[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§ 30. Amendments Providing for Conditions or Qualifications]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8561-8615]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
         D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
 
Sec. 30. Amendments Providing for Conditions or Qualifications

    For introductory discussion of amendments that seek to impose 
conditions, qualifications, or restrictions, generally, see the 
introduction to Division D, supra.

[[Page 8562]]

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


 Armed Services: Condition on Contract Authority

Sec. 30.1 To a bill to provide for the common defense by increasing the 
    strength of the armed forces, an amendment was held to be germane 
    which required every contract for the supplying of goods or 
    services for the use of persons inducted under the Act, to specify 
    that the company with whom the contract is made shall not 
    discriminate in employment of any person because of race, religion, 
    or the like.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948,(14) the following amendment was offered: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 8705, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. Douglas: On page 44, line 11, after 
    the period add a new subsection to read as follows:

            Sec. --. (a) Every contract entered into by the United 
        States for the supplying of goods or services to be used by, 
        for, or in connection with any person inducted into, or 
        enlisted in, the armed forces of the United States under the 
        provisions of this act shall specify, as a condition thereof, 
        that the company or individual with whom the contract is made 
        shall not discriminate in the employment of any person, or in 
        the terms and conditions of employment of any person, because 
        of his race, color, national origin, ancestry, language, or 
        religion, and shall specify that a breach of such condition 
        shall result in the termination of such contract. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 8706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment goes far beyond the realm of this 
    legislation. . . . This amendment goes so far from the purposes of 
    this legislation that I cannot understand why anybody would offer 
    it. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mrs. [Helen Gahagan] Douglas [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    think the amendment is germane. Section 17(a) deals with 
    procurement and purchase of materials. The amendment simply 
    specifies what kind of contracts must be entered into in the 
    procurement of materials.

    The Chairman,(17) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment and is inclined to believe 
    that under the broad purposes of the bill the amendment is in 
    order. It seeks to effectuate portions of the declaration of

[[Page 8563]]

    policy and relates to persons and duties within the scope of the 
    bill. The Chair accordingly overrules the point of order.

Prohibition on Military Procurement at Named Facility

Sec. 30.2 To a bill authorizing the procurement of military weapons for 
    the fiscal year, an amendment prohibiting procurement at a 
    particular facility pending the submission of a report by the 
    Comptroller General relating to the feasibility of deactivating 
    that facility was held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(18) comprising the military procurement authorization for 
fiscal 1971, the following amendment was offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 17123 (Committee on Armed Services).
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 14481, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 6, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]:
        On page 6, after line 8, insert the following:

            Sec. 403. The Comptroller General of the United States is 
        authorized and directed to report to Congress as soon as 
        practicable with respect to the economic feasibility of the 
        deactivation of the facilities of the Forest Park Naval 
        Ordnance Station, Illinois; and until such time as such report 
        is made and the Congress takes action thereon, none of the 
        funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act may be used 
        for the procurement of those weapons or related goods or 
        services which, but for a decision by the Secretary of Defense 
        to deactivate the Forest Park Naval Ordnance Station, would 
        have been procured at such Station during the fiscal year 1971.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 14482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is subject to a point of order. While it would be in 
    order on a military construction bill, it has nothing to do with 
    the bill now under consideration.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair feels that the amendment deals with procurement 
    of weapons, that the amendment is germane to the legislation, and 
    therefore overrules the point of order.

Restriction on Assignment of Selective Service Inductees

Sec. 30.3 During consideration of a bill amending the Selective Service 
    Act of 1948, it was held that, to that paragraph prohibiting 
    assignment of inductees, until completion of four months' service, 
    to any areas outside the United

[[Page 8564]]

    States, and prohibiting assignment of inductees, for a period of 
    six months after induction, to any combat areas outside the United 
    States, an amendment was held germane which provided that ``no 
    person inducted under the authority of this act shall be assigned 
    to any theater of operation'' in which the commander is denied 
    authority to bomb enemy targets as specified.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
comprising amendments to the Universal Military Training and Service 
Act, an amendment was offered (3) as described above. Mr. 
Carl Vinson, of Georgia, raised the point of order that the amendment 
was not germane. The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of 
order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. S. 1-1951 (Committee on Armed Services).
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 3883, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1951.
 4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment with some degree of care 
    and while it does present a very close question in the opinion of 
    the Chair, yet it does appear to impose a limitation on the use of 
    troops sought to be provided by the pending bill. In view of the 
    fact that it does appear to be such a limitation, the Chair is 
    constrained to overrule the point of order.

Muster-Out Pay Bill

Sec. 30.4 To a bill providing muster-out pay for members of the armed 
    services, an amendment providing that no wounded or diseased member 
    be discharged until adequate provisions be made for him under the 
    laws and regulations administered by the Veterans' Administration, 
    was held not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the Muster-Out Pay 
Bill of 1944 (5) the following amendment was offered: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S. 1543 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 425, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 19, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Hinshaw, as a new section to follow 
    section 8:

            Sec. --. No officer or enlisted man or woman shall be . . . 
        released from active duty until his or her . . . final pay, or 
        a substantial portion thereof, including mustering-out pay, 
        [is] ready for delivery to him or her . . . and no wounded, 
        diseased, or handicapped member of the active armed forces 
        shall be released from active service until and unless adequate 
        provisions are made for him or her under the laws and 
        regulations administered by the Veterans' Administration.

    Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, reserved a point of order against 
the amendment, and Mr. Carl Hinshaw, of California, sub

[[Page 8565]]

sequently conceded the point of order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 426. The Chairman was Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver of Jurisdiction Over American Troops

Sec. 30.5 To a bill authorizing the sale or loan of vessels to friendly 
    foreign nations, an amendment providing that no vessel be made 
    available under the act unless the recipient country agree to waive 
    criminal jurisdiction over American troops stationed therein, was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
which authorized the transfer of naval vessels to friendly foreign 
countries. The amendment described above was offered by Mr. Frank T. 
Bow, of Ohio,(9) and a point of order was raised by Mr. L. 
Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, on grounds that the amendment was not 
germane. Mr. Bow, in discussing the bill and defending the proposed 
amendment, stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 6952 (Committee on Armed Services).
 9. 103 Cong. Rec. 7271, 7272, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., May 20, 1957.
10. Id. at p. 7272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Section 4 provides that no vessel may be made available 
    under this act unless the Secretary of Defense, after consultation 
    with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, determines that its transfer is in 
    the best interests of the United States. . . . I think it is 
    germane for the Congress to decide whether it is in the best 
    interest of American servicemen as to whether or not criminal 
    jurisdiction shall be waived before we turn these vessels over to 
    these countries. . . . This other provision would give these rights 
    and limitations, so the amendment is germane. . . .

    Mr. Rivers stated:

        . . . [T]his bill deals only with the transfer of ships by the 
    Department of the Navy. We cannot transgress on the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the realm of treaties and such 
    matters. . . .

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Lee Metcalf (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from South Carolina 
    makes a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] on the ground that the amendment is 
    not germane. The Chair holds that the amendment consists of an 
    unrelated contingency which is under the jurisdiction, as has been 
    pointed out by the gentleman from South Carolina, of another 
    committee of the House, namely, the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
    Therefore, the amendment is not germane and the point of order 
    against it is sustained.

Statement of Congressional Policy Regarding Geneva Accords

Sec. 30.6 To a bill authorizing military procurement, re

[[Page 8566]]

    search, development and construction, an amendment comprising a 
    statement of congressional policy with respect to foreign policy 
    affecting Vietnam was held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration comprising supplemental military authorizations for 
fiscal 1967 and stating in part: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 4515 (Committee on Armed Services).
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 5139, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                              Title I--Procurement

        Sec. 101. In addition to the funds authorized to be 
    appropriated under Public Law 89-501, there is hereby authorized to 
    be appropriated during the fiscal year 1967 for the use of the 
    Armed Forces of the United States for procurement of aircraft, 
    missiles, and tracked combat vehicles in amounts as follows:

                                    aircraft

        For aircraft: for the Army, $533,100,000. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Reuss: On page 4, line 10, after 
    ``$624,500,000'', insert:

                  Title IV--Statement of Congressional Policy

            Sec. 401. None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be 
        used except in accordance with the following declaration by 
        Congress of-- . . .
            (3) its support of the Geneva accords of 1954 and 1962 and 
        urges the convening of that Conference or any other meeting of 
        nations similarly involved and interested as soon as possible 
        for the purpose of formulating plans for bringing the conflict 
        to an honorable conclusion in accordance with the principles of 
        those accords.

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

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    rise to a point of order on the ground that the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill. The bill before the House is a supplemental 
    authorization bill. The amendment contains no limitation. It 
    declares a matter of policy which obviously is under the 
    jurisdiction of another committee, since it deals with foreign 
    affairs and commitments.

    Mr. Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin, stated in response: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 5140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he amendment I offer is germane because it is a 
    limitation on the legislative authorization for military 
    procurement, research, and construction contained in the first 
    three titles of H.R. 4515. By stating the circumstances under which 
    the authorization may be pursued, it is well within the precedents 
    of this body, and the mere fact that a portion of the lan

[[Page 8567]]

    guage relates to the foreign policy specialty of the House 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs is entirely irrelevant. . . .
        . . . On May 20, 1959, a House bill from my committee, the 
    House Committee on Banking and Currency, was before this House. The 
    gentleman from New York, Mr. Powell, offered an amendment providing 
    that none of the funds authorized by the housing bill should be 
    used except under a policy that such housing should be available 
    without discrimination. . . . The chairman . . . Mr. Walter, of 
    Pennsylvania . . . held the amendment germane upon the ground, 
    ``that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is 
    restricted to any title of this act and is specific in the opinion 
    of the Chair.''

    The Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 5141, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the subject matter of the 
    amendment comes within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs, and not the Committee on Armed Services which reported the 
    bill now before the Committee.
        The Chair refers the Committee to a decision by Chairman 
    Metcalf, of Montana, in the 85th Congress. The bill then under 
    consideration authorized the sale or loan of certain vessels to 
    friendly foreign nations. It had been reported by the Committee on 
    Armed Services. The amendment on which the Chair was called upon to 
    rule provided that no vessels could be made available under the act 
    unless the recipient country agreed to waive criminal jurisdiction 
    over troops of the United States stationed therein--an amendment 
    which clearly called for diplomatic negotiations with the foreign 
    nations involved.
        In holding the amendment not germane, the Chair stated that it 
    consisted of an unrelated matter under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs--Congressional Record, volume 103, 
    part 6, page 7272. . . .
        The Chair, applying one of the accepted tests for germaneness, 
    is of the opinion that the amendment is essentially on a ``subject 
    other than that under consideration'' and is not germane to the 
    bill under consideration.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Foreign Assistance--Restrictions Affecting Grain Used to Produce 
    Distilled Spirits

Sec. 30.7 To a bill authorizing an appropriation for foreign relief, an 
    amendment providing that no part of the funds to be appropriated or 
    advanced shall be used to furnish grain to the peoples of certain 
    countries ``as long as grain is used in such countries for the 
    production of distilled spirits for beverage purposes'' was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(17) pro

[[Page 8568]]

viding for aid to foreign countries, an amendment was offered 
(18) as described above. Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, raised 
the point of order that the amendment was not germane to the section or 
to the bill. The Chairman (19) overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 4604 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 11272, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1947.
19. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Organization--Proposed Audit

Sec. 30.8 To a bill to enable the United States to participate in the 
    work of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Organization, 
    and authorizing an appropriation for such purpose, an amendment was 
    held to be not germane which proposed that the Appropriations 
    Committee of the House employ an auditor to examine the books and 
    files pertaining to expenditures made by the organization from 
    funds appropriated in accordance with the authorization, and report 
    thereon to such committee.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(20) to enable the United States to participate in the 
United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Organization, an amendment was 
offered (1) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.J. Res. 192 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 1. 90 Cong. Rec. 683, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 25, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Benton F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 15, after line 3, insert the following:
            ``The Appropriations Committee of the House of 
        Representatives shall employ an experienced auditor and other 
        necessary--personnel whose duty it shall be to examine the 
        books, files, papers, and accounts of U. N. R. R. A. and all 
        official documents pertaining to expenditures made by U. N. R. 
        R. A. from funds appropriated in accordance with this 
        authorization. Said auditor shall make a comprehensive report 
        of same to the full Committee of Appropriations quarterly, or 
        at such other times as said committee may direct.''

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

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    joint resolution.
        The resolution . . . authorizes the expenditure of money for 
    the United Nations relief and rehabilitation organization to be 
    handled . . . by the State Department. This amendment seeks to give 
    a legislative committee of this House the power to employ an 
    experienced auditor and other necessary personnel to examine the 
    books, files, papers, and so forth, of U.N.R.R.A. As I understand 
    the resolution, it requires

[[Page 8569]]

    a report to the Congress. The Committee on Appropriations has 
    control over the appropriations. This is simply an authorization. 
    If it is desired to place any limitations upon the appropriations, 
    they should be on that bill, not this resolution.

