[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§ 31. Amendment Postponing Effectiveness of Legislation Pending Contingency]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8615-8682]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
         D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
 
Sec. 31.--Amendment Postponing Effectiveness of Legislation Pending 
    Contingency

    The precedents indicate that an authorization may be made 
contingent on a future event; but the event must be related to the 
subject matter before the House.(13) Therefore, it is 
frequently stated that an amendment that delays the effectiveness of 
proposed legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not germane. 
As an example, it has been held that, to a bill authorizing an 
appropriation of funds, an amendment holding the authorization in 
abeyance pending an unrelated contingency is not 
germane.(14) And an amendment making the implementation

[[Page 8616]]

of federal legislation contingent upon the enactment of state 
legislation is not germane.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See, for example, Sec. 31.32, infra.
14. See Sec. 35.8, infra.
15. See Sec. 31.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where an amendment seeks to adopt as a measure of the availability 
of certain authorizations contained in the bill a condition that is 
logically relevant and objectively discernible, the amendment does not 
present an unrelated contingency and is germane.(16) 
Accordingly, an amendment that conditions the obligation or expenditure 
of funds authorized in the bill by adopting as a measure of their 
availability the expenditure during the fiscal year of a comparable 
percentage of funds authorized by other acts is germane as long as the 
amendment does not directly affect the use of other 
funds.(17) And an amendment to an authorization bill that 
conditions the expenditure of funds covered by the bill by restricting 
their availability during months in which there is an increase in the 
public debt may be germane as long as the amendment does not directly 
affect other provisions of law or impose contingencies predicated upon 
other unrelated actions of Congress.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 31.16, infra.
17. See Sec. 31.17, infra. See also, generally, Sec. 34 (restrictions 
        on use or availability of funds), infra.
18. See Sec. 34.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment imposing on the availability of funds to carry out a 
certain activity a conditional restriction that merely requires 
observation of similar activities of another country, which similar 
conduct already constitutes the policy basis for the pending funding of 
that activity, may be germane as a related contingency.(19) 
But it is not germane to make the effectiveness of an authorization 
contingent upon an unrelated determination involving issues within the 
jurisdiction of agencies and committees outside the purview of the 
pending bill.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 31.15, infra.
20. See Sec. 31.27, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Licensing of Nuclear Waste Storage Facility

Sec. 31.1 An amendment making the effectiveness of a bill contingent 
    upon actions of agencies not involved in the administration of the 
    affected program, and expanding the scope of the bill to include 
    grants of authority beyond those contained therein, is not germane; 
    thus, to a bill granting authority to the Administrator of the 
    Bonneville Power Administration relating to the use and con

[[Page 8617]]

    servation of electric power, including the acquisition of power, an 
    amendment prohibiting the Administrator from acquiring any resource 
    derived from a new nuclear generating facility until the Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission has licensed the operation of a permanent 
    nuclear waste storage facility was held not germane, because it 
    imposed an unrelated contingency involving nuclear licensing 
    authority for all government and privately owned storage facilities 
    on a national basis, and was not solely related to the purchase and 
    transmission of power in the Northwest region.

    On Nov. 14, 1980,(1) during consideration of the Pacific 
Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (2) in 
the Committee of the Whole, a point of order was sustained against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 29615-17, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. S. 885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. AuCoin: On page 69, after line 17, 
        insert:
            (n)(1)) The Administrator may not acquire any resource 
        derived from a new nuclear generating facility until such time 
        as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has licensed the operation 
        of a permanent storage facility for high level nuclear waste 
        and spent fuel from commercial nuclear generating facilities.
            (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``new nuclear 
        generating facility'' shall not include any nuclear generating 
        facility for which a construction permit was issued by the 
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the date of enactment of 
        this Act. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the bill 
    before us establishes a planning council. It provides for a 
    planning council. It provides for a program for conservation and 
    for a fish and wildlife program. It provides for the sale of power. 
    It provides for the establishing of rates, and it provides for the 
    acquisition of resources to produce power.
        Nowhere in the bill does the bill deal with atomic energy as 
    such or with the storage of either spent nuclear fuels or nuclear 
    wastes. The amendment would add a condition to the bill prohibiting 
    the BPA from acquiring any resource derived from nuclear generation 
    until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses operation of a 
    permanent storage facility for nuclear wastes and spent fuel.
        That I believe would be the addition of a national program for 
    dealing with spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste to be added to a 
    regional program to be administered by the BPA. This would impose 
    burdens on an agency entirely different from those which are either 
    set up in the bill, which be your State and regional planning 
    councils, or the

[[Page 8618]]

    Bonneville Power Authority. In other words, the agency which would 
    do this, under law, would be the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
    which is an agency not anywhere mentioned in the bill.
        Essentially, the proposal is an attempt, indirectly, to amend 
    the Atomic Energy Act and to deal with the question of spent fuel 
    and nuclear waste on a nation-wide basis as opposed to simply 
    dealing with the question of power management as is provided in the 
    bill; and I call to the attention of the Chair that the bill is 
    regional in character; the amendment is national in character; the 
    bill deals with power management. The amendment deals with nuclear 
    waste, its storage and the establishment of a nationwide program 
    for the storage and so forth of nuclear waste.
        I would point out the language of the amendment says:

            The Administrator may not acquire any resource derived from 
        a new nuclear fuel generating facility--

        This is not a nuclear fuel generating facility which would be 
    present within the Bonneville Power Authority service area, but it 
    is sufficiently general to cover any nuclear generating facility in 
    the United States.
        Then it goes on and it says:

            Until such time as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--

        Which is not mentioned in the legislation--
        has licensed the operation of a permanent storage facility for 
        high-level nuclear waste and spent fuel from commercial nuclear 
        generating facilities.

        These nuclear generating facilities are not within the 
    Bonneville Power market area but are anywhere in the United States. 
    And it could include those in the Northeast, the Southeast, the 
    Southwest, in Alaska, or in Hawaii--none of them within the area 
    served. The amendment is much more broad than the bill and deals 
    with quite different matters.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair controls the time. Does the 
    gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on the point of order? . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to speak on 
    the point of order, to reinforce the position of the gentleman from 
    Michigan.
        There is an electrical power generation in-tie between the 
    Southwestern part of the United States, that is, California, Utah, 
    and Arizona, and that area, and the Northwestern part of the United 
    States. This bill has an impact on the Northwest. Some of the power 
    generated in that Southwestern in-tie is of a nuclear sort, and so 
    the impact of this attempted amendment would be to impact, as the 
    gentleman from Michigan points to, the generation of power in other 
    parts of the United States and, therefore, I think is inappropriate 
    from the standpoint of its germaneness, for that reason. . . .
        Mr. AuCoin: . . . [N]o one can rationally argue that the whole 
    cycle of activities that is involved in nuclear power operation and 
    construction can be separated out and considered alone. The storage 
    of radioactive waste from the nuclear plants is just as much a 
    part, an intrinsic part, of the whole process as the construction 
    of the

[[Page 8619]]

    plant. It is a part of the same procedure, the whole life cycle of 
    the plants, and, therefore, cannot be excluded and separated out, 
    and it cannot be held that, somehow, that is not germane to the 
    construction of plants, because the construction produces the 
    result, that result, being waste. That waste has to be dealt with. 
    . . .
        . . . [T]he amendment poses no contingency upon the House 
    because existing law gives the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
    licensing and regulatory authority pursuant to chapters 6, 7, 8, 
    and 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Among those powers are the 
    licensing and regulatory authorities to operate facilities used 
    primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive 
    waste resulting from activities licensed under the Atomic Energy 
    Act of 1954.
        So no additional act of Congress is necessary, nor does this 
    amendment require any additional act of Congress, because of the 
    authorities already granted to the NRC. And my amendment simply 
    says that, until that authority is used, either on the agency's own 
    part or by further direction from the Congress, no additional 
    nuclear powerplants will be constructed in the Pacific Northwest. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    support of the point of order and to say that, under the terms of 
    the amendment, there is additional responsibility placed on the NRC 
    and the agencies within the province of this bill. By his own 
    words, the author of the amendment has said that NRC has that 
    authority, but under his amendment they will cease to have the 
    authority to license and regulate. They will be told, ``You cannot 
    license any nuclear powerplant unless you have got a permanent 
    storage for the waste.'' And, therefore, I submit that it does 
    provide for additional duties and, therefore, would be nongermane 
    to the bill. . . .
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my friend from Texas, the 
    subcommittee chairman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, 
    has, I think, confused, momentarily, the difference between an 
    amendment that would force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
    take an action as opposed to imposing on the Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission a new responsibility.
        There is no new responsibility being imposed on the agency by 
    this amendment. It does require action by the agency under the 
    authority already granted to it by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
        I would state to the Chair and to my friend, the gentleman from 
    Texas, that the authority already existing exists under Public Law 
    93-438, title II. And for that reason I do not believe his argument 
    stands.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oregon would impose a contingency which is not 
    solely related to the issue of purchase and transmission of power 
    in the Northwest region and which addresses potentially new NRC 
    licensing authority for all Government and privately owned storage 
    facilities on a national basis.
        The Chair would cite, specifically, chapter 28 of Deschler's 
    Procedure, section 24.15:

[[Page 8620]]

            An amendment delaying the effectiveness of a bill pending 
        the enactment of other legislation and requiring actions by 
        committees and agencies not involved in the administration of 
        the program affected by the bill was ruled out as not germane.

        On that basis, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Restitution by President Nixon to United States Government

Sec. 31.2 While it may be in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    delay the availability of certain funds therein until a nonfederal 
    recipient meets certain qualifications so long as the contingency 
    does not impose new duties on federal officials or directly change 
    existing law, the contingency must be related to the funds being 
    withheld and cannot affect other funds in the bill which are not 
    related to that factual situation; thus, to a general appropriation 
    bill containing funds not only for certain allowances for former 
    President Nixon, but also for other departments and agencies, an 
    amendment delaying the availability of all funds in the bill until 
    Nixon has made restitution of a designated amount to the United 
    States government was held to be not germane where that contingency 
    was not related to the availability of other funds in the bill.

    In the proceedings of Oct. 2, 1974,(4) relating to 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1975,(5) the points 
of order made against the amendment in question were largely based on 
the contention that the amendment constituted legislation on an 
appropriation bill. Most points of order against amendments delaying 
the availability of funds pending an unrelated contingency are based on 
the issue of germaneness, and in the Chair's ruling it appeared that 
the defect in the amendment was that its scope was so broad as to 
affect funds in the bill other than those to which the limitation was 
directly related--in other words, that the amendment was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 33620, 33621, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H.R. 16900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. James V. Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. James V. Stanton: On page 14, line 
        5 after the period insert:
            ``Sec. 203. No funds shall be available for expenditure 
        under this act until such time as Richard M. Nixon has made 
        restitution to the United States Government in the amount of 
        $92,298.03 as previously determined

[[Page 8621]]

        by the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation on page 201 
        of its report dated April 3, 1974.''. . .

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        This amendment would impose some duty upon an agency of 
    Government in this bill. The Internal Revenue Service is the only 
    agency that can collect taxes. This obviously would require duties 
    not now required by law. It is obviously legislation in an 
    appropriation bill, and therefore it is subject to a point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment. . . . It merely delays 
    the availability of certain funds here appropriated until a certain 
    state of facts exist.
        It does not impose any duty upon a Federal official, in the 
    opinion of the Chair. The only duty it imposes by its terms, would 
    be upon President Nixon, who is no longer a Federal official. . . .
        Under the precedents and under the rules that the Chair has 
    been able to examine, the Chair is of the opinion that this 
    amendment might be in order.
        If the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) wants to be heard on 
    the point of order, the Chair will withhold his final ruling. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . The Chair is undoubtedly 
    correct, that this does not impose additional duties under the 
    standards set out in various cases. However, the objection of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), as I understand it, is that this 
    does not impose additional duties but creates substantive law. It 
    establishes a liability in effect on the President of the United 
    States, which liability does not exist by any judicial 
    determination unless this action is taken by this body.
        Mr. Chairman, what we are in effect doing is passing a special 
    bill with respect to liability of the President of the United 
    States for an amount of money that has only been determined by a 
    committee of this House and not by a court. If we pass this, we are 
    in effect saying that until he pays a certain amount of money, 
    which we say he owes by virtue of passing a law today, he will not 
    receive money that he would otherwise receive.
        I find this a very, very extensive legislative determination, 
    one which I would have doubts about on constitutional grounds, even 
    if it were brought up as a separate piece of legislation.
        I understand that the question of constitutionality is not 
    before the Chair with respect to a point of order, but I merely 
    point that out in emphasizing the great substantive effect of this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Charles S.] Gubser [of California]: . . . [T]he word 
    ``restitution,'' if I understand the English language correctly . . 
    . would imply that the funds were held by Richard Nixon illegally. 
    Therefore if we . . . allow this amendment to stand, we are clearly 
    creating what should be a judicial decision, and we are giving it 
    legislative sanction, and it is therefore legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore I think the point of order should be 
    sustained. . . .

[[Page 8622]]

        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, this amendment says ``no funds in this 
    act'', and that means if this amendment is adopted unless former 
    President Nixon paid this amount of money the whole bill is dead. 
    If that does not constitute legislation on an appropriation bill I 
    do not know what does.
        The Chairman: The Chair must observe that the Chair is not in a 
    position to rule as suggested by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) on a question of constitutionality. The gentleman's point 
    may quite well be valid, but the Chair is not in a position to rule 
    on constitutionality, nor is the Chair in a position to rule upon 
    the validity of the commentary offered as to whether or not the 
    Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation may or may not have 
    established this precise figure as being owed. . . .
        The Chair is . . . impressed by the most recent comment made by 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) wherein the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma points out that by the terms of the amendment itself funds 
    under the entire act and not just funds for the former President, 
    would be inhibited. Let the Chair read the amendment.

            No funds shall be available for expenditure under this act 
        until such time as Richard M. Nixon has made restitution.

        The Chair is persuaded that the availability of some of the 
    funds in the act for other purposes will be based upon an unrelated 
    contingency, and the Chair is prepared to state on the basis of the 
    additional argument made since his preliminary determination that 
    he has changed his opinion regarding the scope and effect of the 
    amendment and sustains the point of order.

Approval of Foreign Assistance in National Referendum

Sec. 31.3 To a bill amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
    providing new authorizations and policy declarations, an amendment 
    to prohibit use of any funds available until further assistance 
    under the act had been approved in a national referendum was held 
    to be not germane.

    The proceedings of Aug. 22, 1963,(7) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 109 Cong. Rec. 15608, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. (ruling by Chairman 
        Wilbur D. Mills [Ark.] as to amendment offered by Mr. Dole to 
        H.R. 7885 [Committee on Foreign Affairs], the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dole: Page 19, after line 16, 
        insert the following:
            ``Sec. 310. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, is amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
            `` `Sec. 648. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        or any other Act, none of the funds available to carry out the 
        provisions of this Act, shall be expended until the following 
        question be submitted to qualified electors in a National 
        Referendum.

[[Page 8623]]

            `` `Shall the United States continue the Foreign Assistance 
        Act of 1961, or any amendments thereto, subsequent to June 30, 
        1964?
            `` `A majority of eligible voters voting affirmatively 
        shall be necessary before the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
        and any amendments thereto, shall be operative. The cost of 
        said referendum shall be paid by proceeds from the sale of 
        surplus property under control of the Agency for International 
        Development.' ''

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the foreign aid 
    bill.
        Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kansas will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that all points of order 
    have been waived on this bill?
        The Chairman: Under the rule, all points of order are waived as 
    to the text of the bill, as reported by the committee. Points of 
    order are not waived as to amendments that might be offered to the 
    bill. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Dole] offers an amendment to the 
    bill which the Chair has had an opportunity to read and analyze. 
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan] makes the point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to 
    the bill before the Committee. The Chair is of the opinion that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Approval of Construction of Naval Vessels in National Referendum

Sec. 31.4 To a bill authorizing the construction of certain naval 
    vessels, an amendment providing that the act not become effective 
    until confirmed in a nationwide referendum conducted according to 
    rules prescribed by the Secretary of State was held not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during proceedings related to a naval 
authorization bill,(8) an amendment as described above was 
offered by Mr. Harry Sauthoff, of Wisconsin.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
 9. See 83 Cong. Rec. 3704, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, made a point of order against the 
amendment as not being germane to the bill under consideration. The 
Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Wisconsin offers an amendment at the end of 
    the bill providing that before this measure

[[Page 8624]]

    shall become effective a Nation-wide referendum shall be held, and 
    then the amendment proceeds to set forth how such referendum shall 
    be held and states that it shall be subject to such rules and 
    regulations as the Secretary of State shall prescribe as necessary 
    or appropriate in providing for such referendum.
        In the first place, such a proposal may not be within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Naval Affairs. Nowhere in the bill 
    is the Secretary of State or the Department of State referred to in 
    any way, nor does any provision of the bill relate to that 
    Department or its head.
        A mere postponement of the effective date of an act for one 
    reason or another might be germane, if nothing further was required 
    to be done affirmatively. See Hinds Precedents, section 3030. But 
    particularly because of the part of this amendment which refers to 
    the Secretary of State, the Chair rules that the amendment is not 
    germane and therefore sustains the point of order.

