[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§ 33. Amendments Affecting Powers Delegated in Bill]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8703-8757]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
         D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
 
Sec. 33.--Amendments Affecting Powers Delegated in Bill

    To a provision delegating certain powers, a proposal to limit such 
powers is germane.(19) For example, a proposal to grant the 
President certain discretionary authority can be amended by a provision 
limiting such authority.(20) And where a bill continues the 
authority of an official to set maximum interest rates on loans, an 
amendment placing a limit on such authority is 
germane.(1)

                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 33.22, 33.32, infra.
20. See Sec. 33.1, 33.7, infra.
 1. See Sec. 33.28, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority of President To Enter Foreign-Trade Agreements .

Sec. 33.1 To a bill extending the period during which the President is 
    authorized to enter into foreign-trade agreements, an amendment 
    providing that no such agreements shall become effective until 
    approved by Congress (but not changing the rules of the House) was 
    held to be germane.

[[Page 8704]]

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
which stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. H.J. Res. 96 (Committee on Ways and Means).
3. See 81 Cong. Rec. 1044, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 9, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the period the period during which the 
    President is authorized to enter into foreign-trade agreements 
    under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the act 
    (Public No. 316, 73d Cong.) approved June 12, 1934, is hereby 
    extended for a further period of 3 years from June 12, 1937.
        The following amendment was offered:
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Line 8, 
    before the period, insert a colon and the following: ``Provided, 
    That no foreign trade agreement entered into under the provisions 
    of this act shall become effective until submitted to the Congress 
    by the President and approved by both House and Senate by a 
    majority vote. . . . In the event that Congress shall fail to act 
    within [a] period of 20 days, then said agreement shall thereupon 
    be in full force and effect.

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

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that that amendment is not germane to the bill. It 
    entirely changes the object of the bill and for the first time 
    brings back to the House of Representatives an act of the Executive 
    to be ratified, not by the Senate alone, but by the House. . . .

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair the amendment submitted by the 
    gentleman from New York places a limitation upon the President. The 
    pending joint resolution proposes a grant of discretionary power to 
    the Executive by the Congress, and, therefore, this limitation in 
    the judgment of the Chair is germane.

Sec. 33.2 To a bill to extend the authority of the President to enter 
    into foreign-trade agreements under a section of the Tariff Act, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which sought to establish 
    specific limits on imports of certain hand-made articles.

    On Feb. 9, 1949, the Trade Agreements Act of 1949 (5) 
was under consideration, which provided in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 1211 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 1057, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 9, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 3. The period during which the President is authorized to 
    enter into foreign trade agreements under section 350 of the Tariff 
    Act of 1930, as amended and extended, is hereby extended for a 
    further period of 3 years from June 12, 1948.

[[Page 8705]]

    The following amendment was offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 1070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bailey: Page 3, after line 8, insert 
    the following:

            Sec. 7. During any calendar year after 1948 the total 
        amounts of imported wood wire spring clothespins, or the total 
        amount of any article of china, hand-made glassware or 
        tableware, which may be entered or withdrawn from warehouse in 
        the United States for consumption, shall not exceed 25 percent 
        of the production within the United States during the preceding 
        calendar year of clothespins, or of such article of china, 
        hand-made glassware or tableware, as the case may be.

    Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane. Mr. Cleveland M. Bailey, of West Virginia, 
responding to the point of order, stated that, ``there is too much 
competition against the hand-craft glass and pottery industries and 
(such industries need the protection of import quotas).'' The 
Chairman,(8) in sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia might 
    have been germane to another statute, but it certainly is not 
    germane to the bill under consideration.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Another amendment having a similar purpose had been offered by Mr. 
        Bailey immediately prior to the above proceedings, and had also 
        been ruled out of order. See Sec. 33.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 33.3 To a bill to extend the authority of the President to enter 
    into foreign-trade agreements under a section of the Tariff Act, an 
    amendment providing that no reduction in duty shall be made on 
    certain imports competing with articles produced by ``handicraft 
    methods'' in the United States was held not germane.

    On Feb. 9, 1949, during consideration of the Trade Agreements Act 
of 1949,(10) the following amendment was offered: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 1211 (Committee on Ways and Means).
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 1069, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. See Sec. 33.2, supra, for 
        further discussion of the act and proceedings related to those 
        discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West 
    Virginia]: On page 3, after line 8, amend by adding a new section 
    to be designated as a new section:
        Sec. 7. No reduction in duty under the Tariff Act of 1930 rates 
    shall be made on imports competing directly with articles produced 
    by handicraft industries in the United States. Handicraft 
    industries are defined as those in which the salaries and wages or 
    direct and indirect labor constitute 50 percent or more of the 
    costs of production and include only those groups of manu

[[Page 8706]]

    facturers, excluding contractors, producing by recognized 
    handicraft methods, like or similar products, from which the Bureau 
    of the Census can obtain and publish industrial statistics. The 
    Tariff Commission shall make the final determination of these 
    qualifications.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 1070, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 9, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane. It 
    imposes duties and requirements upon the Bureau of the Census which 
    are certainly not within the scope of the pending bill or the 
    original act which is sought to be amended by the pending bill.