    The Chairman (2) sustained the point of 
order.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
 3. 90 Cong. Rec. 684, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 25, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emergency Relief Bill--Prohibition on Discrimination Based on Union 
    Membership

Sec. 30.9 To that part of an emergency relief bill stating certain 
    criteria affecting eligibility of applicants for relief or for 
    employment on government projects, an amendment prohibiting, in the 
    distribution of funds authorized by the act, any discrimination on 
    account of union membership or nonmembership was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, the Emergency Relief and Public Buildings 
Bill (4) was under consideration, which stated in part: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.J. Res. 679 (Committee on Appropriations).
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. 6808, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., May 12, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 10. In the employment of persons on projects under the 
        appropriations in this title, applicants in actual need whose 
        names have not heretofore been placed on relief rolls shall be 
        given the same eligibility for employment as applicants whose 
        names have heretofore appeared on such rolls: Provided, That . 
        . . no relief worker shall be eligible for employment on any 
        project of the Works Progress Administration who has refused to 
        accept employment on any other Federal or non-Federal project 
        at a wage rate comparable with or higher than the wage rate 
        established for similar work on projects of the Works Progress 
        Administration. . . .

    An amendment was offered which sought to add a provision stating: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 6812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided further, That in the . . . distribution of the funds 
    appropriated or authorized by this act, no discrimination shall be 
    made because of membership or nonmembership in any union or 
    organization.

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

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that that is not germane to this section. 
    Section 19 deals with that subject matter.

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Section 10 relates to the employment of persons on 
    projects under appropriations in this title and . . . covers in a 
    broad way the applicants who are eligible for employment by W.P.A. 
    The gentleman from Virginia

[[Page 8570]]

    [Mr. Woodrum] has called to the attention of the Chair the 
    provisions of section 19, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] has called to the attention of the Chair that section 19 is 
    of a penalty nature. . . . The amendment of the gentleman from 
    Michigan has no relation as the Chair sees it to the penalty 
    provisions of section 19, and, if germane, would have to have some 
    relationship to the employment of persons on projects under the 
    appropriations in this title as contained in section 10. . . .
        In the opinion of the Chair [the amendment] is a direction to 
    the Works Progress Administrator in relation to the appointment of 
    persons on projects under the appropriations in this title. The 
    Chair feels that the amendment is germane. . . .

Discrimination in Sale of Housing--Basis for Withholding Funds

Sec. 30.10 To a substitute for a committee amendment to a housing bill, 
    an amendment was held germane which sought to give the Federal 
    Housing Administrator authority to withhold financial aid under any 
    title of the substitute unless written assurances were received 
    from the recipients of such aid that the property on account of 
    which the aid was to be given would be available for sale or 
    occupancy without discrimination.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of the Housing Act of 
1959,(8) the following amendment was offered to a substitute 
(9) for a committee amendment: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. S. 57 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 9. The substitute to the committee amendment was language of H.R. 
        7117.
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 8654, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 20, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York] to 
    the amendment offered by Mr. [Albert S.] Herlong [Jr., of Florida]: 
    Add a new title as follows:

                         Title VIII--Nondiscrimination

            Sec. 1007. No . . . assistance authorized under any title 
        of this Act shall be given or made . . . unless the recipient 
        and beneficiary of such . . . assistance gives assurance in 
        writing that the property for which the . . . commitment is to 
        be given or made shall be available for sale, lease or 
        occupancy without regard to the race, creed, or color of the 
        purchaser, lessee or occupant. . . .

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

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane because it is 
    too general in its nature, it is not specific in applying to any 
    particular provision.

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).

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

[[Page 8571]]

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Powell] is restricted to any title of this act and is specific, in 
    the opinion of the Chair.
        Therefore the point of order is overruled.

Scholarships to Medical Schools--Requirements for Eligibility

Sec. 30.11 To a bill providing for scholarships, an amendment relating 
    to requirements for eligibility for such scholarships was held to 
    be germane.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 22475, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 1, 1965. See 
        Sec. 30.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.12 To a bill making grants to medical schools to be used for 
    student scholarships, an amendment establishing a National 
    Commission on Medical, Dental, and Optometric Scholarships to 
    prepare and evaluate national examinations for purposes of testing 
    qualifications of scholarship applicants was held to be germane.

    In the 89th Congress, during consideration of the Health 
Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1965,(13) an 
amendment was offered (14) as described above. The amendment 
prohibited the award of scholarships to those not deemed qualified, and 
further required as a condition of receiving a scholarship that the 
recipient serve for one year in designated geographic areas. A point of 
order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 3141 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 22475, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 1, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: . . . The gentleman's 
    amendment sets up an entirely different program, apart from any 
    program that we have, an entirely new national program which is not 
    contemplated and is not a part of this bill. So it goes beyond the 
    purview of this program and of this proposed legislation and 
    imposes additional duties upon the Surgeon General to provide 
    information that would determine the matter of scholarships, which 
    is not a part of this program at all.

    The Chairman,(15) observing that the bill related to 
scholarships and that the amendment related to a method of establishing 
scholarships, overruled the point of order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Martha W. Griffiths (Mich.).
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 22476, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 1, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conditions on Payment of Agricultural Subsidies--Compliance With 
    Specified Provisions of Law

Sec. 30.13 To that title in an omnibus agriculture bill estab

[[Page 8572]]

    lishing an annual ceiling on subsidy payments to producers of 
    cotton, wheat, and feed grains, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which sought to make such payments conditional upon 
    compliance with the minimum wage provisions of another act and with 
    applicable health and safety laws.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Agricultural Act 
of 1970.(17) The following amendment was offered: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 18546 (Committee on Agriculture).
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 27471, 27472, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 5, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: On 
    page 2, after line 24, added the following new section:

            Sec. 102. No person shall be entitled to receive any 
        payments (as defined in section 101) which exceed in the 
        aggregate $5,000 under the programs established by titles III, 
        IV, V, and VI of this Act, unless--
            (1) he pays each person employed by him . . . at a rate not 
        less than that prescribed by section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 
        Standards Act of 1938, as amended, and
            (2) he is in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, 
        and local laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to the 
        health and safety of his employees, and
            (3) the Secretary of Labor certifies in writing that the 
        recipient is in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 
        (1) and (2) of this section.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 27472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: . . . [The amendment] is not 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of this legislation, which is to 
    adjust agricultural production to national consumption.
        It proposes to amend a statute--section 6(a)(1) of the Fair 
    Labor Standards Act of 1938--which is not in this bill, or for that 
    matter is not even under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Agriculture.

    Mr. Mikva stated in response:

        Mr. Chairman, I would say in support of the amendment that this 
    is a limitation on the subsidy payment that can be made. Title I 
    itself is a payment limitation title and this is another limitation 
    on those payments.
        The amendment does not amend the Fair Labor Standards Act in 
    any way. No one is required to pay $1.60 an hour. The only 
    requirement is that if he desires to obtain more than $5,000 in 
    subsidies then he must comply with the payment of $1.60 and with 
    all health and safety regulations.

    The Chairman pro tempore,(20) in sustaining the point of 
order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Mikva], has offered an 
    amendment as a new section of title I of the bill. The committee 
    amendment just adopted established an annual ceiling on payments to 
    producers of upland cotton, wheat, and feed grains. . . .

[[Page 8573]]

        The Chairman has had an opportunity to examine the gentleman's 
    amendment and would call attention to a decision by Chairman Cox on 
    June 18, 1935--Record, page 9579. In that instance, to a bill 
    providing assistance to farmers through the contractual benefits 
    conferred upon them by the Agricultural Adjustment Act, an 
    amendment prohibiting agreements under provisions of that act 
    unless such contracts established certain minimum wage rates and 
    maximum hours for farm laborers was held not germane.

        The Chair feels that this precedent is controlling [and] that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois is not 
    germane. . . .(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 30.14, infra, for discussion of a similar amendment which 
        omitted the reference to the minimum wage requirements of the 
        Fair Labor Standards Act. The amendment was held to be germane 
        (where ``compliance'' with ``applicable'' laws was the only 
        stated condition, and where compliance with a law arguably not 
        ``applicable'' was no longer a condition. See also Sec. 30.23, 
        infra.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Compliance With ``Applicable'' Laws

Sec. 30.14 To that title of an omnibus agricultural bill establishing 
    an annual ceiling on subsidy payments to producers of cotton, 
    wheat, and feed grains, an amendment prohibiting any price support 
    payments under the bill unless such producers are certified by the 
    Secretary of Labor to be in compliance with applicable health and 
    safety laws was held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Agricultural Act 
of 1970,(2) the following amendment was offered: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 18546 (Committee on Agriculture).
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 27472, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 5, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: On 
    page 2, after line 24, add the following new section:

            Sec. 102. No person shall be entitled to receive any 
        payments (as defined in sec. 101) under the programs 
        established by titles III, IV, V, and VI of this Act, unless--
            (1) he is in compliance with all applicable Federal, State 
        and local laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to the 
        health and safety of his employees, and
            (2) the Secretary of Labor certifies in writing that the 
        recipient is in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 
        (1) of this section.

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

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. It does not go to 
    the purpose of the act and that on the contrary it seeks to impose 
    regulations of another statute without amending the other

[[Page 8574]]

    statute, that it comes clearly within the same ruling of Chairman 
    Cox.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the ruling cited in Sec. Sec. 30.13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Mikva, stated:
        This does not increase the jurisdiction of any agency in terms 
    of present existing laws. It simply says that no one is entitled to 
    receive Federal funds unless they are complying with existing laws.

    The Chairman pro tempore,(5) in ruling on the point of 
order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Committee already has before it the committee amendment 
    which imposes an overall payment limitation. The pending amendment 
    would add a complete prohibition on payments if certain conditions 
    are not met.
        The Chair feels that in view of the concept already introduced 
    into the bill by the committee amendment, the further amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is germane. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 30.13, supra, for discussion of an amendment, ruled out as 
        not germane, which contained similar provisions and a further 
        provision relating to compliance with minimum wage requirements 
        of the Fair Labor Standards Act (where the latter statute was 
        not cited as being ``applicable'' to the producers receiving 
        payments, and where a precedent directly in point suggested 
        that result. See also Sec. 30.18, infra, relying upon this 
        ruling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soil Bank Act--Reporting Requirement

Sec. 30.15 To a proposal to permit payments in advance under contracts 
    to participate in the acreage reserve program, an amendment to 
    require that all such payments be reported to the Clerk of the 
    House in the same manner as political expenditures was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during proceedings relating to the Soil Bank 
Act of 1956,(7) the following amendment was under 
consideration: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 10875 (Committee on Agriculture).
 8. See 102 Cong. Rec. 7434, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., May 3, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: . . . 
    Line 8, after end of section, insert a new subsection as follows:

            (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and in 
        order to assist the producer in financing his farming 
        operations, and caring for and improving his farm property, the 
        Secretary may make an advance payment to the producer of not to 
        exceed 50 percent of the compensation which would become due 
        the producer under his contract to participate in the acreage-
        reserve program; and may in any year make an advance payment to 
        the producer of not to exceed 50 percent of the annual payment 
        for such year which would become due the producer under his 
        contract to participate in the conservation-reserve program.

[[Page 8575]]

    To such amendment, an amendment was offered (9) to 
require reports of such payments in the manner described above. Mr. 
Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill or to the pending amendment. The 
Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 7435.
10. J. Percy Priest (Tenn.).
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 7435, 7436, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., May 3, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It occurs to the Chair that the amendment simply provides that 
    any payments made shall be reported to the Clerk of the House. The 
    amendment to which the amendment is proposed is an amendment 
    providing for and authorizing payments to be made. On the question 
    of germaneness it seems to the Chair that the amendment would be 
    germane and the point of order is overruled.

Issuance of Bonds by Tennessee Valley Authority--Restrictions on Use of 
    Funds

Sec. 30.16 To a bill permitting the Tennessee Valley Authority to raise 
    capital by issuance of bonds, an amendment placing restrictions on 
    the use of such funds for the purchase of foreign-made equipment 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(12) to amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, an 
amendment was offered (13) as described above. A point of 
order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 3460 (Committee on Public Works).
13. 105 Cong. Rec. 7720, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 7, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank E.] Smith [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment imposes a duty not consistent 
    with the provisions of the bill.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Ross Bass (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
    germane to the bill because it deals with the proceeds of the 
    Corporation and the use of the funds. The Chair holds that the 
    amendment is in order.

Conditions Affecting Status of Grain Inspectors as Federal Employees

Sec. 30.17 To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to employ 
    official grain inspectors without regard to civil service 
    appointment statutes upon his finding of their good moral character

[[Page 8576]]

    and professional competence, an amendment permitting those 
    employees to credit their prior private service as grain inspectors 
    to their Civil Service retirement was held germane as merely 
    stating a further condition upon their status as federal employees.