Enactment of State or Federal Legislation

Sec. 31.5 To a bill authorizing funds for construction of atomic energy 
    facilities in various parts of the nation, an amendment making the 
    initiation of any such project contingent upon the enactment of 
    federal or state fair housing measures was held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(11) authorizing appropriations for the Atomic Energy 
Commission, the following amendment was offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 10918 (Committee on Atomic Energy).
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 17921, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: On page 4, after line 18, add a 
    new subsection (d), as follows:

            (d) The Commission is authorized to start the projects set 
        forth in subsection 101(b) contingent upon the enactment of 
        Federal or State fair housing measures which insure that 
        employees of said facilities not be denied equal housing on 
        grounds of religion or race.

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

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: [The amendment] is not 
    germane. It attempts to legislate restrictions on an authorization 
    bill not provided by the rules of the House. It has already been 
    voted upon.

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

        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is similar in nature to the limitation set forth in 
    section 102 of the bill. There it is provided that--

            The Commission is authorized to start any project set forth 
        in subsections 101(b) (1), (2), (3), and (4) only if the 
        currently estimated cost

[[Page 8625]]

        of that project does not exceed by more than 25 per centum the 
        estimated cost set forth for that project. . . .

        . . . [The amendment] parallels the limitations the bill itself 
    sets forth on other aspects of the project.

    The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James A. Burke (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment goes beyond the 
    legislation, which is Federal legislation, and would require State 
    legislation. Therefore, the point of order is well taken.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Subsequent Specific Authorization for Testing of Antisatellite Weapon

Sec. 31.6 To a provision authorizing funds for one fiscal year, an 
    amendment restricting the availability of funds appropriated 
    pursuant thereto contingent upon enactment of subsequent specific 
    authorization is germane; thus, to a bill authorizing funds for Air 
    Force research and development, an amendment prohibiting use of 
    those funds for certain tests until subsequent law authorizing such 
    tests is enacted was held to be a germane condition.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for 
fiscal 1984 (14) in the Committee of the Whole on July 21, 
1983,(15) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 2969.
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 20198, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (16) The Clerk will report 
    the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Seiberling: Page 14, after line 
        10, insert the following new subsection:
            (c) None of the amount appropriated pursuant to the 
        authorization in section 201 for the Air Force may be used for 
        flight testing of an antisatellite weapon until such testing is 
        specifically authorized by law enacted after the date of 
        enactment of this Act.

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order on the amendment as being nongermane, as I 
    understand it.
        This amendment refers to a prior-year authorization on the 
    matter under consideration in terms of the title II authorization 
    for fiscal year 1984. At least I have been so instructed. . . .
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment only deals with the authorization in section 201. It does 
    not deal with authorizations in prior years.
        Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this is not the amendment 
    the gentleman had coming up the last time just prior to the recess. 
    Is that correct? . . .

[[Page 8626]]

        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I had originally put in an 
    amendment on June 8 which did what the gentleman says, but this one 
    was corrected so as to avoid that problem. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . The amendment . . . does apply 
    to this year only and to the authorization in the bill, and the 
    point of order does not lie.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Seiberling amendment had originally 
included restrictions on funds authorized in prior years but was 
redrafted to apply only to the funds in the bill, so that it was 
germane.

Enactment of Legislation; Action by Committees and Agencies Other Than 
    Those Involved in Administration of Program Affected by Bill

Sec. 31.7 An amendment delaying the effectiveness of a bill pending the 
    enactment of other legislation and requiring actions by committees 
    and agencies not involved in the administration of the program 
    affected by the bill was ruled out as not germane.

    On Feb. 7, 1973,(17) a bill (18) was under 
consideration which had been reported from the Committee on Agriculture 
directing the Secretary of Agriculture to expend all sums appropriated 
for the Rural Environmental Assistance Program. An amendment was 
offered seeking to delay the effectiveness of the bill until (1) 
Congress enacts legislation increasing the statutory ceiling on the 
public debt limit or legislation raising revenue by the amount of 
spending in the bill; or (2) the Comptroller General reports that such 
expenditures, together with all other outlays during that fiscal year, 
will not exceed revenue and debt limit totals. The amendment was held 
to be not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See 119 Cong. Rec. 3708, 3709, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., discussed in 
        Sec. 31.14, infra.
18.  H.R. 2107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enactment of Oil Windfall Profit Tax

Sec. 31.8 An amendment delaying the availability of an appropriation 
    pending an unrelated contingency is not germane to an appropriation 
    bill; thus, to a joint resolution appropriating funds to the 
    Community Services Administration for emergency fuel assistance, an 
    amendment prohibiting any of such funds from being obligated before 
    the date of enactment of any law imposing an oil windfall profit 
    tax was held to be not germane.

[[Page 8627]]

    On Oct. 25, 1979,(19) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 430 in the House, the Speaker Pro Tempore 
(20) sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 29639, 29640, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Giaimo: Page 3, after line 3, 
        insert the following new sentence: ``None of the funds 
        appropriated by this Act may be obligated before the date of 
        the enactment of any Federal law imposing a windfall profit tax 
        on producers of domestic crude oil.''. . .

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    amendment before us violates the rules of the House, inasmuch as it 
    is not germane under clause 7, rule XVI.
        The amendment clearly goes beyond the bill and, in fact, 
    addresses an entirely separate piece of legislation that is not 
    referred to in any manner in House Joint Resolution 430.
        I urge the point of order be sustained.
        We have ample precedents, Mr. Speaker, of similar situations 
    which clearly show that an amendment delaying the operation of 
    proposed legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not 
    germane. I cite Deschler's Procedure 28.4, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. Giaimo: . . . The amendment which I am offering here 
    addresses itself to this legislation. It is simply a limitation and 
    says none of the funds appropriated can be obligated before the 
    date of enactment of any Federal law imposing a windfall profit 
    tax.
        That is a simple limitation, which I think is not subject to a 
    point of order. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined several precedents and would like to 
    point to chapter 28, section 4.11 of Deschler's [Procedure]:

            To a bill extending and amending laws relating to housing 
        and the renewal of urban communities, an amendment providing 
        that no funds could be appropriated or withdrawn from the 
        Treasury for the purposes of the bill until enactment of 
        legislation raising additional revenue, was held not to be 
        germane.

        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky (Mr. Natcher).

Passage of Tax Measures

Sec. 31.9 To a bill to provide for a National Security Training Corps, 
    an amendment was held to be not germane which provided that, ``This 
    act shall be effective on the same day that a tax bill becomes 
    effective'' imposing a specified tax on corporations engaged in 
    manufacturing war materials.

[[Page 8628]]

    The Chairman,(1) in making the above ruling, summarized 
the parliamentary situation as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 2. 98 Cong. Rec. 1839, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 4, 1952. The 
        proceedings related to the National Security Training Corps 
        Act, H.R. 5904 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Montana (3) has offered an 
    amendment which has been reported. The gentleman from Georgia 
    (4) makes a point of order against the amendment on the 
    ground it is not germane to the pending amendment or the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Mr. Mike Mansfield.
 4. Mr. Carl Vinson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment with some degree of care 
    and invites attention to the fact that it provides:

            This act shall be effective on the same day that a tax bill 
        becomes effective, which will tax all corporations 100 percent 
        of all profits and earnings of such corporations engaged in the 
        manufacture of war materials or any other service connected 
        with the defense effort and/or the National Security Training 
        Corps Act of 1952.

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that this amendment 
    provides for the effective date of the pending bill to be 
    contingent upon an entirely unrelated subject, a subject which 
    would not be under the jurisdiction of the committee that reported 
    the pending bill, but would be under the jurisdiction of another 
    standing committee of the House.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is clearly not 
    germane to the pending amendment or the bill and, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

Enactment of Legislation Raising Revenue

Sec. 31.10 To that section of a joint resolution subjecting all Reserve 
    and retired personnel who are ordered into active military service 
    to those laws and regulations applicable to personnel ordered into 
    service generally, an amendment providing that provisions of the 
    joint resolution shall remain inoperative, ``until Congress shall 
    have provided revenue by taxation and shall have authorized and 
    made appropriations therefor,'' was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a joint resolution (5) was under 
consideration which authorized the President to order Reserve and 
retired personnel of the Army into active military service and which 
stated in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S.J. Res. 286 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 6. See 86 Cong. Rec. 10436, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 15, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. All National Guard, Reserve, and retired personnel 
    ordered into the active military service of the United States under 
    the foregoing special au

[[Page 8629]]

    thority, shall . . . be subject to the respective laws and 
    regulations relating to enlistments, reenlistments . . . rights . . 
    . and discharge of such personnel in such service to the same 
    extent in all particulars as if they had been ordered into such 
    service under existing general statutory authorizations.

    The following amendment was offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 10437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frederick C.] Smith [of Ohio]: On 
    page 2, line 16, after ``authorization'', strike out the period, 
    insert a comma, and the following: ``Provided, That unless and 
    until Congress shall have provided revenue by taxation and shall 
    have authorized and made appropriations therefor the provisions of 
    this section and of this joint resolution shall remain 
    inoperative.''

    Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, having made a point of order 
against the amendment, the Chairman (8) ruled as follows: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 10438, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 15, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he amendment undertakes to bring in unrelated matters 
    and makes the effectiveness of the joint resolution determine upon 
    the happening of unrelated contingencies. The amendment would 
    therefore be subject to the point of order, and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Sec. 31.11 To a bill extending and amending laws relating to the 
    improvement of housing and urban communities, an amendment 
    providing that no funds could be appropriated or withdrawn from the 
    Treasury for the purposes of the bill until the enactment of 
    legislation raising additional revenue, was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Housing Act of 1959,(10) the 
following amendment was offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. S. 57 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 8840, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 21, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ellis Y.] Berry [of South Dakota]: On 
    page 175, following line 21, add a new section 515 as follows:

            No amounts may be appropriated, or withdrawn from the 
        Treasury of the United States, pursuant to the authority 
        contained in this Act, or any of the amendments made by it, 
        until legislation has been enacted providing sufficient revenue 
        to equal, or exceed, the amounts by which the total of such 
        appropriations, and the amounts authorized to be withdrawn from 
        the Treasury, exceed the amounts requested for such purposes in 
        the budget submitted to the Congress by the President on 
        January 19, 1959.

    The following exchange (12) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 8841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, in connection 
    with the

[[Page 8630]]

    point of order which I raised to this amendment, I point out that 
    the amendment is not germane to the bill because it seeks to make 
    the bill a revenue raising bill rather than a strictly housing 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (13) . . . The Chair is constrained to 
    feel that this amendment is not germane because it requires the 
    enactment of other legislation in order to make the action taken 
    here effective. This requires action not only by another committee 
    of the Congress but also by the executive branch of the Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Certification by President or Congress as to Enactment of Tax 
    Legislation

Sec. 31.12 Where the effectiveness of a pending amendment, relating to 
    the decontrol of oil prices, was made contingent upon a 
    presidential certification that certain tax legislation had been 
    enacted, an amendment to such amendment which substituted 
    congressional certification (by concurrent resolution not 
    constituting a change in the rules) for presidential certification 
    as to enactment of the tax legislation, was held to be germane.

    On July 18, 1975,(14) during consideration of the Energy 
Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (15) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Robert Krueger, of Texas, offered an 
amendment as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 23525, 23526, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Krueger: Strike out all from 
        beginning of line four, page 214 to end of line 3, page 223 
        (section 301 of the Committee substitute) and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:

                           crude oil price regulation

            Sec. 301. (a) The Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 
        1973 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        section:
            ``Sec. 8. (a) For the purposes of this section:
            ``(1) The term `crude oil' means a mixture of hydrocarbons 
        that existed in liquid phase in underground reservoirs and 
        remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after passing through 
        surface separating facilities. . . .
            ``(b) Except as provided in subsections (e) and (d), no 
        price ceiling shall apply to any first sale by a producer of 
        domestic crude oil from a property. . . .
            ``(d)(1) The provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of 
        section 8 shall not take effect unless the President finds that 
        there is in effect (A) an inflation minimization tax consonant 
        with the purposes of this section applicable to sales from a 
        property, from which domestic crude oil was produced and sold 
        in one or more of the months of May through Decem

[[Page 8631]]

        ber 1972, in volume amounts greater than the production volume 
        subject to a ceiling price under subsection (c), but less than 
        the base period control volume, and (B) a production 
        maximization tax consonant with the purposes of this section 
        applicable to sales of domestic crude oil from any stripper 
        well lease or from a property from which domestic crude oil was 
        not produced and sold in one or more of the months of May 
        through December 1972, or with respect to amounts produced and 
        sold in any month in excess of the base period control volume 
        (in the case of a property from which domestic oil was produced 
        and sold in one or more of the months of May through December 
        1972). . . .''

    On July 22, 1975,(16) when the Committee of the Whole 
resumed consideration of the bill, Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, 
offered the following amendment to the amendment and the proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 23995-97, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wright to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Krueger: Strike Subsection (d) of the new Section 8 added 
        to the Emergency Petroleum Act of 1973 and insert in lieu 
        thereof a new Subsection (d) as follows: ``The provisions of 
        (b) and (c) shall not take effect unless the Congress finds and 
        so declares by concurrent resolution that there is in effect a 
        tax which couples a redistribution of tax receipts mechanism to 
        substantially mitigate the effect of increased energy costs on 
        consumers with an excise tax or other tax applicable to sales 
        of crude oil from a property: Provided that such tax shall 
        provide an incentive for the production of new domestic crude 
        oil.''. . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I press my point 
    of order at this time.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that, No. 1, 
    this amendment is not germane to the Krueger amendment; and No. 2, 
    that this amendment, if added to the Krueger amendment, creates an 
    extensively and fundamentally different principle not covered by 
    the exception to the rules.
        Mr. Chairman, I cite primarily from page 415 of Deschler's 
    Procedure, section 36.9, which reads:

            The fact that a resolution providing for the consideration 
        of a bill specifically waives points of order against a 
        particular amendment is not determinative of the issue of the 
        germaneness of other, similar amendments.

        There is reference to 106 Congressional Record 5655, 86th 
    Congress, 2d session, March 14, 1960.
        I should like to point out to the Chair how widely divergent 
    this amendment is from the original Krueger amendment. The original 
    Krueger amendment had some appeal to the committee because it did a 
    very specific thing: It said that in providing that there is what 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) always called a specific 
    recycling process with respect to the taxes collected under the 
    windfall profits tax, that specific recycling

[[Page 8632]]

    process constituted the sending of the application, as I recall, of 
    half the receipts to low- and middle-income brackets and the rest 
    to a division of cities and others, the exact details of which I do 
    not recall.
        Then if this contingency occurred and it was a contingency 
    based on a clearly and specifically defined action to become law, 
    then and then only would the windfall profits tax provisions be in 
    effect. Otherwise the bill would fall back to essentially the 
    provisions of an extension of the existing Allocation Act. . . .
        The effect of this amendment is something extremely different, 
    and it is something that I feel sure we members of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce would have appeared before the 
    Committee on Rules and strenuously objected to, because the 
    amendment would simply say that we will put this pricing mechanism 
    into effect and we will leave open to the absolute unrestrained 
    determination of another committee what the tax structure would be.
        In effect the result of that would be a complete reneging by 
    the committee setting the price and a movement from a specific 
    contingency to a complete delegation of authority to define that 
    contingency to another committee. . . .
        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: . . . I would just like to 
    say that the resolution under which the committee considers this 
    proposal today, House Resolution 599, on page 2, line 10, sets 
    forth as follows:

            It shall be in order to consider, without the intervention 
        of any point of order, the text of an amendment which is 
        identical to the text of Section 301 of H.R. 7014 as introduced 
        and which was placed in the Congressional Record of Monday, 
        July 14, 1975, by Representative Robert Krueger.

