) to prohibit the use of funds appropriated 
    in the bill or in any other act for another specified purpose was 
    held not germane.

    On Sept. 30, 1988,(19) during proceedings relating to 
H.R. 4781, the defense appropriations bill, a motion was made that the 
House recede from its disagreement to a Senate amendment, and concur 
therein with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 134 Cong. Rec. 27147, 27148, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Senate amendment No. 23: Page 9, line 24, strike out 
        ``$21,890,400,000'' and insert ``$21,817,327,000 of which 
        $1,549,883,000 shall not become available for obligation until 
        July 1, 1989, and shall be available only for

[[Page 8518]]

        civilian personnel compensation and benefits''.

        Mr. [William V.] Chappell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Clerk will 
    designate the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. G. V. Montgomery (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the motion is as follows:

            Mr. Chappell moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 23 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert the 
        following: ``$21,721,673,000 of which $1,500,000 shall be 
        available only for repair and maintenance of Decker Field, 
        Utah: Provided That $26,000,000 shall be available only for the 
        operation of the SR-71 Base in the Pacific area and, 
        notwithstanding any other provision of law, these funds shall 
        be available for obligation and expenditure for this purpose: 
        Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
        or any other Act may be obligated or expended for the purpose 
        of disestablishing or reducing the Air Force SR-71 survivable 
        airborne reconnaissance capability for the Far East and Middle 
        East Theatres from the level of such capability available on 
        October 1, 1987''. . . .

        Mr. [Dick] Cheney [of Wyoming]: Mr. Speaker, with respect to 
    the Senate amendment numbered 23, I make the point of order that 
    the amendment to the Senate amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida is not germane to the Senate amendment as required by 
    clause 7 of House rule XVI. The amendment waives the application of 
    any other law--including the requirements of the Intelligence 
    Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989, which was signed by the 
    President on September 29, and section 502 of the National Security 
    Act of 1947, as amended. It also seeks to limit the obligation and 
    expenditure of funds in other appropriations acts. For both those 
    reasons, the amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment. . . 
    .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: For the reasons given by the gentleman 
    from Wyoming, the point of order is sustained against the motion.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where an amendment revises an aggregate 
figure in a bill, an amendment to that amendment addressing other 
accounts within that aggregate figure may be germane; similarly, the 
fact that the amendment in the first degree addresses one account 
within the aggregate figure that it proposes to revise does not affect 
the germaneness of an amendment in the second degree addressing other 
accounts within that aggregate figure, because the proposal to revise 
the aggregate figure potentially opens to germane amendment all 
accounts within that figure.

Limitation on Particular Use of Funds--Amendment Limiting Other Funds

Sec. 27.22 To a proposition limiting the use of funds in a bill for a 
    particular purpose, an amendment limiting the use of funds in other 
    Acts

[[Page 8519]]

    and for a purpose more general in scope is not germane; thus, to a 
    Senate amendment to an appropriation bill reported from conference 
    in disagreement, striking out a House provision prohibiting the use 
    of funds in the bill for a designated Outer Continental Shelf lease 
    sale in California, a House amendment prohibiting the use of funds 
    in the bill or in any other Act for that lease sale and other 
    California lease sales was conceded to be nongermane as more 
    general in scope.

    On Oct. 5, 1983,(1) during consideration of the 
Department of the Interior appropriations for fiscal 1984 (H.R. 3363) 
in the House, a point of order was conceded and sustained in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 129 Cong. Rec. 27319, 27320, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 95: Page 38, strike out all after line 
        21 over to and including line 15 on page 40.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 95 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by 
        said amendment, amended to read as follows:
            Sec. 113. (a) No funds in this or any other act may be 
        expended by the Department of the Interior for the lease or 
        sale of lands within the Department of the Interior Southern 
        California Planning area described in (1) through (4) below. No 
        funds may be expended for lease or sale of lands within the 
        area described in (1) through (4) so long as adjacent State 
        Tidelands continue to be designated as State Oil and Gas 
        Leasing Sanctuary pursuant to Sec. 6871.1 et seq. of the 
        California Public Resources Code . . .
            (1) An area of the Department of the Interior Southern 
        California Planning Area off the coastline of the State of 
        California Oil and Gas Leasing Sanctuary as described by Sec. 
        6871.1 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code in 
        effect September 29, 1983. . . .
            (4) An area within the boundaries of the Santa Barbara 
        Channel Ecological Preserve and Buffer Zone, as defined by 
        Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Public 
        Land Order 4587. . . .
            (b) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the 
        Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands in 
        OCS Lease Sale #80 which lie within an area located off the 
        coastline of the State of California Oil and Gas Leasing 
        Sanctuary as defined by Sec. 6871.1 et seq. California Public 
        Resources Code in effect September 29, 1983. . . .
            (c) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the 
        Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands 
        within the Department of the

[[Page 8520]]

        Interior Southern California Planning area, as defined in 
        section 2(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
        U.S.C. 1331(a)), located in the Pacific Ocean off the coastline 
        of Santa Monica Bay, State of California, which lies within a 
        line on the California (Lambert) Plane Coordinate System. . . .
            (f) In OCS Lease Sale 80, lease or sale of lands affecting 
        the responsibilities of the Department of Defense shall be with 
        the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. . . .

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against Senate amendment No. 95, the point of order 
    being that under rule XVI, clause 7, the provisions are not 
    germane.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained. .

Amendment Changing Amount of Appropriation

Sec. 27.23 In amending a Senate amendment which appropriates a specific 
    sum for a given purpose, the House is not confined within the 
    limits of the amount set by the original bill and that set by the 
    Senate amendment; but the amendment to the Senate amendment must be 
    germane.

    In the 76th Congress, following disposition of a conference report 
on an agriculture appropriations bill,(3) the following 
Senate amendment was reported from conference in disagreement: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 8202 (Committee on Appropriations).
 4. 86 Cong. Rec. 6184, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 15, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment No. 110: On page 93, after line 13, insert:

            Loans: For loans in accordance with sections 3, 4, and 5, 
        and the purchase of property in accordance with section 7 of 
        the Rural Electrification Act of May 20, 1936, as amended (7 
        U.S.C. 901-914), $40,000,000, which sum shall be borrowed from 
        the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. . . .

    The following motion was made:

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the House recede from its 
    disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 110 and agree to 
    the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum of 
    $40,000,000 named in said amendment insert ``$100,000,000.''