    On Apr. 2, 1976,(15) during consideration of H.R. 12572 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Phil M. 
Landrum, of Georgia, overruled a point of order against an amendment 
holding that the amendment was germane to the section of the bill to 
which it was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 9240, 9241, 9253, 9254, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. The Grain Standards Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            (c) By amending subsection (d) and adding new subsections 
        (e) and (f) to read as follows:
            ``(d) Persons employed by an official inspection agency 
        (including persons employed by a State agency under a 
        delegation of authority pursuant to section 7(e), persons 
        performing official inspection functions under contract with 
        the Department of Agriculture, and persons employed by a State 
        or local agency or other person conducting functions relating 
        to weighing under section 7A shall not, unless otherwise 
        employed by the Federal Government, be determined to be 
        employees of the Federal Government of the United States: 
        Provided, however, That such persons shall be considered in the 
        performance of any official inspection functions or any 
        functions relating to weighing as prescribed by this Act or by 
        the rules and regulations of the Secretary, as persons acting 
        for or on behalf of the United States, for the purpose of 
        determining the application of section 201 of title 18, United 
        States Code, to such persons. . . .
            ``(e) The Secretary of Agriculture may hire (without regard 
        to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
        appointments in the competitive service) as official inspection 
        personnel any individual who is licensed (on the date of 
        enactment of this Act) to perform functions of official 
        inspection under the United States Grain Standards Act and as 
        personnel to perform supervisory weighing or weighing functions 
        any individual who, on the date of enactment of this Act, was 
        performing similar functions: Provided, That the Secretary of 
        Agriculture determines that such individuals are of good moral 
        character and are technically and professionally qualified for 
        the duties to which they will be assigned.''.

        Mrs. [Lindy] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Boggs: Page 19, line 11, insert 
        the following immediately after the first period: ``Any 
        individual who is hired by the Secretary pursuant to this 
        subsection shall, for purposes of the annuity computed under 
        section 8339 of title 5, United States Code, be credited 
        (subject to the provisions of sections 8334(c) and 8339(i) of 
        such title) with any service performed by such individual 
        before the date of enactment of this subsection in connection 
        with this Act.''. . .

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) 
    insist upon his point of order?

[[Page 8577]]

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I do so because, in my opinion, the 
    amendment is not germane to this bill, which amends the U.S. Grain 
    Standards Act, and says, on page 18:

            The Secretary of Agriculture may hire (without regard to 
        the provisions of title V, United States Code, governing 
        appointments in the competitive service) . . . any individual 
        who is licensed to perform functions on the date of enactment.

        Then it is provided further that the individuals be of good 
    moral character and that they be professionally qualified, et 
    cetera.

        The amendment of the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Mrs. Boggs), 
    however, seeks to amend title 5, section 8339, 8334(c), and 
    8339(i).
        Mr. Chairman, an amendment to another statute does not make it 
    germane to this bill, and I would cite as my authority on that, the 
    Record of August 17, 1972, page 28913, as follows:

            Under rule 16, to a bill reported from the Committee on 
        Agriculture providing price support programs for various 
        agricultural commodities, an amendment repealing price-control 
        authority for all commodities under an Act reported from the 
        Committee on Banking and Currency is not germane. July 19, 
        1973, etc.

        If the amendment of the gentlewoman from Louisiana were in the 
    form of a bill, it would undoubtedly be referred to the Committee 
    on Post Office and Civil Service, because it has to do with the 
    retirement benefits of employees that would be selected by the 
    section. . . .
        Mrs. Boggs: . . . The language of section 6(e), I feel, is 
    sufficiently broad and certainly the committee report language is 
    sufficiently broad to insist that the workers who are of good moral 
    character, as the bill says, could be employed without regard to 
    various Civil Service regulations in order to quickly be able to 
    put into effect a service that will be highly necessary for the 
    Government if we indeed are going to take over the work of the 
    private agencies and the State agencies.
        Mr. Chairman, the language is sufficiently broad where it goes 
    on to suggest that positions of at least comparable responsibility 
    and rank to those enjoyed in the private and State systems be given 
    to them and that in setting their pay within the appropriate grade, 
    to the extent possible, cognizance should be taken in order to take 
    into consideration these rank and longevity benefits, so that the 
    employees had, under the system where employed, the benefits that 
    they had under longevity. The benefit system under which they were 
    employed certainly included an annuity provision, and I think that 
    this language that this amendment extends to the bill simply points 
    that out.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has read the language on the page of the committee 
    report and section 6(e) of the bill already deals with the status 
    of the Civil Service requirements with respect to appointments of 
    Federal inspectors. The amendment does not directly amend title 5 
    U.S. Code, and it would further

[[Page 8578]]

    affect the status of those Federal employees under the Civil 
    Service law by permitting them to credit the prior private service 
    to their Civil Service retirement if they become Federal employees. 
    The amendment imposes a further condition upon their hiring.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that as far as germaneness is 
    concerned, the amendment is germane to section 6(e) of the bill, 
    and overrules the point of order.

Eligibility for Agricultural Price Support Programs Conditional on 
    Compliance With Requirements for Protection of Labor

Sec. 30.18 To an omnibus agricultural bill authorizing a variety of 
    commodity price support and payment programs within the 
    jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee, but amended to include 
    provisions on subjects within the jurisdiction of other committees, 
    such as ethanol (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce) and cargo preference (the Committees on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries and Foreign Affairs), an amendment 
    conditioning eligibility in such price support and payment programs 
    upon the furnishing by agricultural employers of specified labor 
    protection (normally within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor) was held germane, as the bill had been amended 
    to include matter beyond the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Agriculture.

    On Oct. 8, 1985,(17) during consideration of H.R. 2100 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair, in overruling 
points of order against an amendment, reiterated the principle that 
committee jurisdiction is not the exclusive test of germaneness where 
the proposition being amended contains provisions so comprehensive as 
to overlap several committee's jurisdictions. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 131 Cong. Rec. 26548-51, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: At the end of 
    the bill add a new Title XXI.

        limitation on participation in certain commodity price support 
                              and payment programs

            Sec. 21. (a) Any person who violates subsection (b), (c), 
        or (d) shall be ineligible, as to any commodity produced by 
        that person during the crop year which follows the crop year in 
        which such violation occurs, for any type of price support, 
        payment or any other program or activity described in any of 
        paragraphs 1 through 5 of section 1202(a).
            (b) Any agricultural employer shall provide the following 
        to agricultural

[[Page 8579]]

        employees engaged in hand-labor operations in the field, 
        without cost to such employees:
            (1) Potable drinking water. . . .
            (2) With respect to toilets and handwashing facilities--
            (A) one toilet and one handwashing facility provided for 
        each group of 20 employees, or any fraction thereof;
            (B) toilet facilities with doors which can be closed and 
        latched from the inside and constructed to ensure privacy; . . 
        .

        Mr. [Arlen] Stangeland [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the Miller amendment is not germane to H.R. 
    2100. . . .
        One underlying rationale for the rule of germaneness is to 
    preclude the consideration of subjects that were not considered by 
    the appropriate committee when the bill was being considered by the 
    Agricultural Committee; this is H.R. 2100. No such hearings were 
    held by the Committee on Agriculture.
        The primary jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Miller 
    amendment is with the Committee on Education and Labor. A bill 
    similar to the Miller amendment, H.R. 3295, was cosponsored by my 
    colleague from California on September 12, 1985, and was only 
    referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
        This amendment is an attempt to circumvent the rules of the 
    House in the consideration of legislation by a major committee and 
    to introduce a new subject, labor standards, into the agricultural 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. [George] Miller of California: . . . Clearly, the amendment 
    is germane, because the amendment provides the conditions upon 
    which the benefits under this program shall be derived by farm 
    owners throughout this country. It is the conditions upon which the 
    agricultural benefits that are put together, the billions of 
    dollars in this program, shall be distributed.
        It is also germane because it does not expand the jurisdiction 
    of American labor law, it does not expand any existing law, it is 
    clearly stated and it is a well-ordered point of law that the OSHA 
    Act, under which the Secretary of Labor has the ability to extend 
    the protection for health and safety benefits, is well settled that 
    it already applies to the agricultural field.
        There are a number of provisions of OSHA which are already 
    settled in the law as provided to them, and this is one of them. 
    This is one of them. So clearly we have the ability to take already 
    existing law, with no extension of authority, and condition the 
    distribution of agricultural benefits and participations in this 
    program on that already-existing law. . . .
        This amendment simply says that those standards, which have 
    already been promulgated, which have already been settled, which 
    have already been published, shall be one of the conditioning of 
    the reasons for which there will be distribution of the benefits of 
    this program. . . .
        Mr. [Richard] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's 
    amendment imposes field sanitation regulations on certain 
    agricultural employers; mandates that the head of the Federal 
    Department, Secretary of Agriculture, delegate the making of 
    further rules and the investigation of violations to the head of 
    another Federal Department, the Secretary of Labor,

[[Page 8580]]

    and renders violations of the regulations ineligible for the 
    commodity price support.
        First, the amendment does not meet the fundamental purpose of 
    germaneness. The general rule is that the fundamental purpose of an 
    amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill.
        The basic purpose of this bill is to reauthorize the commodity 
    and Farm Credit Programs and the Food Stamp Programs. Regarding the 
    commodity price supports, the bill's objective is to bring crop 
    price supports closer to market prices in order to make U.S. crops 
    more competitive in the world market and additionally, as a result, 
    to continue to protect farm income in certain ways.
        There is no logical connection between the fundamental purpose 
    of this bill and the basic purpose behind the gentleman's 
    amendment. . . .
        In effect, his amendment's real purpose is to establish a new, 
    special occupational health and safety statute applicable to a 
    limited class of agricultural workplaces. His amendment does not 
    seek to further the legislative end of the matter sought to be 
    amended but, rather, he is using the vehicle of the Commodity Price 
    Support Program to simply enact his new agricultural field 
    sanitation law and to create a penalty device to enforce it. . . .
        Mr. Miller of California: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order 
    raised, let us talk about whether or not this amendment is 
    fundamental to this legislation that was raised by the gentleman 
    from Texas. The fact of the matter is, this is absolutely 
    fundamental to this legislation. The purposes of this legislation 
    are to determine the conditions and the basis on which the benefits 
    under this program, whether it is an allotment program that we just 
    determined here or whether it is the Commodity Program, whether it 
    is support crisis, crop insurance, loans that are made to the 
    agricultural community, the terms and conditions upon which these 
    benefits will be made. . . .
        This bill is riddled with conditions upon which those benefits 
    will be addressed or which those benefits will be distributed. So 
    this adds nothing new in terms of new law. It simply provides an 
    additional benefit. If you read through this legislation, 
    throughout the legislation, there are conditions placed upon the 
    size of the farm, the wealth of the farmers, the kind of land they 
    till, the kind of land they set aside, whether or not they 
    participate, whether or not they ship their crops overseas on 
    American bottoms or not. All of those are conditions because we do 
    not allow billions and billions of dollars to be distributed 
    without some say so. So I suggest to you that is absolutely 
    germane, Mr. Chairman, to have this condition be made a part of 
    this legislation and a condition under the existing programs on 
    which the benefits are distributed. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the points of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlemen from Minnesota and Texas make a point of order 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Miller] is not germane to the bill. Since the amendment is in the 
    form of a new title to be in

[[Page 8581]]

    serted at the end of the bill, the Chair must consider the 
    relationship of the amendment to the bill as a whole and as 
    modified by the Committee of the Whole. The amendment would 
    condition the availability of price support and payment programs 
    authorized by the bill upon the furnishing by certain agricultural 
    employers of specified labor protections. While it is true that 
    jurisdiction over labor standards for agricultural employees is a 
    matter within the purview of the Committee on Education and Labor 
    and while the bill contains subject matter primarily within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, the bill, as amended, 
    also includes provisions within the jurisdiction of other 
    committees including the Committee on Energy and Commerce, on 
    ethanol, the amendment of Mr. Leach, the Committee on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries which had the question of cargo preference and 
    also the Committees on Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs. As 
    indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 4.1, 
    committee jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment is not the 
    exclusive test of germaneness where the proposition being amended 
    contains provisions so comprehensive as to overlap several 
    committees' jurisdictions.
        The Chair is also aware that regulations have been ordered to 
    be promulgated by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to existing law 
    to accomplish the purpose of the amendment. This situation is 
    similar to the precedent cited in Deschler's chapter 28, section 
    23.6 [see Sec. 30.14, supra], where, to an omnibus agricultural 
    bill, an amendment prohibiting any price support payments under the 
    bill unless such producers are certified by the Secretary of Labor 
    to be in compliance with applicable health and safety laws was held 
    to be germane. For these reasons the question that was raised by 
    the gentlemen from Minnesota and Texas on germaneness will not be 
    sustained.

Expenditures for Missile System Made Contingent on Findings by 
    Secretary of Defense as to Impact of Grain Sales

Sec. 30.19 To a title of a bill authorizing the procurement, research 
    and development of certain military missile systems for one fiscal 
    year, broadened by amendment to restrict deployment beyond that 
    fiscal year of one system pending tests and requiring reports to 
    Congress, an amendment permanently making expenditure of any funds 
    for that missile system contingent upon findings by the Secretary 
    of Defense with respect to the impact of United States grain sales 
    on Soviet military preparedness was held to be not germane, since 
    it was an unrelated contingency involving agricultural exports.