        I think that the rule specifically indicates what would be in 
    order would be the Krueger amendment and not amendments to the 
    Krueger amendment.
        For example, I do not believe that it would have been in order, 
    under this rule, for the Committee on Ways and Means windfall 
    profits section to have been introduced as an amendment to the 
    Krueger amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment has within it the two factors which are also contained in 
    the basic Krueger amendment: first, a modification, as any 
    amendment would, of the finding or the method by which a finding 
    can be made of what an appropriate tax is; and second, a 
    description of what an appropriate tax is that can be found, so 
    that the basic provisions of the Krueger amendment can be put into 
    effect; that is, the decontrol process.
        The Committee on Rules properly, I think, made in order the 
    Krueger amendment for decontrol, and . . . hinged that decontrol on 
    a suitable tax and the finding of a suitable tax.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) 
    merely modifies that process.
        The question of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce to write this into its legislation was raised 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) in his comments on the 
    point of order.
        It seems to me that it is the prerogative of the Committee on 
    Rules to com

[[Page 8633]]

    bine legislation, to see that legislation is brought to the floor 
    in tandem, so that it might be combined on the floor by the 
    committee, in its wisdom, and in this case, specifically made in 
    order by rule.
        The prospect was that the job of the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce, the jurisdictional job, decontrol, would 
    proceed on the basis of a finding of a suitable tax and it left the 
    establishment or the enactment of that tax to the Committee on Ways 
    and Means.
        Nothing in the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Wright) changes the basic thrust of the rule granted by the 
    Committee on Rules in that regard, and it occurs to me that the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) is perfectly 
    appropriate and germane. It does, in fact, as any amendment would, 
    modify the situation; but it leaves to the full committee, the 
    Committee of the Whole, the job of making that modification, in its 
    wisdom. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Although a great many matters have been discussed in connection 
    with the point of order, the Chair proposes to rule only very 
    narrowly.
        The question is whether the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Wright) offered to the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) is germane as within the 
    limitations of the precedents with regard to its scope.
        The Chair finds, basically on the arguments made by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) that it is germane, and within the 
    scope of the type of ``windfall profits tax'' defined by the 
    Krueger amendment, although the description of the tax is somewhat 
    less precise than the definition in the Krueger amendment. The fact 
    that Congress, in the Wright amendment, rather than the President, 
    as in the Krueger amendment must make the finding of enactment of 
    the tax does not render the amendment not germane. Therefore the 
    Chair overrules the various points of order and finds the amendment 
    in order.

Tax on Corporations Engaged in Manufacturing War Materials

Sec. 31.13 To an amendment providing that no person shall be inducted 
    prior to 90 days after the date of enactment of the Selective 
    Service Act, an amendment proposing that the act be effective on 
    the same day that a certain tax on corporations engaged in 
    manufacturing war materials becomes effective was held not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948,(18) the following amendment was offered: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 8503, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 8634]]

    Andrews of New York: Strike out all of section 23 and insert: 
    ``This act shall be effective on the same day that a tax bill 
    becomes effective which will tax all corporations 100 percent of 
    all profits and earnings in excess of the average annual profits 
    and earnings of such corporations engaged in the manufacture of war 
    materials or any other service connected with the war effort and/or 
    the Selective Service Act of 1948.''

    Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, having raised the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane to the bill, Mr. Mike 
Mansfield, of Montana, responded:

        Mr. Chairman, I submit that this amendment is germane to this 
    particular proposal because like the Andrews amendment it sets a 
    beginning date as to the time when this law should go into 
    operation.

    The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls attention to the fact that the amendment as 
    presented would strike out all of section 23. This section is not 
    now under consideration and for that reason a motion to strike it 
    out would not be in order at this time.
        The Chair may also say, however, as to the point raised by the 
    gentleman from New York that the amendment proposes to make the 
    effectiveness of this act contingent upon an unrelated matter and 
    therefore would not be germane to the pending amendment.

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Enactment of Legislation Increasing Debt Limit or Raising Revenue

Sec. 31.14 To a bill reported from the Committee on Agriculture 
    directing the Secretary of Agriculture to expend all sums 
    appropriated for the Rural Environmental Assistance Program, an 
    amendment delaying the effectiveness of the bill until (1) Congress 
    enacts legislation increasing the statutory ceiling on the public 
    debt limit or legislation raising revenue by the amount of spending 
    in the bill; or (2) the Comptroller General reports that such 
    expenditures, together with all other outlays during that fiscal 
    year, will not exceed revenue and debt limit totals was held not 
    germane.

    In the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 7, 1973,(1) during 
consideration of a bill (2) as described above, the 
following amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 3708, 3709, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 2107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: After line 11, add the 
        following:

[[Page 8635]]

            ``Sec. 2. This Act shall not take effect until such time as 
        one of the following events occur: (1) the enactment of 
        legislation increasing the statutory ceiling on the public debt 
        by an amount at least equal to the amount of outlay mandated 
        herein; (2) the enactment of legislation which will produce a 
        first-year increase in revenue at least equal to the amount of 
        spending; or (3) the Comptroller General of the United States 
        makes a determination and so reports to the Speaker of the 
        House and the President of the Senate, that the expenditure of 
        funds provided herein, together with all other outlays expected 
        to occur during fiscal 1973, will not exceed the total of 
        revenue and authorized public debt for fiscal 1973.''

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order on the amendment. . . . [I]t is not germane to H.R. 2107.
        H.R. 2107 amends Section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and 
    Domestic Allotment Act, and the amendment in no manner deals with 
    the fundamental purpose of this legislation which simply requires 
    the expenditure of funds lawfully appropriated by the Congress. In 
    addition, Mr. Chairman, the amendment would require action by a 
    number of other agencies of the U.S. Government which are not 
    considered and not included in the bill before us, and, therefore, 
    it is not germane to the bill before us. . . .
        Mr. Findley: . . . As I understood the argument of the chairman 
    of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Poage), it was that this involved unrelated actions. I think 
    in substance that was his argument in support of his point that the 
    amendment is not germane. I would like to argue to the contrary, 
    that the bill before us is so far-reaching in its scope that the 
    items which are in my amendment are indeed closely related. They 
    can hardly be considered as isolated and separate propositions.
        First of all, the bill does not involve just the REAP program. 
    It involves the U.S. Treasury. It mandates spending. Therefore the 
    Treasury balance of money is vitally important and closely related 
    to this question.
        It involves the appropriation of money. It would seek to 
    mandate the spending of money which had been authorized by an act 
    of appropriation of the Congress. In that connection it may well be 
    that some of the Members of this body have not examined the wording 
    which is in an appropriation bill preamble, and I would like to 
    read that at this point. I cite this typical language from the 
    Appropriation Act of the 92d Congress:

            That the following sums are appropriated out of any money 
        in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated . . .

        That is any money in the Treasury. Well, what does money in the 
    Treasury consist of? It consists of revenue from taxes. It consists 
    of revenue from borrowings. Therefore revenue as well as the public 
    debt ceiling have to be considered an integral part of the 
    legislation we are considering this afternoon. . . .
        This is not the first time that the Chair has ruled favorably 
    on an amendment of the same nature that is now before the Chair. On 
    January 8, 1964, I offered an amendment to an authorization bill--
    and I point out that

[[Page 8636]]

    it was an authorization bill. This language appears in the 
    Congressional Record, volume 110, part 1, page 144, 88th Congress, 
    second session.(3) The language of the amendment that I 
    offered at that time read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 31.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The authorization for an appropriation contained in this 
        Act shall not be effective until such time as the receipts of 
        the Government for the preceding fiscal year have exceeded the 
        expenditures of the Government for such year, as determined by 
        the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.

        So, if there is an unrelated section or item involved in the 
    issue before the Chair at this time, there certainly was on that 
    occasion also.
        On that occasion, when I offered the amendment and the Clerk 
    had finished his reading, Mr. Jones of Alabama stated:

            Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
        amendment, because it would restrict the appropriation to be 
        made available under the terms of Section 8, starting on line 
        22, page 3.

        The Chairman responded:

            In the interest of being expeditious, the Chair rules that 
        the point of order is not well taken, because the amendment 
        involves a limitation on an appropriation.

        That bill, like the bill before us, was an authorization bill, 
    not an appropriation bill, when the Chair saw fit to rule in favor 
    of my amendment, citing that it did amount to a limitation of 
    appropriation. In effect, the amendment now before the Chair is a 
    limitation on appropriations.
        Based on that ruling, as well as the general argument I made on 
    the constitutional basis, I do ask the Chair to overrule the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes his presentation 
    upon the assumption that his amendment somehow is a limitation on 
    an appropriation. The bill before us has nothing to do with an 
    appropriation. It does not involve an appropriation. It simply says 
    what the Secretary is to do with the money that has already been 
    appropriated and how he shall carry out the program. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair has had occasion to 
    study this problem, and is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Findley) is 
    not germane to the bill H.R. 2107. The amendment would delay the 
    effectiveness of the bill until Congress enacts legislation 
    increasing the statutory ceiling on the public debt limit--or 
    legislation raising revenue by the amount of spending in the bill--
    or until the Comptroller General determines and reports to the 
    Congress that the expenditure of funds in the bill, together with 
    all other outlays during fiscal 1973, will not exceed the total of 
    revenue and authorized public debt for fiscal 1973.
        To a bill authorizing an expenditure of certain funds, an 
    amendment postponing the effectiveness of that authorization 
    pending the enactment of legislation raising revenue has been held 
    not germane.
        The statement made by the Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole on

[[Page 8637]]

    the occasion of that earlier ruling is applicable here. Chairman 
    Walter of Pennsylvania then said:

            This amendment is not germane because it requires the 
        enactment of other legislation in order to make the action 
        taken here effective. This requires action not only by another 
        committee of the Congress but also by the executive branch of 
        government.

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois would 
    certainly require the ascertainment of facts and the exercise of 
    duties by government officials and committees and agencies not 
    included within the present bill.
        The Chair has also examined several precedents in Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, including those found 
    in sections 3035 and 3037 of volume VIII. In both of those 
    decisions, amendments delaying the operation of proposed 
    legislation pending the completion of other legislative action was 
    ruled out as not germane.
        The Chair further distinguishes this from the situation that 
    the gentleman from Illinois referred to in the earlier case 
    involving House Joint Resolution 871 and the ruling by Chairman 
    Rains, of Alabama, in the 88th Congress. There the amendment did 
    involve a limitation but required nothing further to be done by 
    another committee of this body.
        The Chair holds that the pending amendment is not germane to 
    the bill and sustains the point of order.

Determination as to Soviet Union's Limitation of Weapons Systems

Sec. 31.15 While an amendment may not be germane which conditions the 
    availability of an authorization upon an unrelated contingency 
    involving issues and agencies beyond the jurisdiction of the 
    reporting committee, a contingency may be related if merely 
    requiring observation of the conduct of another country, where such 
    conduct is already contemplated as a factor affecting the policy 
    basis for the authorization; thus, to an amendment to a military 
    procurement authorization bill reducing a line-item amount for Air 
    Force missiles and prohibiting use of funds in that title for the 
    MX missile program, an amendment reducing instead the same line-
    item authorization by a different amount and also stating a policy 
    with respect to the use of those funds for the unilateral 
    cancellation of the MX system, authorizing the funds at a 
    subsequent time during the fiscal year if the President determines 
    that the Soviet Union is not controlling and limiting similar 
    weapons systems, was held germane as an alternative limitation 
    imposing a conditional restriction which was

[[Page 8638]]

    not based upon an unrelated contingency.

    On May 16, 1984,(5) during consideration of H.R. 5167 
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 130 Cong. Rec. 12504-06, 12509-11, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. The Military Procurement Authorization for fiscal 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 authorization of appropriations, air force

        Sec. 103. (a)(1) Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated 
    for fiscal year 1985 for procurement for the Air Force as follows: 
    . . .

            For missiles, $8,664,600,000. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bennett: Page 10, line 19, strike 
        out ``$8,664,600,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$5,942,700,000''.

        At the end of title I (page 15, after line 5), add the 
    following new section:

                             mx missile procurement

            Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to 
        authorizations of appropriations in this title may be used for 
        the MX missile program. . . .

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Price to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Bennett: Strike out the amount proposed by the amendment to 
        be inserted on page 10, line 19, and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$7,756,600,000''.
            Strike out the section proposed by the amendment to be 
        inserted at the end of title I and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:

            policy concerning acquisition of additional mx missiles

            Sec.   . (a) It is the policy of Congress not to take any 
        action that would reward the Soviet Union through the 
        unilateral cancellation by the United States of the MX 
        strategic nuclear missile weapon system for which funds are 
        authorized in this title while the Soviet Union continues to 
        act in a manner indicating that it is unwilling to take actions 
        to further the control and limitation of similar types of 
        strategic nuclear missile weapon systems.
            (b)(1) Subject to paragraph (3), funds appropriated 
        pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 
        103(a) for procurement of missiles for the Air Force may be 
        used to acquire not more than 15 additional MX missiles, but no 
        funds may be obligated for the acquisition of such missiles 
        until April 1, 1985.
            (2) Immediately after April 1, 1985, the President shall 
        determine whether the Soviet Union is acting, as of April 1, 
        1985, in a manner indicating that it is willing to take actions 
        to further the control and limitation of types of strategic 
        nuclear missile weapon systems similar to the MX strategic 
        missile weapons system authorized for the Air Force by this 
        title and shall immediately transmit written notification of 
        that determination to Congress.
            (3)(A) If the President's determination under paragraph (2) 
        is that the Soviet Union is not acting in such a

[[Page 8639]]

        manner, the amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization 
        of appropriations in section 103(a) for the acquisition of 15 
        additional MX missiles may be obligated, but only if the 
        President also determines, and includes in the written 
        notification to Congress under paragraph (2), that--
            (i) the obligation of such funds is in the national 
        interest; and
            (ii) as of April 1, 1985, the United States is willing to 
        act to further the control and limitation on the MX strategic 
        nuclear missile weapon system authorized for the Air Force by 
        this title.
            (B) If the President's determination under paragraph (2) is 
        that the Soviet Union is acting in such a manner, none of the 
        amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization of 
        appropriations in section 103(a) for the acquisition of 15 
        additional MX missiles may be obligated. . . .

