[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]
[D. Amendments Imposing Qualifications or Restrictions]
[Â§ 29. In General; Amendments Providing for Exceptions or Exemptions]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8545-8561]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
         D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
 
Sec. 29. In General; Amendments Providing for Exceptions or Exemptions


                                     
    Restrictions, qualifications, and limitations sought to be added by 
way of amendment must be germane to the provisions of the bill.
    Thus, to a bill authorizing the funding of a variety of programs 
which satisfy several stated requirements, in order to accomplish a 
general purpose, an amendment conditioning the availability of those 
funds upon implementation by their recipients of another program 
related to that general purpose is germane; (16) and an 
amendment delaying operation of a proposed enactment pending an 
ascertainment of a fact is germane when the fact to be ascertained 
relates solely to the subject matter of the bill.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 30.30, infra.
17. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3029 and Sec. 31.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But it is not in order to amend a bill to delay the effectiveness 
of the legislation pending an unrelated contingency,(18) 
such as the enactment of state legislation.(19) Thus an 
amendment delaying the bill's effectiveness or availability of 
authorizations pending unrelated determinations involving agencies and 
committee jurisdictions not within the purview of the bill is not 
germane.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3035, 3037 and Sec. 30, infra.
19. See Sec. 31.5, infra.
20. See Sec. Sec. 31.26 and 31.27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment conditioning the availability of funds to certain 
recipients based upon their compliance with Federal law not otherwise 
applicable to them and within the jurisdiction of other House 
committees may be ruled out as not germane.(1)) An amendment 
delaying the availability of an appropriation pending the enactment of 
certain revenue legislation into law is an unrelated contingency and is 
not germane.(2) However, an amendment to an authorization 
bill which conditions the expenditure of funds covered

[[Page 8546]]

by the bill by restricting their availability during months in which 
there is an increase in the public debt may be germane as long as the 
amendment does not directly affect other provisions of law or impose 
contingencies predicated upon other unrelated actions of 
Congress,(3) and an amendment proposing a conditional 
restriction on the availability of funds to carry out an activity, 
which merely requires observation of similar activities of another 
country, which similar conduct already constitutes the policy basis for 
the funding of that governmental activity, may be germane as a related 
contingency.(4) Likewise, an amendment which conditions the 
obligation or expenditure of funds authorized in the bill by adopting 
as a measure of their availability the expenditure during the fiscal 
year of a comparable percentage of funds authorized by other acts or a 
level in a congressional budget resolution is germane as long as the 
amendment does not directly affect the use of other 
funds.(5) Generally, where an amendment seeks to adopt as a 
measure of the availability of certain authorizations contained in the 
bill a condition that is logically relevant and objectively 
discernible, the amendment does not present an unrelated contingency 
and is germane.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 30.23, infra.
 2. See Sec. 31.8, infra.
 3. See Sec. 34.1, infra.
 4. See Sec. Sec. 31.15 and 31.16, infra.
 5. See Sec. Sec. 34.2 and 34.3, infra.
 6. See Sec. 31.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While it may be in order on a general appropriation bill to delay 
the availability of certain funds therein if the contingency does not 
impose new duties on executive officials, the contingency must be 
related to the funds being withheld and cannot affect other funds in 
the bill not related to that factual situation.
    Where a proposition confers broad discretionary power on an 
executive official, an amendment is germane which directs that official 
to take certain actions in the exercise of the authority.
    Where a provision delegates certain authority, an amendment 
proposing to limit such authority is germane.(7) To a 
proposition authorizing a program to be undertaken, a substitute 
providing for a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking the 
same type of program may be germane as a more limited approach 
involving the same agency.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3022.
 8. See Sec. 30.37, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment seeking to restrict the use of funds must be limited 
to the subject matter and