    A point of order was made as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 6185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
    of order that this amount exceeds the amount carried in the Senate 
    amendment and is not in order at this time.

    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, stated:

        Mr. Speaker, the only requirement is that it be germane, and 
    this is certainly germane to the Senate amendment to which it is 
    offered. . . .

[[Page 8521]]

    The Speaker (6) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair cites section 3189, of Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume 8:

            In amending a Senate amendment the House is not confined 
        within the limits of amount set by the original bill and the 
        Senate amendment.
            The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Appropriation for One Year--Change in Permanent Law

Sec. 27.24 To a Senate amendment pertaining only to an appropriation 
    amount for an agency for one year, an amendment not only changing 
    that figure but also adding language having the effect of permanent 
    law is not germane; thus, to a Senate amendment, reported from 
    conference in disagreement, only striking the fiscal year 1984 
    appropriation for the Congressional Research Service and inserting 
    in lieu thereof a new figure, an amendment proposed in a motion to 
    recede and concur with an amendment, permanently amending the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act to require the Congressional 
    Research Service to submit budget estimates for inclusion in the 
    United States Budget, was conceded to be not germane and was ruled 
    out on a point of order.

    During consideration of the Legislative Branch Appropriations for 
fiscal 1984 (7) in the House on June 29, 1983,(8) 
Speaker Pro Tempore Abraham Kazen, Jr., of Texas, sustained a point of 
order in the circumstances described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 3135.
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 18129, 18130, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the last 
    amendment in disagreement.
        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment number 17: Page 16, line 15, strike out 
        ``$35,543,550'' and insert ``$37,700,000''.

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fazio moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 17 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken 
        and inserted by said amendment, insert the following: 
        ``$36,620,000 to carry out the provisions of section 203 of the 
        Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended (2 U.S.C. 
        166), and section 203(g) of such act is amended, effective 
        hereafter, to read as follows:
            ``(g) The Director of the Congressional Research Service 
        will submit to the Librarian of Congress for review, 
        consideration, evaluation, and

[[Page 8522]]

        approval, the budget estimates of the Congressional Research 
        Service for inclusion in the Budget of the United States 
        Government.''. . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment embodied in the motion 
    offered by the distinguished gentleman from California is not 
    germane to the Senate amendment presently under consideration, and 
    therefore that the gentleman's motion is in violation of clause 7 
    of rule XVI.
        The gentleman's amendment has the effect of amending the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, and, for this reason, goes 
    far beyond the scope of the Senate amendment and introduces a 
    completely new subject. The amendment clearly is not germane.
        It is equally clear, Mr. Speaker, that the germaneness test is 
    applicable in the present parliamentary circumstances. In chapter 
    28, the most recent edition of Procedures in the House, it is 
    stated in section 21 that:

            Where a motion is offered to concur in a Senate amendment 
        with an amendment, the proposed amendment must be germane to 
        the Senate amendment. The rule of germaneness also applies to 
        motions to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an 
        amendment.

        Moreover, in the same section:

            When considering a Senate amendment reported in 
        disagreement by conferees, a proposal to amend must be germane 
        to the Senate amendment.

        Mr. Speaker, the germaneness test clearly applies and the 
    amendment clearly is not germane. I ask that my point of order be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Fazio: . . . I do concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.

Striking Funds for Fisheries Program--House Amendment Permanently 
    Amending Authorizing Law

Sec. 27.25 To a Senate amendment to an appropriation bill reported from 
    conference in disagreement, striking funds for a certain fisheries 
    program, a House amendment permanently amending the authorizing law 
    to provide authority for funding for a state ineligible under 
    existing law was conceded not to be germane and was ruled out on a 
    point of order.

    An example of the principle that, to a proposition affecting funds 
for a program for one fiscal year, an amendment permanently amending 
the authorizing law relating to eligibility for funding in any fiscal 
year is more general in scope and is not germane, may be found in the 
proceedings of the House on Oct. 5, 1983,(9) during 
consideration of the Department of the Interior appropriations for 
fiscal 1984 (H.R. 3363):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 129 Cong. Rec. 27313, 27314, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 8523]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 16: Page 10, lines 10 and 11, strike 
        out ``; and for expenses necessary to carry out the Anadromous 
        Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-757f)''.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 16 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by 
        said amendment, amended to read as follows: ``; $4,000,000, to 
        remain available until expended, for expenses necessary to 
        carry out the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-
        757f), of which $500,000 shall be made available to the State 
        of Idaho without regard to the limitation as stated in 16 
        U.S.C. 757e and without regard to the Federal cost sharing 
        provisions in 16 U.S.C. 757a-757f: Provided That 16 U.S.C. 757e 
        is amended by adding the following new sentence: `The State of 
        Idaho shall be eligible on an equal standing with other states 
        for Federal funding for purposes authorized by sections 757a to 
        757f of this title.''. . .

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: . . . My point of order is 
    pursuant to clause 7 of rule XVI, the provisions of which indicate 
    that [the amendment] is not germane.
        Mr. Speaker, I make this point of order for two reasons, if the 
    Speaker would want me to be heard at this time.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.

Raising Ceiling on Number of District of Columbia Employees for Fiscal 
    Year--Amendment Affecting Permanent Law Regarding Hiring 
    Preferences

Sec. 27.26 To a Senate amendment raising a ceiling on the number of 
    employees of the District of Columbia government during the fiscal 
    year funded by the bill, a House amendment proposing also to 
    address in permanent law a hiring preference system for such 
    employees was held not germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 11, 1989, relating to H.R. 3026, District 
of Columbia appropriations for fiscal 1990, are discussed in Sec. 24.5, 
supra.

Condition Unrelated to That Imposed by Senate Amendment

Sec. 27.27 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    prohibiting the availability of funds in any Act for salaries and 
    expenses for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for 
    Enforcement and Operations

[[Page 8524]]

    after a date certain unless Congress enacts authorizing legislation 
    for the Customs Service, a proposed House amendment restricting 
    availability of funds in that bill for the same office unless 
    specific categories of products, determined to have been produced 
    by slave or convict labor in the Soviet Union unless the 
    Commissioner of Customs is provided with evidence to the contrary, 
    are barred from customs entry into the United States was conceded 
    to be not germane as a condition totally unrelated to that 
    contained in the Senate amendment.