    During consideration of H.R. 2969 in the Committee of the

[[Page 8582]]

Whole on July 21, 1983,(20) the Chair, in sustaining a point 
of order against the amendment described above, reaffirmed that it is 
not germane to make the authorization of funds in a bill contingent 
upon unrelated events or policy determinations. The pending title of 
the bill (1) and the ensuing proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 20184, 20187, 20189, 20190, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Id. at p. 20050, July 20, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        TITLE III--LAND-BASED STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE MODERNIZATION 
                                    PROGRAM

                           procurement of mx missile

            Sec. 301. In addition to the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 103 for procurement of missiles for the 
        Air Force, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Air Force for fiscal year 1984 for procurement of missiles the 
        sum of $2,557,800,000 to be available only for the MX missile 
        program. . . .
            Sec. 302. (a) In addition to the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 201 for research, development, test, 
        and evaluation for the Air Force, there is hereby authorized to 
        be appropriated to the Air Force for fiscal year 1984 for 
        research, development, test, and evaluation for the land-based 
        strategic ballistic missile modernization program--
            (1) $1,980,389,000 to be available only for research, 
        development, test, and evaluation for the MX missile program; 
        and. . . .
    The Chairman Pro Tempore: (2) Are there amendments to 
title III?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                       limitation on expenditure of funds

            Sec. 303. (a) None of the funds authorized by clause (2)) 
        of section 302(a) may be obligated or expended for research, 
        development, test, or evaluation for an intercontinental-range 
        mobile ballistic missile that would weigh more than 33,000 
        pounds or that would carry more than a single warhead.
            (b) The Secretary of Defense may not deploy more than 10 MX 
        missiles until--
            (1) demonstration of subsystems and testing of components 
        of the small mobile intercontinental ballistic missile system 
        (including missile guidance and propulsion subsystems) have 
        occurred. . . .
            (d)(1) Not later than January 15 of each year from 1984 
        through 1988, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
        Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
        Representatives a report--
            (A) on the progress being made with respect to the 
        development and deployment of the MX missile system.

    The amendment was agreed to.

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

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

                            limitation on mx program

            Sec. 303. No funds may be expended for the MX missile 
        program during any fiscal year during which United States grain 
        suppliers make sales of grain to the Soviet Union, except that 
        the preceding limitation

[[Page 8583]]

        shall not apply during any fiscal year if the Secretary of 
        Defense certifies to Congress that the sale of grain to the 
        Soviet Union by United States grain suppliers during that year 
        will not assist the Soviet Union in preparing, maintaining, or 
        providing for its armed forces. . . .

    Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: . . . I make a point of order 
that the amendment is not germane to title III. . . .

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

Members' Salary Adjustments Based on Changes in Public Debt

Sec. 30.20 To a federal employees pay bill providing, in part, a salary 
    increase for Members of Congress, an amendment relating the 
    Members' salary to a certification of the level of the national 
    public debt and requiring a yearly adjustment of such salary to 
    reflect any increase or decrease in the debt, was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
relating to salary increases for federal employees. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 8986 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 5126, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 12, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Brock: On page 41, line 11, amend 
    section 204 by adding a new subsection, Subsection (B) to read as 
    follows: . . .

            (A) Such rate of compensation shall be increased at the 
        rate of 1 per centum per annum for each $1,000,000,000 by which 
        the public debt was decreased, as certified by the Secretary of 
        the Treasury.
            (B) Such rate of compensation shall be decreased at the 
        rate of 1 per centum per annum for each $1,000,000,000 by which 
        the public debt was increased, as certified by the Secretary of 
        the Treasury.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 5127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to this title or to this bill. The subject matter of the 
    amendment is obviously one within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Ways and Means.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

[[Page 8584]]

        Mr. [William E.] Brock [3d, of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, we 
    have in section 204 on page 41 offered an amendment to the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act, United States Code 31. This 
    amendment applies to that particular act and is an addition to that 
    section. It would simply add an additional subsection; therefore, I 
    think it is germane.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee clearly sets 
    forth additional tests and duties which are not contemplated in the 
    original act. Therefore, the Chair is constrained to sustain the 
    point of order.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Compact--Submission of Certain 
    Proposals to Committees on Judiciary Required

Sec. 30.21 To a bill granting the consent of Congress for Virginia, 
    Maryland, and the District of Columbia to amend the Washington 
    Metropolitan Area Transit Compact to establish a transit authority 
    for the region, a committee amendment requiring the submission of 
    certain proposals to and approval by the House and Senate 
    Committees on the Judiciary (but not constituting a rules change), 
    thereby adding another condition to those contained in the bill 
    with respect to the establishment of a transit authority, was held 
    germane and in order.

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
to grant the consent of Congress for the States of Virginia and 
Maryland and the District of Columbia to amend the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact to establish an 
organization empowered to provide transit facilities in the National 
Capital Region. The bill provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.J. Res. 1163 (Committee on the Judiciary); see 112 Cong. Rec. 
        25668-77, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 7, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               H.J. Res. 1163

        Joint resolution to grant the consent of Congress for the 
    States of Virginia and Maryland and the District of Columbia to 
    amend the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact 
    to establish an organization empowered to provide transit 
    facilities in the National Capital Region and for other purposes 
    and to enact said amendments for the District of Columbia
        Whereas Congress heretofore has declared in the National 
    Capital Transportation Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-669, 74 Stat. 
    537) and in the National Capital Transportation Act of 1965 (Public 
    Law 89-173, 79 Stat. 663) that a coordinated system of rail rapid 
    tran

[[Page 8585]]

    sit, bus transportation service, and highways is essential in the 
    National Capital Region for the satisfactory movement of people and 
    goods . . . the comfort and convenience of the residents and 
    visitors to the Region, and the preservation of the beauty and 
    dignity of the Nation's Capital and that such a system should be 
    developed cooperatively by the Federal, State, and local 
    governments of the National Capital Region, with the costs of the 
    necessary facilities financed, as far as possible, by persons using 
    or benefiting from such facilities and the remaining costs shared 
    equitably among the Federal, State, and local governments. . . .
        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress 
    hereby consents to, adopts and enacts for the District of Columbia 
    an amendment to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation 
    Compact, for which Congress heretofore has granted its consent 
    (Public Law 86-794, 74 Stat. 1031, as amended by Public Law 87-767, 
    76 Stat. 764) by adding thereto title III, known as the Washington 
    Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact (herein referred to as 
    title III), substantially as follows:

                                ``Title III

                                 Article I

                               ``Definitions

        ``1. As used in this Title, the following words and terms shall 
    have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires a 
    different meaning:
        ``(a) `Board' means the Board of Directors of the Washington 
    Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. . . .

                      ``Adoption of mass transit plan

        ``15. (a) Before a mass transit plan is adopted, altered, 
    revised or amended, the Board shall transmit such proposed plan, 
    alteration, revision or amendment for comment to the following and 
    to such other agencies as the Board shall determine:
        ``(1) the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, the 
    Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, and the Washington 
    Suburban Transit Commission;
        ``(2) the governing bodies of the Counties and Cities embraced 
    within the Zone;
        ``(3) the highway agencies of the Signatories . . .
        ``(9) the Northern Virginia Regional Planning and Economic 
    Development Commission;
        ``(10) the Maryland State Planning Department; and
        ``(11) the private transit companies operating in the Zone and 
    the Labor Unions representing the employees of such companies and 
    employees of contractors providing service under operating 
    contracts. . . .

                        ``Effective date; execution

        ``86. This Title shall be adopted by the signatories in the 
    manner provided by law therefor and shall be signed and sealed in 
    four duplicate original copies. One such copy shall be filed with 
    the Secretary of State of each of the signatory parties or in 
    accordance with laws of the State in which the filing is made, and 
    one copy shall be filed and retained in the archives of the 
    Authority upon its organization. This Title shall become effective 
    ninety days after the enactment of concurring leg

[[Page 8586]]

    islation by or on behalf of the District of Columbia, Maryland and 
    Virginia and consent thereto by the Congress and all other acts or 
    actions have been taken, including the signing and execution of the 
    title by the Governors of Maryland and Virginia and the 
    Commissioners of the District of Columbia. . . .
        ``Section 6. (a) The right to alter, amend or repeal this Act 
    is hereby expressly reserved.
        ``(b) The Authority shall submit to Congress and the President 
    copies of all annual and special reports made to the Governors, the 
    Commissioners of the District of Columbia and/or the legislatures 
    of the compacting States.
        ``(c) The President and the Congress or any committee thereof 
    shall have the right to require the disclosure and furnishing of 
    such information by the Authority as they may deem appropriate. 
    Further, the President and Congress or any of its committees shall 
    have access to all books, records and papers of the Authority as 
    well as the right of inspection of any facility used, owned, 
    leased, regulated or under the control of said Authority.''

    An amendment was offered to the bill which sought to transfer 
duties and functions to the specified new transit authority 'whenever 
the Authority demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Committees on the 
Judiciary of the United States Senate and House of Representatives a 
readiness to set into operation a workable financial plan, a physical 
plan for a regional transit system, and a program for taking over the 
functions and duties of the Agency.'' (8) A point of order 
was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 25677.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane in that the 
    amendment proposes duties on a committee of Congress that are 
    legislative, and should be resolved by the Congress itself, and not 
    left to the future for some committee to make decisions that would 
    change vital functions.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair holds that the amendment is germane because it 
    provides a different condition in the matter of agreement to the 
    compact.
        As to the question of constitutionality, the Chair holds that 
    the Chair does not pass upon a constitutional question. . . .

Congressional Intent Regarding Award of Construction Contracts

Sec. 30.22 To that section of a bill stating the congressional intent 
    of proposed legislation, an amendment to insert a further statement 
    of intent was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration com

[[Page 8587]]

prising the Federal Highway and Highway Revenue Acts of 1956. The bill 
contained the following declaration of intent: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 10660 (Committee on Public Works).
11. See 102 Cong. Rec. 7178, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 27, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (c) Declaration of intent: Recognizing it to be in the national 
    interest to foster and accelerate the construction of a safe and 
    efficient system of Federal-aid highways in each State, it is 
    hereby declared to be the intent of Congress progressively to 
    increase the annual sums herein authorized . . . by amounts which 
    in each succeeding year shall provide an increase over the total 
    amounts authorized for each immediately preceding year of not less 
    than $25 million. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 7211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Multer: Page 4, line 14, insert: 'It 
    being in the national interest to preserve and expand full and free 
    competition, it is further declared to be the intent of Congress to 
    realize this goal that the actual and potential capacity of small 
    business be encouraged and developed by permitting this segment of 
    our economy to aid in the construction of such a safe and efficient 
    system of Federal highways and that in order to carry out these 
    policies and the intent of Congress the Government should aid, 
    counsel, assist, and protect, insofar as possible, the interest of 
    small business concerns in order to preserve free competitive 
    enterprise, to assure that a fair proportion of the contracts 
    awarded in the construction of a safe and efficient system of 
    Federal-aid highways, and that a fair proportion of the total 
    contracts and purchases for supplies and services for such Federal-
    aid highways be placed with small business enterprises to maintain 
    and strengthen the overall economy of the Nation.'

    The following exchange concerned a point of order raised against 
the amendment:

        Mr. [George H.] Fallon [of Maryland]: . . . (M)y point of order 
    is that these contracts are not let by the Federal Government; they 
    are let by State governments and here we are directing the State 
    governments on how they should award contracts. . . .
        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: . . . The bill before 
    the House already has a similar provision affecting what will be 
    done with these highways after they are constructed. . . . In the 
    report under ``Free Competition'' you will find recognition of the 
    principle in part. This is merely an extension of that same 
    principle, and a further declaration that we should aid small 
    business.
        The Chairman: (13) In the opinion of the Chair this 
    is not a direction. It is merely an indication of the intention of 
    the Congress. It is not binding on anybody and for that reason the 
    point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds for Procurement Contracts--Availability Conditional on Compliance 
    With Laws Regarding Discrimination .

Sec. 30.23 An amendment conditioning the availability to

[[Page 8588]]

    certain recipients of funds in an authorization bill upon their 
    compliance with federal law not otherwise applicable to those 
    recipients and within the jurisdiction of other House committees 
    may be ruled out as not germane; thus, an amendment to the Defense 
    Department authorization bill, prohibiting the use of funds for 
    certain procurement contracts with contractors, including foreign 
    contractors, who do not comply with all domestic United States laws 
    regarding discrimination, was held not germane since requiring 
    compliance with laws which were not otherwise applicable to the 
    recipients of those funds, which were within the jurisdiction of 
    other committees, and which were not related to the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 2969 in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 16, 1983,(14) the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 16059, 16060, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Page 7, after line 14, 
        insert the following new subsection:
            (e) No funds authorized under this title may be used in 
        connection with the European Distribution System Aircraft 
        unless, after preliminary selection of a contractor for 
        production of such Aircraft but before final selection and 
        announcement of the contractor selected, the Inspector General 
        of the Department of Defense certifies to the Secretary of the 
        Air Force that--
            (1) the employment practices of the contractor selected 
        meet all applicable United States laws regarding discrimination 
        on the basis of religion or race; and
            (2) the selection of that contractor was not determined by 
        prior foreign sales of United States-produced defense 
        equipment. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the subject 
    matter of the bill.
        The amendment deals with the employment practices of foreign 
    contractors not under the jurisdiction of U.S. law and as such the 
    amendment deals with matters not within the jurisdiction of the 
    House Armed Services Committee.
        The amendment, Mr. Chairman, also requires a determination as 
    to whether the selection of a foreign contractor was determined by 
    prior foreign sales of U.S.-produced defense equipment.
        Foreign military sales issues are also not within the 
    jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. . . .
        Mr. Vento: . . . Mr. Chairman, the precedents of the House 
    indicate that this amendment is germane and should be ruled in 
    order as a legiti

[[Page 8589]]

    mate limitation on the authority of the Secretary of the Air Force 
    to procure certain aircraft.
        The amendment would require the Department to make certain 
    certifications before selecting a final contractor for an aircraft 
    specifically authorized by this legislation. The amendment on its 
    face does not attempt to expand the applicability of law regarding 
    nondiscrimination in employment to new areas, instead it conditions 
    the use of the authorized funds upon a certification of the 
    employment practices of the selected contractor. Precedence is 
    found for this in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 23.6 
    ruling of the Chair, August 5, 1970. In that instance, the Chair 
    ruled that, to a bill providing for an annual ceiling on subsidies 
    for crop producers, an amendment prohibiting those payments unless 
    the Secretary of Labor certified such producers to be in compliance 
    with applicable health and safety laws was germane.
        In addition, this amendment limits the authority granted under 
    this legislation. General direction on this can be found in 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 25.1. A ruling of the 
    Chair on July 17, 1978, Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    26.1 relates more specifically to the pending amendment.