[[Page 8547]]

scope of the provisions sought to be amended. To a proposition 
restricting the availability of funds to a certain category of 
recipients, an amendment further restricting the availability of funds 
to a subcategory of the same recipients is germane,(9) and 
to a bill authorizing appropriations for an agency, an amendment to 
prohibit the use of such funds for any purpose to which the funds may 
otherwise be applied is germane.(10) To a provision 
authorizing funds for a fiscal year, an amendment restricting the 
availability of funds appropriated pursuant thereto for a specified 
purpose until enactment of a subsequent law authorizing that purpose is 
germane.(11) To an amendment precluding the availability of 
an authorization for part of a fiscal year and then permitting 
availability for the remainder of the year based upon a contingency, an 
amendment constituting a prohibition on the availability of the same 
funds for the entire fiscal year is a germane 
alternative.(12) A legislative amendment to an appropriation 
bill must not only retrench expenditures under Rule XXI, clause 2, but 
must also be germane to the provisions to which offered. A limitation 
must apply solely to the money of the appropriation under 
consideration,(13) and may not be made applicable to a trust 
fund provided (14) or to money appropriated in other 
acts.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 34.4, infra.
10. See Sec. 34.31, infra.
11. See Sec. 31.6, infra.
12. See Sec. 34.8, infra.
13. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1596, 1600.
14. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4017.
15. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3927 and 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 1495, 1597-
        1599.

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



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

Allocation of Funds for Pest Control

Sec. 29.1 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Department of Agriculture and including a specific allocation of 
    funds for animal disease and pest control, an amendment was held to 
    be germane which provided that no appropriation in the act be used 
    for the application of chemical pesticides, where state law would 
    prohibit such act by citizens or agencies of local government.

[[Page 8548]]

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (16) was under 
consideration comprising Department of Agriculture appropriations for 
fiscal 1970. The bill included an allocation of funds for plant and 
animal disease and pest control.(17) The following amendment 
was offered by Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 11612 (Committee on Appropriations).
17. See 115 Cong. Rec. 13752, 13753, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., May 26, 
        1969.
18. Id. at p. 13753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Ottinger: On page 5, line 5, change 
    the semicolon to a colon and add the following: ``Provided, That no 
    appropriation contained in this act shall be used for the purchase 
    or application of chemical pesticides, except for small quantities 
    for testing purposes, within or substantially affecting States in 
    circumstances in which the purchase or application of such 
    pesticides would be prohibited by State law or regulation, for any 
    citizen or instrumentality of State or local government.''

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

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, upon 
    reading the amendment, I notice it goes further than I thought it 
    did. In the first place, I do not know of any provision in this 
    bill for the purchase of chemical pesticides.
        May I say further, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment before us 
    goes to the State law, exempting or including pesticides based on 
    those States which have passed State laws.
        The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is a well-established rule that an amendment to an 
    appropriation bill is germane wherein it denies the use of funds 
    for a specific purpose.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Ottinger] appears to fall within that rule. It is a limitation upon 
    the use of funds appropriated in the bill. It is a denial of the 
    use of those funds for a specific purpose. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Use of Mexican Farm Labor

Sec. 29.2 To a proposition that the use of Mexican farm labor during 
    1964 be limited to those farms that had employed such labor during 
    1963, an amendment adding a proviso that none of the workers ``may 
    be used to produce crops that are in surplus supply'' was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 88th Congress, during proceedings relating to a bill 
(20) extending the Mexican farm labor program, the following 
amendment in the nature of a substitute was under consideration: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 8195 (Committee on Agriculture).
 1. See 109 Cong. Rec. 20721, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 31, 1963.

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

[[Page 8549]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]:
        Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
    thereof the following: That section 510 of the Agricultural Act of 
    1949 is amended to read as follows:

            Sec. 510. No worker will be made available under this title 
        for employment after December 31, 1963, except that during the 
        calendar year 1964, workers may be made available under this 
        title for employment on farms where such workers were employed 
        during the preceding year, but only if and to the extent that 
        the Secretary determines that every reasonable effort has been 
        made to obtain suitable domestic labor and that such labor is 
        unavailable for such employment.