    On Nov. 7, 1985,(11) during consideration of H.R. 3036 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against an amendment, thereby holding that to a 
proposition conditioning the availability of funds upon the enactment 
of an authorizing statute for an enforcing agency, a substitute 
proposal conditioning the availability of some of those funds upon a 
prohibition of certain imports into the United States was not germane, 
as establishing a contingency unrelated to that contained in the 
proposition to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 131 Cong. Rec. 30984, 30985, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Department of the Treasury and Postal Service Appropriations, 
        fiscal 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The Clerk will 
    designate the first amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 14, after ``Annex'' 
        insert ``: Provided further, That none of the funds contained 
        in this or any other Act shall be available for the salaries 
        and expenses for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
        Treasury for Enforcement and Operations, after March 1, 1986, 
        unless United States Customs Service authorizing legislation is 
        passed by the Congress.''

        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Roybal moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed said amendment, insert the following: 
        ``Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act 
        shall be available for the salaries and expenses of the Office 
        of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and 
        Operations if any of the following products of the Union of 
        Soviet Socialist Republics are entered, or withdrawn from 
        warehouse, for consumption in the customs territory of the 
        United States after December 31, 1985, unless the Commissioner 
        of Customs is

[[Page 8525]]

        provided with sufficient information pursuant to 19 CFR 12.43 
        attesting to the fact that the products have not been produced, 
        manufactured, or mined (in whole or in part) by forced labor, 
        convict labor, or indentured labor under penal sanctions:
            ``(1) gold ore,
            ``(2) agricultural machinery. . . .
            ``(8) any other product that the Commissioner of Customs 
        determines to have been produced, manufactured, or mined (in 
        whole or in part) by forced labor, convict labor, or indentured 
        labor under penal sanctions: Provided further, That none of the 
        funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to hinder or 
        impede the Commissioner of Customs in making determinations 
        under subsection (8) of the preceding proviso'. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment 
    numbered 3 under clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House.
        Senate amendment numbered 3 provides that no funds shall be 
    available for salaries and expenses for the Office of the Assistant 
    Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and Operations after 
    March 1, 1986, unless Congress passes authorizing legislation for 
    the U.S. Customs Service.
        The proposed substitute amendment, on the other hand, prohibits 
    funding of that office unless seven specific categories of products 
    and other categories determined by the Commissioner of Customs to 
    be produced by slave or convict labor in the Soviet Union are 
    barred entry into the United States after December 31.
        The amendment clearly raises new issues and involves subject 
    matter quite different from the Senate amendment. It also 
    constitutes legislation specifically to prohibit certain imports 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
        Mr. Roybal: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order at this particular point, and I just would like to state that 
    the original Senate amendment provided that none of the funds 
    contained in this or any other act shall be available unless the 
    U.S. Customs Service authorizing legislation is passed by the 
    Congress. . . .
        This provision is more restrictive than the amendment in the 
    Senate bill in that, No. 1, it limits the prohibition of funds to 
    those made available by this act only and it does not apply to any 
    other act.
        No. 2, the language included in the amendment could 
    appropriately be included in the authorizing legislation designated 
    in the Senate amendment. It, therefore, does not address any 
    additional topic, question, issue, or proposition not committed to 
    committee or conference because the Customs authorizing legislation 
    could contain all of the provisions included in the amendment.
        It is the committee's position that the primary purpose of this 
    provision is not to change the scope of existing law. The purpose 
    of this amendment is to compel the U.S. Customs Service to enforce 
    existing laws.
        I would like to put the administration on notice that we expect 
    them to start enforcing the law.
        Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman concedes the point of 
    order,

[[Page 8526]]

    and the point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
    Frenzel] is sustained.

Rescinding Agency's Funds for Research on Seat Belts and Passive 
    Restraints--Amendment Imposing Conditions on Availability of All 
    Funds for Agency

Sec. 27.28 To a proposition rescinding an agency's funds for research 
    and education on the subject of motor vehicle seat belts and 
    passive restraints, an amendment conditioning the availability of 
    all of that agency's funds on certain findings with respect to 
    state compliance with federal standards for mandatory seat belt use 
    was conceded to be not germane, in that it affected regulatory 
    operations and was not confined to research and education funds.

    During consideration of H.R. 2577 (14) in the House on 
July 31, 1985,(15) a point of order against a motion to 
recede and concur with an amendment to the pending proposition was 
conceded and therefore sustained. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 131 Cong. Rec. 21832-34, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Supplemental Appropriations, fiscal 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 262: Page 75, lines 14 and 15, strike 
        out ``$7,500,000 or so much thereof as may be available on May 
        2, 1985'' and insert ``$2,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 262 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert the 
        following: ``no funds shall be obligated until the Secretary 
        has made a complete, definitive and binding ruling on the 
        compliance of each state mandatory safety belt use law that has 
        been enacted as of the date of this act with the minimum 
        criteria set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
        208. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order regarding amendment No. 262. The point of order is 
    that that amendment is nongermane to the Senate amendment and so is 
    violative of the rules of the House relative to this point.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi 
    concedes the point of order. The point of order, therefore, is 
    sustained.

[[Page 8527]]

Rescinding Funds for B-1 Bomber--Amendment To Delay Effectiveness of 
    Rescission Pending Ratification of Salt II Treaty

Sec. 27.29 The amendment proposed in a motion to concur in a Senate 
    amendment with an amendment must be germane to the Senate 
    amendment; thus, to a Senate amendment to a general appropriation 
    bill rescinding funds for continued construction and development of 
    the B-1 bomber program, an amendment proposed in a motion to concur 
    therein with an amendment, to delay the effectiveness of the 
    rescission until after either House of Congress so approves and 
    until after ratification by the Senate of a Salt II treaty, was 
    ruled out as a nongermane unrelated contingency, since the 
    condition involved actions by agencies and authorities not charged 
    with administration of the B-1 bomber program, and the Salt II 
    negotiations involved a broad range of arms control issues not 
    necessarily related to the B-1 bomber program.

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 9375 
(supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1978), the Speaker 
sustained a point of order in the circumstances described above. The 
proceedings in the House on Feb. 22, 1978,(17) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 4072-74, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dornan moves to concur in the amendment of the Senate 
        numbered 43 with an amendment as follows:
            ``Provisions of the Senate amendment No. 43 to H.R. 9375 
        shall not take effect unless either House of Congress enacts a 
        resolution to the effect and in any case not before a period of 
        90 days following ratification of a SALT II treaty by the 
        Senate.''. . .