            . . . an amendment limiting the exercise of a discretionary 
        power conferred in a bill may be germane even though it 
        incorporates as a term of measurement a qualification or 
        condition applicable to entities beyond the scope of the bill.

        Finally, the restriction contained in the amendment relates 
    solely to funds authorizing in this bill and does not apply to 
    another category of funds, or funds authorized in other bills or in 
    previous years. Generally, this is stated in Deschler's Procedure, 
    chapter 28, section 27.1. A ruling of the Chair on July 26, 1979, 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 27.8 more specifically 
    parallels this situation.
        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that this 
    amendment is germane and places a legitimate condition and 
    restriction on the use of funds authorized in this bill. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The Chair would 
    suggest to the gentleman from Minnesota, the precedents that he 
    read apply to domestic recipients who are already covered by 
    applicable U.S. law rather than foreign recipients to whom U.S. 
    laws are not applicable. The Chair would under the precedents be 
    constrained to sustain the point of order by the gentleman from New 
    York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidation of Assets of Federal Credit Agencies--Amendment Providing 
    Government Guarantees on Obligations

Sec. 30.24 To a bill enabling certain federal credit agencies to enter 
    into trust agreements with the Federal National Mortgage 
    Association and permitting that Association to sell participation 
    certificates based on a pool of the credit agencies' loans, an 
    amendment providing that such participation certifi

[[Page 8590]]

    cates be obligations guaranteed as to principal and interest by the 
    United States was held to be germane.

    On May 18, 1966, the Committee of the Whole was considering the 
Participation Sales Act of 1966,(16) which was a bill to 
promote private financing of credit needs and to provide for an 
efficient method of liquidating financial assets held by federal credit 
agencies. An amendment was offered (17) as described above. 
A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 14544 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 10908, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., May 18, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the gentleman from New Jersey is trying to change the 
    national debt limit. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, the law is very plain, I believe, as to what 
    shall be included in the public debt. . . .
        . . . [T]his is an attempt to change the law relating to the 
    public debt in a bill that does not contain the subject matter now 
    pending before the House.

    The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the language of the pending 
    amendment would be germane to the pending bill and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Conditions Attached to Loan Guarantees for Chrysler Corporation

Sec. 30.25 Where a proposal authorized loan guarantees to the Chrysler 
    Corporation, for purposes of enabling the corporation to remain 
    economically viable and to continue to furnish goods and services, 
    thereby avoiding adverse effects on the economy and domestic 
    employment, but set a variety of conditions on such loan guarantees 
    (such as a prohibition against paying dividends during the term of 
    the loan guarantee), an amendment providing that during that term 
    the corporation shall not purchase or develop manufacturing 
    facilities outside the United States was held germane as a further 
    condition related to the stated purposes of the bill as a whole.

    During consideration of H.R. 5860 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Dec. 18, 1979,(19) the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the amendment described

[[Page 8591]]

above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 36791-93, 36818, 36819, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 authority for commitments for loan guarantees

            Sec. 4. (a) The Board, on such terms as it deems 
        appropriate, may make commitments to guarantee either the 
        principal amount of loans to a borrower or the principal amount 
        of, and interest on, loans to a borrower. A commitment may be 
        made only if, at the time the commitment is issued, the Board 
        determines that--
            (1) there exists an energy-savings plan which--
            (A) is satisfactory to the Board;
            (B) is developed in consultation with other appropriate 
        Federal agencies;
            (C) focuses on the national need to lessen United States 
        dependence on petroleum; and
            (D) can be carried out by the borrowers;
            (2) the commitment is needed to enable the Corporation to 
        continue to furnish goods or services, and failure to meet such 
        need would adversely and seriously affect the economy of, or 
        employment in, the United States or any region thereof . . .
            (4) the Corporation has submitted to the Board a 
        satisfactory financing plan which meets the financing needs of 
        the Corporation as reflected in the operating plan for the 
        period covered by such operating plan, and which includes, in 
        accordance with the provisions of subsection (c), an aggregate 
        amount of nonfederally guaranteed assistance of at least 
        $1,830,000,000--
            (A) from financial commitments or concessions from persons 
        with an existing economic stake in the health of the 
        Corporation in excess of their outstanding commitments or 
        concessions as of October 17, 1979, or from other persons;
            (B) from capital to be obtained through merger, sale or 
        securities, or otherwise after October 17, 1979 . . .
            (6) the Board has received assurances from existing 
        creditors that they will continue to waive their rights to 
        recover under any prior credit commitment which may be in 
        default unless the Board determines that the exercise of those 
        rights would not adversely affect the operating plan submitted 
        under paragraph (3) or the financing plan submitted under 
        paragraph (4). . . .

                    terms and conditions of loan guarantees

            Sec. 8. (a) Loans guaranteed under this Act shall be 
        payable in full not later than December 31, 1990, and the terms 
        and conditions of such loans shall provide that they cannot be 
        amended, or any provision waived, without the Board's prior 
        consent. . . .
            (4) The Corporation may not pay any dividends on its common 
        or preferred stock during the period beginning on the date of 
        the enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which loan 
        guarantees issued under this Act are no longer outstanding . . 
        .

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stark to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        At the end of section 4 of the matter proposed to be inserted, 
        insert the following new subsection:
            ``(o) During the period in which any loan guarantee is 
        outstanding

[[Page 8592]]

        under this Act, the Corporation shall not spend any funds to 
        purchase or expand manufacturing facilities which are not 
        located in the United States.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        [T]he rules of the House require that the amendment be germane 
    to both the bill and the amendment to which it is offered, as well 
    as to the particular portion of the amendment to which the proposal 
    is offered. This amendment, I think, fails to meet all three of 
    these requirements.
        The particular section of the amendment to which this amendment 
    is offered reads as follows: ``Authority for Commitments for Loan 
    Guarantees.'' This section deals with two things: No. 1, that the 
    builder of the automobile to receive the loan guarantee shall have 
    an energy savings plan. That is the first one. It shall have such a 
    plan as a part of both its operating and its financial plan.
        The section subsequently goes on and lays down what goes into a 
    satisfactory financing plan. If the Chair will follow this, he will 
    find that the particular section deals with the financing plan 
    clear through the section and deals with the actions of the 
    corporation which will be taken to satisfy a satisfactory financing 
    plan and a plan which will assure the protection of the United 
    States and the interest of the taxpayers in the loan.
        The proposal that is offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Stark) dictates what shall be done by Chrysler, not what will 
    respond to the requirements of this particular section which deal 
    with the financial capability and financial ability of the 
    corporation to repay and as to what constitutes a satisfactory 
    financing plan by the corporation. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I point out that the amendment is not germane 
    because it does not fall in the category of conditions that are met 
    in . . . the bill, the amendment to the bill or the particular 
    section to which it is made.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will bear with me, my 
    amendment, I believe, is to section 40. The gentleman from Michigan 
    is quite correct that that is the authority for commitments under 
    loan guarantees. On page 4 of the committee print of the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute, on line 14, under the sections which 
    the gentleman from Michigan stated:

            . . . the commitment is needed to enable the Corporation to 
        continue to furnish goods or services, and failure to meet such 
        need would adversely and seriously affect the economy of, or 
        employment in, the United States or any region thereof.

        Going along further, under the financial plan, which the 
    gentleman said should be submitted, on page 6, paragraph (8):

            . . . the financing plan submitted under paragraph (4) 
        provides that expenditures under such financing plan will 
        contribute to the domestic economic viability of the 
        corporation.

        I certainly presume that domestic economic viability of the 
    corporation relates to expenditures in the United States and not 
    overseas.
        So I would submit that my amendment deals directly with 
    assuring that the intent of section (4) will be carried

[[Page 8593]]

    out by the Board and, therefore, is of the most germane nature and 
    very important to the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) . . . [T]he Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the argument made by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Stark) is to the point, that both the provisions 
    mentioned are pertinent, and that the amendment is pertinent to the 
    general purposes of the Moorhead amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as indicated by related provisions in the section in 
    question and especially by the substitute as a whole.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Credit Terms for Assistance to India--Amendment Providing That Interest 
    Paid Be Available for Certain State Department Expenditures

Sec. 30.26 To a bill authorizing assistance to India on specified 
    credit terms, an amendment providing that interest payable by India 
    on any debt incurred under the program be deposited in a special 
    account in the Treasury and be made available for certain types of 
    expenditure by the Department of State was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
relating to emergency food relief assistance to India. An amendment was 
offered to the bill by Mr. William G. Bray, of Indiana: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 3791 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 2. 97 Cong. Rec. 5837, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., May 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 4(a) Any sums payable by the Government of India, under 
    the interest terms agreed to between the Government of the United 
    States and the Government of India . . . shall, when paid, be 
    placed in a special deposit account in the Treasury of the United 
    States, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, to remain 
    available until expended. This account shall be available to the 
    Department of State for the following uses:
        (1) Allocation, for designated educational, agricultural, 
    experimental, scientific, medical, or philanthropic activities, to 
    American institutions engaged in such activities in India. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 5838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: . . . I submit the gentleman's 
    amendment goes far beyond the scope of the legislation. It 
    introduces a great deal of new matter and provides for an 
    appropriation in a legislative act, and is therefore not in order. 
    . . .

    Mr. Jacob K. Javits, of New York, who was among those speaking in 
defense of the amendment, stated:

        . . . We are providing for a loan in the bill . . . and it 
    appears to me the

[[Page 8594]]

    Chair could consistently sustain this amendment on the ground that 
    it is a direction to the negotiators as to what they should write 
    into the terms and conditions of that loan in making their 
    agreement.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Indiana offers an amendment, which the Clerk 
    has reported, providing certain conditions relating to the 
    assistance proposed to be granted under the pending bill; in 
    addition it proposes the creation of a fund and makes available 
    those funds for certain specific purposes.
        The gentleman from Ohio makes a point of order against the 
    amendment on two grounds: One, that it is not germane; two, that it 
    seeks to make an appropriation.
        The Chair would call attention to page 88 of Cannon's 
    Precedents where the following statement is made:

            The mere fact that an amendment proposes to attain the same 
        end sought to be attained by the bill to which offered--
    Which is the contention of the gentleman from Indiana--

            does not render it germane. . . .

        The Chair . . . sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Ohio in both respects (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For discussion of the prohibition against appropriations in 
        legislative bills, see Ch. 25 Sec. 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Humanitarian Assistance to Vietnam War Victims--Amendment Prohibiting 
    Specified Uses of Assistance in High Unemployment Areas in United 
    States

Sec. 30.27 To a substitute dealing with humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance to war victims of South Vietnam, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of such assistance to relocate or to create 
    employment opportunities for evacuees in high unemployment areas in 
    the United States was held to raise issues beyond the scope of the 
    bill and was ruled out as not germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(6) during consideration of H.R. 
6096,(7) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment was 
offered to which a point of order was made and sustained. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 11512, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance and Evacuation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Clay to the amendment offered by 
        Mr.

[[Page 8595]]

        Eckhardt, as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Add a new section to the end 
        of the bill which reads:
            ``No funds authorized under this act shall be used directly 
        or indirectly to transport Vietnamese refugees to any 
        congressional district or create employment opportunities in 
        any congressional district where the unemployment rate exceeds 
        the national unemployment rate as defined by the Bureau of 
        Labor statistics of the United States Department of Labor.''.   
        . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. It goes greatly beyond the 
    scope of the bill and the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
    Nothing in the bill or in the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute deals with the national unemployment rate. . . .
        Mr. Clay: . . . .The amendment simply imposes a condition that 
    none of the money may be used, or a limitation on the way the money 
    will be spent. I do not know how it goes beyond the scope of this 
    bill or the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. For 
    the reasons stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) 
    and for the fact that the contingency set forth in the gentleman's 
    amendment is not related to the purposes of the bill, the point of 
    order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishment of Petroleum Reserves--President Given Authority Pursuant 
    to Any Program ``Subsequently Authorized'' by Congress

Sec. 30.28 To a proposition reported from the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 
    establish national petroleum reserves on certain public lands, 
    including naval petroleum reserves, an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute containing similar provisions and authorizing the 
    President to place petroleum reserves in strategic storage 
    facilities ``pursuant to any program subsequently authorized by 
    Congress'' was held germane, since it did not itself establish a 
    strategic storage facility (a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Armed Services) but merely conditioned the President's 
    authority upon separate enactment of such program.