    To such amendment, an amendment was offered (2) as 
described above. Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, raised the 
point of order that the amendment was not germane. The Chairman 
(3) ruled, without elaboration, that the amendment was 
germane.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 20723.
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 20723, 20724, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 31, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits for Disabled Longshoremen--Bill Inapplicable in District of 
    Columbia

Sec. 29.3 To a bill providing for increased benefits for disabled 
    longshoremen and harbor workers, an amendment making provisions of 
    the bill inapplicable, with certain exceptions, in the District of 
    Columbia was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (5) 
to amend the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the 
following amendment was offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 10765 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 6. 102 Cong. Rec. 12707, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 13, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: On page 
    6, after line 16, add the following new section as follows:

            Sec. 10. The amendments made by the first section and 
        sections 2, 4, and 5 of this act shall not be applicable with 
        respect to injuries or death of an employee of an employer 
        carrying on any employment in the District of Columbia, other 
        than disability or death resulting from an injury occurring 
        upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any 
        dry dock), notwithstanding the provisions of the act of May 17, 
        1928, as amended (45 Stat. 600, ch. 612, secs. 1 and 2).

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

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    desire to make a point of order, that the amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] is not germane to this bill. . 
    . .
        . . . The original bill in 1927 came out of the Committee on 
    Labor. It

[[Page 8550]]

    makes no mention of the District of Columbia. In 1928, the Congress 
    by a separate bill out of the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia, not out of the Committee on Labor, covered the employees 
    of the District of Columbia under the terms of the Longshoremen's 
    Act. Congress did not amend the Longshoremen's Act, they just 
    passed a separate piece of legislation.
        . . . [N]owhere in the Longshoremen's Act in the initial bill 
    or in any amendment to it, do they mention the District of 
    Columbia. . . .

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair . . . invites attention to this paragraph on 
    page 2 of the committee report accompanying the pending bill, where 
    it states:

            It covers, with few exceptions, (1) all privately employed 
        workers in the District of Columbia--

        And so on. The report itself shows clearly that the pending 
    bill covers the workers of the District of Columbia, and the 
    amendment . . . seeks to narrow or restrict the application of the 
    pending bill.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is germane and 
    overrules the point of order.

Eligibility for Social Security Benefits

Sec. 29.4 To that section of a bill containing miscellaneous provisions 
    and describing several requirements for receiving benefits under 
    the Social Security Act, an amendment adding another requirement 
    was held germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (8) under consideration 
proposed to amend the Social Security Act. To that section of the bill 
described above, an amendment was offered which stated in part: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 6635 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 6969, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 10, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: 
    Page 104, line 3, insert a new section, as follows:

            Sec. 904. Beginning with January 1, 1941, no provisions of 
        the Social Security Act shall be operative or effective for 
        foreign-born aliens who have not taken out their full American 
        citizenship papers by that date or who do not become American 
        citizens within 6 years after their entrance into this country. 
        . . .

    A point of order was raised by Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, on 
the ground that the amendment was not germane to the bill. The 
Chairman,(10) however, ruled that the amendment was in 
order; he stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . This amendment is offered to title IX, which is the 
    miscellaneous section. The Chair thinks it is clearly in order and 
    therefore overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8551]]

Exception Regarding Interest Payment Added to Joint Resolution 
    Approving Loan Agreement

Sec. 29.5 To a joint resolution approving the action of the Secretary 
    of the Treasury in signing an agreement amending the Anglo-American 
    Financial Agreement of December 6, 1945, an amendment to provide 
    that the interest for 1956 due on the loan be paid into the 
    Treasury of the United States was held to be germane as an 
    exception to the loan agreement being approved.

    In the 85th Congress, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the Anglo-American Financial Agreement.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. S.J. Res. 72 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 5473, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 10, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, etc., That section 1 of the act of July 15, 1946 
        (60 Stat. 535; 22 U.S.C. 286l), is hereby amended by changing 
        the period at the end thereof to a comma and adding the 
        following ``and the action of the Secretary of the Treasury in 
        signing the agreement dated March 6, 1957, amending said 
        agreement is hereby approved.''

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Sheehan: On page 1, line 8, after the 
    period insert a comma and add the following: ``with the exception 
    that the 1956 interest payment due and held in a special account 
    pending resolution of the waiver provisions, that this interest for 
    1956 must be paid into the United States Treasury.''