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order that this is legislation not germane to the issue before 
    us.
        I make the point of order that involved in the SALT talks are a 
    wide variety of issues, like the level of forces, the deployment of 
    forces, the types and number of warheads, and so forth. It does not 
    relate to the B-1 mission. The B-1 here is not a part of the SALT 
    talk agreements. . . .
        Mr. Dornan: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is in order. It is a 
    limitation. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
    think the gentleman from Texas has made a proper point of order. 
    The question of

[[Page 8528]]

    legislation on an appropriation bill is not applicable at this 
    point to an amendment adopted by the other body. The question of 
    introducing new material is not in order, either. The amendment of 
    the gentleman from California simply sets a future time when the 
    effectiveness of the amendment of the other body will take place 
    after ratification of the SALT agreement. It is a contingency and a 
    limitation as to a future time, but I think the amendment is in 
    order. . . .

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, with further reference to the point of 
    order, the matter involved is that the proposed amendment is not 
    germane to the issues involved before the House at this time. It is 
    extraneous. It is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the point I was making earlier in 
    support of the amendment being in order is that there are ample 
    precedents in the House to support a limitation as to a future time 
    which is contingent upon action of either House or both Houses of 
    Congress. This amendment simply delays the effect of the amendment 
    of the other body to a time contingent upon the other body's 
    action.
        That has been upheld by the Chair on many occasions to be a 
    proper limitation. I would add that the issue of the continuance of 
    the B-1 bomber is certainly directly related to the outcome of the 
    SALT talks and is, in my view, fully germane.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a further point.
        It is true we can have limitations in an amendment, but not on 
    an extraneous and totally different issue. The SALT issue is not 
    related to the B-1 bomber rescission before the House and pending 
    at this time. It is an unrelated matter and not germane. It is not 
    subject to the limitation issue that has been set forth.
        Mr. Dornan: Mr. Speaker, it will be noted in my amendment that 
    it is only the action of either body, without concurrence of the 
    other, that would implement this amendment No. 43 to H.R. 9375. 
    That way, one House, either the Senate or the House, can make this 
    decision at a time certain after that particular House or both 
    Houses and the American people are assured that we do have a secure 
    defense replacement for this manned bomber.
        The Speaker: (18) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) makes a point of order 
    against the motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dornan) on the grounds that it proposes to concur in the Senate 
    amendment with a nongermane amendment.
        Senate amendment No. 43 would rescind the appropriation for the 
    B-1 bomber program. The motion offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Dornan) would amend the Senate amendment to 
    condition the effectiveness of the rescission on the approval of 
    the SALT II treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. 
    It is well established that is not in order to amend a proposition 
    to delay the effectiveness of the legislation pending an unrelated 
    contingency, such as actions within the responsibility of other 
    agencies or authorities not specifically involved in the 
    administration of the pending proposition.

[[Page 8529]]

        While it is apparent to the Chair that continued development 
    and construction of the B-1 bomber may as a matter of national 
    policy be related to the progress and conclusion of the SALT II 
    negotiations, it does not appear to the Chair that there is a 
    sufficient nexus between the two issues to permit as germane the 
    requirement that the denial of funding for the bomber program hinge 
    upon the actions of the Departments of State, and their 
    negotiators, for the United States as well as another country, and 
    upon the action of the U.S. Senate in ratifying any agreement which 
    may be reached. The Chair would also note that the issues under 
    consideration in the SALT II negotiations go far beyond the issue 
    of the construction of the B-1 bomber, and that the amendment would 
    therefore condition its construction on the conclusion and approval 
    of deliberations on other and unrelated arms control issues.
        The point of order is well taken, and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Allocation of Funds for Defense Construction--Amendment To Restore 
    Facilities Destroyed by Natural Disasters

Sec. 27.30 To a Senate amendment in disagreement which sought to 
    establish certain priorities in the allocation of funds for 
    construction projects related to defense, an amendment relating to 
    restoration of facilities destroyed by acts of God was held not 
    germane.

    The following proceedings in the 78th Congress took place during 
consideration of the First Defense Appropriations Bill of 
1945,(19) and Senate amendments thereto in 
disagreement:(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 5587 (Committee on Appropriations).
20. See the proceedings at 90 Cong. Rec. 9611, 9612, 78th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Dec. 16, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (1) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment No. 17: Page 13, line 7, insert the following: 
        ``Provided further, That in making allocations out of the funds 
        appropriated in this paragraph for construction projects 
        priority shall be given to emergency projects involving an 
        estimated cost to the Federal Government of less than 
        $250,000.''

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate 
    No. 17 and concur therein.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion to concur with an amendment.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case: On page 13, amendment No. 
        17, lines 7 to 11, Mr. Case moves to concur in the Senate 
        amendment [No. 17] with an amendment striking out the period, 
        inserting a semicolon and

[[Page 8530]]

        the following language: ``Provided further, That the funds 
        appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for 
        restoration of community facilities destroyed by hurricane or 
        other public disaster where the ability of the local community 
        to restore or repair the facilities has been impaired by 
        meeting demands created by the war.'' . . .

        Mr. Cannon: . . . I make a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, this is entirely new matter. The proposition 
    before us is restricted specifically to situations growing out of 
    the war. Here is a proposition which has no relation to the war; it 
    is extraneous matter and is not in order. . . .
        Mr. Case: Mr. Speaker, I would like to observe that the last 
    part of the language which I have offered conditions the action 
    proposed upon the repairing of community facilities where the 
    ability of the community has been impaired by meeting demands 
    created by the war. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair . . . cannot see anything in the 
    amendment . . . except an act of God; therefore the Chair thinks 
    that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of order. 
    . . .
        Mr. Case: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that in ruling upon 
    questions of this sort where they involve securing an agreement 
    between the two bodies of the Congress considerable latitude is 
    allowed for the purpose of reaching an agreement in the interest of 
    comity and that the ordinary rules of germaneness do not apply 
    strictly?
        The Speaker: The Chair would differ with the gentleman on that. 
    The Chair does not think that conferees on the part of the House 
    and the Senate could set aside the rule of germaneness.

General Amendment to Specific Proposition: Senate Amendment Providing 
    for Vessel for One State Maritime Academy--Amendment Regarding 
    Vessels for All State Maritime Academies

Sec. 27.31 To a Senate amendment providing for a training vessel for 
    one state maritime academy, a proposed House amendment relating to 
    training vessels for all state maritime academies was held not 
    germane as more general in scope.