    The Chairman (13) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 33.4 To a bill extending the period during which the President is 
    authorized to enter into foreign-trade agreements, an amendment 
    directing the President to seek to withdraw or modify any past or 
    future reciprocal trade agreement if a domestic industry is damaged 
    thereby was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) relating to trade agreements as described above, the 
following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.J. Res. 407 (Committee on Ways and Means).
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 1913, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 23, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Page 1, line 8, after the period, insert the following:

            If at any time an established domestic industry as a whole 
        shall be damaged as a result of the inclusion of its product in 
        a reciprocal-trade agreement, the President shall institute 
        negotiations with the signatory country seeking to withdraw or 
        sufficiently modify the concession made upon that product to 
        remedy the damage inflicted upon said established domestic 
        industry.  . .

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

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: I do not desire to detain the 
    Committee and the Chair further than to point out that the 
    amendment contains provisions with respect to making it retroactive 
    and, further, brings in entirely different and irrelevant matters, 
    entirely foreign to the purposes of the resolution under 
    consideration and, of course, is not germane to it.

    The Chairman,(16) who had already called attention to 
the provisions that would operate retroactively, sustained the point of 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 33.5 To an amendment limiting the authority of the President in 
    negotiating

[[Page 8707]]

    trade agreements by providing that such ``authority . . . does not 
    embrace authority to include in any trade agreement negotiations'' 
    certain excise taxes imposed under specified sections of the 
    Revenue Act, an amendment proposing a similar limitation with 
    respect to import duties under the Tariff Act was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a trade agreements 
bill (17) and an amendment thereto excluding consideration 
of certain excise taxes from trade agreement negotiations, an amendment 
was offered by Mr. Karl E. Mundt, of South Dakota,(18) 
containing a similar provision with respect to import duties. The 
following exchange (19) concerned a point of order raised by 
Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.J. Res. 407 (Committee on Ways and Means).
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 1873, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 23, 1940.
19. Id. at p. 1874.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cooper: . . . The amendment here offered is not an 
    amendment to the excise taxes of existing law, but seeks to amend 
    the tariff act with respect to certain rates. I submit, therefore, 
    that the amendment to the amendment is not germane.  . .
        The Chairman: (20) The sections which the gentleman 
    brings in by number include a number of different sections of 
    schedule (7) of title I of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Chair would 
    understand that to relate to sections which deal with import duties 
    as distinguished from excise taxes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mundt: The distinction is not recognized, Mr. Chairman, by 
    the Secretary of State, who holds that they are one and the same.  
    . .
        The Chairman: Of course, the Chair cannot be advised as to what 
    the ruling of the Secretary of State would be on it; but, 
    fundamentally, if as a matter of fact the gentleman's amendment 
    brings into the picture a different class of taxes, his amendment 
    is not germane to the Disney amendment.
        Mr. Mundt: May I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the connecting 
    feature between my amendment and the place where it picks up the 
    Disney amendment is the coordinate conjunction ``and,'' and that 
    they both are based on the same fundamental premise of exempting 
    from further negotiations certain specific products--oil in one 
    instance, and beef, eggs, and other specified farm products in the 
    other. Thus it is strictly in line with the motive and the purpose 
    and the objective of the Disney amendment.  . .
        Mr. Cooper: . . . [T]he gentleman is here seeking to amend 
    those provisions of the tariff act levying certain tariff rates and 
    customs duties through the guise of offering an amendment to an 
    amendment relating solely to excise taxes. . . .

        The Chairman: . . . [F]rom the information the Chair has it 
    seems that

[[Page 8708]]

    the amendment offered by the gentleman, while most likely being 
    germane to the resolution, is not germane to the Disney amendment, 
    because it does seek to bring in, theoretically at least, a 
    different class of taxes--tariff import taxes--whereas the Disney 
    amendment refers entirely to excise taxes.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Sec. 33.6 To an amendment limiting the authority of the President in 
    negotiating trade agreements by providing that such ``authority . . 
    . does not embrace authority to include in any trade agreement 
    negotiations'' certain excise taxes imposed under specified 
    sections of the Revenue Act, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which sought to prohibit entry into American markets of 
    those foreign products of lower total cost than the cost of 
    production of competitive American products.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a trade agreements 
bill,(1) and an amendment thereto as described above, the 
following amendment was offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.J. Res. 407 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 1869, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 23, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Lawrence J.] Connery [of 
    Massachusetts]: ``Provided, That no commodity or article shall be 
    included in any foreign-trade agreement entered into which permits 
    the entry into American markets of products of workers, farmers, or 
    miners of foreign countries at total landed costs, all tariff 
    duties paid, which total costs are less than the cost of production 
    or wholesale selling price of competitive products of American 
    workers, miners, or farmers where such American products are 
    commercially available.''

    Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, having raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane to the amendment under 
consideration, Mr. Connery stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 1870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that it is perfectly 
    germane inasmuch as the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma is 
    an amendment of limitation. My amendment is simply a further 
    limitation on the gentleman's amendment.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order made by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Cooper] is that the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    [Mr. Connery] is not germane to the pending amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Disney]. The Disney amendment 
    relates to the exclusion of certain excise taxes. The amendment

[[Page 8709]]

    of the gentleman from Massachusetts introduces an entirely new 
    feature and undertakes to limit the authority granted the President 
    on the question of cost of production as well as the wholesale 
    selling propositions. The Chair thinks that while the amendment 
    would undoubtedly be germane to the resolution pending before the 
    House, yet it is not germane to the Disney amendment, and sustains 
    the point of order.

Approval by President of Sale of Helium

Sec. 33.7 To a bill authorizing the President under certain conditions 
    to approve the sale of helium gas for medical, scientific, and 
    commercial uses, an amendment prohibiting the sale of such gas to 
    any foreign country engaged in specified activities was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
which stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S. 1567 (Committee on Military Affairs). See relevant portions of 
        the bill at 81 Cong. Rec. 9647, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 21, 
        1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (b) That helium not needed for Government use may be produced 
    and sold upon payment in advance in quantities and under 
    regulations approved by the President, for medical, scientific, and 
    commercial use, including inflation of passenger-carrying airships: 
    Provided . . . [that] the Federal Government shall have a right to 
    repurchase helium so sold that has not been lost or dissipated, 
    when needed for Government use, under terms and at prices 
    established by said regulations.

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Samuel] Dickstein [of New York]: Page 
    6, line 13, after the word ``regulation'' change the period to a 
    colon and insert:

            And provided further, That no helium shall be sold to any 
        foreign country which . . . engages in . . . distribution . . . 
        in the United States . . . of any propaganda . . . destructive 
        to the democratic form of government of the United States. . . 
        .

    Mr. R. Ewing Thomason, of Texas, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(6) in 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jack Nichols (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The bill] gives the President of the United States discretion 
    and authority to dispose of helium. The amendment . . . places a 
    limitation on the powers of the President, and says that under 
    certain conditions the President will not be permitted to dispose 
    of helium to those countries.
        The Chair . . . overrules the point of order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 9653, 9654, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 21, 1937.

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

[[Page 8710]]

Authority of President Regarding Transfer of Defense Equipment to 
    Korea--Amendment Affecting Timetable of Transfer

Sec. 33.8 To a proposition conferring discretionary authority on a 
    federal official, an amendment limiting the exercise of that 
    authority is germane; thus, to a section of a bill authorizing the 
    President to transfer as much defense equipment to the Republic of 
    Korea as he determined necessary in conjunction with withdrawal of 
    an unspecified number of United States troops, an amendment 
    reducing the time period of the equipment transfer, in conjunction 
    with withdrawal of a stated number of troops, was held germane as a 
    restriction on the discretionary authority conferred in the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 12514 (the foreign assistance 
authorization for fiscal year 1979) on Aug. 1, 1978,(8) the 
Chair overruled a point of order against the amendment described above. 
The section of the bill and the amendment offered thereto were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 124 Cong. Rec. 23729, 23730, 23731, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

         special security assistance program for the modernization of 
                   the ground forces of the republic of korea

            Sec. 19. (a)(1) The President is authorized, until December 
        31, 1982--
            (A) to transfer, without reimbursement, to the Republic of 
        Korea, in conjunction with the withdrawal of the 2d Infantry 
        Division and support forces from Korea, such United States 
        Government-owned defense articles as he may determine which are 
        located in Korea in the custody of units of the United States 
        Army scheduled to depart from Korea; and
            (B) to furnish to the Republic of Korea, without 
        reimbursement, defense services (including technical and 
        operational training) in Korea directly related to the United 
        States Government-owned defense articles transferred to the 
        Republic of Korea under this subsection.
            (2) Any transfer under the authority of this section shall 
        be made in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the 
        Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 applicable to the furnishing of 
        defense articles and defense services under chapter 2 of part 
        II of that Act. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton: On page 15, strike out 
        line 12 and all that follows down through line 20 and insert 
        the following:

[[Page 8711]]

            Sec. 19. (a)(1) The President is authorized, until 
        September 30, 1979--
            (A) to transfer, without reimbursement, to the Republic of 
        Korea, in conjunction with the withdrawal of not more than 
        6,000 troops of the 2nd Infantry Division and associated Army 
        support forces from Korea, such United States Government-owned 
        defense articles as he may determine which are located in Korea 
        in the custody of those United States Army units scheduled to 
        depart. . . .