    On July 8, 1975,(9) during consideration of H.R. 49, 
Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, overruled a

[[Page 8596]]

point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 21631-33, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Melcher: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
            That in order to develop petroleum reserves of the United 
        States which need to be regulated in a manner to meet the total 
        energy needs of the Nation, including but not limited to 
        national defense, the Secretary of the Interior, with the 
        approval of the President, is authorized to establish national 
        petroleum reserves on any reserved or unreserved public lands 
        of the United States. . . .
            Sec. 2. No national petroleum reserve that includes all or 
        part of an existing naval petroleum reserve shall be 
        established without prior consultation with the Secretary of 
        Defense, and when so established, the portion of such naval 
        reserve included shall be deemed to be excluded from the naval 
        petroleum reserve. . . .
            (d) Pursuant to any program hereafter authorized by the 
        Congress, the President may, in his discretion, direct that not 
        more than 25 percentum of the oil produced from such national 
        petroleum reserves shall be placed in strategic storage 
        facilities or exchanged for oil and gas products of equal value 
        which shall be placed in such strategic storage facilities. . . 
        .
            (f) The Secretary of the Interior with the approval of the 
        President, is hereby authorized and directed to explore for oil 
        and gas on the area designated as Naval Petroleum Reserve 
        Numbered 4 if it is included in a National Petroleum Reserve 
        and he shall report annually to Congress on his plan for 
        exploration of such reserve, Provided, That no development 
        leading to production shall be undertaken unless authorized by 
        Congress. He is authorized and directed to undertake a study of 
        the feasibility of delivery systems with respect to oil and gas 
        which may be produced from such reserve. . . .

        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order against the amendment on the basis that the 
    amendment offered includes a sentence relating to strategic 
    defense. The original bill, H.R. 49, has no such reference.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman specify the language he refers 
    to?
        Mr. Hebert: The language which I read, from section (d):

            Pursuant to any program hereafter authorized by the 
        Congress, the President may, in his discretion, direct that no 
        more than 25 percentum of the oil produced from such national 
        petroleum reserves shall be placed in strategic storage 
        facilities or exchanged for oil and gas products of equal value 
        which shall be placed in such strategic storage facilities.

        I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the original bill, as presented 
    to the Committee on Rules, did not contain any such reference at 
    all. Therefore, it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Melcher: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the section that the 
    gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Hebert) has referred to is indeed 
    germane to the bill. It involves the discretionary right of the 
    President to designate a portion of the Elk Hills production for 
    strategic storage reserves. It deals with production of Elk Hills 
    oil, and all through the bill we were determining what we could do 
    in the best interest of the Nation. . . .

[[Page 8597]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on this point of 
    order.
        The Chair would note that the language of the Melcher amendment 
    referred to states ``pursuant to any program hereafter authorized 
    by the Congress.''
        The Melcher amendment does not set up a program nor authorize a 
    program for strategic storage of petroleum; it merely refers to a 
    program which may hereafter be authorized. If it did attempt to 
    authorize a program not related to the committee amendment, then 
    the decision on the point of order would be different.
        However, since it does not, the point of order is overruled.

Assistance to Community Health Centers--Denial to Health Centers 
    Located in States Which Permit Public Bath Houses

Sec. 30.29 It is not germane to condition assistance to a particular 
    class of recipient covered by a bill upon an unrelated contingency, 
    such as action or inaction by another class of recipient or agent 
    not covered by the bill; thus, to a bill only relating to federal 
    funding and programs for community and migrant health centers not 
    operated by state governments, an amendment denying assistance 
    under the bill to any health center located in any state which 
    permitted the operation of public bath houses was ruled out as 
    imposing a nongermane contingency to bar the use of funds, since 
    state governments were not recipients of funds in, or otherwise 
    affected by, the provisions of the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 2418 (Health Services Amendments of 
1985) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 5, 1986,(10) the 
Chair sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 3613, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 5, after line 23 
        insert the following:

        Sec. 7. Grant Condition.

            Effective 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
        Act, no grant may be made under section 329 of the Public 
        Health Service Act for a migrant health center or under section 
        330 of such Act for a community health center if such center is 
        located in a State which permits the operation of any public 
        bath which is determined by the State or a local health 
        authority to be hazardous to the public health or used for 
        sexual relations between males. . . .

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I assert 
    my point of order.

[[Page 8598]]

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by our colleague, the 
    gentleman from California, is not germane to this bill. This bill 
    provides for the operation of community health centers and migrant 
    health centers. To our knowledge, no community or migrant health 
    centers are operated by State governments. This amendment would 
    delay the operation of the legislation until a contingency not 
    related to the purposes of this bill is carried out by States. This 
    amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . Mr. Chairman, the point of order that is 
    being asserted by my friend from Los Angeles may have some merit if 
    the proscription of the amendment had general applicability to all 
    health care funds. It does not.
        It is limited exclusively to any funding that may be available 
    under the two programs. Community Health Centers and Migrant Health 
    Centers. With that limitation, I think it is most appropriate to 
    say in this authorization bill that none of the funds can be used 
    unless, within 6 months, States of the Union who seek to apply for 
    these funds have shut down bathhouses in their jurisdictions. In 
    that narrow area, I believe it should pass muster as having 
    germaneness and applicability.
        Mr. Waxman: Mr. Chairman, if I might be heard further on this 
    amendment. An amendment delaying the operation of proposed 
    legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not germane. The 
    funds granted under this program are to private entities, not to 
    State governments.
        To permit that those funds be cut off to private entities 
    because of the inaction by State government is not germane because 
    it is a contingency that cannot be met by the organization to which 
    the funds would be granted. Chapter 28, section 24, provides that 
    an amendment making the implementation of Federal legislation 
    contingent upon the enactment of unrelated State legislation is not 
    germane.
        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: . . . There is reference 
    in this amendment that would close down these programs if something 
    was ``used for sexual relations between males.'' There is nothing 
    in this bill dealing with that. It introduces an entire new subject 
    and would require the ascertainment of a fact that has nothing to 
    do with the subject matter of this bill and would delay the 
    enactment of the program on that basis. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This bill, H.R. 2418, is a categorical grant program. The money 
    that is authorized under the bill, if appropriated, goes to 
    community and migrant health centers and not to the States. The 
    bill was narrowed earlier in these proceedings to remove from the 
    bill the only paragraph that referred to the States.
        This amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr. 
    Dannemeyer, seeks to impose a condition upon a State which must be 
    met by the State government before community health centers that 
    may be in that State or partly in that State can receive the funds. 
    States are not recipients of the funds provided in the bill or 
    otherwise within the purview of the bill.
        An earlier ruling of September 25, 1975, which appears in 
    Deschler's Pro

[[Page 8599]]

    cedures of the House at page 596, states, ``That an amendment is 
    not germane if it makes the effectiveness of a bill contingent upon 
    an unrelated event or determination.''
        Therefore, the amendment is not germane and the point of order 
    is sustained.

Grants for Improvement of Law Enforcement--Amendment To Require 
    Establishment of Officers' Grievance System as Prerequisite

Sec. 30.30 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; thus, to a bill 
    providing a comprehensive grant program for improvement of state 
    and local law enforcement and criminal justice systems, including 
    within its scope the subject of welfare of law enforcement 
    officers, an amendment requiring states to enact a law enforcement 
    officers' grievance system as a prerequisite to receiving grants 
    under the bill was held to come within the general subject of law 
    enforcement improvement covered by the bill and was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 8152 (12) in the Committee 
of the Whole on June 18, 1973,(13) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Law Enforcement Assistance authorization.
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 20099-101, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Biaggi: Page 15, line 8, strike 
        out ``and''.
            Page 15, immediately after line 8, insert the following:
            ``(13) provide a system for the receipt, investigation, and 
        determination of complaints and grievances submitted by law 
        enforcement officers of the State, units of general local 
        government and public agencies. . . .

         ``Part J--Law Enforcement Officers' Grievance System and Bill 
                                   of Rights

            ``Sec. 701. Beginning one year after the date of enactment 
        of this section, no grant under part B or part C of this title 
        shall be made to any State, unit of general local government or 
        public agency unless such State, unit of general local 
        government, or public agency has established and put into 
        operation a system for the receipt, investigation, and 
        determination of complaints and grievances submitted by law 
        enforcement officers of the State, units of general local 
        government, and public agencies operating within the State and 
        has enacted into law a `law enforce

[[Page 8600]]

        ment officers' bill of rights, which includes in its coverage 
        all law enforcement officers of the State, units of general 
        local government and public agencies operating within the 
        State.

                                ``Bill of Rights

            ``The law enforcement officers' bill of rights shall 
        provide law enforcement officers of such State, units of 
        general local government, and public agencies statutory 
        protection for certain rights enjoyed by other citizens. The 
        bill of rights shall provide, but shall not be limited to, the 
        following:
            ``(a) Political Activity by Law Enforcement Officers.--
        Except when on duty or when acting in his official capacity, no 
        law enforcement officer shall be prohibited from engaging in 
        political activity or be denied the right to refrain from 
        engaging in political activity. . . .
            ``(i) In addition to any procedures available to law 
        enforcement officers regarding the filing of complaints and 
        grievances as established in this section, any law enforcement 
        officer may institute an action in a civil court to obtain 
        redress of such grievances.''. . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is based on the nongermaneness of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York. . . .
        On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, on germaneness, this 
    embarks on an entirely new direction. It establishes rights and 
    duties for law enforcement officers and personnel which are not a 
    part of the thrust of the LEAA law. . . .
        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: . . . The fact of the matter 
    is that this is consistent with the proposal being made today, as 
    to establishing guidelines. Guidelines have been established in the 
    past. . . .
        This is just an extension. What we are trying to do is to 
    include among all of the people of our country a particular segment 
    that has been eliminated or disregarded.
        This is a question of civil rights as much as any other 
    question is, as it relates to anybody else.
        So far as germaneness is concerned, I obviously have to 
    disagree with the gentleman. We have many guidelines already 
    established. This will establish another guideline. There is no 
    imposition here on any State or political subdivision. It is a 
    prerogative they can exercise.
        If they seek Federal funds they must comply. Right now the same 
    obligation is imposed upon them. If they seek Federal funds they 
    must comply with the civil rights law and all the prohibitions we 
    have imposed upon them. All we are doing is including the law-
    enforcement officers. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As indicated on page 4 of the committee report, a fundamental 
    purpose of H.R. 8152 is to authorize Federal funding of approved 
    State plans for law enforcement and criminal justice improvement 
    programs. The bill attempts to address ``all aspects of the 
    criminal justice and law enforcement system--not merely police, and 
    not merely the purchase of police hardware'' and requires State 
    plans to develop ``a total and integrated analysis of the problems 
    regarding the law enforcement and criminal justice system within 
    the State.''

[[Page 8601]]

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would 
    require that State plans submitted for LEAA approval contain, in 
    addition to the 13 requirements spelled out in the committee bill 
    as amended, provisions for a system of receipt, investigation, and 
    determination of grievances submitted by State and local law 
    enforcement officers. The second amendment would insert on page 52 
    a provision spelling out a ``law enforcement officers' bill of 
    rights'' which must be enacted into law by any State seeking LEAA 
    grants under that act in order to be eligible for such grants.
        The committee bill seeks to establish a comprehensive approach 
    to the financing of programs aimed at improving State and local law 
    enforcement systems. Included in this comprehensive approach is the 
    subject of the welfare of law enforcement officers as it relates to 
    their official duties, including their salaries, equipment, et 
    cetera. The issue of a grievance system for law enforcement 
    officers is within the general subject of the improvement of State 
    and local law enforcement systems, and the amendments are, 
    therefore, germane to the pending bill.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Indemnification of Operators of Nuclear Energy Facilities--Benefits 
    Conditional Upon Agreement Concerning Safety Regulations

Sec. 30.31 While a bill providing procedures for determining benefits 
    based upon liability and indemnification does not ordinarily admit 
    as germane amendments which address the issue of regulation of an 
    activity, an amendment which makes receipt of a benefit conditional 
    upon an agreement to be governed by certain safety regulations may 
    be germane, if related to the activity giving rise to the 
    liability.

    During consideration of H.R. 1414 (15) in the Committee 
of the Whole on July 29, 1987,(16) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Price-Anderson Act Amendments of 1987.
16. 133 Cong. Rec. 21445-48, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wyden: Page 33, insert after line 
        7 the following new sections (and redesignate the succeeding 
        sections accordingly):

                     sec. 16. financial accountability.

            Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
        2210), as amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at 
        the end the following new subsection:
            ``u. Financial Accountability.--(1)(A) The Attorney General 
        may bring an action in the appropriate United States district 
        court to recover from a contractor of the Secretary (or 
        subcontractor or supplier of such contractor) amounts paid by

[[Page 8602]]

        the Federal Government under an agreement of indemnification 
        under subsection d. for public liability resulting, in whole or 
        part, from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of any 
        corporate officer, manager, or superintendent of such 
        contractor (or subcontractor or supplier of such contractor). . 
        . .
            Chapter 18 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
        2271-2284) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
        section:
            ``Sec. 237. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of 
        Department of Energy Regulations.--
            ``a. In general.--(1) Any person subject to an agreement of 
        indemnification under section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act 
        of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)), shall, as a condition of such 
        indemnification be subject to the nuclear safety and civil 
        penalties provisions of this section.
            ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission may impose a civil penalty of an 
        amount not to exceed $100,000, per violation, upon any person 
        who has entered into an agreement of indemnification under 
        section 170 d. who violates--
            ``(i) any rule, regulation, or order of the Department of 
        Energy relating to nuclear safety; or
            ``(ii) any term, condition, or limitation relating to 
        nuclear safety of any contract that is the subject of any such 
        agreement. . . .