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the Price amendment on the grounds that its scope is 
    broader than that of the primary amendment, title 1, and therefore 
    is not germane to the primary amendment.
        The Price amendment would condition MX missile procurement 
    authorization on a Presidential determination. The exact nature and 
    notification of this action is not specified in the amendment; it 
    is open to various interpretations. A number of those 
    interpretations have been brought out on the floor in the colloquy 
    which just preceded my point of order stated by the gentleman from 
    Washington State.
        That interpretation is that the MX procurement authorization 
    would be contingent upon a Presidential report or certification 
    regarding arms control negotiations. This, is in fact the 
    interpretation, as I have indicated it, Members who support the 
    amendment have built into the legislative history just set forth.
        Since arms control negotiations involve agencies not charged 
    with procurement of the MX missile, nor with procurement of any 
    weapons, the Price amendment is not germane to the primary 
    amendment according to Deschler's Precedents, chapter 28, section 
    24, point 23, based on a ruling made February 22, 1978.
        The amendment is also inconsistent with rulings made in similar 
    cases on July 8, 1981, and July 9, 1981. . . .
        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, the language of 
    the amendment says that the President shall determine whether the 
    Soviet Union is acting, as of April 1, 1985, in a manner indicating 
    that it is willing to take actions to further the control and 
    limitation of types of strategic nuclear missile weapons systems. 
    It does not mention negotiations. The amendment itself is in line 
    with other types of amendments that we have had, and it is a 
    general finding by the President, and I believe it is within the 
    rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: Mr. Chairman, in the colloquy I 
    just had with the gentleman from the State of Washington, he 
    answered the question that this amendment is contingent upon arms 
    control negotiations. I ask that specifically because on July 8, 
    1981, I presented an amendment to the floor on Pershing II's that 
    was ruled out of order as stated and that amendment on Pershing 
    II's held the dollars for the expenditure for the de

[[Page 8640]]

    ployment until the President has certified that Congress of the 
    United States has forwarded to the Soviet Union initial proposals 
    for arms control negotiations. Essentially the same thing.
        That amendment was ruled out of order, the amendment made by 
    this gentleman, was ruled out of order, and part of the reason that 
    it was ruled out of order as stated was the Chair would further 
    point out that the arms control negotiations fall within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and not within 
    the jurisdiction of the committee reporting this bill, and thereby 
    out of order. . . .
        Mr. Aspin: The difference is of course that the gentleman from 
    Washington's amendment that he referred to, did mention arms 
    control negotiations in his amendment. The amendment which the 
    chairman of the committee, Mr. Price, has put forward does not 
    mention arms control negotiations in his amendment. . . .
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, I am looking at page 2, and on page 
    2, lines 5 and 6, it states, lines 4, 5, and 6, it states, ``. . . 
    acting in a manner indicating that it is willing to take actions to 
    further the control and limitations of types of strategic missile 
    weapons systems similar to the MX.''
        Mr. Chairman, my point is this: One cannot define a missile 
    system that is similar to the MX. The amendment does not define it. 
    As this debate has already brought out, it is subject to a great 
    difference of opinion on the floor of the House. I make the point, 
    Mr. Chairman, my point of order is, therefore, that the amendment 
    is broader in scope than that of the MX because it necessarily 
    brings into play questions of missile systems beyond the MX. It is 
    only the MX that is in dispute and subject to debate at this point. 
    So I renew my point of order. . . .
        Mr. [William B.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is clearly germane and does not exceed the scope of the 
    original bill. It does not introduce a new and different subject 
    than that in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Bennett). Both amendments deal with the procurement of MX 
    missiles. The amendment differs only in degree. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price), does place 
    additional conditions on the release of funds for the procurement 
    of MX missiles, but does not introduce any new or additional 
    subject, and is therefore clearly germane.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida contains a 
    provision providing, ``None of the funds in this title'' may be 
    used for the MX missile program.
        It should be noted that there are other provisions in title I 
    of this bill regarding international treaty obligations. Section 
    105, for instance, deals with our international obligations with 
    NATO countries. Section 107 of this bill also contains provisions 
    extending certain authorities to the President under the Arms 
    Export Control Act.
        So I think neither in enlarging the scope nor on the question 
    of germaneness would a point of order lie. . . .
        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: . . . Obviously the 
    intention of this is that the President would assess the Soviet 
    behavior in negotiations. As a matter of fact, although the magic

[[Page 8641]]

    word ``negotiations'' is not mentioned, that really makes it an 
    issue on all fours with the point of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    and the gentleman from Washington.
        Simply not mentioning negotiations when you describe a process 
    that can only be assessed through negotiations clearly seems to 
    make it the case. If the gentleman is really saying that the 
    President should assess this important decision without regard to 
    negotiations from the Soviet Union, then the amendment makes even 
    less sense than I thought it did. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels the arguments made, to sustain the point of 
    order, are much broader than the Chair would interpret the 
    amendment. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    reduces the line-item authorization for Air Force missiles and also 
    adds a section at the end of title I prohibiting the use of any 
    funds authorized in title I for fiscal year 1985 for the 
    procurement of the MX missile.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, in lieu 
    of a prohibition on the use of the authorized funds in fiscal year 
    1985 for the procurement of any MX missiles, would instead reduce 
    the same line-item authorizations for Air Force missiles by a 
    lesser amount and would add a different section at the end of title 
    I stating a policy with respect to the use of fiscal year 1985 
    authorized funds in title I for the unilateral cancellation of the 
    MX system, while the Soviet Union continues to be unwilling to take 
    actions to control and limit similar strategic missile weapons 
    systems.

        In effect, the amendment would authorize fiscal year 1985 funds 
    for the procurement of not more than 15 MX missiles after April 1, 
    1985, if the President determines that the Soviet Union is not 
    acting in a manner to control similar systems.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the issue of the availability of 
    any funds in fiscal year 1985 for MX procurement presented by the 
    original amendment permits as an alternative approach a conditional 
    restriction on the availability of those same funds dependent upon 
    Presidential determination of procurement of similar systems by the 
    Soviet Union.
        It is certainly a related issue to condition of the 
    availability of the funds in the bill upon observed conduct on the 
    part of the Soviet Union with respect to a similar weapons system, 
    and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Government Receipts in Excess of Expenditures

Sec. 31.16 Where an amendment seeks to adopt as a measure of the 
    availability of certain authorizations contained in the bill a 
    condition that is logically relevant and objectively discernible, 
    the amendment does not present an unrelated contingency and is 
    germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a proposition was under consideration 
(8)

[[Page 8642]]

 to rename the National Cultural Center as the John F. Kennedy Center 
for the Performing Arts and to authorize an appropriation for such 
center. An amendment providing that the authorization not be effective 
until the receipts of the government exceed its expenditures was held 
to be germane: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See H.J. Res. 871 (Committee on Public Works).
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 144, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 8, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Page 4, 
    line 4, add a new paragraph to read as follows: ``The authorization 
    for an appropriation contained in this Act shall not be effective 
    until such time as the receipts of the Government for the preceding 
    fiscal year have exceeded the expenditures of the Government for 
    such year, as determined by the Director of the Bureau of the 
    Budget.''

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

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment, because it would restrict the 
    appropriation to be made available under the terms of section 8, 
    starting on line 22, page 3.
        The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Albert Rains (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the interest of being expeditious, the Chair rules that the 
    point of order is not well taken, because the amendment involves a 
    limitation on an appropriation.

Determination as to Expenditures Under Other Acts

Sec. 31.17 An amendment to an authorization bill which conditions the 
    obligation or expenditure of funds therein by adopting as a measure 
    of their availability the expenditure during that fiscal year of a 
    comparable percentage of funds authorized by other Acts is germane 
    so long as the amendment does not directly affect the use of other 
    funds; thus, to a bill authorizing foreign economic and military 
    assistance, an amendment providing that the percentage of funds 
    obligated or expended pursuant to that Act at any time during 
    fiscal 1974 shall not be more than 10% greater than percentages 
    expended under certain other programs authorized by Congress was 
    held to impose a germane limitation on the availability of funds 
    authorized in the bill which did not directly affect the operation 
    of other government programs.

    During consideration of the Mutual Development and Cooperation Act 
of 1973 (11) in the Committee of the Whole on July 26,

[[Page 8643]]

1973,(12) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.  H.R. 9360.
12.  119 Cong. Rec. 26210, 26211, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Danielson: On page 53, after line 
        23, insert the following new section:

                         equitable expenditure of funds

            Sec. 30. (a) Unless the Congress shall provide otherwise in 
        language expressly made applicable to this section, at any time 
        during the fiscal year 1974, the amount obligated or expended 
        pursuant to this Act for any program or activity authorized by 
        this Act, expressed as a percentage of the amount appropriated 
        by law for purposes of such program or activity, shall not be 
        more than 10 percentage points greater than the amount 
        obligated or expended at that time for any other program or 
        activity authorized by Act of Congress, expressed as a 
        percentage of the amount appropriated by law for purposes of 
        such other program or activity for the fiscal year 1974.
            (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``other program 
        or activity'' shall include any program or activity 
        administered by or under the direction of the Department of 
        Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of 
        Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
        Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of 
        Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
        Veterans' Administration. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    insist on a point of order. . . .
        (T)his bill deals solely with authorizations for appropriations 
    for foreign aid. The amendment of the gentleman covers many 
    programs of agencies: The Department of Agriculture, the Department 
    of Commerce, the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and 
    Urban Development, the Department of Health, Education, and 
    Welfare, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Veteran's 
    Administration. It goes far afield from the present legislation, 
    and therefore I insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment, and observes that the 
    amendment does not directly affect the obligation or expenditure of 
    funds under other Government programs. Rather, the percentages 
    obligated or expended under other programs merely serve as a 
    measure or limit of percentages which can be obligated or expended 
    under programs in the pending bill. For this reason, the Chair 
    feels that the amendment is a germane restriction on the 
    availability of funds authorized in the pending bill, and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Determination as to Balance of Trade in Automotive Products

Sec. 31.18 An amendment delaying operation of a proposed enactment 
    pending an ascer

[[Page 8644]]

    tainment of a fact is germane when the fact to be ascertained 
    relates solely to the subject matter of the bill; thus, to a bill 
    requiring that a certain percentage of automobiles sold in the 
    United States be manufactured domestically, and imposing an import 
    restriction for automobiles on any person violating that 
    requirement, an amendment waiving the requirement for the products 
    of one country if the balance of trade with such country in 
    automotive products bears a certain relationship with the overall 
    trade deficit with that country, was held germane, as a contingency 
    relating to the same subject matter as the bill.

    During consideration of the Fair Practices in Automotive Products 
Act (14) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled 
a point of order in the circumstances described above. he proceedings 
of Dec. 15, 1982,(15) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.  H.R. 5133.
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 30958-60, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Schumer: Page 11, line 5, strike 
        out ``It'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``Except as provided in 
        paragraph (5), it''.

            Page 13, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
            (5) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any 
        vehicle manufacturer of Japan with respect to any model year if 
        the United States deficit in the balance of trade in automotive 
        products with Japan for the four calendar quarters most closely 
        corresponding to model year 1982 is not greater as a percentage 
        of the deficit in goods and services with Japan (as calculated 
        on the basis of the Balance of Goods and Services published by 
        the Department of Commerce) for the four calendar quarters most 
        closely corresponding to such model year than [certain 
        specified percentages].

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) on the ground that it goes 
    beyond the purposes of H.R. 5133 and is thus not germane.
        The gentleman's amendment attempts to address trade matters 
    that are not addressed by the bill before us. The bill that is 
    before us seeks to address domestic car content requirements.
        Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would 
    make the enforcement provisions of the bill contingent upon a 
    determination of the balance of trade in automotive products versus 
    the relative balance of payments of other goods and services, and 
    when we bring in the other goods and services, I maintain that that 
    goes far beyond the scope of the legislation.
        It also places additional responsibilities on the Secretary of 
    Transportation on trade issues which are not within his authority.
        In previous rulings, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on

[[Page 8645]]

    the State of the Union has . . . ruled that an amendment changing 
    the statement of policy contained in a bill is not in order if its 
    effect is to fundamentally change the purpose of the bill. That is 
    found in Deschler's Precedents, chapter 28, section 4.16.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order that the 
    amendment goes beyond the purposes of H.R. 5133, that it is not 
    germane and, therefore, is out of order. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I support the 
    point of order that has been claimed by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Broyhill).
        It is quite clear that the amendment has been redrawn in an 
    attempt to fit our rule XVI, clause 7. That is the rule of 
    germaneness. It is also quite clear, as demonstrated by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina, that it does not succeed.
        The bill that is before us, H.R. 5133, is a bill that refers 
    only to domestic manufacture within the United States. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) 
    seeks to impose a regimen against exports based on a measure of 
    automotive imports which is beyond all normal competence of the 
    Secretary of Commerce, who is the only individual noted in H.R. 
    5133.
        In addition, there would have to be a determination of the 
    total scope of our balance of trade with the country of Japan. The 
    denominator of the gentleman's fraction is the total balance of 
    trade between our country and Japan. . . . [The amendment] goes far 
    beyond the intent of the original bill, which deals with domestic 
    manufacture, and gets into the whole field of trade, which is 
    beyond the jurisdiction of the committee that is bringing us this 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. [Charles E.] Schumer [of New York]: If I might respond to 
    the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the amendment was drawn to relate 
    to the narrow area of automobiles and automobile content as well as 
    automobile trade. The bill before us deals with automobile trade.
        Just to look at one point, page 4 deals with vehicles 
    manufactured by a vehicle manufacturer in the United States and 
    exported from the United States. That is clause 1.
        Clause 2 also deals with vehicles manufactured in the United 
    States and exported from the United States.
        Furthermore, what we were told in terms of germaneness was that 
    what we had to deal with was automobiles and the fraction that we 
    used deals with automobiles making it clearly germane.
        The gentleman form North Carolina, the gentleman from 
    Minnesota, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania might have an 
    argument if, if this bill dealt with or this amendment specifically 
    related to general trade. But it does not. It relates to automobile 
    trade.
        Furthermore, I might say the gentlemen in objection to this 
    have said this amendment has an effect on trade. So does the bill.
        What is the debate we have been listening to for the last 2 
    hours? Authority for the issue of germaneness is not the effect 
    that the amendment would have but specifically are the words of the 
    amendment germane to the bill.

[[Page 8646]]

        The bill deals with automobiles and automobile manufacturing. 
    The amendment deals with automobiles and automobile manufacturing, 
    but here in this country and for export and, therefore, I would 
    argue that the amendment is indeed germane. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    germaneness rule is the purpose and the basis of the point of 
    order.
        First of all, the amendment must be germane to the bill. I 
    would observe that there are a number of tests.
        The first which has been referred to is the question of 
    committee jurisdiction. Here we have an amendment which relates to 
    trade, balance of trade, figures relative to trade, and a question 
    relative to suspension of imports.
        Clearly that kind of an amendment would have compelled this 
    legislation to have been referred to the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
        The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
    because it deals with Interstate Commerce.
        The amendment must also be germane to the committee substitute. 
    It fails again on the basis of this test.
        The question then is: Does the amendment meet any of the other 
    tests and I submit to the Chair that it does not.
        The amendment does not relate as required under section 3 of 
    title XXVIII of Deschler's, does not relate to the subject under 
    consideration.
        The subject under consideration relates to interstate commerce.
        The amendment relates to international commerce. Clearly the 
    subject matter is different and the amendment again fails.
        There is yet another test and that is the fundamental purpose 
    of the amendment test under section 5. Obviously again the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment must relate to the fundamental 
    purpose of the proposition to which it is offered.
        The fundamental purpose of the committee substitute is to 
    establish standards for the trade in interstate commerce of 
    automobiles and automobile parts. Here it is clear that the 
    amendment again relates to international trade and it requires a 
    series of findings which are nowhere found wherein a series of 
    calculations dependent on international trade and deficits, none of 
    which are mentioned anywhere in the legislation.
        Last of all, the amendment fails the requirements of section 6 
    of Deschler's wherein the test is does it accomplish the result of 
    the basic legislation by the same or similar means. Here it is very 
    clear that under the bill the evil to be dealt with is the 
    difficulty with regard to jobs and it is dealt with through the 
    interstate commerce powers of the Constitution and of the Congress.
        The amendment would deal with the problem of international 
    trade by relating automobile sales to international trade deficits 
    of the United States, two very distinct and different matters. . . 
    .
        Mr. Schumer: . . . [A]s I understand it . . . it is the words 
    of the bill, not its effect or anything else that relates to 
    germaneness.
        Let me keep reading words of the bill to show that the bill 
    deals not just

[[Page 8647]]

    with interstate commerce but with international commerce. . . .
        Throughout the bill . . . are arguments, words, discussions 
    that relate not just to automobiles domestically within the United 
    States but automobiles exported.
        Furthermore, the bill is explicit. It sets different 
    classifications for automobile parts that are manufactured within 
    the United States as opposed to automobile parts that are 
    manufactured outside of the United States.
        To say that the bill only deals with what happens within the 
    United States is incorrect. The bill deals with what happens within 
    and without. Albeit related to automobiles, the amendment deals 
    with what happens within and without but related to autos as well. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the general rule of germaneness, the test of an amendment 
    is whether there is a relationship to the subject matter of the 
    bill.
        This bill requires a certain percentage of domestic content in 
    the automobiles that are sold in this country.
        The amendment provides that that requirement is not applicable 
    during periods when the balance of trade in automotive products 
    bears a certain relationship to overall trade; therefore, the 
    amendment is confined to the subject of trade in automotive 
    products and is not an unrelated contingency involving the overall 
    balance of trade.
        In Cannon (VIII, 3029) an amendment delaying operation of a 
    proposed enactment pending an ascertainment of a fact is germane 
    when that fact to be ascertained relates solely to the subject 
    matter of the bill.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment conditions the 
    implementation of the domestic content requirement upon a certain 
    test, a certain factual situation.
        It relates to the general subject matter of the bill, imposes a 
    germane condition, and, therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Determination and Report by President on Ownership of Gold in Vietnam

Sec. 31.19 An amendment delaying the operation of proposed legislation 
    pending an unrelated contingency is not germane; thus, an amendment 
    to a substitute postponing the effective date of the granting of 
    humanitarian and evacuation assistance to South Vietnam refugees 
    until the President determines and reports to Congress on the 
    ownership of gold sought to be removed from Cambodia and South 
    Vietnam was held to be not germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(17) during consideration of H.R. 6096 
(the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman

[[Page 8648]]

Otis G. Pike, of New York, sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 11511, 11512, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John L.] Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: At the end add 
        a new section:
            ``This Act shall become effective when the President 
        determines and reports to Congress whether the 16 tons of gold 
        that Lon Nol and former President Thieu tried to send to 
        Switzerland was American property or their own personal 
        gold.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . It is an amendment that sets an 
    active triggering date for the legislation. It is no more different 
    than saying that it shall take effect on a certain date. We are 
    just saying in this amendment that we are setting this date for the 
    determination whether or not that 16 tons of gold with American 
    money is just a limitation on the executive power of the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. A similar situation 
    arose in the 93d Congress on a bill authorizing military assistance 
    to Israel and funds to be used in an emergency force when an 
    amendment was offered postponing the availability of those funds 
    until the President certified the existence of a designated level 
    of energy supplies. (Deschler's, chapter 28, section 24.18).
        The amendment in question is not germane to the purposes of the 
    substitute and the point of order is sustained.