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

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: The amendment is not germane to 
    the bill. As I heard the amendment read, the amendment would 
    attempt substantially to amend the provisions of the agreement, and 
    neither under the law which is being amended nor under the present 
    bill can the Congress act on the terms of the agreement. So that it 
    is not germane.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Timothy P. Sheehan, 
of Illinois, stated:

        . . . The language on line 6 reads: ``and the action of the 
    Secretary of the Treasury in signing the agreement dated March 6, 
    1957, amending said agreement is hereby approved.''
        No agreement is approved up to this point until the Congress of 
    the United States agrees to it. So, therefore, we can make any 
    amendments or extensions or reductions in the agreement until such 
    time as the Congress approves it.

    The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he Chair rules that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman

[[Page 8552]]

    from Illinois is germane, that it deals with the subject that is 
    before us.

Bill To Adjust Postal Rates--Amendment Relating to Postal Deficit

Sec. 29.6 To a bill to adjust postal rates, an amendment providing that 
    ``the postal deficit shall not be covered by taxes on incomes, 
    imports, corporations, fur coats, railroad tickets,'' and the like, 
    was held not germane.

    The above ruling was made on Feb. 8, 1950, by Chairman Chet 
Holifield, of California, in response to a point of order raised by Mr. 
Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee. The point of order had been conceded by 
the proponent of the amendment, Mr. Gordon Canfield, of New 
Jersey.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See the proceedings at 96 Cong. Rec. 1690, 1691, 81st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Feb. 8, 1950. Under consideration was H.R. 2945 
        (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agencies Exempted From Government Reorganization

Sec. 29.7 To an amendment providing that no government reorganization 
    plan shall affect any provision of the Railroad Retirement Acts, 
    the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, the Railway Labor Act, or 
    specified portions of the Internal Revenue Code, or any agencies 
    functioning pursuant to any of such acts, a substitute amendment 
    providing that no reorganization plan shall affect the Civil 
    Service Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the 
    Federal Power Commission, the Railroad Retirement Board, and other 
    boards and commissions, was held germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(15) to reorganize agencies of the government, Mr. Robert 
Crosser, of Ohio, offered an amendment to which Mr. Charles A. Halleck, 
of Indiana, offered a substitute amendment, as described above. Mr. 
William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, raised the point of order that 
the substitute amendment was not germane to the Crosser amendment. The 
Chairman,(16) without elaboration, overruled the point of 
order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 4129 (Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments).
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
17. See the proceedings at 91 Cong. Rec. 9427, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Oct. 4, 1945.

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

[[Page 8553]]

Amount of Gross Receipts Tax Paid Added to Ceiling Price

Sec. 29.8 To a bill extending and amending an act which authorized the 
    President to establish ceiling prices and which contained 
    conditions and exceptions, an amendment permitting a seller who is 
    liable for a gross receipts tax to receive the amount of such tax 
    in addition to the ceiling price was held to be germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Defense Production 
Act Amendments of 1951,(18) the following amendment was 
offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 3871 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 8387, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: On 
    page 18, line 4, insert the following new subsection:

            (f) Section 402 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        subsection:
            ``(j) Where the sale or delivery of a material or service 
        makes the person selling or delivering it liable for a State or 
        local gross receipts tax or gross income tax, he may receive 
        for the material or service involved, in addition to the 
        ceiling price;''
            ``(1) an amount equal to the amount of all such State and 
        local taxes for which the transaction makes him liable; or
            ``(2) one cent, whichever is greater. . . .''

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

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    bill or to the section to which it refers. It has reference to a 
    gross sales tax which is in lieu of an income tax, as I understand 
    it.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated:

        Mr. Chairman, it very definitely has to do with the pricing 
    features of this bill. The whole purport of the measure before us 
    is an attempt to fix ceiling prices and to control prices. There 
    are many provisions in the bill that have to do with exceptions 
    that may be granted, or other conditions that may be made, and they 
    are in this title in respect to the determination of what is a fair 
    price.