        Mr. [Lester L.] Wolff [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is this:
        There is a limitation placed upon the President for the 
    deployment of troops in Korea. Actually this amendment is subject 
    to a point of order under the germaneness rule, rule XVI, clause 7, 
    as it deals with a subject different from those under consideration 
    in the bill.
        The bill does not purport to deal with the deployment of U.S. 
    combat forces abroad; it deals only with the authority to transfer 
    equipment to the South Korean forces. This amendment may well be 
    unconstitutional as an attempt on the President's constitutional 
    power as Commander in Chief of all U.S. military forces.
        Mr. Stratton: . . . I think my friend, the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Wolff) has not read the amendment. The amendment simply 
    makes several minor changes in the existing text of section 19 of 
    the bill. For example, it puts in two or three additional words in 
    section (a)(1)(A). It makes changes on page 17 and strikes out $800 
    million and puts in $90 million. On page 17, line 15, it changes 
    the date from 1983 to 1979. It adds to the remaining section on 
    page 18 additional reporting requirements beyond those called for 
    in the original section.
        This is absolutely in keeping with the bill itself. . . .
        Mr. Wolff: . . . H.R. 12514 in no way seeks to dictate the 
    level of troops to be maintained in Korea or, for that matter, 
    elsewhere in the world. The fundamental purpose of the amendment is 
    to limit the U.S. troops, as has been indicated in an amendment 
    that this gentleman offered before and a point of order was raised 
    upon. It seeks to limit the number of U.S. troops which may be 
    withdrawn from Korea.
        The fundamental purpose of H.R. 12514 is to authorize the 
    appropriation of funds for the international security assistance 
    program for fiscal year 1979. Therefore, the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill, pursuant to clause 7 of House rule XVI. . . .

        Mr. Stratton: . . . The gentleman's committee bill extends an 
    authority to transfer equipment for 4 years, to December 31, 1982.
        My amendment extends that authority only to the 30th of 
    September 1979, and then says that during that period we are 
    talking about, the withdrawal of 6,000 troops. If the House, if the 
    President, or anybody else, wants to withdraw any more from Korea 
    there is nothing in my amendment to prevent it. My amendment 
    applies strictly to fiscal year 1979. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Wolff) makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, one 
    of the points being constitutionality.

[[Page 8712]]

        The Chair would like to point out that the Chair is not 
    prepared to rule on the constitutionality of legislation pending 
    before the committee; however, as to the germaneness of the 
    amendment, the Chair has examined the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton). In the bill, as has been 
    pointed out, beginning on page 15, line 14, it relates:

            (A) to transfer, without reimbursement, to the Republic of 
        Korea, in conjunction with the withdrawal of the 2d Infantry 
        Division and support forces from Korea, such United States 
        Government-owned defense articles as he may determine which are 
        located in Korea in the custody of units of the United States 
        Army scheduled to depart from Korea;

        The amendment of the gentleman from New York sets a specific 
    number which may be withdrawn, rather than following the language 
    of a more general nature that is in the bill.
        The Chair feels that the amendment meets the test of 
    germaneness since it relates to the withdrawal of troops in Korea, 
    a subject in the text of the bill.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

President's Authority To Establish Priorities Among Users of Petroleum 
    Products--Amendment To Impose Restrictions on Use for School Busing

Sec. 33.9 To a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    conferring authority upon the president to establish rules for the 
    ordering of priorities among users of petroleum products and 
    requiring that vital services in areas of education and 
    transportation shall receive high priority, an amendment 
    restricting that regulatory authority by requiring that petroleum 
    products allocated for public school transportation be used only 
    between the student's home and the school closest thereto was held 
    germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (10) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 13, 1973,(11) it was 
illustrated that to a provision delegating certain authority, an 
amendment proposing to limit such authority is germane. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 11450.
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 41267-69, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        sec. 103. amendments to the emergency petroleum allocation act 
        of 1973.

        (a) Section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 
    is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsections:
        ``(h)(1) If the President finds that, without such action, the 
    objectives of subsection (b) cannot be attained, he may promulgate 
    a rule which shall be deemed a part of the regulation under 
    subsection (a) and which shall provide,

[[Page 8713]]

    consistent with the objectives of subsection (b), an ordering of 
    priorities among users of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any 
    refined petroleum product, and for the assignment to such users of 
    rights entitling them to obtain any such oil or product in 
    precedence to other users not similarly entitled. A top priority in 
    such ordering shall be the maintenance of vital services 
    (including, but not limited to new housing construction, education, 
    health care, hospitals, public safety, energy production, 
    agriculture, and transportation services, which are necessary to 
    the preservation of health, safety, and the public welfare). . . .

    Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
Staggers.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 7, line 
        21, strike out the first period and the quotation marks.
            Page 7, insert after line 21 the following:
            ``(k)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this 
        subsection, no provision of the regulation under subsection (a) 
        (including a regulation under subsection (h)) may provide for 
        allocation of any refined petroleum product to any person 
        (including a State or political subdivision thereof, or State 
        or local educational agency) if the product so allocated will 
        be used for the transportation of any public school student to 
        a school farther than the public school closest to his home 
        offering educational courses for the grade level and course of 
        study of the student within the boundaries of the school 
        attendance district wherein the student resides.
            ``(2) Any energy conservation plan proposed under section 
        105 of the Energy Emergency Act and any regulation under this 
        section for allocation of petroleum products for transportation 
        of public school students shall have as its purpose conserving 
        refined petroleum products by reducing to the minimum the 
        distance traveled by such students to and from the schools 
        within the school attendance district in which the student 
        resides. Such plans shall be formulated in consultation with 
        the affected State and local educational agencies. . . .

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against this amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of the most important points 
    of order that we will argue in this session of Congress.
        As the Chair is well aware, under rule XXIII, the Chairman of 
    the Committee can cite the point of order regardless of rulings of 
    the Speaker.
        The Chairman has full discretion.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this amendment is 
    not germane. It is not germane under several propositions:
        First, it does not apply to the fundamental purposes of the 
    bill.
        As is set forth in Cannon's precedents and in Hind's 
    precedents, it is required that any amendment be to the fundamental 
    purpose of the bill. The fact that the bill contains many subjects 
    does not necessarily mean that another subject can be added.
        I refer in particular to the ruling of the Chair in 5 Hind's 
    Precedents, 5825, which states as follows:

[[Page 8714]]

            While a Committee may report a bill embracing different 
        subjects, it is not in order during consideration in the House 
        to introduce a new subject by way of amendment.

        Now, this subject, the busing of schoolchildren, is a new 
    subject by way of amendment.
        I also make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that this must be 
    germane to the particular section or paragraph to which it is 
    offered. There is nothing in this paragraph on schoolbusing, and on 
    the second page of the amendment, there is a reference to section 
    105 as well as to section 103.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the basis of 
    germaneness that this is not germane, because it deals with a 
    subject matter that is foreign to the subject matter of the 
    particular paragraph. And I quote now from 8 Cannon's Precedents, 
    2918, which was a bill from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, in which they were dealing with child labor in interstate 
    commerce and an amendment was offered to apply this to foreign 
    commerce, and the Chair ruled as follows:

            It seems to the Chair that most of the gentlemen who argued 
        in favor of this proposition have discussed the power of 
        Congress to regulate both interstate and foreign commerce 
        rather than the question of whether the proposition regulating 
        foreign commerce is germane to a bill regulating interstate 
        commerce. Two subjects are not necessarily germane to each 
        other because they are related.
            The Chair believes this is a bill to regulate child labor 
        and interstate commerce and, therefore, that an amendment 
        proposing to extend it to foreign commerce is a different 
        matter and not in order.
            Further, in Cannon's Precedents, under 2951, there is this 
        proposition:
            An amendment proposing to add an individual proposition to 
        a bill embodying another individual proposition is not 
        admissible even though the two propositions belong to the same 
        class. To a bill providing for insurance for crews of vessels 
        an amendment providing for insurance for sailors transported on 
        such vessels was held not to be germane.

        Now, in this bill, Mr. Chairman, we are providing for 
    allocation of fuel products, and it seems to me that this precedent 
    which provides that we cannot add an amendment applying to those 
    who were being transported on a vessel, is directly in point, and 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman is not germane.
        Mr. Chairman, I would further state that in this particular 
    matter we are dealing with the fundamental purpose of the bill. The 
    fundamental purpose of this bill is not to regulate the busing of 
    children. That is before the Committee on Labor and Education.
        Under the principles set forth in VIII Cannon's Precedents, 
    section 2911, it is clearly stated of child labor, which was 
    particularly involved there, that you could not extend the 
    proposition.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, because this is not germane to the 
    section to which it is offered and because it involves not being 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill because it is not 
    germane even though there are several subjects embraced in this 
    bill, I therefore make a point of order against it. . . .
        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I, 
    too, would like to make a point of order against the amendment 
    because the Com

[[Page 8715]]

    mittee on the Judiciary spent a great deal of time considering the 
    various constitutional problems associated with schoolbusing, and 
    it comes properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor and not this committee. I do not think that we 
    should, in a bill dealing with trying to solve an economic crisis, 
    deal with matters attempting to correct racial imbalances by means 
    of busing of schoolchildren.

        Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, I finish my argument by stating in V 
    Hinds' Precedents, section 5825, despite the fact that this bill 
    has within it a number of different subjects, it is not in order to 
    introduce a new subject by way of amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, the regulation of schoolbusing through the 
    allocation of fuel or the failure to allocate fuel is introducing a 
    new subject into this bill. Even though there are many subjects 
    involved in it, it is one that is not properly before the Committee 
    at this time. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Washington has 
    made a most eloquent and moving statement regarding germaneness. It 
    is regrettable that he has apparently not read the amendment which 
    he discusses, because I read in the amendment nothing which refers 
    to matters under the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, nothing relating to enforced schoolbusing, nothing 
    relating to civil rights.
        Quite to the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I read into the amendment 
    the conservation of energy, the conservation of petroleum products, 
    the conservation of refined petroleum products.
        Mr. Chairman, my friend from Washington cited a great number of 
    precedents, and again I say it is most regrettable that he has not 
    bothered to read the amendment which is before us, because the 
    amendment before us relates to the conservation of energy as does 
    the bill before us.
        For the assistance of the Chair and my good friend from 
    Washington, for whom I have an abundance of affection and respect, 
    I will read now from page 442 of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives, under rule XVI, clause 7, which is a rule relating 
    to germaneness and which was not cited by my good friend from 
    Washington, and to read under the annotations thereunder this 
    language:

            Whether or not an amendment be germane should be judged 
        from the provisions of its text rather than from the purposes 
        which circumstances may suggest.

        The text is before the Chair. The Chair has read the text, I am 
    sure, in his preparation for ruling upon the matter before us.
        This amendment relates to allocations of products. It is 
    specifically a prohibition upon the allocation of products. Section 
    103 to which this amendment is drafted is an amendment to the 
    Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973. Section 103, as the 
    Chair will note, at page 4, line 4, relates to priorities among 
    users of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any refined petroleum 
    product, and for the assignment to such users of rights entitling 
    them to obtain any such oil or product in precedence.
        The amendment directs the President as to the way such users 
    may re

[[Page 8716]]

    ceive oil. It refers in line 11 of that page 4 to transportation 
    services. We transport hundreds of thousands of children in school 
    buses. This relates to the kind of allocation and priority of the 
    users of that kind of transportation.
        Further down in the same page, page 4, it refers again at line 
    17 to the President to cause such adjustments in the allocation. 
    Again, at line 19, the word ``allocation''--as may be necessary to 
    provide for the allocation of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any 
    refined petroleum product.
        Again at the bottom of page 4, line 24, ``The President shall 
    provide for procedures by which any user of such oil or product for 
    which priorities and entitlements are established under paragraphs 
    1 and 2.''
        It provides for petition and review and reclassification and 
    modification of any determination regarding priorities.
        At page 5, lines 1 through 4, and on the following page 6, 
    under line 4, the term ``allocation'' is again referred to. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) Unless there are other Members 
    who desire to be heard on the point of order, the Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had the opportunity to examine the amendment for 
    some hours--in fact, for approximately 1 day. The Chair has 
    diligently searched the precedents. The Chair finds that the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adams) that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is 
    not germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, is not 
    good.
        The Chair would like to describe why.
        The amendment is offered to section 103 of the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute which deals with the authority of the 
    President to establish rules for the ordering of priorities among 
    users of petroleum products. Section 103 specifies that in ordering 
    such priorities, the maintenance of vital services in the areas of 
    education and transportation is to be emphasized.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    restricts the authority bestowed upon the President by the pending 
    substitute and by the portion of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
    Act which is proposed to be altered. The amendment refers to fuel 
    allocation regulations to be issued under the act, and is germane.
        The Chair must, therefore, overrule the point of order.

Restriction on Official's Discretion To Interpret Laws Administered by 
    Him

Sec. 33.10 To a title of a bill as perfected, limiting in several 
    respects an executive official's authority to construe legal 
    authorities transferred to him in the bill except as specifically 
    permitted by law, an amendment further restricting that official's 
    authority to construe under any circumstances certain laws to be 
    administered by him was held germane as an

[[Page 8717]]

    additional (although more restrictive) curtailment of existing 
    authorities being transferred by the bill.