Certification That Bill Will Have Positive Effect on Employment Levels

Sec. 31.20 To a bill requiring that a certain percentage of automobiles 
    sold in the United States be manufactured domestically, imposing an 
    import restriction on any person violating that requirement, and 
    separately requiring a study of the impact of implementation of the 
    bill on the automobile industry and on the exportation of other 
    goods and services from the United States, an amendment delaying 
    the effectiveness of the entire bill contingent upon a 
    certification that the bill will have a net positive effect on the 
    total domestic employment levels was held to be nongermane as a 
    condition referring to the entire range of employment in the 
    economy and therefore encompassing factors beyond the scope of the 
    bill.

    During consideration of the Fair Practices and Procedures in Auto

[[Page 8649]]

motive Products Act of 1983 (18) in the Committee of the 
Whole on Nov. 2 and 3, 1983,(19) the Chair sustained a point 
of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 1234.
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 30527, 30775-77, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        sec. 8. general effectiveness and impact study.

            (a) Continuing Study.--Beginning not later than one year 
        after enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Federal 
        Trade Commission, in consultation with the heads of other 
        interested Federal agencies and with the Advisory Council, 
        shall conduct a continuing study of the adequacy of the actions 
        taken to implement and enforce the provisions of sections 5, 6, 
        and 7, and the extent to which such provisions and their 
        implementation and enforcement--
            (1) are achieving, or will achieve, the purpose of this 
        Act; and
            (2) are affecting in any way--
            (A) retail prices to consumers in the United States of new 
        motor vehicles sold and distributed in interstate commerce. . . 
        .
            (D) the United States balance of trade in automotive 
        products.
            (E) employment at ports in the United States where 
        automotive products are regularly entered into the United 
        States for sale and distribution in interstate commerce . . . 
        and
            (G) the exportation of agricultural commodities and 
        products from the United States, and the exportation of goods, 
        industrial and other products, and services from the United 
        States.

        In order to ensure that the continuing study required by this 
    section is balanced and comprehensive, the Secretary and the 
    Federal Trade Commission shall identify and consider all other 
    factors that are relevant to an understanding of, or have an effect 
    on, the matters required to be studied under this subsection, 
    including, but not limited to, governmental policies and practices 
    affecting such matters. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: At the end of the bill add 
        the following new section:
            Sec. 11. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, 
        none of the provisions of this Act shall take effect until the 
        Department of Labor, in consultation with the Department of 
        Commerce and other appropriate federal agencies, prepares an 
        affirmative employment impact statement and certifies that the 
        net effect of implementation of this Act will have a positive 
        impact on total domestic employment levels.
            (b) Such statement shall include an analysis of:
            (1) The immediate impact on levels of total private 
        employment
            (2) The long term economic effects of enactment of the 
        bill; and
            (3) The extent and nature of any new employment 
        opportunities created by the implementation of this Act. . . .

        Mr. [Dennis E.] Eckart [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1234, as 
    introduced and reported, relates to the sales in interstate 
    commerce of vehicles and parts and the distribution in commerce of 
    those parts. Its purpose is to encourage production of automotive 
    products and parts in the United States for sale, and regulates and 
    deals with the

[[Page 8650]]

    movement within interstate commerce in the United States of those 
    parts.
        In order for an amendment to this bill to be in order it must 
    meet the fundamental purposes test and thus meet the germaneness 
    test. It must not only have the same end as the matter that is 
    sought to be amended, but it must also contemplate a method of 
    achieving that end that is closely related and allied to the method 
    encompassed in the bill or the substitute.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not 
    consistent with the fundamental purpose test and I would cite for 
    the purposes of the record that an amendment to accomplish a 
    similar purpose by an unrelated method not contemplated by the bill 
    is not germane.
        I would reference the Chair to the 113th Congressional Record, 
    page 21849 of the 90th Congress, 1st session; 116th Congressional 
    Record, page 28165 of the 91st Congress, 2d session; 121st 
    Congressional Record, page 18695 of the 94th Congress, 1st session.
        The first purpose of this amendment, I would point out to the 
    Chair, is not intended to limit the content of the autos sold in 
    interstate commerce in the United States. That is the fundamental 
    purpose of this legislation.
        The amendment proffered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    deviates dramatically from the fundamental purpose; therefore, 
    fails the precedents under the precedents and history of the House. 
    Therefore, the amendment is not germane and should be ruled out of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, the bill we have before us has in 
    section 8 a ``general effectiveness and impact study.''
        In section 8 of that bill it is a macroeconomic study which is 
    mandated by the legislation itself. It is a macroeconomic study 
    that not only goes to the automobile industry but as section (G) 
    under part (2) of that section says, it related to ``the 
    exportation of agricultural commodities and products from the 
    United States, and the exportation of goods, industrial and other 
    products, and services from the United States.''
        In other words, the bill in mandating that study mandates a 
    macroeconomic study.
        In the case of my amendment, my amendment is also a study. It 
    asks for a study preimplementation. It is a study which also is a 
    macroeconomic study not unlike that which would be an ongoing part 
    of the legislation.
        So, therefore, my amendment is entirely germane to the sections 
    of the bill and to the general nature of the bill in question.
        In addition, I would say that this is a bill, which the purpose 
    of the act is to prevent or remedy serious injury to domestic 
    manufacturers and workers. My amendment is simply a study to assure 
    that that kind of a mandate would be met by the legislation in 
    question. So therefore, since the reservation against my amendment 
    has been raised on the point of germaneness, I would submit that 
    the amendment that I have offered is entirely germane, given the 
    language contained already in the bill in section 8. . . .
        Mr. Eckart: . . . I would point out to the Chair that in 
    reading the gentleman's amendment it prohibits the legislation from 
    going into effect under

[[Page 8651]]

    the gentleman's amendment. The section that he references in the 
    legislation is of an advisory, consultory nature only and therefore 
    the fundamental purpose of section 8 which he quotes is to provide 
    advice to the Congress and to the administration, is not related to 
    the fundamental purpose of this amendment which seeks to abrogate 
    the legislation and in which it states clearly, shall not take 
    effect until and after these conditions precedent have taken place.
        It fails the fundamental purpose and therefore is not germane. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    want to emphasize a point that my friend from Ohio (Mr. Eckart) 
    made that there is a contingency in this amendment, the whole act 
    does not take effect until a nongermane condition is met and, 
    therefore, the amendment is not germane and the point of order 
    should be sustained.

        The Chairman: (20) Are there further arguments on 
    the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The basic subject matter of the bill before the House, as 
    stated in the findings of the bill on page 14, relates to domestic 
    workers producing automotive products, referring to automobile 
    products, and therefore limits it to that category of domestic 
    employment.
        The amendment in question refers to the entire range of 
    employment in the U.S. economy and therefore conditions the bill in 
    a manner far beyond the basic subject matter of the bill.
        The amendment would make it conditional, that the bill would 
    not be implemented until there was a study relating to the overall 
    impact within the entire economy.
        Were it limited simply to a study, that the Chair feels would 
    be germane. But having expanded it beyond that, making it a 
    condition precedent as well as relating to a study of the 
    employment in the entire U.S. economy, it is the Chair's view that 
    it is not germane as an unrelated contingency and, therefore, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Proclamation Concerning Foreign Nation's Trade Policy

Sec. 31.21 To a bill requiring that a certain percentage of automobiles 
    sold in the United States be manufactured domestically, and 
    imposing an import restriction for automobiles on any person 
    violating that requirement, an amendment waiving the applicability 
    of domestic content ratios with respect to a foreign nation where 
    the President has issued a proclamation stating that that nation is 
    not imposing unfair restrictions against the entry of any United 
    States product into its domestic market was held nongermane as an 
    unrelated contingency affecting trade issues beyond those issues 
    addressed in the bill.

    During consideration of the Fair Practices and Procedures in Auto

[[Page 8652]]

mobile Products Act of 1983 (1) in the Committee of the 
Whole on Nov. 2, 1983, (2) the Chair sustained a point of 
order against the amendment described above, demonstrating that an 
amendment making the effectiveness of a bill contingent on an unrelated 
event or determination is not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 1234.
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. 30525-27, 30541, 30542, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the remainder of the bill, H.R. 1234, is as 
    follows:
        sec. 2. congressional findings, purpose, and disclaimers.

            (a) Findings.--The Congress hereby finds that automotive 
        products are being imported into the United States for sale and 
        distribution in interstate commerce in such increased 
        quantities and under such conditions as to cause, or threaten 
        to cause, serious injury to the domestic manufacturers of like 
        or directly competitive automotive products sold and 
        distributed in interstate commerce, and to the domestic workers 
        producing such products.
            (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to prevent or 
        remedy the serious injury described in subsection (a) to such 
        domestic manufacturers and workers for such time, as determined 
        by subsequent Act of Congress, as may be necessary by 
        encouraging the production in the United States of automotive 
        products which are sold and distributed in interstate commerce.
            (c) Congressional Disclaimers.--It is the intent of 
        Congress that this Act shall not be deemed to modify or amend 
        the terms or conditions of any international treaty, 
        convention, or agreement that may be applicable to automotive 
        products entered for sale and distribution in interstate 
        commerce and to which the United States, on the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, is a party, including, but not limited 
        to, the terms or conditions of any such treaty, convention, or 
        agreement which provide for the resolution of conflicts between 
        the parties thereto. Nothing in this Act shall be construed (1) 
        to confer jurisdiction upon any court of the Unied States to 
        consider and resolve such conflicts, or (2) to alter or amend 
        any law existing on the date of enactment of this Act which may 
        confer such jurisdiction in such courts. . . .
        sec. 5. domestic content ratios for model year 1985 and 
        thereafter.

            (a) Ratios.--In order to carry out the purpose of this Act, 
        for each model year beginning after January 1, 1984, the 
        minimum domestic content ratio for a vehicle manufacturer shall 
        not be less than the higher of--
            (1) the domestic content ratio achieved by the vehicle 
        manufacturer in model year 1984 reduce by 10 per centum; or
            (2) the applicable minimum content ratio specified in the 
        following table: . . .

        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman: On page 27, after line 
        10, insert the following new subsection:
            ``(c) Inapplicability of Ratios in the Case of Presidential 
        Proclamation.--Ratios determined under this section shall have 
        no effect with regard to a nation in the event that the 
        President issues a proclamation not less than ninety days 
        before the first day of the model year stating that that nation 
        is not imposing unfair restrictions against the entry of

[[Page 8653]]

        United States products into its domestic market.''. . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment makes ineffective the content provisions of H.R. 1234 
    with regard to a nation if the President issues a proclamation that 
    such nation is not imposing unfair restrictions of any kind against 
    entry of U.S. products, not just automobiles, into the domestic 
    market. The amendment to be in order must be germane to the 
    committee substitute. The substitute relates to an injury suffered 
    by the domestic auto industry and its workers due to auto imports 
    sold in interstate commerce in the United States and establishes a 
    content level for the sale of autos in such commerce.
        It is not a general trade bill. It does not relate to other 
    U.S. products, such as beef, citrus, baseball bats, high technology 
    products--which in fact Japan does exclude.
        The purpose of the substitute is to remedy the injury with 
    respect to automobiles.
        The amendment's purpose is to halt the content level on a 
    nation by nation basis, contingent on the President finding that 
    each nation is not imposing unfair restrictions on any kind of 
    other product, be it citrus, beef, or whatever.
        To be germane, the amendment must meet the fundamental purpose 
    test. This amendment does not.
        Also, it must not contain an unrelated contingency, as noted by 
    the chairman on December 15, 1982, at page H 9879, concerning H.R. 
    5133. This amendment does contain such a contingency.
        The amendment is not confined to trade in autos. It covers a 
    broad range of products. It does not relate to the general subject 
    matter of the substitute.
        And, therefore, I urge the point of order be sustained.
        Mr. Glickman: Mr. Chairman, I will do my best to try to argue 
    with that extraordinarily good defense of the gentleman's point of 
    order.
        Mr. Chairman, I think, one, the bill might make reference to 
    things in a generic concept outside of automobiles, but the 
    ramification of this bill would definitely affect other sectors of 
    the economy. And, therefore, I think that the amendment is germane 
    on that ground.
        The bill was referred to the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee 
    because of trade implications. Hence, changes to address those 
    issues should be allowed on the floor as well.
        The amendment would not alter any other statutes and it merely 
    adds flexibility in implementing quotas. I would add that under the 
    committee bill the President has significant responsibilities in 
    that bill. And this amendment merely adds some additional 
    responsibilities to the President. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, while it is true that on its face the purpose of 
    this bill is to remedy automobile ratios and quotas, I think that 
    the intent of the bill, judging from all of its proponents, is to 
    slap some of our trading partners with respect to all products that 
    are involved in trade and, therefore, I think that the intent of 
    the amendment is germane.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).

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

[[Page 8654]]

        The bill that is before the Committee deals with domestic 
    content with regard to automobiles. It does not deal with broader 
    trade issues that affect all other products.
        The amendment that the gentleman from Kansas has introduced in 
    its language provides:

            Ratios determined under this section shall have no effect 
        with regard to a nation in the event that the President issues 
        a proclamation not less than 90 days before the first day of 
        the model year stating that that nation is not imposing unfair 
        restrictions against the entry of U.S. products into its 
        domestic market.

        It is the position of the Chair that that opens it up to all 
    products and, therefore, extends it beyond the subject matter that 
    is contained within the bill.
        In addition to that, the Chair would cite the precedent of the 
    House that an amendment is not germane if it makes the 
    effectiveness of a bill contingent upon an unrelated event or 
    determination.
        It is for those reasons that the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Assistance to Israel--Presidential Certification as to Availability of 
    Energy Supplies

Sec. 31.22 An amendment making the effectiveness of a bill contingent 
    upon an unrelated event or determination is not germane; thus, to a 
    bill authorizing military assistance to Israel and funds for the 
    United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, an amendment 
    postponing the availability of funds to Israel until the President 
    certifies the existence of a designated level of energy supplies 
    for the United States is not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 11088 (4) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Dec. 11, 1973,(5) a point of order was 
raised and sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. A bill providing for emergency military assistance to Israel and 
        Cambodia.
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 40837, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: Page 4, after line 10, add 
        the following:
            ``Sec. 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
        none of the funds authorized to be appropriated under section 2 
        of this Act shall be available for use as provided in this Act 
        until the President determines and certifies to the Congress, 
        in writing, that current energy supplies available for use to 
        meet current energy needs of the United States have been 
        restored to the level of such supplies so available on October 
        5, 1973.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: .  .  . Mr. Chairman, 
    I make a point of order against the amendment in that it deals with 
    a subject

[[Page 8655]]

    that is not germane to the bill. As a matter of fact, it deals with 
    an energy crisis in an emergency situation. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order because the amendment would make the authority contained in 
    the bill dependent on an unrelated contingency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination as to Lifting by Soviet Union of Restrictions on 
    Emigration

Sec. 31.23 An amendment delaying the operation of proposed legislation 
    pending an unrelated contingency is not germane; accordingly, to a 
    bill amending the United Nations Participation Act by making 
    inapplicable thereto the provisions of a section of the Strategic 
    and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, thereby reimposing the 
    United Nations embargo on the importation of Rhodesian chrome, an 
    amendment permitting the continued importation of such chrome so 
    long as chrome is imported from the Soviet Union unless the 
    President determines that the Soviet Union has lifted the 
    restrictions against the emigration of its citizens, thus delaying 
    the operation of the proposed legislation pending an unrelated 
    contingency, was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 1287 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Sept. 25, 1975,(7) the Chair sustained a point of order in 
the circumstances described above. The pending language of the bill and 
the amendment offered thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 30226, 30227, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 5(a) of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 
        (22 U.S.C. 287c(a)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new sentence: ``section 10 of the Strategic and 
        Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (60 Stat. 596; 50 U.S.C. 
        98-98h) shall not apply to prohibitions or regulations 
        established under the authority of this section.''. . . .