        Mr. [Butler] Derrick [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order that the Wyden amendment is nongermane to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute that is pending before the 
    Committee of the Whole. It is nongermane because the fundamental 
    purpose of the amendment is different from the fundamental purposes 
    of either the substitute or the underlying Price-Anderson law.

        The fundamental purposes of both the pending substitute and the 
    underlying law are:
        First, to ensure adequate and prompt compensation of any victim 
    of a serious nuclear accident; and
        Second, to indemnify both the operators of commercial nuclear 
    reactors and contractors which operate Department of Energy nuclear 
    facilities against damages which might arise from a nuclear 
    accident. This is intended to encourage participation in nuclear 
    activities.
        The fundamental purpose of the Wyden amendment, however, is 
    regulatory in nature. According to the proponents of the amendment, 
    it is intended to ensure the safe operation of contractor-operated 
    DOE nuclear facilities. To achieve this regulatory end, the Wyden 
    amendment would authorize the Attorney General to sue DOE 
    contractors to recover damages paid by the Government as a result 
    of an accident caused by the ``gross negligence or willful 
    misconduct'' of the contractor and would authorize the Secretary of 
    Energy to assess civil penalties against contractors for violation 
    of DOE safety regulations.
        Allowing the Attorney General to sue to recover damages from a 
    contractor would neither affect the payment of compensation to 
    victims nor further the purpose of indemnifying contractors in 
    order to encourage participation in nuclear activities.
        Providing for civil penalties for safety violations clearly 
    does not relate to either of the purposes of the substitute and 
    Price-Anderson. The civil penalties are purely regulatory, intended 
    to enforce safe operation of DOE nuclear fa

[[Page 8603]]

    cilities. Neither the substitute nor Price-Anderson deals with the 
    issue of safety in nuclear facilities. They deal only with what 
    happens after a nuclear accident occurs. Amendments intended to 
    promote safety at nuclear facilities should be considered in 
    connection with legislation which deals with the operations of such 
    facilities. Allowing the Wyden amendment to be offered to this 
    legislation would be like allowing an amendment to provide 
    penalties for driving faster than 55 miles per hour to legislation 
    establishing a no-fault automobile insurance system.
        While both issues concern automobiles, there is a fundamentally 
    different purpose in each case.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Wyden amendment is nongermane 
    to this substitute because its fundamental purpose is different 
    from the fundamental purpose of the substitute and the underlying 
    Price-Anderson Act and that my point of order should be sustained. 
    . . .
        Mr. Wyden: Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is germane to 
    the bill. The bill before us deals with procedures for liability 
    and indemnification for nuclear accidents.
        Price-Anderson provides for mechanisms under which commercial 
    nuclear powerplants and Government nuclear contractors may be 
    indemnified for liability resulting from a nuclear accident. In 
    providing a scheme for nuclear insurance, it is natural to impose 
    certain conditions upon the granting of indemnification.
        For example, private insurers of a building may require as a 
    condition of an insurance policy that the owners of the building 
    have it inspected by appropriate authorities. These conditions are 
    directly related to the insurance policy. By requiring the insured 
    party to conduct himself in a safe manner, the exposure of the 
    insurer is reduced.
        In this case, the amendment imposes conditions and limitations 
    upon the contractor covered by indemnification agreements. In the 
    first section of the amendment the contractor would be held 
    financially liable for damages resulting from the contractor's 
    gross negligence or willful misconduct. In the second section, the 
    contractor's indemnification is subject to the qualification that 
    should he break safety rules of DOE or other contract conditions, 
    he will be subject to a civil penalty. These civil penalties, and 
    the threat of civil penalties will raise the safety consciousness 
    of the contractor, thereby reducing the potential Government 
    liability under an indemnity agreement.
        I refer the Chairman to chapter 28, section 23 of Deschler/
    Brown's Precedents. The precedents cited stand for the proposition 
    that amendments providing conditions or qualifications for the 
    grant of various authorities are germane. For example, to a bill 
    making grants to medical schools to be used for student 
    scholarships, an amendment establishing a national commission to 
    prepare and evaluate examinations for purposes of testing 
    qualifications of scholarship applications was held to be germane--
    section 23.5. Similarly, an amendment to a bill relating to subsidy 
    payments for agricultural goods, an amendment prohibiting support 
    payments unless the producers were in compliance with health and 
    safety laws was held to be germane--section 23.6.

[[Page 8604]]

        In summary, Mr. Chairman, indemnification of contractors under 
    the bill is a benefit to contractors that can properly be 
    conditioned upon compliance with various regulations. The concept 
    is not novel. Indeed, NRC contractors are subject to civil 
    penalties under other provisions of the act we are amending today. 
    Similarly, we place conditions on utilities indemnified under the 
    act. For example, section 2 of the bill requires licensees to 
    maintain the maximum amount of liability insurance available from 
    private sources. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (17) The Chair will rule 
    on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Dan Mica (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] makes the point 
    of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
    (Mr. Wyden) is not germane to the pending amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute. It is agreed that the fundamental purpose of the 
    pending text involves procedures for liability and indemnification 
    for nuclear accidents, and does not go to the regulation of the 
    domestic nuclear industry as a measure to prevent the occurrence of 
    nuclear accidents.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the question of subrogation is 
    related to the concept of indemnification by the U.S. Government. 
    The question of the party ultimately liable for the payment of 
    damage costs is germane to the pending bill. The Wyden amendment 
    does not seek to separately impose a civil penalty upon nuclear 
    contractors as a regulatory scheme, but rather seeks to condition 
    the indemnification provided by the bill for such contractors upon 
    their agreement to be subject to certain nuclear safety and civil 
    penalties. The fact that the bill requires licensees to maintain 
    the maximum amount of liability insurance available from private 
    sources as a condition on indemnification is an indication that 
    other conditions on indemnification are already contained in the 
    bill. The precedents cited by the gentleman from Oregon are 
    supportive of the concept that a grant of authority can be made 
    contingent upon agreement to comply with certain related 
    conditions. The Chair holds that the amendment is germane to the 
    pending text and overrules the point of order.

Government Indemnification for Liabilities--Amendment Requiring 
    Subrogation of Rights

Sec. 30.32 To a proposition providing for government indemnification of 
    liabilities, an amendment requiring subrogation of corresponding 
    rights is germane as relating to the question of ultimate liability 
    for payment of damages.

    The proceedings of July 29, 1987, relating to H.R. 1414, the Price-
Anderson Act Amendments of 1987, are discussed in Sec. 30.31, supra.

[[Page 8605]]

Registration of Foreign Agents--Modification of Definition of Terms

Sec. 30.33 To a bill relating to registration of foreign agents, an 
    amendment was held to be germane which qualified the definitions of 
    terms in the bill by adding the names of specific groups to be 
    included within the definition of one of such terms.

    In the 77th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration relating to registration of foreign agents. The bill 
stated in part: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 6269 (Committee on the Judiciary).
19. See 87 Cong. Rec. 10058, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Definitions

        Section 1. As used in and for the purposes of this act--
        (a) The term ``person'' includes an individual, partnership, 
    association, corporation, organization, or any other combination of 
    individuals;
        (b) The term ``foreign principal'' includes--
        (1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political 
    party. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 10061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Martin] Dies [Jr., of Texas]: Page 2, 
    line 17, after the word ``individuals'', strike out the semicolon, 
    insert a comma and the following: ``including but not limited to 
    the Communist Party of the United States, the German-American Bund, 
    and the Kyffhauser-bund.''

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

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane. I submit that the section of the bill dealing with 
    definitions is limited to persons who are to constitute the foreign 
    principals.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Orville Zimmerman (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The section deals with definitions. This being so, it would be 
    appropriate and in order to add another definition.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act--Modification of 
    Definition of Terms

Sec. 30.34 To a bill containing definitions of several of the terms 
    used therein, an amendment modifying one of the definitions and 
    adding another may be germane; thus, to a bill authorizing funds 
    for the control and prevention of juvenile delinquency, an 
    amendment to

[[Page 8606]]

    that portion of the bill containing definitions, which modified one 
    of the definitions and added another was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and 
Control Act of 1967,(2) was under consideration, which 
stated in one portion as follows: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 12120 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 3. See 113 Cong. Rec. 26878, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 26, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Definitions

        Sec. 404. For purposes of this Act--
        (1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health, 
    Education, and Welfare. . . .
        (4) The term ``private nonprofit agency'' means any accredited 
    institution of higher education, and any other agency or 
    institution which is owned and operated by one or more nonprofit 
    corporations or organizations. . . .

    The following proceedings related to amendments offered by Mr. Joe 
D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana:

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask 
    unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. . . .
        Amendments offered by Mr. Waggonner: After the words ``under 
    this Act'' on line 21 of page 15 add the following:

            The term ``private nonprofit agency'' shall not be 
        construed to include the Office of Economic Opportunity or any 
        . . . agency . . . created by . . . or in any part funded by or 
        contracted with the Office of Economic Opportunity in 
        accomplishing the purposes of this act. . . .

        After line 6 on page 16 add a new subsection numbered (7):

            (7) The term ``public agency'' means a duly elected 
        political body of a subdivision thereof and shall not be 
        construed to include the Office of Economic Opportunity or any 
        . . . other agency or program created by . . . or in any part 
        funded by or contracted with the Office of Economic 
        Opportunity.

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, these two amendments----
        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman's point of order comes too late.
        The gentleman from Louisiana had started his discussion of the 
    amendment, and there was no previous point of order made prior to 
    the discussion.
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet seeking recognition 
    at the time the gentleman commenced to address the Chair.
        The Chairman: (4) Was the gentleman from Kentucky on 
    his feet seeking recognition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Perkins: I was, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair then overrules the point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Michigan, and the Chair will hear the 
    gentleman from Kentucky on his point of order. . . .

[[Page 8607]]

        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane because the gentleman, by his amendment, 
    is seeking to exclude some other agency created by the Economic 
    Opportunities Act from participation. . . .
        Mr. Waggonner: . . . The point of order is totally without 
    merit. Section 404 of this proposal, H.R. 12120, is entitled 
    ``Definitions.'' The first amendment is a further extension of the 
    definition of what a private nonprofit agency actually is. . . .
        Reference is continually made to private nonprofit agencies and 
    public agencies on page after page of this bill. If we are to say 
    that an amendment is not germane which defines a public agency, 
    when a definition does not exist . . . if we are to preclude the 
    possibility of clarifying a definition of a private nonprofit 
    agency, then what is germane? . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair will state that this section of 
    the bill relates to definitions of these various terms--public 
    agency and private nonprofit agencies or groups--and goes into a 
    particularization of each; therefore, the Chair thinks the 
    amendments are germane and overrules the point of order.

Definition of Terms as Providing Exception to Limitation on Authority

Sec. 30.35 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 was held germane, although its 
    effect was to provide an exemption from a limitation on authority 
    contained in another section of the bill.

    On Mar. 7, 1974,(5) during consideration of H.R. 11793 
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 5640, 5641, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. The Federal Energy Administration Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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, I should like 
    to make a point of order against this amendment. . . .
        [T]his 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 gentle

[[Page 8608]]

    man'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 specific place for an amendment of this type to be 
    introduced.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

Incidental Conditions or Exceptions Related to Fundamental Purpose of 
    Bill

Sec. 30.36 For a bill proposing to accomplish a result by methods 
    comprehensive in scope, a committee amendment in 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

[[Page 8609]]

    to be merely incidental conditions or exceptions that were related 
    to the fundamental purpose of the bill.

    On Aug. 2, 1973,(8) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 9130, a bill authorizing the construction of a 
trans-Alaska oil and gas pipeline under the authority of the Secretary 
of the Interior, and pursuant to procedural safeguards promulgated by 
the Secretary. The bill included a prohibition against judicial review 
on environmental impact grounds of any right-of-way or permit which 
might be granted. A committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was reported as an original bill for purposes of amendment. The 
committee amendment contained procedures and safeguards similar to 
those in the bill, and included an exception from the prohibition 
against judicial review, to provide a mechanism for expediting other 
types of actions challenging pipeline permits. The amendment also 
included the condition that all persons participating in construction 
or use of the pipeline be assured rights against discrimination as set 
forth in the Civil Rights Act. Points of order were raised against the 
amendment on the grounds that its provisions were not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 27673-5, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk 
    will now read by title the substitute committee amendment printed 
    in the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I wish 
    to reserve a point of order to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

                                    TITLE I

            Section 1. Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 
        (41 Stat. 449), as amended (30 U.S.C. 185), is further amended 
        by striking out the following: ``, to the extent of the ground 
        occupied by the said pipeline and twenty-five feet on each side 
        of the same under such regulations and conditions as to survey, 
        location, application, and use as may be prescribed by the 
        Secretary of the Interior and upon,' and by inserting in lieu 
        thereof the following ``: Provided, That--
            ``(a) the width of a right-of-way shall not exceed fifty 
        feet plus the ground occupied by the pipeline (that is, the 
        pipe and its related facilities) unless the Secretary finds, 
        and records the reasons for his finding, that in limited areas 
        a wider right-of-way is necessary for operation and maintenance 
        after construction, or to protect the environment or public 
        safety. . . .
            Sec. 4. (a) Pipelines on public lands subject to this Act 
        are subject to the provisions of the Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 
        1968. . . .
            (c) The Secretary of the Interior shall report annually to 
        the President, the Congress, the Secretary of Transportation 
        and the Interstate

[[Page 8610]]

        Commerce Commission any potential dangers of or actual 
        explosions or potential or actual spillage on public lands and 
        shall include in such report a statement of corrective action 
        taken to prevent such explosion or spillage.