    The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment is germane to 
    the subject matter of the bill, for the amendment proposes certain 
    standards with respect to the fixing of ceiling prices, which is 
    the subject matter of the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Limitation on Appropriations in Bill To Make Certain Payments

Sec. 29.9 To a paragraph of an appropriation bill, an amend

[[Page 8554]]

    ment providing that no part of any appropriation contained in the 
    act shall be paid as compensation to certain named individuals was 
    held to be germane.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
comprising Treasury and Post Office appropriations for 1944, and 
providing in part: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 1648 (Committee on Appropriations).
 2. See 89 Cong. Rec. 645, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 5, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Expenses of loans: The indefinite appropriation ``Expenses of 
    loans, act of September 24, 1917, as amended and extended'' (31 
    U.S.C. 760, 761), shall not be used during the fiscal year 1944 to 
    supplement the appropriations otherwise provided for the current 
    work of the Bureau of the Public Debt, and the amount obligated 
    under such indefinite appropriation during such fiscal year shall 
    not exceed $57,000,000 to be expended as the Secretary of the 
    Treasury may direct . . .

    An amendment was offered:

        Mr. [Joseph E.] Hendricks [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    the following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hendricks: Page 12, line 22, after 
        the word ``Treasury'', strike out the period and insert a colon 
        and the following: ``Provided further, That no part of any 
        appropriation contained in this act shall be used to pay the 
        compensation of William Pickens, Frederick L. Schuman, Goodwin 
        B. Watson, William E. Dodd, Jr., . . . George Slaff, A. C. 
        Shire, and Edward Scheunemann.''

    The following point of order was raised:

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment provides for the refusal of 
    payment of salaries to individuals whose salaries are not provided 
    for in this appropriation bill and, therefore, that the amendment 
    is not germane. Further, I make the point of order that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.

    The Chairman,(3) overruling the point of order, stated: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wirt Courtney (Tenn.).
 4. 89 Cong. Rec. 646, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 5, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        With respect to the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Marcantonio), amendments of this character have been 
    inserted in appropriation bills heretofore. The amendment simply 
    limits the appropriation. . . .

Federal Government Exempted From Daylight Saving Time

Sec. 29.10 To a bill authorizing the Board of Commissioners of the 
    District of Columbia to put daylight saving time into effect, an 
    amendment providing that such action shall not apply to offices or 
    agencies of the federal govern

[[Page 8555]]

    ment was held to be germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
relating to daylight saving time in the District of Columbia. A point 
of order against the amendment described above was raised by Mr. Oren 
Harris, of Arkansas, who stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  S. 2667 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
 6. 98 Cong. Rec. 2064, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 10, 1952. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As I understood the amendment, it would amend the general 
    statute with reference to standard time throughout the United 
    States. This bill applies only to the District of Columbia.

    Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 2065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I do not think the gentleman from Arkansas 
    understood the amendment. We are not trying to affect the general 
    statute at all. This amendment only seeks to prevent time within 
    the District of Columbia interfering with the operation of the 
    Government's business in the District of Columbia. . .

    The following exchange ensued:

        The Speaker: (8) . . . Does the gentleman from 
    Missouri intend for his amendment to apply only to Federal offices 
    in the District of Columbia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.  Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: . . . The amendment reads, ``except it . 
    . . shall have no effect upon the operation of any offices or 
    agencies of the Federal Government which shall continue to operate 
    on standard time.''
        The Speaker: Does that mean in the District of Columbia?
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: In the District of Columbia, yes.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to hold the gentleman's 
    amendment germane and in order.

Denial of Education Benefits--Exceptions

Sec. 29.11 To a proposition denying benefits to recipients failing to 
    meet a certain qualification, a substitute denying the same 
    benefits to some recipients but excepting others is germane; 
    accordingly, where an amendment denied eligibility for certain 
    higher education assistance benefits to persons refusing to 
    register for military service, a substitute denying benefits under 
    the same provisions of law except to persons refusing to register 
    for religious or moral reasons was held germane.