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski: Page 2, line 2, 
        immediately after ``section'' and before the first period 
        insert the following: ``; except that this section shall not 
        apply with respect to the importation into the United States of 
        chromium of Southern Rhodesian origin so long as chromium is 
        imported into the United States from the Union of Soviet 
        Socialist Republics, unless the President determines that the 
        gov

[[Page 8656]]

        ernment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--
            ``(1) grants its citizens the right or opportunity to 
        emigrate;
            ``(2) does not impose more than a nominal tax on emigration 
        or on the visas or other documents required for emigration, for 
        any purpose or cause whatsoever; and
            ``(3) does not impose more than a nominal tax, levy, fine, 
        or other charge on any citizen as a consequence of the desire 
        of such citizen to emigrate to the country of his choice.''

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment as offere Illinois, in my 
    judgment, is not germane under rule XVI, clause 7. It is 
    introducing a subject which is different from the one dealt with in 
    the bill and would change the scope of the bill considerably.
        The bill itself simply allows the President to promulgate 
    prohibition and regulations under United Nations Participation Act 
    to give effect to its decisions. This introduces wholly extraneous 
    matter that has nothing to do with the United Nations Participation 
    Act or acts of the United Nations Security Council or the subject 
    of the bill. . . .
        Mr. Derwinski: . . . May I point out to the Chairman that 
    section 2 of the bill was added in the subcommittee, and that in 
    and of itself, section 2 addresses itself to subject matter 
    considerably beyond the scope of the original bill.
        It in effect introduces substantial technical requirements that 
    go far beyond the issue of the United Nations Participation Act.
        Mr. Chairman, there are numerous precedents in the House, 
    whereby once an amendment has been accepted that substantially 
    enlarges the scope of the bill, further amendments so doing are in 
    order.
        Section 2, obviously, has been ruled germane, has been judged 
    germane. It substantially expands the scope of the measure before 
    us, goes far beyond the mere amendments to the United Nations 
    Participation Act and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, logically, I 
    believe, my amendment would be in order. . . .
        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    further point out in support of the argument of the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) that this is in effect an amendment to 
    section 10 of the Stockpile Act.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski) only goes to that basis, so undoubtedly his amendment 
    would be in order. . . .
        Mr. Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the 
    argument of the gentleman from Illinois.
        Section 2 deals with the United Nations Participation Act and 
    so does section 1. Neither are in any sense related to the subject 
    matter which the gentleman has sought to introduce in his 
    amendment. The gentleman is introducing a whole new subject which 
    has no relevance or germaneness to the basic thrust of the bill.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chairman is prepared to rule 
    on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        With regard to the argument made by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr.

[[Page 8657]]

    Fraser) when he last stood, the Chair would also point out that 
    while it was necessary to obtain from the Committee on Rules a rule 
    waiving points of order on that particular committee amendment 
    which would indicate that it might not be germane in the first 
    instance, and in any event, the committee amendment has not been 
    adopted and is not part of the bill.
        The Chair would also point out that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) has this effect: The 
    effectiveness of the bill itself, the working of the bill itself, 
    is contingent upon certain things happening. And in the case of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski), 
    those contingencies in the amendment are wholly unrelated to the 
    substance of the bill.
        As authority, the Chair would point to Deschler's Procedure in 
    the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 28, section 24, on page 
    395, the section being entitled ``Amendment Postponing 
    Effectiveness of Legislation Pending Contingency.''
        In section 24.10, in the instance of an amendment ``To a bill 
    authorizing appropriations for the Arms Control and Disarmament 
    Agency, an amendment delaying the effectiveness of the 
    authorization until the Soviet Union `ceases to supply military 
    articles to our enemy in Vietnam,' was ruled out as not germane.''
        Also, in section 24.11, an amendment ``To a bill authorizing 
    funds for foreign assistance, an amendment making such aid to any 
    nation in Latin America contingent upon the enactment of tax reform 
    measures by that nation was ruled out as not germane.''
        In view of this, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Certification as to Impact of Grain Sales on Soviet Preparedness

Sec. 31.24 To a title of a bill authorizing the procurement, research 
    and development of certain military missile systems for one fiscl 
    year, broadened by amendment to restrict deployment beyond that 
    fiscal year of one system pending tests and reports to Congress, an 
    amendment permanently making expenditure of any funds for that 
    missile system contingent upon certification made by the Secretary 
    of Defense with respect to the impact of United States grain sales 
    on Soviet military preparedness was held to be not germane being an 
    unrelated contingency involving agricultural exports.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for 
fiscal 1984 (9) in the Committee of the Whole on July 21, 
1983,(10) the Chair, in sustaining a point of order against 
the amendment described above, reiterated

[[Page 8658]]

the principle that it is not germane to make the authorization of funds 
in a bill contingent upon unrelated events or policy determinations. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 2969.
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 20050, 20184, 20189, 20190, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) Are there amendments 
    to title III?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 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 . . .
            (c) The Secretary of Defense may not deploy more than 40 MX 
        missiles until--

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

    The amendment offered by Mr. Price was agreed to.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 20187, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 8659]]

                            limitation on mx program

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

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

Report to Congress on Costs of Program

Sec. 31.25 To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    International Relations authorizing appropriations for humanitarian 
    and evacuation assistance to war refugees in South Vietnam, an 
    amendment making that authorization contingent upon a report to 
    Congress on the costs of a portion of the evacuation program, but 
    not requiring the implementation of any new program within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee was held germane as a related 
    contingency.

    During consideration of H.R. 6096 in the Committee of the Whole, a 
point of order was raised against an amendment offered by Mr. Glenn M. 
Anderson, of California. The proceedings of Apr. 23, 
1975,(13) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 11529, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of California: On page 1, 
    line 5, after ``Sec. 2.'' insert the following:

            Upon the conclusion of a report prepared by the Secretary 
        of State, after consultation with the Secretary of Health, 
        Education, and Welfare and the Attorney General, and submitted 
        to Congress within forty-eight hours of enactment of this Act, 
        estimating the costs for the relocation, housing, feeding and 
        medical care of those persons eligible for evacuation under 
        Sec. 4(d) of this Act over a five-year period . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]his bill before us is for evacuation only. It does not deal 
    with relocation of

[[Page 8660]]

    any people to be evacuated. The amendment goes far beyond the 
    limits of the bill, and is certainly not germane. . . .
        Mr. Anderson of California: . . . Mr. Chairman, my amendment 
    does not deal with relocation either. It is merely an extension of 
    the present bill. It has nothing new except for some facts which we 
    ought to have before voting on this bill. It says that upon 
    conclusion of the report prepared by the Secretary of State within 
    48 hours estimating the cost, this act will be acted upon.
        It does nothing new. It just says that within 48 hours the 
    Congress and the people of the United States should know how much 
    it is going to cost them; how many of these people are going to be 
    brought in. It adds no additional responsibilities.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, in 
    the purpose of the bill it says that it is to authorize funds for 
    humanitarian assistance and evacuation programs. The reason the 
    gentleman from California is concerned is because the County of Los 
    Angeles has been notified that they must receive these people 
    coming from Vietnam. They are not just American citizens, but South 
    Vietnamese people.
        They do not have the funds to take care of the medical care, 
    the feeding and all the rest. Of course, this is part of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the Chair that this bill is for the 
    evacuation programs of Vietnam, and it will be a problem for 
    Hawaii, California and all parts on the west coast.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from California does not 
    create any new program. It does not establish any unrelated 
    contingency, nor does it disrupt any program called for in the 
    basic bill. It simply is a request for a report on the costs of a 
    part of the evacuation program in the opinion of the Chair, and is 
    germane to the pending section.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Treaty Initiatives Toward Arms Control

Sec. 31.26 It is not germane to make the effectiveness of an 
    authorization contingent upon an unrelated determination involving 
    agencies and the jurisdiction of committees not within the purview 
    of the authorization bill; thus, to a title of a bill authorizing 
    appropriations for procurement of military weapons, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of those funds for procurement of a certain 
    weapon until the President certifies to Congress that he has taken 
    certain treaty initiatives toward arms control was held to be not 
    germane.

    On July 8, 1981,(15) during consideration of the 
Department of

[[Page 8661]]

Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1982 (16) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against 
the amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 127 Cong. Rec. 15008, 15010, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 3519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        authorization of appropriations

            Sec. 101. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated 
        for fiscal year 1982 for the use of the Armed Forces of the 
        United States for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval 
        vessels, tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons 
        in amounts as follows: . . .

                                    missiles

            For missiles: for the Army, $2,745,800,000; for the Navy 
        $2,484,800,000; for the Marine Corps, $223,024,000; for the Air 
        Force, $4,593,246,000. . . .

        Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lowry of Washington: At the end of 
        title I (page 5, after line 23), add the following new section:

         limitation on procurement of pershing ii missiles and ground-
                            launched cruise missiles

            Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to the 
        authorization of appropriations in section 101 for missiles for 
        the Army may be obligated or expended for procurement of 
        Pershing II missiles, and none of the funds appropriated 
        pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in such section 
        for missiles for the Air Force may be obligated or expended for 
        procurement of ground-launched cruise missiles, until the 
        President has certified to the Congress that the United States 
        has forwarded to the Soviet Union initial proposals for 
        limitations on theater nuclear force (TNF) weapons in Europe 
        within the framework of strategic arms limitation talks (SALT).

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment as being a violation of rule 
    16 regarding germaneness. That rule requires that instructions, 
    qualifications, and limitations must be germane to the provisions 
    of the bill.
        It is my contention that the condition here stated in the 
    pending amendment is totally unrelated to the provisions of the 
    bill and in fact lies within the jurisdiction of another committee, 
    namely, whether the United States has or has not forwarded to the 
    Soviet Union initial proposals for limitation on theater nuclear 
    force weapons in Europe within the framework of the strategic arms 
    limitation talks. That has no bearing whatsoever on the authority 
    or the responsibility of the Armed Services Committee or this 
    pending legislation. . . .
        Mr. Lowry of Washington: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe this 
    amendment is in order. To say that there is not a process on this 
    House floor in which we can hold contingent this Nation's 
    commitments to arms limitations, contingent upon expenditure that 
    we are making for armament allows us no place on which to make the 
    statement that is very necessary in this world as to our position 
    commitment to arms limitations talks contingent as a dual process 
    as agreed in 1979 with NATO for the modernization of our nuclear 
    forces there.

[[Page 8662]]

        So I would ask that this amendment be held in order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington on the grounds 
    it is not germane to title I of the bill.
        The amendment would condition the use of funds authorized in 
    section 101 for the Pershing missile on a certification by the 
    President that certain U.S. proposals have been made in the SALT 
    negotiations relative to weapons in Europe.
        It is not germane to make the effectiveness of a bill or 
    authorization contingent upon an unrelated event or determination. 
    As stated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 24.25, to a 
    provision rescinding funds for the B-1 bomber, an amendment to 
    delay the effectiveness of the rescission until ratification of a 
    SALT II Treaty was held not germane on February 22, 1978. Since the 
    condition involved actions by agencies and authorities not charged 
    with administration of the B-1 bomber program, and since the SALT 
    II negotiations involved a broad range of arms control issues not 
    necessarily related to the B-1 program.
        The Chair would further point out that arms control 
    negotiations fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs, and not within the jurisdiction of the committee 
    reporting this bill, and that nothing in title I addresses such 
    negotiations.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 31.27 It is not germane to make the effectiveness of an 
    authorization contingent upon an unrelated determination involving 
    issues within the jurisdiction of agencies and committees outside 
    the purview of the pending bill; thus, to a title of a bill 
    authorizing appropriations for research on and development of 
    military weapons, an amendment prohibiting the use of those funds 
    for development of a certain weapon until the President resumes 
    treaty initiatives toward arms control was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for 
fiscal year 1982 (18) in the Committee of the Whole on July 
9, 1981,(19) the Chair sustained a point of order against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 3519.
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 15218, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bedell: After section 203 insert the 
    following new section:

                       limitation on funds for mx missile
            Sec. 204. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
        by section 201 may be obligated or expended for the full-scale 
        development

[[Page 8663]]

        of an operational basing mode for the MX missile until the 
        President--

            (1) has completed his review of previous strategic arms 
        limitation (SALT) negotiations;
            (2) is prepared to resume strategic arms limitation 
        negotiations with the Soviet Union, one of the principal aims 
        of such negotiations being to establish a limit on the number 
        of intercontinental ballistic missile launchers and deployable 
        warheads available to both sides; and
            (3) formally transmitted to the Soviet Union his desire to 
        resume such negotiations.

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Madam Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        It is a violation of House rule 16 regarding germaneness. That 
    rule requires instructions, qualifications, and limitations to be 
    germane to the provisions of the bill.
        It is my contention that the condition here is totally 
    unrelated to the provisions of the bill and in fact lies within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
        Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: . . . Madam Chairman, I am not 
    a specialist on rules, but it would appear to me very clearly that 
    for us to say that we are not going to spend money on a system 
    which would not be of value unless something else happens is 
    perfectly germane and perfectly proper for us to do.
        We do it in our small business disaster loans when we say small 
    business disaster loans will not be made unless the Governor of the 
    State declares there has been a disaster therein.
        We do the same thing in regard to disaster payments for 
    agriculture when we say that the people will not be eligible unless 
    Federal crop insurance is there.
        It appears to me that we have clearly pointed out in the debate 
    that we have had that without SALT II it is at least questionable 
    as to whether MX makes any sense at all, and if we do have rules in 
    the House which say that we cannot have amendments which say that 
    we will not spend money on something that is going to be valueless 
    unless something occurs, if we have amendments that say that we 
    cannot make the spending contingent upon that action which would be 
    necessary to make the expenditure of any value, then I submit that 
    we had better look at the rules of the House. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) . . . [T]he Chair is 
    prepared to rule on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment makes use of funds for the MX missile dependent 
    upon certain actions by the President relative to the SALT 
    negotiations. Since arms control issues are within the jurisdiction 
    of the Foreign Affairs Committee and not the Armed Services 
    Committee, and for same reasons stated by the Chair yesterday, in 
    sustaining a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Washington, the Chair sustains the point of order of 
    the gentleman from Illinois.

Ratification of Salt II Treaty

Sec. 31.28 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    rescinding funds for

[[Page 8664]]

    continued construction and development of the B-1 bomber program, 
    an amendment proposed in a motion to concur therein with an 
    amendment, to delay the effectiveness of the rescission until after 
    either House of Congress so approves and until after ratification 
    by the Senate of a Salt II treaty, was ruled out as an unrelated 
    contingency, since it was not germane in that the condition 
    involved actions by agencies and authorities not charged with 
    administration of the B-1 bomber program, and the Salt II 
    negotiations involved a broad range of arms control issues not 
    necessarily related to the B-1 bomber program.

    The proceedings of Feb. 22, 1978, relating to consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 9375 (supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
year 1978) are discussed in Sec. 27.29, supra.

Compliance With Treaties

Sec. 31.29 To a bill providing for foreign economic assistance and 
    relating in a general way to agreements between this nation and 
    other nations, an amendment intended to enforce compliance with 
    provisions of treaties was held germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill (1) 
to provide foreign economic assistance, the following amendment was 
offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 7797 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 4427, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 30, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Page 
    11 . . . after line 18 insert the following:

            (k)(1) Treaties between the United States and nations 
        assisted hereunder . . . shall remain in full force unless 
        renegotiated. . . .
            (2) None of the local currencies required by section 
        115(b)(6) of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as amended, 
        to be deposited in local currency accounts, shall be made 
        available for expenditure by any recipient country so long as 
        any dependent area of such a country fails to comply with any 
        treaty between the United States and the said dependent area.
            (3) After July 1950, no assistance herein contemplated 
        shall be used to promote recovery in the French protectorate of 
        Morocco except during such time as the Secretary of State shall 
        certify to the Administrator that the protectorate is complying 
        with its treaties with the United States. . . .