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order 
    against the committee amendment just read.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman on his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I note first that the rule did not 
    waive points of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I cite now rule XVI, clause 7, and I note 
    particularly section 794 relating to germaneness which reads as 
    follows:

            And no motion or proposition on a subject different from 
        that under consideration shall be admitted under color of 
        amendment.

        I note as follows, Mr. Chairman, that the committee amendment 
    provides for the establishment of a three-judge court and 
    establishes certain conditions with regard to review which are not 
    found in the original bill.
        I note for the assistance of the Chair, that that language is 
    not only not found in the bill, but that language, in my view, at 
    least under the Rules of the House of Representatives, had it been 
    introduced as a separate piece of legislation, would have been 
    referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        I note further, Mr. Chairman, that the committee amendment as 
    presented to us today provides also language relating to conditions 
    of employment and civil rights of persons, and the duty of the 
    pipeline company to hire without discrimination as to race or creed 
    or color.
        I note, Mr. Chairman, that legislation relating to that matter, 
    were it introduced as separate legislation, would have properly 
    under the Rules of the House of Representatives have been referred 
    to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        I make the further comment with regard to the point of order 
    just raised, Mr. Chairman, citing now Cannon's Precedents, page 203 
    2(b), and I quote:
        A specific subject may not be amended by a general provision 
    even when of the same class.
        Section 203 of the bill addresses itself to the relationship of 
    NEPA to the bill and judicial review of the Secretary of the 
    Interior's actions for compliance with NEPA. Specifically 203(d) of 
    the bill limits judicial review on the basis of NEPA noncompliance.
        Section 203(f) which was added by amendment, referred to 
    earlier, is far broader in scope than section 203 as contained in 
    the original bill.
        Section 203(f) sets forth a unique procedure for judicial 
    review of non-NEPA-related challenges.
        Keeping in mind the fact that section 203(d) is itself part of 
    an amendment and section 203(f) is a new provision as part of the 
    same amendment it becomes clear that judicial review dealt with by 
    section 203 of the original bill was limited to judicial review on 
    the basis of NEPA.
        The amendment, by incorporating the provisions found in section 
    203(f), deals with all forms of judicial review. Thus NEPA-related 
    review is handled by the specific provision of section 203(d) and 
    all other judicial review by section 203(f).
        Therefore, the amendment is a general provision; that is, it 
    deals with all

[[Page 8611]]

    forms of judicial review and is not germane to the specific 
    provision found in the original bill which deals solely with 
    judicial review on the basis of the National Environmental Policy 
    Act.
        I cite again Cannon's Precedents at page 203. I cite further 
    with regard to the germaneness, now referring to page 202 in 
    Cannon's Precedents that--

            One individual proposition may not be amended by another 
        individual proposition even though the two may belong to the 
        same class.

        The individual proposition in the original bill was that the 
    Secretary of the Interior's actions were exempted from judicial 
    review under NEPA.
        The individual proposition contained in the amendment goes on 
    to add that any other challenge to the right-of-way to which the 
    United States is a party must be brought, according to subsection 
    (f), to a three-judge district court referred to in the amendment.
        These propositions are of the same class because both relate to 
    judicial review.
        The first proposition may be viewed as a negative proposition 
    in that it exempts certain action from judicial review on the basis 
    of NEPA.
        The second is a positive proposition; it establishes a special 
    tribunal and special procedures for non-NEPA-based court 
    challenges.
        I again refer the Chair to Cannon's Precedents on page 202.
        I cite further, Mr. Chairman--

            If a portion of an amendment is out of order because not 
        germane, then all must be ruled out.

        I would cite Cannon's Precedents at page 201. I would point out 
    that--

            The burden of proof as to the germaneness of a proposition 
        has been held to rest upon its proponents. . . .

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: . . . The gentleman from 
    Michigan is raising a point of order on the basis of the 
    germaneness of . . . the entire committee amendment, but he refers 
    to specific sections and his point of order should be limited to 
    his reference to those sections. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) makes the point of 
    order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs printed in the bill 
    is not germane to the original bill on several grounds, one of 
    which is that 203(f) of the committee amendment provides a 
    procedure for expediting litigation of right-of-way, permit, or 
    other authorization disputes in Federal courts which is not 
    contained in the original bill.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the original bill 
    and the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and 
    notes that the original bill and the committee amendment both 
    provide comprehensive schemes for the construction of the Alaska 
    pipeline under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. Both 
    the bill and the committee amendment provide a series of safeguards 
    to be followed by the Secretary in the issuance of permits and 
    grants of rights-of-way. Included in the original bill--in section 
    203, is the prohibition against judicial review of any 
    authorization granted by any Federal agency with respect to rights-
    of-way, construction, public land

[[Page 8612]]

    use, or highway or airfield construction on the basis of the 
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
        This restriction against judicial review on the basis of 
    environmental impact is also contained in section 203(d) of the 
    committee amendment in a more limited form. Section 203(f) of the 
    committee amendment then provides, in litigation not barred by 
    section 203(d), a mechanism for expediting other actions 
    challenging pipeline permits or authorizations.
        On March 8, 1932, Chairman O'Connor ruled that to a bill 
    restricting Federal court jurisdiction in certain cases, an 
    amendment providing an exception from that prohibition was 
    germane--Cannon's volume VIII, section 3024.
        The Chair has also examined the decision of the present 
    occupant of the Chair on October 20, 1971 (Congressional Record, 
    page H37079) on the Alaska Native land claims bill, where, to a 
    committee amendment seeking to accomplish a broad purpose by a 
    method less detailed in its provisions, an amendment more 
    definitive but relating to the same purpose implicit in the 
    committee's approach was held germane.
        For these reasons, and because committee jurisdiction is not 
    the exclusive or absolute test of germaneness, the Chair is of the 
    opinion that the provision in the committee amendment relating to 
    the expediting of litigation involving the pipeline permits or 
    authorizations is merely incidental to the purpose of the original 
    bill and is indeed directly related to the concept of judicial 
    review contained in the bill. With respect to the other provisions 
    of the committee amendment to which the gentleman from Michigan has 
    made reference, the Chair is of the opinion that they, too, are 
    incidental to the overall purpose of the bill. The Chair holds that 
    the committee amendment is germane and overrules the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a further point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, citing again the language used by 
    myself with regard to the earlier point of order, I would point now 
    to the specific language of the committee amendment at page 15, 
    line 23(e), and all that follows through page 16, line 11, at the 
    conclusion of the words ``the Civil Rights Act of 1964.''
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out again the same arguments are 
    available to me with regard to the first jurisdiction of 
    committees. Second, with regard to the other matters cited by me 
    earlier under the rules of germaneness as embodied in the rules and 
    the precedents of this body, I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that 
    where the language referred to in the amendment is part of a 
    separate piece of legislation, it would have been referred again to 
    the Judiciary Committee and not to the Committee on Interior.
        I would point out further, Mr. Chairman, that this language is 
    not found in the original bill, although it is found in the 
    amendment. I would point out that again the failure of the 
    committee to have that language in both the original bill and in 
    the committee amendment renders the committee amendment subject to 
    a point of order.
        I would call particular attention of the Chair to the fact that 
    the rule of

[[Page 8613]]

    germaneness was established by the wise men of this body throughout 
    the years, that all Members of this body might have full notice of 
    matters coming to the floor of the House and would not be surprised 
    by matters which might be irrelevant to the jurisdiction of the 
    committee which authored the legislation.
        The rule of germaneness applies, Mr. Chairman, with equal 
    validity to proceedings on the floor as well as to proceedings 
    within the committee.
        I again reiterate my point of order on the basis not only of 
    matters cited by me now but cited by me in connection with the 
    earlier point of order made by me. . . .
        Mr. Melcher: . . . The title and section of the committee's 
    amendment which the gentleman from Michigan refers to deals with 
    construction of the Alaskan pipeline. Employment of people for that 
    purpose is, indeed, part and parcel of the construction of the 
    pipeline. The incidental feature of our committee handling and 
    including such language in our amendment is only incidental to the 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has just ruled that the committee amendment is 
    germane, and the ruling that was given by the Chair is broad enough 
    to now cover the point of order just made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.
        Therefore, the Chair for the reasons previously stated 
    overrules the point of order.

Authorization for Program--Amendment Proposing, as Alternative, Study 
    of Feasibility of Program

Sec. 30.37 To an amendment 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; thus, to an 
    amendment authorizing Department of Defense personnel to assist 
    federal law enforcement officials including the Coast Guard under 
    existing law, in drug interdiction operations outside the 
    continental United States, a substitute amendment directing the 
    Secretary of Defense to study the effectiveness of assigning 
    military personnel to assist those federal law enforcement 
    officials was held germane as a more limited approach involving the 
    same officials.

    On June 26, 1985,(10) during proceedings relating to the 
defense authorization for fiscal 1986,(11) the Committee of 
the Whole had under consideration the following amendment and 
substitute therefor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 131 Cong. Rec. 17453, 17458, 17460, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 1872.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bennett. At the end of the bill, 
        add the following new section:

[[Page 8614]]

        sec. --drug/interdiction assistance to civilian law enforcement 
        officials.

            (a) In General--Section 374 of title 10, United States 
        Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        subsection:
            ``(d) The Secretary of Defense, upon request from the head 
        of a Federal agency with jurisdiction to enforce the Controlled 
        Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or the Controlled 
        Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), may 
        assign members of the armed forces under the Secretary's 
        jurisdiction to assist drug enforcement officials of such 
        agency in drug searches, seizures, or arrests outside the land 
        area of the United States (or of any territory or possession of 
        the United States) if--
            ``(1) that assistance will not adversely affect the 
        military preparedness of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [Glenn Lee] English [Jr., of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. English as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Bennett: Page 200, after line 4, 
        insert the following new section:
        sec. 1050. study on drug-interdiction assistance to civilian 
        law enforcement personnel.

            (a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study 
        comparing--
            (1) the potential effectiveness of assigning members of the 
        armed forces under the Secretary's jurisdiction, with
            (2) the potential effectiveness of increasing the number of 
        tactical law enforcement teams on naval vessels,
        for the purpose of determining ways to assist civilian law 
        enforcement personnel in the interdiction of the illegal 
        importation of narcotics into the United States. The Secretary 
        shall submit the results of the study to the Congress not more 
        than sixty days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

    Mr. Bennett having reserved a point of order against the substitute 
amendment, the following proceedings took place:

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) Does the gentleman 
    from Florida [Mr. Bennett] insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bennett: I do. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say why I 
    believe that it is not germane and it is not proper.
        The thrust of the amendment, particularly as explained by the 
    gentleman on the floor, is a Coast Guard amendment. This bill does 
    not deal with the Coast Guard. He wants the Secretary to come with 
    increasing the number of tactical law enforcement teams from the 
    Coast Guard.
        If I thought that was a possibility of being achieved by 
    anything he is doing, I would be glad to do it. But he has already 
    said they are cutting the Coast Guard personnel; they are not 
    raising the Coast Guard personnel, they are cutting.
        These people are not in existence.
        So my point of order against it is the fact that it is really a 
    Coast Guard amendment; it is not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. English: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would point out that 
    the amendment does not have the words ``Coast

[[Page 8615]]

    Guard'' in it. I think we all recognize and understand what is 
    meant by the amendment, but the words ``Coast Guard'' are not here. 
    It directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct the study, and no 
    one else.
        The second point is that this was a recommendation by the 
    administration that these people be cut.
        As the gentleman aptly pointed out, the Congress has control 
    over whether or not those cuts are going to take place; the 
    Congress has the decision as to what those people will be used for, 
    and the Congress can certainly designate 500 of these people to be 
    used in tactical positions on Navy ships. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . The Chair is ready to rule.
        In reviewing both the Bennett amendment and the substitute by 
    Mr. English to the Bennett amendment, the Chair finds that the 
    original amendment is a comprehensive authority, using Department 
    of Defense personnel to assist Coast Guard and other law 
    enforcement personnel for the purposes stated.
        The English substitute however, does narrow the scope of the 
    Bennett amendment by only calling for a study on the same subject 
    matter.
        On page 2 of the Bennett amendment the language on lines 1 and 
    2 does refer to Federal drug enforcement officials, maintaining 
    ultimate control, which does include the role not only of DEA but 
    also the Coast Guard.
        Therefore, the point of order is overruled. The substitute 
    amendment by Mr. English is germane.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The above ruling effectively overrules that 
found at 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2989, wherein the Chair held that, 
to a river and harbor authorization, a substitute providing for a 
commission to consider and report on that subject was not germane. 
Under current practice, where it is proposed to undertake a given 
program, an alternative proposal to study the feasibility of 
undertaking that program should be held to be germane.