    On July 28, 1982,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 6030 (military procurement authorization 
for fiscal 1983), it was demonstrated that

[[Page 8556]]

the test of germaneness is the relationship between a substitute and 
the amendment for which offered, and not between the substitute and the 
original bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 128 Cong. Rec. 18355-58, 18361, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which is printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 26, after line 22, 
        add the following new section:

                 enforcement of military selective service act

            Sec. 1010. (a) Section 12 of the Military Selective Service 
        Act (50 U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding after subsection 
        (e) the following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) The Director of the Selective Service System shall 
        submit to the Secretary of Education, with respect to each 
        individual receiving, or applying for, any grant, assisted 
        loan, benefit, or other assistance, under title IV of the 
        Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), or 
        participating in any program established, or assisted, under 
        such title, verification of whether such individual has 
        violated section 3 by not presenting and submitting to 
        registration pursuant to section 3. . . .
            ``(3) If the Secretary of Education preliminarily 
        determines that any individual described in paragraph (1) has 
        violated section 3, the Secretary of Education shall notify 
        such individual of the preliminary determination.
            ``(4) Any individual notified pursuant to paragraph (3) may 
        submit to the Secretary of Education within a period of time of 
        not less than 30 days after receiving such notification any 
        information with respect to the compliance or violation of 
        section 3 by such individual.
            ``(5) After the period of time specified in paragraph (4) 
        and taking into consideration any information submitted by the 
        individual, the Secretary of Education shall make a final 
        determination on whether each individual notified pursuant to 
        paragraph (3) has complied with or violated section 3.
            ``(6)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
        individual finally determined by the Secretary of Education 
        pursuant to paragraph (5) to have violated section 3 is not 
        eligible for, and may not receive, any grant, assisted loan, 
        benefit, or other assistance, under title IV of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), and may not 
        participate in any program established, or assisted, under such 
        title. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Simon as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: At the end of the bill add 
        the following new section:
            Sec. 1010. (a) Section 12 of the Military Selective Service 
        Act (50 U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding after subsection 
        (e) the following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) In order to receive any grant, loan, or work 
        assistance under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
        (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), a person who is required under 
        section 3 to present himself for and submit to registration 
        under such section shall--
            ``A) submit to the institution of higher education which 
        the person intends to attend, or is attending,

[[Page 8557]]

        proof that such person has submitted to such registration;
            ``(B) complete and submit the necessary forms for such 
        registration at the time of filing application for such grant, 
        loan, or work assistance; or
            ``(C) submit a statement that such person refuses to submit 
        to such registration for religious or moral reasons.
            ``(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the Director, 
        after consultation with the Secretary of Education, is 
        authorized to prescribe methods for providing to, and 
        collecting from, institutions of higher education the forms 
        necessary for registration under section 3, and for collecting 
        statements described in paragraph (1)(C) from such 
        institutions.''.
            (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) of this section 
        shall apply to loans, grants, or work assistance under title IV 
        of the Higher Education Act for periods of instruction 
        beginning on or after July 1, 1983. . . .

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order . . . [T]he 
    amendment which I offered and was printed in the Record was a 
    nongermane amendment which had points of order raised against it.
        Subsequently, I appeared before the Rules Committee and asked 
    for those points of order to be waived, which they granted in the 
    rule.
        Now in the amendment that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Simon) is offering in section (c) he says to submit a statement 
    that such person refuses to submit to such registration for 
    religious and moral reasons. That is additional law which had 
    nothing to do with the amendment and the waiver of points of order 
    that were granted by the Rules Committee. I say that the 
    gentleman's amendment is out of order because of that. . . .
        Mr. Simon: . . . Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is how 
    we can have something that is workable. My aim is the same as that 
    of the gentleman from New York, but I think the gentleman from New 
    York, with all due respect, has not dealt with this whole very 
    complex problem of student loans and grants.
        I think the amendment that I have is the only workable one. I 
    think it is totally within the province of the amendment that the 
    gentleman has.
        I think the substitute amendment that I have offered is in 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Les AuCoin (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair finds that both the amendment and the substitute 
    amendment prescribe limitations on eligibility under title IV of 
    the Higher Education Act of 1965, both in similar ways.
        The question of the waiver granted to the Solomon amendment by 
    the rule is not relevant to the point of order since the test of 
    germaneness is whether the substitute amendment is germane to the 
    amendment, not to the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that the amendment is in order and 
    the gentleman is recognized.