        A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
        Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: . . . (The amendment) deals 
    with matters entirely foreign to this bill and is not germane 
    either to the bill before us or the title to which it is offered.

[[Page 8665]]

        The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill itself is very broad, relating to bilateral and 
    multilateral agreements between this Nation and other nations. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, therefore, 
    dealing with a subject matter thereunder is, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, germane to the bill.

Settlement of Hostilities in Vietnam

Sec. 31.30 To a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an 
    amendment holding in abeyance, ``until 90 days after the final 
    settlement of hostilities . . . in Vietnam,'' all foreign 
    assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act, was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1967 
(4) was under consideration which stated in part: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 12048 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 24002, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 24, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Part V--Eligibility of Certain Participants in Future Foreign Aid 
                                  Programs

        Sec. 502. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever 
    any individual, firm, or entity . . . participating in any aid 
    transaction financed with funds made available under the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, has been found by the Inspector 
    General, Foreign Assistance, to have . . . engaged in bribery or 
    other illegal or fraudulent payments or credits in connection with 
    such transaction, such individual, firm, or entity shall not be 
    permitted to participate in any program or operation financed under 
    such Act.

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Waggonner:

        On page 46, line 5, add a new section numbered 503 to read:

            ``Sec. 503. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all 
        funds except for those countries in this hemisphere, and those 
        who render us assistance in Vietnam, authorized or appropriated 
        under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, shall be 
        held in abeyance until 90 days after the final settlement of 
        hostilities and the fighting in Vietnam.''

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: The chairman of the full committee having 
    reserved a point of order, it leaves to me the right to speak to 
    the merits of this amend

[[Page 8666]]

    ment and later to speak to the point of order, does it not?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. Waggonner: . . . I do not believe that the Chair can justly 
    say that this is not germane because, Mr. Chairman, this bill 
    already restricts the eligibility requirements for certain 
    participants and this amendment makes exception of those who are in 
    this hemisphere and those who are going to help us in Vietnam. . . 
    . This Congress can place any limitation on assistance they choose. 
    We have done it already on several occasions tonight.
        The Chairman: . . . The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana would delay the operation of this proposed legislation 
    for an unrelated contingency.
        The Chair would like to refer to section 3037 of Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, volume 8, to the 
    effect:

            An amendment delaying operation of proposed legislation 
        pending an unrelated contingency was held not to be germane. . 
        . .

        The Chair . . . sustains the point of order.

Consent of Congress Required for Evacuation of Persons to Any State

Sec. 31.31 To a bill dealing with the evacuation of certain 
    individuals, an amendment prohibiting their evacuation to any of 
    the states of the United States without the consent of Congress, 
    was held to relate to the evacuation process, not to immigration 
    policy, and was therefore germane.

    During consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation 
Assistance Act (7) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 23, 
1975,(8) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 6096.
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 11546, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Casey: Page 3, after line 3, 
        insert (e) none of the ``other foreign nationals'' referred to 
        in paragraph (d) shall be evacuated to any of the States of the 
        United States, without the express consent of Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment in that the amendment is not 
    germane. It deals with the immigration policy, and would change the 
    standards on immigration. . . .
        Mr. Casey: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment would change no 
    standards on immigration except that the classified people under 
    paragraph (d) of section 4 which says that--

            . . . none of the other foreign nationals referred to in 
        paragraph (d) shall be evacuated to any of the States of the 
        United States without the express consent of the Congress.

        It is certainly germane, because it has to do with the 
    evacuation of these people under section (d) of section 4.

[[Page 8667]]

        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the amendment does not limit the operation of 
    the bill. It pertains strictly to the evacuation process. It does 
    not mention immigration policy. It simply says that persons in a 
    certain category of evacuees contained in the bill cannot be 
    evacuated to any of the States of the United States without the 
    consent of the Congress. Therefore the amendment is germane, and 
    the point of order is not sustained.

Cessation of Soviet Aid to Vietnam

Sec. 31.32 To a bill authorizing appropriations for the Arms Control 
    and Disarmament Agency, an amendment delaying the effectiveness of 
    the authorization until the Soviet Union ``ceases to supply 
    military articles to our enemy in Vietnam,'' was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(10) amending the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Act,(11) the following amendment was offered: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 14940 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
11. See 114 Cong. Rec. 5414, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1968.
12. Id. at p. 5426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On the first page, line 7, 
    strike out the period and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
    ``and at the end of such second sentence strike out the period and 
    insert in lieu thereof the following: 
    `: Provided, That the authorization for appropriations contained in 
    this Act shall not be effective until such time as the Soviet 
    Union, which is the United States' co-sponsor of the draft treaty 
    on non-proliferation (negotiated for the United States by the Arms 
    Control and Disarmament Agency), ceases to supply military articles 
    to our enemy in Vietnam, as determined by the President of the 
    United States.' ''

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

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. It is not germane and 
    contains matter not covered by the present act under discussion.

    Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, stated in response:

        I call the attention of the Chair to the Congressional Record, 
    volume 110, part 1, page 144. On that date the House was 
    considering an authorization bill. In connection with that 
    authorization I offered an amendment which read as follows:

            The authorization for an appropriation contained in this 
        Act shall not be effective until such time as the receipts of 
        the Government for the preceding fiscal year have exceeded the 
        expenditures of the Government for such year, as determined by 
        the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.

        On that occasion the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Jones) made a 
    point of

[[Page 8668]]

    order against the amendment, and the Chair ruled that the point of 
    order was not well taken.
        The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard H. Fulton (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The purpose of this legislation today is it authorizes an 
    appropriation of $33 million to finance the operation of the Arms 
    Control and Disarmament Agency for a 3-year period. The purpose of 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois would delay 
    the use of any appropriated funds pending an unrelated contingency. 
    Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    The following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Findley: Will the Chair hear me further on that point?
        The Chairman: The Chair has already ruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The precedent cited by Mr. Findley, 
discussed at Sec. 31.16, supra, supported the view that where an 
amendment seeks to adopt as a measure of the availability of certain 
authorizations contained in the bill a condition that is logically 
relevant and objectively discernible, the amendment does not present an 
unrelated contingency and is germane. Thus, for example, although it is 
not germane to make the effectiveness of an authorization contingent 
upon an unrelated determination involving issues within the 
jurisdiction of agencies and committees outside the purview of the 
pending bill,(14) it has been held that an amendment 
imposing on the availability of funds to carry out a certain activity a 
conditional restriction that merely requires observation of similar 
activities of another country, which similar conduct already 
constitutes the policy basis for the pending funding of that activity, 
may be germane as a related contingency.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 31.27, supra.
15. See Sec. 31.15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security Assistance to South Korea--Testimony by Korean Ambassador as 
    to Gifts to House Members

Sec. 31.33 To a foreign aid security assistance bill authorizing the 
    transfer of defense articles to South Korea, and amended to impose 
    foreign policy conditions on the furnishing of security assistance 
    to other designated nations, an amendment prohibiting the use of 
    authorities in the bill to furnish defense articles to South Korea 
    until its former ambassador testifies before a House committee 
    investigating whether Members or employees have been influenced in 
    their legislative duties by receiving gifts

[[Page 8669]]

    from that nation, was held germane as a contingency that was 
    related to authorities and other contingencies contained in the 
    bill.

    On Aug. 2, 1978,(16) during consideration of H.R. 12514 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 23932, 23933, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jacobs: Page 19, immediately after 
        line 22, insert the following new section:

                            testimony of kim dong jo

            Sec. 24. Until such time as the Committee on Standards of 
        Official Conduct of the House of Representatives announces that 
        Kim Dong Jo, the former Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to 
        the United States, has given testimony to that Committee in the 
        investigation it is conducting pursuant to H. Res. 252 of the 
        Ninety-fifth Congress--
            (1) no funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may 
        be used to provide assistance for the Republic of Korea; and
            (2) the authority granted by section 19 of this Act may not 
        be exercised. . . .

        Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    say the amendment is out of order under clause 7, rule XVI, as 
    being nongermane to the bill and outside of the scope of the bill. 
    It is outside the scope of the bill, because the bill relates to 
    military assistance.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote clause 28, section 
    24.9 from Deschler's Procedure:

            To a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an 
        amendment holding in abeyance, ``until 90 days after the final 
        settlement of hostilities . . . in Vietnam,'' all foreign 
        assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act, was ruled out as 
        not germane.

        Further, in that same clause, section 24.11:

            To a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an 
        amendment making such aid to any nation in Latin America 
        contingent upon the enactment of tax reform measures by that 
        nation was ruled out as not germane.

        I submit, Mr. Chairman, that to time the sanctions of this 
    amendment to such a time as Kim Dong Jo testifies is similar to and 
    right on all fours with the sections I have just read. . . .
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, the language of the amendment deals 
    with nothing more by its own terms than the contents of the instant 
    legislation, No. 1 and No. 2, the amendment clearly is a related 
    contingency with respect to and on all four corners with the funds 
    authorized by this legislation.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California (Mr. Lagomarsino) makes a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Indiana (Mr. Jacobs) on the point that it is beyond the scope of 
    the committee bill. The Chair would

[[Page 8670]]

    like to point out that the committee bill does relate to military 
    assistance, which this amendment directs itself to. Had the 
    amendment been offered earlier in the reading, before the funds for 
    South Korea were before the committee and prior to the adoption of 
    the various amendments in the Committee of the Whole, including the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) which 
    placed a condition upon funds being authorized under this act, then 
    the point of order might have been viewed differently. However, the 
    contingency expressed in the amendment does relate to the 
    relationship between this country and the South Korean Government 
    and specifically to the point of information relating to future 
    furnishing of U.S. military assistance to that nation, so that the 
    Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order.

Measures by Foreign Governments To Control Drug Traffic

Sec. 31.34 To that section in a military procurement bill limiting 
    funds available to United States Armed Forces for the support of 
    Vietnamese forces and local forces in Laos and Thailand, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which prohibited the use of 
    funds ``if the President determines that [the respective 
    governments have] failed to take appropriate steps to prevent 
    narcotic drugs'' produced in those countries from entering the 
    United States, and which authorized the President to utilize 
    federal agencies and facilities to assist those governments in such 
    efforts.

    In the 92d Congress, during consideration of a bill (18) 
comprising a military procurement authorization for fiscal 1972, an 
amendment was offered (19) as described above. A point of 
order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 8687 (Committee on Armed Services).
19. 117 Cong. Rec. 20589, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proposed language as not germane to the 
    bill. It refers to a subject not included in the bill, the matter 
    of narcotic drugs, which is under the jurisdiction of another 
    committee.

    The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 20590, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The subject of narcotic drugs is not elsewhere introduced in 
    the pending bill, and the Chair notes that the amendment would 
    bring into contemplation agencies and departments of the Government 
    other than those in

[[Page 8671]]

    volved in the normal administration of the funds authorized by this 
    bill. It would give the President authority and responsibilities 
    which he does not have under existing law.
        The Chair has examined a precedent of the 90th Congress, 
    rendered when an amendment was offered to the foreign assistance 
    authorization bill for fiscal 1967. That amendment provided that 
    assistance to certain nations should be curtailed until the 
    President determined and reported to the Congress that those 
    countries have established tax reform measures.
        The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole on that occasion, 
    Mr. Price of Illinois, ruled that the amendment was not germane. 
    Record, page 23977, August 24, 1967.
        The Chair holds that the amendment introduces agencies and 
    concepts not appearing otherwise in the pending bill, rendering the 
    amendment not germane.

Use of Inactive Gold Fund

Sec. 31.35 To a bill extending certain excise taxes levied under two 
    specific statutes, an amendment providing that the bill shall be 
    inoperative ``until the inactive gold fund of the United States 
    Treasury is used to defray expenditures'' was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
providing for extension of certain excise taxes. An amendment was 
offered (3) by Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas, who 
stated,(4) by way of explaining the amendment and responding 
to a point of order: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.J. Res. 375 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 3. 81 Cong. Rec. 5620, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1937.
 4. Id. at p. 5621.
 5. The point of order that the amendment was not germane to the bill 
        had been raised by Mr. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, the proposed act seeks to extend the tax 
    provisions for a period of 2 years. All this proposed amendment 
    seeks to do is say that the act shall not be operative until 
    certain conditions occur. The amendment does not seek to force the 
    Treasury to utilize gold but is simply the exercise of an undoubted 
    prerogative on the part of Congress to say that until certain 
    conditions happen the act shall not be operative. . . .

    The Chairman,(6) sustaining the point of order, cited 
the principle that, ``An amendment delaying operation of proposed 
legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not germane,'' and, 
further, that, ``A different subject from that under consideration may 
not be proposed under the guise of a limitation.'' The following 
amendment was then offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Page 1, 
    line 12, after the period, insert ``Provided how

[[Page 8672]]

    ever, That the taxes herein imposed shall not be levied or 
    collected until the Secretary of the Treasury has utilized for 
    currency purposes all the inactive, unpledged, and unallocated gold 
    owned and held by the United States Treasury.''

    Mr. Cooper having again raised a point of order against the 
amendment, the Chairman ruled as follows:

        In addition to the authorities cited by the Chair in the former 
    ruling, the Chair calls attention to sections 3033 and 3034 of 
    volume 8 of Cannon's Precedents, the first holding that an 
    amendment is not necessarily germane because presented in the form 
    of a limitation, and the second holding that it is not in order to 
    propose by way of limitation propositions on subjects different 
    from that under consideration.
        The pending resolution has to do with providing revenue, 
    whereas the amendment has to do with the use of gold for currency 
    purposes.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Contributions to International Monetary Fund Contingent on Change in 
    Monetary Policy

Sec. 31.36 To a bill authorizing federal financial contributions to 
    international lending institutions, an amendment making that 
    contribution contingent upon enactment of a change in federal 
    monetary policy having domestic implications and involving agencies 
    beyond the scope of the bill is not germane; thus, to a bill 
    authorizing United States contributions to international financial 
    institutions and dealing with United States monetary policy as it 
    relates to international lending, amendments directing the 
    Secretary of the Treasury to establish a par value for the dollar 
    in gold, and making United States contributions to the 
    International Monetary Fund contingent upon that change in monetary 
    policy was held to be not germane, because affecting domestic 
    monetary policy issues beyond the scope of the bill.

    During consideration of the International Recovery and Financial 
Stability Act (7) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 3, 
1983,(8) the Chair sustained points of order in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 2957.
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 22663, 22664, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.

[[Page 8673]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 19, line 16, 
        insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 40.''
            Page 19, after line 20, insert the following:
            ``(b)(1) Not later than eighteen months after the date of 
        the enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall establish a par value for the dollar in gold and 
        thereafter shall redeem in gold at such price all Federal 
        Reserve notes which are presented to the Secretary for 
        redemption.
            ``(2) Subsection (a) shall not take effect until the date 
        on which the Secretary of the Treasury transmits a notice to 
        both Houses of the Congress specifying that the Secretary has 
        complied with the provisions of paragraph (1).''. . . .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    raise a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    affects matters beyond the scope of the legislation and is 
    therefore not germane.
        The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to take certain 
    actions regarding the IMF international lending institutions, and 
    affects lending by U.S. banks.
        The amendment requires the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem 
    gold for Federal Reserve notes. This, in return, would require the 
    Federal Reserve to manage the money supply with an eye toward 
    keeping the market and dollar-convertible gold prices equal. Such a 
    policy would be an abrupt shift from managing the money supply to 
    maximize U.S. employment and price stability, as is now required by 
    the Federal Reserve Act. Neither of these topics--the Secretary's 
    responsibilities with respect to the value of gold, nor the 
    monetary policy duties of the Federal Reserve--are covered by the 
    legislation.
        Thus, the amendment would require the Secretary of the Treasury 
    and the Federal Reserve to take actions beyond the scope of the 
    bill and far different in character than those required in the 
    bill. I ask the Chair to rule the amendment out of order.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Dannemeyer) seek to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dannemeyer: Yes; I do, Mr. Chairman.

            1. Deschler's Procedure, Chapter 28 Sec. 14.4: ``The rule 
        on germaneness does not require that an amendment offered as a 
        separate section be germane to the preceding section of the 
        bill, but it is sufficient that it is germane to the subject 
        matter of the bill as a whole.''