    During consideration of H.R. 1827 (supplemental appropriations for 
fiscal 1987) in the House on June 30, 1987,(2) it was 
demonstrated that a specific proposition may not be amended by a 
proposition more general in scope when a point of order against the 
following motion was conceded and sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 133 Cong. Rec. 18297, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 33: Page 8, after line 21, insert:

                            operations and training

            Funds appropriated under this head in Public Law 98-396 for 
        a

[[Page 8531]]

        training vessel for the State University of New York Maritime 
        College shall be available for acquisition, preconversion and 
        conversion costs of such vessel.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The Clerk will 
    designate the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 33 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert 
        the following:
            Funds appropriated under this head in Public Law 98-396 for 
        a training vessel for the State University of New York Maritime 
        College shall be available for acquisition, preconversion and 
        conversion costs of such vessel: Provided, That prior to the 
        obligation of such funds and prior to the obligation of 
        unobligated funds appropriated under this head for state 
        maritime academies in Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 99-591, 
        except for obligations necessary to complete current shipyard 
        work and voyages in progress, all state maritime academies 
        furnished a training vessel shall agree to such sharing of 
        training vessels as shall be arranged by the Maritime 
        Administration: Provided further, That the Maritime 
        Administration shall submit its final plans for such a ship-
        sharing arrangement to the state maritime academies by October 
        1, 1987. . . .

        Mr. [Gerry E.] Studds [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion on the ground that the amendment 
    that it purports to add to the Senate amendment is not germane to 
    said amendment. The Senate amendment deals solely with the New York 
    State Maritime Academy. The amendment proposed on the part of the 
    House to the Senate amendment deals with the full range of all the 
    state maritime academies and as such is beyond the scope of the 
    Senate amendment and is not germane thereto. . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman concedes the point of 
    order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Restrictions on Funds for Legal Services Corporation--Amendment Making 
    Other Provisions of Law Applicable to Corporation

Sec. 27.32 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    subjecting funds for the Legal Services Corporation to a 
    comprehensive series of restrictions on its activities for that 
    fiscal year and reconstituting its board of directors, a proposed 
    amendment also applying to that corporation ``with respect to the 
    use of funds in the bill'' certain substantive provisions of 
    Federal criminal and civil law not otherwise applicable to it was 
    held not germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 26, 1989, relating to the conference

[[Page 8532]]

report on H.R. 2991, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990, are discussed 
in Sec. 34.37, infra.

Sec. 27.33 To a Senate amendment striking from a general appropriation 
    bill language earmarking the availability of funds therein, a House 
    amendment not only reinserting the appropriation as so earmarked 
    but also authorizing that program was conceded to be not germane.

    On Nov. 15, 1989,(4) during consideration of the 
Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal 1990 (5) in 
the House, a point of order was conceded and sustained against the 
amendment described above, demonstrating that an authorization for a 
program is not germane to an appropriation earmarking for that program. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 135 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 3072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Ted Weiss (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 27: Page 10, line 3, strike out all 
        after ``law'' down to and including ``Mission'' in line 9.

        Mr. [John P.] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Murtha moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 27, and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter stricken by said amendment, insert ``Provided, That 
        notwithstanding Section 502 of the National Security Act of 
        1947, Section 136 of the Department of Defense Authorization 
        Act for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 (H.R. 2461) or any other 
        provision of law heretofore or hereafter enacted, neither the 
        SR-71 nor the classified program referred to in Section 136 of 
        the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 
        1990 and 1991 (H.R. 2461) shall be terminated and that both the 
        SR-71 and the classified system are hereby authorized: Provided 
        further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
        appropriations included in this Act for personnel, operation 
        and maintenance, procurement, or research and development for 
        the SR-71, the classified system referred to in Section 136 of 
        the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 
        1990 and 1991 (H.R. 2461) or any other classified airborne 
        reconnaissance system are hereby authorized: Provided further, 
        That operation of the SR-71 aircraft shall be transferred to 
        the Air National Guard no later than July 1, 1990: Provided 
        further, That of the amount appropriated, $175,000,000 shall be 
        solely for expenses associated with the SR-71 program, of 
        which, $100,000,000 shall be transferred to Operation and 
        Maintenance, Air National Guard: Provided further, That 
        $130,000,000 is hereby authorized in addition to any other 
        authorization for airborne reconnaissance programs and that of 
        the amount appropriated, $130,000,000 shall be transferred to 
        Research, De

[[Page 8533]]

        velopment, Test and Evaluation, Defense Agencies 1990/1991 to 
        be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and 
        for the same time period as the appropriation to which 
        transferred. . . .

        Mr. [Anthony C.] Beilenson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the motion from the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] is not in order because it violates 
    clause 7 of rule XVI because it proposes a nongermane amendment to 
    the proposed amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    want to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Murtha: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.

Philippine War Damage Commission--House Amendment to Enlarge 
    Application of Senate Prohibition on Use of Funds

Sec. 27.34 Where a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    sought, in part, to prohibit the use of specified funds as 
    compensation of certain services of former employees of the 
    Philippine War Damage Commission performed in connection with 
    payment of Philippine war damage claims, a proposed House amendment 
    thereto enlarging the class of persons ineligible for such 
    compensation was held to be not germane.

    On May 14, 1963, during consideration of Senate amendments in 
disagreement on a general appropriation bill, a Senate amendment was 
read which related to Philippine war damage claims and which sought to 
change existing law by designating the Republic of the Philippines as 
payee in lieu of individual claimants, and by requiring the Republic to 
give assurances:

        That no part of [the appropriated sums would] be directly or 
    indirectly paid to any former Commissioner or employee of the 
    Philippine War Damage Commission as compensation for services 
    rendered as attorney or agent in connection with any such 
    claim.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 109 Cong. Rec. 8505, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 14, 1963 
        (proceedings relating to H.R. 5517 [Committee on 
        Appropriations], making supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
        1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A motion to recede and concur was offered with an amendment 
continuing the existing method of payment to individual claimants 
through the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and providing that:

        [N]o part of such appropriation shall be used . . . for payment 
    to any former Commissioner or employee of the Philippine War Damage 
    Commission, or to

[[Page 8534]]

    any corporation, association, firm or other individual or party 
    whatsoever, as compensation for services rendered as attorney or 
    agent in connection with any such claim. . . .
        Provided, That any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
    United States . . . who accepts . . . any . . . compensation . . . 
    for services in furtherance of a claim . . . shall be fined . . . 
    or imprisoned. . . .(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 8506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order was made by Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New York, who 
stated:

        Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the amendment is not germane in that 
    it adds language to the Senate amendment setting forth penalties in 
    violation of the criminal code of the United States. . . .

    Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, in defending the amendment, stated:

        [Y]ou are dealing here with a single subject matter. You have 
    not changed the subject matter. You have merely tightened it up by 
    inserting a penal provision, and I think it is germane.

    The Speaker,(9) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered brings in an additional class other than 
    provided in the Senate amendment. The language reads ``or to any 
    corporation, association, firm or other individual or party 
    whatsoever'' and so forth, and provides criminal penalties.
        The Chair feels that with respect to the additional class for 
    criminal penalties the point of order is well taken, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Travel Allowances: Payments From Senate Contingent Fund--House 
    Contingent Fund

Sec. 27.35 To a Senate amendment providing for payment, from the Senate 
    contingent fund, of certain additional travel expenses incurred by 
    Senate employees, an amendment providing additional travel 
    allowances to Members of the House from the House contingent fund 
    was held not germane.

    The following proceedings took place on Mar. 29, 1961: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 5275, 5277, 5278, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent for the immediate consideration of the conference report on 
    the bill (H.R. 5188) making supplemental appropriations for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes. . . .
        The Speaker: (11) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:
        Senate Amendment No. 66: Page 24, line 12, insert:

                            Administrative Provision

            The contingent fund of the Senate is hereafter made 
        available for the

[[Page 8535]]

        payment of mileage, to be computed at 10 cents per mile [for 
        certain travel undertaken], by employees in each Senator's 
        office in any fiscal year. . . .

        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. Thomas moves that the House recede from its disagreement to 
    the amendment of the Senate numbered 66 and concur therein with an 
    amendment, as follows: In addition to the matter proposed by said 
    amendment, add, at the end thereof, the following:

                            House of Representatives

                                contingent fund

            The contingent fund of the House is hereafter made 
        available for the payment of mileage, to be computed at ten 
        cents per mile [for certain travel by Members] . . . in 
        addition to mileage otherwise provided by law.

        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that the amendment is in 
    violation of rule XVI, clause 7, of the rules of the House. The 
    amendment is not germane because it deals with an entirely 
    different class of people. . . .
        Mr. Thomas: . . . This deals with travel by Members of the two 
    bodies and is directly affected by the same general subject matter.
        The Speaker: Senate amendment No. 66 deals entirely with 
    employees of the Senate. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas brings in Members of the House. Therefore the Chair must 
    hold that the point of order is well taken.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Availability of Senate Contingent Funds for Art and Historical Items in 
    Capitol--Availability of House Unexpended Balances for Other 
    Purposes

Sec. 27.36 To a Senate amendment relating to availability of the Senate 
    contingent fund for art and historical items in the Capitol 
    buildings, a proposed House amendment relating also to the 
    availability of House unexpended balances for those or other 
    purposes authorized by law, or required to implement specified 
    House resolutions (such as those relating to ``mass franked 
    mailings'') was conceded to be not germane.

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 4404 
(12) in the House on May 24, 1990,(13) a point of 
order against the amendment described above was conceded and sustained, 
demonstrating that an individual proposition may not be amended by 
another individual proposition more general in scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations.
13. 136 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 8536]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Douglas H. Bosco (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 171: Page 24, after line 9, insert:
            Sec. 317. (a) Effective with the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 1990, and each fiscal year thereafter, any 
        unexpended and unobligated funds in the appropriation account 
        for the ``Secretary of the Senate'' within the contingent fund 
        of the Senate which have not been withdrawn in accordance with 
        the paragraph under the heading ``General Provisions'' of 
        Chapter XI of the Third Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1957 (2 
        U.S.C. 102a), shall be available for expenses incurred, without 
        regard to the fiscal year in which incurred, for the 
        conservation, restoration, and replication or replacement, in 
        whole or in part, of items of art, fine art, and historical 
        items within the Senate wing of the United States Capitol, any 
        Senate Office Building, or within any room, corridor, or other 
        space therein. . . .

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    reserve a point of order on the motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fazio moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        amendment of the Senate numbered 171, with an amendment, as 
        follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 316. (a) Effective with the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 1990, and each fiscal year thereafter, subject to 
        the approval of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, 
        any unexpended and unobligated funds in the appropriation 
        account for the ``Secretary of the Senate'' within the 
        contingent fund of the Senate in the case of the Senate and, 
        subject to the approval of the Committee on Appropriations of 
        the House of Representatives, any unexpended and unobligated 
        funds in any appropriation account disbursed by the Clerk of 
        the House in the case of the House of Representatives, which 
        have not been withdrawn in accordance with the paragraph under 
        the heading ``General Provisions'' of Chapter XI of the Third 
        Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1957 (2 U.S.C. 102a), shall be 
        available for the expenses incurred, without regard to the 
        fiscal year in which incurred, for the conservation, 
        restoration, and replication or replacement, in whole or in 
        part, of items of art, fine art, and historical items within 
        the Senate wing of the United States Capitol, any Senate Office 
        Building, or any room, corridor, or other space therein in the 
        case of the Senate and for the conservation, restoration, and 
        replication or replacement, in whole or in part, of items of 
        art, fine art, and historical items within the House wing of 
        the United States Capitol, any House Office Building, or any 
        room, corridor, or other space therein or for other purposes as 
        authorized by law in the case of the House of Representatives. 
        . . .
            (d) The Committee on House Administration and the Committee 
        on Rules, by July 15, 1990, shall use such unexpended funds as 
        necessary to study and report to the House of Representatives 
        the feasibility of implementing the provisions of H. Res. 386 
        and H. Res. 387. . . .

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, reserving my point of order, I make a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .

[[Page 8537]]

        Is the motion offered by the gentleman the motion that was 
    presented, that was printed, in the joint statement of the 
    managers?
        Mr. Fazio: If the gentleman will yield, no, this has been 
    modified slightly to include some language which would allow for a 
    study and report to the House of Representatives on the feasibility 
    of implementing provisions of House Resolution 386 and House 
    Resolution 387 which are legislation introduced by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel) to consider a new method of handling congressional frank 
    mail. We felt those measures had sufficient validity that we ought 
    to ask the Committee on House Administration as well as the 
    Committee on Rules to review those bills and report back by July 15 
    on the feasibility of implementing them.
        I would urge that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) 
    not insist on his point of order, because I think this is 
    legislation that modifies and enhances the basic motion that I have 
    made.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Conte) insist on his point of order?
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, yes, I do. The motion is not protected 
    against points of order under the rule. The motion contains 
    reference to funds of the House of Representatives. The Senate 
    amendment pertains only to matters of the Senate. Further, the 
    motion makes reference to a study by the Committee on House 
    Administration in two House resolutions, none of which are 
    mentioned in the Senate amendment. These items and the motion are 
    clearly nongermane to the Senate amendment, and the motion is, 
    therefore, subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Fazio) wish to be heard on this point of order?
        Mr. Fazio: Mr. Speaker, I must regretfully concede the point of 
    order. I do so very regretfully, because I think this was an effort 
    to reach out to the minority and meet them halfway on what is 
    obviously a very contentious issue.
        If we are not allowed to do that tonight, I would have to 
    concede.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the statement of the 
    gentleman from California. I am not objecting to the study under 
    the gentleman's new motion. The House fund is not protected, and I 
    object to the fund, the slush fund, and that is what we want to 
    knock out, and it should be knocked out.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.

Legislative Amendment on Appropriation Bill: Senate Office Extension--
    House Amendment Reducing Funding Ceiling for Extension and 
    Containing Related Specifications

Sec. 27.37 A Senate amendment containing legislation reported from 
    conference in disagreement may be amended by a germane amendment

[[Page 8538]]

    even though the proposed amendment is also legislative; thus, to a 
    Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement on the 
    Energy and Water Appropriations bill, appropriating funds for a 
    Senate office building extension, providing a funding ceiling on 
    such extension, and providing for the transfer of personnel and 
    equipment to such extension upon completion, a proposed House 
    amendment making a reduced appropriation for construction of such 
    extension with a reduced funding ceiling, and providing that such 
    extension upon completion meet all personnel needs currently 
    satisfied by the buildings presently used for Senate office space, 
    was held germane.

    On Aug. 1, 1979,(15) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 4388 in the House, the Speaker overruled a 
point of order in the circumstances described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 22002, 22007, 22008, 22010, 22011, 96th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 37: Page 32, line 21, insert:
            Sec. 502. There is appropriated, out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for an additional amount 
        for ``Construction of an Extension to the New Senate Office 
        Building'' $57,480,700, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, That the amount of $142,627,700 shall constitute a 
        ceiling on the total cost for construction of the Extension to 
        the New Senate Office Building: Provided further, That, it is 
        the will of the Senate that upon completion of the Hart Senate 
        Office Building, the Committee on Rules and Administration 
        shall provide for the expeditious removal of personnel, 
        equipment, and furnishings from the buildings known as the 
        Carroll Arms, the Senate Courts, the Plaza Hotel, and the 
        Capitol Hill Apartments and that said buildings shall remain 
        unoccupied by the Senate until demolished: Provided further, 
        That the Architect of the Capitol shall, within six months of 
        the vacating of the buildings known as the Carroll Arms, the 
        Senate Courts, the Plaza Hotel, and the Capitol Hill 
        Apartments, submit to the Senate Committee on Appropriations 
        estimates of the cost of razing and demolishing said buildings 
        together with recommendations for future use, renovation, or 
        demolition of the building known as the Immigration Building.

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bevill moves to recede in the amendment of the Senate 
        No. 37 and concur therein with an amendment as follows in lieu 
        of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert:
            Sec. 502. There is appropriated, out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for an additional amount 
        for ``Construction of an Extension to the New Senate

[[Page 8539]]

        Office Building'' $52,583,400 toward finishing such building 
        and to remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
        amount of $137,730,400 shall constitute a ceiling on the total 
        cost for construction of the Extension to the New Senate Office 
        Building.

            It is further provided, That such building and office space 
        therein upon completion shall meet all needs for personnel 
        presently supplied by the Carroll Arms, the Senate Courts, the 
        Plaza Hotel, the Capitol Hill Apartments and such building 
        shall be vacated.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, this amendment offered at this time would not have 
    been in order had it been offered to the bill as originally before 
    the House. The bill is an appropriation bill and this constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Bevill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out this is merely a 
    change of the report language that is in the appropriation bill and 
    it is germane and it is a part of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule. The Chair would like to state that the only requirement of 
    the amendment in the motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama 
    is that it be germane to the Senate amendment. The language is 
    quite clearly germane to the Senate amendment No. 37 and, 
    therefore, the motion is in order and the point of order is 
    overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Census of Agriculture by Director of Census--House Amendment To 
    Prohibit Other Agencies From Collecting Agricultural Information

Sec. 27.38 To a Senate amendment in disagreement providing for a census 
    of agriculture by the Director of Census, a motion to concur in the 
    amendment with an amendment proposing that no other bureau or 
    agency make such census or collect agricultural information, was 
    held not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the State, Justice 
and Commerce Appropriation Bill, 1945,(17) a Senate 
amendment in disagreement was reported as follows: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 4204 (Committee on Appropriations).
18. 90 Cong. Rec. 6049, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: Amendment No. 10: On page 59 of the 
    bill after line 3 insert:

            Census of agriculture: For all expenses necessary for 
        preparing for, taking, compiling, and publishing the 
        quinquennial Census of Agriculture of the United States, 
        including the employment by the Director, at rates to be fixed 
        by him, of personnel at the seat of government and elsewhere 
        without regard to the civil-service and classification laws; 
        books of reference, newspapers, and

[[Page 8540]]

        periodicals; construction of tabulating machines; purchase, 
        maintenance, repair, and operation of motor-propelled 
        passenger-carrying vehicles; travel expenses, including 
        expenses of attendance at meetings concerned with the 
        collection of statistics, when incurred on the written 
        authority of the Secretary; printing and binding; $7,250,000, 
        to be available until December 31, 1946, and to be consolidated 
        with the appropriation ``Census of Agriculture'' contained in 
        the First Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act, 
        1944.

        Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the House recede and concur.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Kerr moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate No. 10 and agree to the same.

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a 
    division of the question.
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman may have that. The 
    question is divisible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion that the House recede from its 
    disagreement to the Senate amendment.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Jones moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate No. 10 and agree to the same 
        with an amendment as follows: At the end of the Senate 
        amendment insert ``Provided, That no other bureau . . . of the 
        Federal Government shall collect agricultural information . . . 
        for a period of 2 years from the date of this act without a 
        specific appropriation. . . .''

    Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
Jones amendment was not germane to the provisions of the Senate 
amendment. Mr. Jones stated in reply: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 6050, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment is a limitation upon this 
    provision in the Senate amendment and a limitation upon an 
    appropriation bill. It limits the scope of what it may be used for 
    and limits who may use the information.