Incidental Conditions or Exceptions Related to Fundamental Purpose of 
    Bill

Sec. 29.12 For a bill proposing to accomplish a result by methods 
    comprehensive in scope, a committee amendment in

[[Page 8558]]

    the nature of a substitute which was more detailed in its 
    provisions but which sought to achieve the same result was held 
    germane, where the additional provisions not contained in the 
    original bill were construed to be merely incidental conditions or 
    exceptions that were related to the fundamental purpose of the 
    bill.

    The proceedings of Aug. 2, 1973, which related to H.R. 9130 (the 
trans-Alaska pipeline authorization) are discussed in Sec. 30.36, 
infra.

Exception From Limitation on Powers Conferred in Bill

Sec. 29.13 To an amendment limiting discretionary powers conferred in a 
    bill, an amendment providing an exception from that limitation is 
    germane; thus, to an amendment prohibiting the Administrator from 
    setting ceiling prices for domestic crude oil above a certain level 
    while performing the functions transferred to him in a bill 
    creating a new Federal Energy Administration, an amendment 
    exempting from the imposition of that ceiling price new crude 
    petroleum sold by producers of less than 30,000 barrels per day was 
    held a germane exception.

    During consideration of the Federal Energy Administration Act [H.R. 
11793] in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 6, 1974,(11) 
the Chair held the following amendment to be germane to the pending 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 5449, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Dingell: Amend the amendment by adding at the end 
        thereof the following: ``; Provided however, That no limitation 
        on mandate contained herein shall apply to or affect any 
        producer of new crude petroleum who, together with all persons 
        who control, or are controlled by or under common control with 
        such producer, produces net to his working interests not more 
        than 30,000 barrels of crude oil per day, so as to prevent such 
        producer from selling that new crude petroleum without respect 
        to the ceiling price. However, if the amount of crude petroleum 
        produced and sold in any month subsequent to the effective date 
        of this section is less than the base production control level 
        for that property for that month, any new crude petroleum 
        produced from that property during any subsequent month may not 
        be sold pursuant to this paragraph until an amount of the new 
        crude petroleum equal to the difference between the amount of 
        crude petroleum actually produced from that

[[Page 8559]]

        property during the earlier month and the base production 
        control level for that property for the earlier month has been 
        sold at or below its ceiling price. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment for the same reasons that I stated 
    before. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) is nongermane to the bill under rule XVI, clause 7. It 
    deals with subject matter which is not in the bill and with policy 
    also which is not the purpose of this section. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment does precisely the same thing as 
    the amendment just briefly offered. It seeks to accomplish the same 
    thing. I would go further and state that it goes far beyond the 
    sweep of the amendment. It issues new categories and classes of 
    producers. It imposes whole new judgments upon the administrator 
    far beyond those which are included in the limitations previously 
    imposed, and it imposes these additional judgments and 
    responsibilities on him in terms of dividing the different kinds of 
    producers into classes and categories.
        Essentially it requires acts going beyond action of the 
    original sweep of the amendment and also beyond the legislation 
    before us. For that reason it is no longer a limitation on the 
    authority proposed but rather, on the contrary, is making whole new 
    law. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite different 
    from the original amendment. As a matter of fact, the original 
    amendment would, I think, have been greatly preferable, but in 
    deference to the Chair's ruling, this amendment does nothing 
    whatsoever to the Dingell limitation on the authority of the 
    administrator, which limitation prohibits the administrator from 
    cutting back the price of oil any less, I think, than $7.09, which 
    sounds like a strange, negative limitation. But at least that is 
    what it does.
        This further limits the administrator in such action not to 
    affect those producing 30,000 barrels or less.
        The Dingell amendment has the effect of telling the 
    administrator: You have got to, or you cannot do anything else but, 
    provide a limitation on price that will not exceed the total of 
    $7.09.
        What this says is that when we do so, we may not put any 
    limitation on new oil produced by producers of 30,000 barrels or 
    less; so this is an additional limitation in addition to what has 
    been called the Dingell limitation.
        I submit that this is entirely in accord with the ruling or 
    holding of the Dingell amendment valid as an amendment on this 
    bill.
        I might add, too, that this does not deal with other oil than 
    domestic crude.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) has offered an amendment to 
    the amendment previously offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    amendment to the amendment on the grounds that the amendment to the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill or to the amendment to which 
    it is offered.