            2. Chapter 28 Sec. 14.14: (Parliamentarian's Note) ``The 
        general rule that an amendment must be germane to the portion 
        of the bill to which offered is limited by the proposition that 
        an amendment in the form of a new section or paragraph need not 
        necessarily be germane to the section or paragraph immediately 
        preceding it.'' (8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2932, 2935).
            3. Chapter 28 Sec. 14.10: ``An amendment in the form of a 
        new section need not necessarily be germane to the preceding 
        section of the bill, it being sufficient, where the bill 
        contains diverse subjects, that the amendment relate to the 
        bill as a whole.''

        And the final point:

            4. Deschler's Procedure, Chapter 27 Sec. 27.14: ``To a bill 
        continuing au

[[Page 8674]]

        thority under existing law to make contributions to an 
        international financial organization and authorizing 
        appropriations for those contributions, an amendment adding a 
        further restriction on the use of U.S. contributions to those 
        already contained in that law is germane.''

        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the point 
    of order is not well taken.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair agrees with the gentleman from Rhode Island that the 
    matter covered by this amendment goes well beyond the scope of this 
    bill and deals with the responsibilities of the Secretary of the 
    Treasury in managing monetary policy of this country and also goes 
    to the question of the powers of the Federal Reserve Board.
        For that reason, the point of order is sustained. The amendment 
    is not in order.

    Mr. Dannemeyer then offered another amendment, as follows:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 19, line 16, 
        insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 40.''
            Page 19, after line 20, insert the following:
            ``(b)(1) Not later than eighteen months after the date of 
        the enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall establish a par value for the dollar in gold.
            ``(2) Subsection (a) shall not take effect until the date 
        on which the Secretary of the Treasury transmits a notice to 
        both Houses of the Congress specifying that the Secretary has 
        complied with the provisions of paragraph (1).''. . .

        Mr. St Germain: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against 
    the amendment on the ground that it affects matters beyond the 
    scope of the legislation and is therefore not germane.
        The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to take certain 
    actions regarding the IMF, international lending institutions and 
    affects lending by U.S. banks.
        The amendment requires the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    establish a par value for the dollar in gold. In order to do this 
    the Secretary would have to take some action in the gold market to 
    defend this action, such as agreeing to sell gold at its par value. 
    This, in turn, would require the Federal Reserve to manage the 
    money supply with an eye toward keeping the market and dollar-
    convertible gold prices equal. Such a policy would be an abrupt 
    shift from managing the money supply to maximize U.S. employment 
    and price stability, as is now required by the Federal Reserve Act. 
    Neither of these topics--the Secretary's responsibilities with 
    respect to the value of gold, nor the monetary policy duties of the 
    Federal Reserve--are covered by the legislation.
        Thus, the amendment would require the Secretary of the Treasury 
    and the Federal Reserve to take actions beyond the scope of the 
    bill and far different in character than those required in the 
    bill. I ask the Chair to rule the amendment out of order. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . The distinction between this amendment 
    and the one that this Member from California previously offered is 
    very simple. I have deleted from the amendment that is now pending 
    before the committee the paragraph or the clause that says:

[[Page 8675]]

    ``and thereafter shall redeem in gold at such price all Federal 
    Reserve notes which are presented to the Secretary for 
    redemption.''
        That clause is gone.
        It is the opinion of this Member from California that the 
    deletion of that clause will eliminate the impediment which caused 
    the Chair to previously rule that the point of order to the 
    previous amendment should be and was sustained.
        And the points of authority I would like to cite on behalf of 
    that position are consistent with the points and authorities that I 
    cited with respect to the previous point of order on that 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would rule that the distinctions between this 
    amendment and the one previously offered are minor distinctions and 
    that the reasoning advanced by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
    St Germain) on the point of order against the previous amendment 
    also holds true for this amendment.
        The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in 
    order.

Tax Reform in Foreign Nation

Sec. 31.37 To a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an 
    amendment making such aid to any nation in Latin America contingent 
    upon the enactment of tax reform measures by that nation was held 
    to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1967,(10) the following amendment was 
offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 12048 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 23977, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 24, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ellis Y.] Berry [of South Dakota]: On 
    page 37, after line 24, insert the following:

            (5) At the end of section 620 add the following new 
        subsection:
            ``(s) After December 31, 1967, no further assistance shall 
        be furnished under this Act to any country in Latin America 
        until the President determines and reports to the Congress that 
        the recipient country has established and implemented an 
        equitable and effective system of tax collection with respect 
        to taxes on real and personal property.''

    Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane. Contending that the point of order 
was not well taken, Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, stated: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 23978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, title I, chapter 2, section 208, is entitled 
    ``Self-Help Criteria.'' It says:

            In determining whether and to what extent the United States 
        should furnish development assistance to a country under this 
        chapter the President shall take into account--
            (a) the extent to which the country is taking such measures 
        as may be appropriate to its needs and capabilities to increase 
        food production. . . .

[[Page 8676]]

        . . . Section 208 describes in great detail the self-
    determination criteria which are required of these countries before 
    they will receive foreign assistance, so it is beyond comprehension 
    to me that when we require in one part of this bill very specific 
    self-help criteria on the part of those who receive assistance that 
    we would be willing to ignore it in every other area. . . .
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe the point of order is out of 
    order. This is simply an additional requirement to become eligible 
    for aid.

    The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he amendment would delay the operation of the proposed 
    legislation pending an unrelated contingency. Under a previous 
    precedent of the House to be found in Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    VIII, section 3037, a similar amendment was held not to be germane. 
    The present occupant of the chair, following that precedent, 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Radio Broadcasting to Cuba--Enactment of Law 
    Authorizing Broadcasts to South Africa

Sec. 31.38 To a bill authorizing funds for one purpose, an amendment 
    delaying the effectiveness of that authorization contingent upon 
    Congressional action on an unrelated subject is not germane; thus, 
    to a bill authorizing appropriations for radio broadcasting to 
    Cuba, an amendment prohibiting use of those funds until the 
    President proposes and Congress enacts a separate law authorizing 
    radio broadcasts to South Africa for purposes of imparting 
    information concerning conditions in that country was held to be 
    not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 5427 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Aug. 10, 1987,(14) Chairman William R. Ratchford, of 
Connecticut, sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 20256, 20257, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Leland: Page 6, after line 17, 
        insert the following:
            ``(2) The funds authorized in paragraph (1) shall not be 
        appropriated by the Congress unless the President proposes and 
        the Congress enacts legislation, subsequent to the enactment of 
        the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, which authorizes the Board 
        to provide accurate information to the people of South Africa 
        (through the use of radio broadcasting) regarding the existence 
        of apartheid and oppression in South Africa.''. . . .

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I do insist 
    on the point

[[Page 8677]]

    of order as being in violation under clause 7, rule XVI, as 
    nongermane and has nothing to do with the subject matter of the 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. Leland: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment is germane for 
    two reasons which I will explain.
        H.R. 5427 contains two basic proposals, neither of which are 
    specifically related to Cuba.
        First, that the foreign policy of the United States seeks to 
    guarantee the human rights of all persons as defined by the 
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in particular article 19 
    of that declaration. Article 19 says that it is the right of all 
    persons to ``seek, receive, and impart information and ideas 
    through any media and regardless of frontiers.'' That this is the 
    purpose of the bill is clearly stated in section 2 of H.R. 5427.
        Second, that the Board for International Broadcasting (BIB), to 
    carry out that purpose of our foreign policy, is authorized to 
    ``provide for the open communication of information and ideas 
    through the use of radio broadcasting.'' This is clearly stated in 
    section 3 of H.R. 5427, which is the operative clause of the bill. 
    It is the BIB which is being instructed to carry out this part of 
    our foreign policy.
        My amendment is perfectly consistent with the operative clause 
    of the bill (section 3), and with the broader foreign policy goals 
    of the bill. Surely it is not the intention of the President and of 
    the gentleman from Florida that article 19 of the Universal 
    Declaration of Human Rights applies only to Cuba. . . .
        Mr. Fascell: . . . The main purpose of this bill makes an 
    amendment to the Board for International Broadcasting nothing else 
    primarily, and the limitation on the policy findings are that it is 
    to the people of Cuba and radio broadcasting to Cuba, and nothing 
    else.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The point of order raised is on the issue of germaneness and 
    the Chair is persuaded that in spite of the strong arguments from 
    the gentleman from Florida, the amendment, as offered, is not 
    germane.
        Let the Chair cite from precedents specifically to a bill 
    authorizing appropriation of funds, an amendment holding the 
    authorization in abeyance pending an unrelated contingency is not 
    germane.
        This particular germaneness precedent in the 96th Congress 
    related to the issue of whether or not there could be a condition 
    on fuel assistance, that condition being awaiting the action of the 
    passage of a windfall profit tax. In effect, tonight what the 
    gentleman is attempting to do is condition funding of broadcasting 
    to Cuba, on an unrelated contingency, which is broadcasting to 
    South Africa and, therefore, the Chair is prepared to sustain the 
    point of order as raised by the gentleman from Florida.

--Congressional Consideration of Balanced Budget Amendment to 
    Constitution

Sec. 31.39 It is not germane as an amendment to render a measure 
    contingent upon an unrelated Congressional action; thus, to a bill 
    author

[[Page 8678]]

    izing appropriations for radio broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment 
    prohibiting use of those funds until Congress has considered a 
    constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget was held to be 
    nongermane, imposing an unrelated contingency requiring separate 
    Congressional action on another subject.

    On Aug. 10, 1982,(15) during consideration of H.R. 5427 
in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman William R. Ratchford, of 
Connecticut, sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 20250, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 8, after line 12, 
        insert the following new section:
            Sec. 13. No funds appropriated or authorized under this act 
        shall be expended in violation of section 7 of Public Law 95-
        435 or until both Houses of the United States Congress have 
        considered an amendment to the United States Constitution 
        mandating a balanced federal budget.

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . . (T)he amendment is 
    clearly not germane. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is entirely 
    germane. All it is, is a limitation of funding under the bill. It 
    simply says that the program could go ahead and be authorized but 
    that the funding must be limited under the provisions of Public Law 
    94-435. So I think that this is an entirely appropriate limitation 
    of funding. It does not in any way become nongermane to the bill. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment. The amendment clearly 
    imposes a contingency, the contingency being further action by the 
    Congress of the United States on another subject and, therefore, in 
    violation of House precedents.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is not in order.

Completion of Committee Investigations

Sec. 31.40 To a bill providing in part for marketing quotas for feed 
    grains, an amendment proposing that provisions of the bill remain 
    inoperative pending completion of certain committee investigations 
    of alleged mismanagement of agricultural programs was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of the Food and 
Agricultural Bill of 1962,(16) the fol

[[Page 8679]]

lowing amendment was offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 11222 (Committee on Agriculture).
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 11373, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Page 15, 
    line 17, immediately preceding the word ``subtitle B'' insert the 
    following:

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all the 
        provisions of this title IV shall remain inoperative until the 
        completion of the investigation of the Billie Sol Estes case by 
        the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the House 
        Committee on Government Operations and the Permanent 
        Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on 
        Government Operations and both such committees have filed the 
        reports and recommendations on such investigation with the 
        House of Representatives and the Senate respectively.

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

        Mr. [Ross] Bass [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. It is not germane to the bill and 
    deals with the activities of other departments and does not come 
    within the purview of this bill.
        The Chairman (18) summarily overruled the point of 
    order without explanation and without rebuttal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This ruling was improperly decided since 
nothing in the pending title of the bill involved congressional 
investigations or conditions, and since the contingency in the 
amendment required reports by committees not involved with the pending 
bill.

Removal of Secretary of State

Sec. 31.41 To the Selective Training and Service Act, an amendment 
    providing that not more than one person may be inducted into the 
    Armed Services under the provisions of the act so long as the 
    President ``retains Dean Acheson as Secretary of State'' was held 
    to be not germane.

    The above ruling by Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, was made 
with respect to an amendment offered (19) by Mr. Ben F. 
Jensen, of Iowa, to a bill (20) comprising amendments to the 
Universal Military Training and Service Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 97 Cong. Rec. 3904, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1951.
20. S. 1-1951 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removal of Commissioner of Education

Sec. 31.42 To a bill authorizing funds for elementary and secondary 
    education, an amendment providing that no funds shall be expended

[[Page 8680]]

    thereunder ``so long as the present . . . Commissioner of Education 
    occupies that office'' was held to be germane.

    In the 89th Congress, during consideration of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1966,(1) an amendment was offered 
(2) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 13161 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 25583, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 6, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: . . . The amendment is not 
    germane, because we are undertaking to invade the authority of the 
    executive branch of this Government. The executive branch of this 
    Government has the appointive power, not the legislative branch. 
    Therefore, this amendment or proposal contravenes the law and 
    Constitution, and it is not germane.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Albert W. Watson, of 
South Carolina, stated:

        Certainly it is not uncommon . . . for the Congress to restrict 
    the executive in the administration or implementation of pieces of 
    legislation. . . . We are not attempting to remove the 
    [Commissioner]. It would be up to the President to determine 
    whether to do so or not.

    The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is germane to 
    the bill, and overrules the point of order.

Restoration of Postal Service

Sec. 31.43 To a bill proposing to readjust postal rates, an amendment 
    which would postpone the effective date of the provisions of the 
    act until the restoration of postal service curtailed by previous 
    orders of the Postmaster General was held not germane.

    On Sept. 19, 1951, during consideration of a bill (4) to 
readjust postal rates, an amendment was offered as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 2982 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 5. 97 Cong. Rec. 11681, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Javits to the committee amendment: On 
    page 26, line 8, strike out the period and insert a semicolon and 
    the following: ``Provided however, That the rates provided for in 
    this act shall not take effect until the restoration of delivery 
    and other essential postal services curtailed by the order of the 
    Postmaster General, dated April 18, 1950.''

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

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point

[[Page 8681]]

    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to the bill. The bill says nothing about deliveries. It only 
    applies to postal rates. It is not germane, because in 8 Cannon's 
    Precedents, section 3037, an amendment delaying operation of the 
    proposed legislation pending an unrelated contingency was held not 
    to be germane, and this relates to a very similar situation.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 11682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment which I have proposed, if adopted, becomes a part of 
    section 14 of the act against which all points of order have been 
    waived by the rule which the House adopted.
        This section already contains specific contingencies deferring 
    the time of the effective date of the rate specified hereunder. One 
    of those contingencies relates to all rates in the act, making them 
    effective three calendar months following the calendar month in 
    which enacted. The other relates to a special provision with 
    relation to second-class-mail rates. I am attempting to defer the 
    time when all rates specified under the act shall become effective 
    until certain restoration of delivery and other essential services 
    under the act. It seems to me that is another limitation upon the 
    date specified when the rates shall take effect, and is therefore 
    entirely in order.

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Committee has before it a bill to adjust postal 
    rates. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits] offers an amendment 
    which would postpone the effective date of the provisions of the 
    bill until the restoration of delivery or other essential postal 
    services curtailed by previous orders of the Postmaster General. 
    The bill affects rates only. The amendment seeks to affect the 
    effective date of the provisions of the act by the happening of a 
    future event.
        First, the Chair desires to state with reference to the 
    question of the rule under which the bill is being considered 
    waiving points of order, that those points of order waived apply to 
    the provisions in the bill alone and not to amendments offered from 
    the floor.
        The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray] has referred to the 
    precedent in volume 8, Cannon's Precedents, section 3037, the 
    syllabus of which reads:

            An amendment delaying operation of the proposed legislation 
        pending an unrelated contingency was held not to be germane.

        The Chair is of the opinion that the pending amendment is not 
    germane, and sustains the point of order.

Opportunity To Use Milwaukee Port Facilities

Sec. 31.44 To a bill authorizing the Administrator of General Services 
    to convey a certain parcel of land to the city of Milwaukee, an 
    amendment proposing that such conveyance not be executed until 
    Milwaukee declares it will

[[Page 8682]]

    provide opportunity for water transportation from other ports to 
    enter to discharge and take on cargo at its port was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
to authorize the Administrator of the General Services Administration 
to convey certain land to the city of Milwaukee. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, 
of Michigan, offered an amendment as described above.(9) The 
following proceedings then took place: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 6857 (Committee on Government Operations).
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1955.
10. Id. at pp. 12408, 12409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman from Michigan is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: It certainly is.
        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
    of order that the gentleman from Michigan was recognized before the 
    point of order was raised.
        The Speaker: The gentleman had not begun his remarks. . . .
        Mr. Reuss: Mr. Speaker, I renew the point of order on the 
    ground that the amendment is not germane.
        The Speaker: The amendment does apply to a different subject 
    matter altogether and, therefore, the point of order is sustained.