    The following argument was also made in support of the Jones 
amendment:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me 
    that the amendment is clearly germane in that in providing for a 
    census of agriculture it is clearly in order to provide by 
    amendment that no other census of agriculture or the gathering of 
    information of that same type shall be permitted in any other 
    place. . . .

    The Speaker, in ruling on the point of order, stated:

        The Senate amendment provides for a specific amount of money 
    for a specific purpose. The motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Jones) is clearly not a limitation on the expenditure of 
    money or on the action of the Department in taking a census; 
    therefore, the Chair sustains the point of

[[Page 8541]]

    order in that the motion is not germane.

Feasibility Study of Land Transfer in State--House Amendment Waiving 
    Law Affecting Environmental Liabilities in Another State

Sec. 27.39 To a Senate amendment proposing a feasibility study of a 
    certain land transfer in one State, a House amendment waiving 
    existing law concerning certain environmental liabilities in 
    another State was conceded to be nongermane

    During consideration of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
for fiscal 1990 (1) in the House on Nov. 15, 
1989,(2) a point of order was conceded and sustained against 
an amendment as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. H.R. 3072.
2. 135 Cong. Rec. p.--, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 243: Page 79, after line 4, insert:
            Sec. 9114. Feasibility Study of Land Transfer for Use as a 
        Correctional Facility.--(a)(1) The Secretary of Defense, in 
        consultation with the United States Attorney General, shall 
        conduct a study of the feasibility of selling or otherwise 
        transferring to the Commonwealth of Virginia, subdivisions 
        thereof, or any combination of subdivisions thereof, a parcel 
        of land approximately 100 acres not more than 100 miles from 
        the southern boundary of Arlington County, from the military 
        installations within Virginia which encompass land that may be 
        suitable for use by the Commonwealth of Virginia, subdivisions 
        thereof, or any combination of subdivisions thereof, as a site 
        for medium security correctional facility for persons sentenced 
        in the courts of Virginia or in the United States District 
        Court in Virginia. . . .

        Mr. [John P.] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Mr. Murtha moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 243, and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter inserted by said amendment, insert:
            Sec. 9121. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1301 
        and 1341 of title 31 of the United States Code, or section 3732 
        of the Revised Statutes, or Section 119 of the Super Fund 
        Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, the Secretary of 
        the Army may have the authority to hold harmless and indemnify 
        the Coolbaugh Township and/or its duly created and authorized 
        authority or authorities or other properly designated body or 
        bodies, located in Monroe County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter 
        ``Township'') for certain liabilities to third persons not 
        compensated by insurance or otherwise for loss of or damage to 
        property, death, or bodily injury, including the expenses of 
        litigation or settlement arising out of the Township's 
        performance of remedial activities for

[[Page 8542]]

        the Army: Provided, That--(1) such liabilities were caused 
        solely by hazardous substances, as that term is defined at 
        section 9601(14) of title 42 of the United States Code, that 
        were released by the Army, or its authorized agents and 
        employees. . . .

        Mr. [Richard] Ray [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the manager's motion, pursuant to clause 7 of rule 
    16. That clause requires that in the consideration of Senate 
    amendments to a House bill, an amendment must be germane to the 
    particular amendment to which it is offered.
        In this case, Mr. Speaker, the proposed House amendment to 
    Senate amendment 243 is not germane because it relates to a 
    different subject than the Senate amendment and indirectly amends 
    existing law by waiving the application of certain statutes to the 
    authority of the Secretary of the Army in a particular case. On 
    these bases, Mr. Speaker, the House amendment is not germane.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Murtha: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.

Senate Amendment Restricting Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Arizona 
    Lands--House Amendment Restricting Creation of Historic Sites

Sec. 27.40 To a Senate amendment reported in disagreement, which 
    provided that jurisdiction over Arizona lands should not be 
    transferred to the Secretary of Interior except by act of Congress, 
    an amendment providing that no national monument or historic site 
    be created except by act of Congress was held not germane.

    On June 19, 1941, in proceedings relating to an Interior Department 
appropriation bill,(4) several Senate amendments to the bill 
were reported in disagreement. Mr. Jed Johnson, of Oklahoma, offered an 
amendment to one such Senate amendment, as described above. A point of 
order was then raised, as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. H.R. 4590 (Committee on Appropriations).
5. 87 Cong. Rec. 5374, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Fitzpatrick [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment; first, it is not germane to 
    Senate amendment No. 152 . . . .

    Mr. Johnson having conceded the point of order, the Speaker 
(6) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 8543]]

Senate Amendment Striking Language Prohibiting Payments to Named 
    Individuals--House Amendment To Prohibit Payment From Government 
    Funds to Class of Persons

Sec. 27.41 To a Senate amendment which struck from an appropriation 
    bill language prohibiting the payment of compensation to three 
    named individuals, an amendment providing that it shall be unlawful 
    to pay, from government funds, individuals who have engaged in 
    subversive activities, was held not germane.

    On June 8, 1943, the House was considering Senate amendments to an 
appropriation bill.(7) During consideration of one such 
amendment, Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, moved that the House recede and 
concur in the amendment, with an amendment as described 
above.(8) Responding to a point of order made by Mr. 
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, Mr. Hobbs stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 2714, Urgent Deficiency Appropriations, 1943 (Committee on 
        Appropriations).
 8. See the motion reported at 89 Cong. Rec. 5511, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The amendment] is germane because it deals with the same 
    identical subject matter which is covered by the Kerr 
    amendment.(9) The Kerr amendment deals, it is true, with 
    only three named persons, but this sets up the same standard, only 
    more rigorous, which was sought to be set up in the Kerr amendment. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Kerr amendment was that stricken by the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Kerr amendment differs from this substitute, insofar 
    as germaneness is concerned, only in this: It named three men as 
    the objects of its legislative wrath, whereas my substitute sets up 
    a standard by which the eligibility of all in an indicated class 
    must be judged. . . .

    The Speaker,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The provision of the Senate amendment that the gentleman seeks 
    to amend by his motion very definitely applies to three individuals 
    and no more. The motion of the gentleman from Alabama would cover 
    numberless people if numberless people came under the provisions of 
    his motion. The language of the bill is specific. The language of 
    the motion of the gentleman from Alabama is general. The Chair 
    must, therefore, hold that the motion is not germane, and sustain 
    the point of order.