[[Page 8560]]

        The Chair has carefully examined the language of the amendment 
    to the amendment and the Chair rules that since the amendment to 
    the amendment is simply for the purpose of exempting certain 
    specified producers from the limitation of authority established by 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, it is within 
    the scope of and covers the same subject matter as the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Michigan. The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas is, therefore, germane as an amendment to 
    the amendment and the Chair overrules the point of order.

--Effect of Definition of Terms

Sec. 29.14 To a section containing ``definitions'' of two terms 
    referred to in a bill, an amendment adding a further definition of 
    other terms contained in the bill (and whose effect was to provide 
    an exemption from a limitation on authority contained in another 
    section of the bill) was held to be germane.

    On Mar. 7, 1974,(13) during consideration of the Federal 
Energy Administration Act (H.R. 11793) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman John J. Flynt, Jr., of Georgia, held the following amendment 
to be germane to the section to which it was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 5640, 5641, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gillis W.] Long of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Louisiana: Page 30, line 
        15, strike out the period and insert, in lieu thereof, the 
        following: ``; and (3) any reference to ``domestic crude oil'', 
        ``crude oil'', ``energy prices'', or ``profits'' shall not be 
        deemed to refer to royalty oil or the shares of oil production 
        owned by a State, State entity or political subdivision of a 
        State or to the prices of or revenues from such royalty oil or 
        shares.''. . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this matter is 
    not the subject matter within section 11. Section 11 is a 
    definition section. I realize that the gentleman is attempting to 
    define certain words, but it seems to me that the language he uses 
    is to add new authority or subtract authority from existing law. I 
    certainly understand the gentleman's concern, but these words 
    included are probably included in statutes. It seems to me what he 
    is doing is expanding or changing laws which are now in existence.
        Also, we do not know the effect of the amendment on the rules 
    of the House.
        Mr. Chairman, I feel it is inappropriate to this section and 
    nongermane and for that reason ask that it be ruled out of order.
        Mr. Long of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of order that what I am 
    attempting to do by this amendment is to define a term, which is 
    what I am attempting to do by this amendment. And it appears to me 
    to be completely within the purposes of this particular section to 
    do so, and it seems to me that it is a perfectly valid place and a 
    correct and

[[Page 8561]]

    specific place for an amendment of this type to be introduced.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Long) has offered an 
    amendment to add a new subsection to section 11 of the bill, which 
    is the definitions section.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has made a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it refers to matters 
    not contained in the language of the section as written.
        The Chair has carefully examined both the section as it appears 
    in the bill, and also the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Long).
        The Chair will state that subsection (1) of section 11 reads as 
    follows:

            Any reference to ``function'' or ``functions'' shall be 
        deemed to include--
    and so forth.

        The amendment sought to be offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Long) starts as follows:

            Any reference to ``domestic crude oil'', ``crude oil'', 
        ``energy prices'', or ``profits'' shall not be deemed to refer 
        to--

        and so forth.
        The Chair is constrained to feel that if the language of one 
    subsection of the bill states clearly that certain references shall 
    be deemed to include references, and there are two sections already 
    appearing in the bill, the Chair is constrained to rule that the 
    adding of the third section falls clearly within the reasonable 
    interpretations of the word ``Definitions,'' and therefore holds 
    the amendment is germane and overrules the point of order.

Railroad Freight Rates--Waiver of Antitrust Laws

Sec. 29.15 To a proposition amending existing laws in several respects 
    but limited in scope to the issue of federal funding of railroads, 
    an amendment to one of those laws to require any railroad to 
    maintain certain freight rate practices and waiving provisions of 
    antitrust laws to permit enforcement of those rate practices was 
    held not germane as addressing regulatory authorities in law and 
    not confined to the issue of federal financial assistance.

    The proceedings of Oct. 14, 1978, relating to H.R. 12161, the 
ConRail Authorization Act, are discussed in Sec. 35.80, infra.