    On June 11, 1979,(13) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 2444, the Department of Education Organization 
Act of 1979. The first title of the bill as amended, in addition to 
creating a new Department of Education, stated broad findings and 
purposes of the Department including the promotion of daily prayer in 
public schools, prohibited the construction of laws administered by the 
Department to authorize federal control of public education except as 
specifically authorized by federal statute, and prohibited the 
Department from withholding federal funds from educational entities 
because of curriculum except as specifically authorized by law. An 
amendment was offered prohibiting the construction of laws administered 
by the Department to authorize the issuance of regulations requiring 
the transportation of students or teachers to achieve racial balance or 
requiring other desegregation plans as a condition of federal 
assistance. The amendment was held germane as a further restriction, 
related to those in the title as perfected, on the construction of laws 
to be administered by the Secretary of Education. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 14226, 14233, 1423-38, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: G5(14) Are there any amendments to section 2?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the Clerk will designate title I.
        Title I reads as follows:

                         TITLE I--FINDINGS AND PURPOSES

                                    findings

            Sec. 101. The Congress of the United States finds that--
            (1) education is fundamental to the development of 
        individual citizens and the progress of the Nation as a whole;
            (2) there is a continuous need to ensure equal access for 
        all Americans to educational opportunities of a high quality;
            (3) the primary responsibility for education resides with 
        States, localities, and private institutions . . .
            (7) there is a need for improved coordination of Federal 
        education and related programs; and
            (8) there is no single, full-time, Federal education 
        official directly accountable to the President, the Congress, 
        and the people.

                                    purposes

            Sec. 102. The Congress therefore declares that the 
        establishment of a Department of Education is in the public 
        interest and will promote the general welfare of the United 
        States. Establishment of this Department will help ensure that 
        education issues receive proper treatment at the Federal level 
        and will enable the Federal Government to coordinate its 
        education activities more effec

[[Page 8718]]

        tively. The major purposes of the Department are:
            (1) to strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access 
        to equal educational opportunity for every American . . .
            (5) to increase the accountability of Federal education 
        programs to the President, the Congress, and the public;
            (6) to encourage the increased involvement of the public, 
        parents, and students in Federal education programs; and

            (7) to improve the coordination of Federal education 
        programs.

                prohibition against federal control of education

            Sec. 3. No provision of law relating to a program 
        administered by the Secretary or by any other officer or agency 
        of the executive branch of the Federal Government shall be 
        construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer or 
        agency to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over 
        the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or 
        personnel of any educational institution, school or school 
        system; over any accrediting agency or association; or over the 
        selection of library resources, textbooks, or other 
        instructional materials by any educational institution or 
        school system, except to the extent specifically authorized by 
        law.

    Subsequent amendments included the following:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 56, in line 17, 
        strike out the ``and'';
            In line 19, strike out the period and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``; and''; and
            After line 19, insert the following:
            (8) to promote in all public schools providing elementary 
        or secondary education a daily opportunity for prayer or 
        meditation, participation in which would be on a voluntary 
        basis. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. Skelton: Page 56, line 22, insert 
        ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 103.'', and on page 57, after 
        line 7, insert the following new subsection:
            (b) No funds provided under any program administered by the 
        Secretary or the Department may be suspended, terminated or 
        otherwise withheld from any educational institution, school or 
        school system on the basis of any requirement imposed by the 
        Secretary or the Department relating to curriculum, program of 
        instruction, administration, personnel, the selection of 
        library resources, textbooks or other instructional materials, 
        except where specifically authorized by law. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: on page 57, line 7 
        strike ``law.''
            And insert in lieu thereof the following language: ``by 
        federal statute. Regulations issued by the Department of 
        Education shall not have the standing of a federal statute for 
        the purposes of this section.''

    The amendment offered by Mr. Robert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, was 
amended to change ``promote'' to ``permit.'' (15) 
Thereafter, the amendments offered by Mr. Walker, Mr. Ike Skelton, of 
Missouri, and Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio, were agreed to. Then Mr. 
Ashbrook offered a further amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The amendment to the Walker amendment was offered by Mr. Arlen I. 
        Erdahl (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 8719]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 56, line 22, insert 
        ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 103.'' and page 57, after line 7 insert:
            ``(b) No provision of law shall be construed to authorize 
        the Secretary to issue any regulation, rule, interpretation, 
        guideline, or order which requires, as a condition of 
        eligibility to receive Federal assistance, or otherwise, the 
        transportation of students or teachers (or the formulation or 
        adoption of any plan for such transportation) to achieve racial 
        balance in or to carry out a plan for the desegregation of any 
        educational institution, school, or school system.''

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point 
    of order? . . .
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that just a simple 
    reading of the amendment says that it is going to try to make a 
    plan of desegregation of any institution.
        I do think we can have any such plan really in that fashion. I 
    do want to make a point of order against the amendment under rule 
    XVI, clause 7, which requires amendments to be germane to the 
    subject under consideration.
        In order to be germane, an amendment must have the same 
    fundamental purpose as a bill under consideration.
        The purpose of H.R. 2444 is to establish a Department of 
    Education. It deals only with the organizational structure of that 
    Department. Amendments affecting programs or assigning new duties 
    to the Secretary or his assistants and employees that are not now 
    authorized by law are not consistent with that organizational 
    purpose and therefore should be ruled out of order.
        A further test might be that such an amendment would certainly 
    not be sent to the Government Operations Committee if it were 
    offered as a bill on the floor of this Congress. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, even the most strict reading of the 
    preamble clause of this bill, which, as my colleague has indicated, 
    has come out of the Government Operations Committee--not the 
    Judiciary Committee, not the Education Committee, it has come out 
    of the Government Operations Committee--even the most strict 
    interpretation if you read the preamble, they talk about every 
    facet of education, promoting education, making reports available; 
    every particular facet of education that relates to elementary and 
    secondary schools, is reposited in the Department of Education.
        I do not think there is an American, let alone a Congressman, 
    who believes that busing in one way or another is not a part of 
    education. I do not believe there is a Member of this Chamber who 
    believes in one way or another busing will not be under 
    consideration by the newly created Department of Education, and for 
    all those purposes, I believe it to be absolutely germane. I hope 
    the Chair will so rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Section 103, title I, mandates how existing education laws are 
    to be construed in several diverse respects. Section 103 does 
    contain certain limitations upon the statutory constructions

[[Page 8720]]

    of several authorities of the Secretary to control education 
    programs.
        The amendment is a further restriction on construction of other 
    authority of the Secretary in construing existing education law, is 
    germane to title I and the Chair therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Amendment Providing for Disapproval of Agency Regulations by Congress

Sec. 33.11 To a bill authorizing an agency to undertake certain 
    activities, an amendment providing that agency regulations issued 
    pursuant to that authority may be disapproved by Congress is a 
    germane restriction upon the authority conferred in the bill so 
    long as the disapproval mechanism does not directly amend the rules 
    of the House; thus, although other committees of the House have 
    jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory 
    authority contained in various environmental laws, an amendment to 
    a bill reported from the Committee on Science and Technology 
    (having jurisdiction over environmental research and development) 
    which restricts the internal regulations of that agency relating to 
    its research and development activities may be germane if limited 
    to that phase of the agency's operations.

    During consideration of H.R. 12704 (16) in the Committee 
of the Whole on May 4, 1976,(17) the Chair overruled a point 
of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The environmental research, development and demonstration 
        authorization for fiscal year 1977.
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 12344-48, 94th Cong. 2d 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 (a) 
        there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Environmental Protection Agency for the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 1977, for the following categories:
            (1) Research, development, and demonstration under the 
        Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 
        $13,813,900.
            (2) Research, development, and demonstration under section 
        301 of the Public Health Service Act, $878,900.
            (3) Research, development, and demonstration under the Safe 
        Drinking Water Act, $13,592,500. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. Ketchum: Page 5, after line 7, add 
        the following new section:
            Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no rule 
        or regulation promulgated on or after the date of enactment of 
        this Act by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
        Agency, in connection

[[Page 8721]]

        with research, development, or demonstration under any of the 
        Acts specified in subsection (a) of the first section of this 
        Act, shall become effective unless . . . the Congress by 
        concurrent resolution does not disapprove such rule or 
        regulation within 60 days. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us 
    has the purpose of authorizing appropriations to the Office of 
    Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency for 
    fiscal year 1977 with respect to certain specific areas.

        One is research, development, and demonstration under the 
    Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which act, as 
    I understand it, is an act wholly under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Agriculture, even with respect to its research 
    operations; with respect to research, development, and 
    demonstration under section 301 of the Public Health Service Act, 
    which is an act which is generally under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce; research, 
    development, and demonstration under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
    which is an act generally under the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Interstate and Foreign Commerce; research, development, and 
    demonstration under the Clean Air Act, which is also under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    generally; research, development, and demonstration under the Solid 
    Waste Disposal Act, which is generally under the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce; research, 
    development, and demonstration under the Federal Water Pollution 
    Control Act Amendments of 1972, which is generally under the 
    Committee on Public Works. . . .
        Furthermore, this provision, as I read it, would make a rule or 
    regulation which might include regulatory authority, but which 
    would also include research, development, or demonstration within 
    its reach, subject to what is called the congressional veto.
        Thus, if a rule or regulation were made by the Administrator 
    that affected both research and development and other functions of 
    the agency clearly outside the jurisdiction of this committee, this 
    amendment would reach, broadly, rules and regulations of very 
    diverse character. . . .
        The original rule, if vetoed by concurrent resolution by 
    Congress, would in turn be subject to a veto by the President 
    because the Constitution says that any act requiring the 
    concurrence of both bodies must be submitted to the President and 
    he may veto it.
        So this amendment has great and broad reach far beyond the 
    provisions of the bill, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is 
    therefore not germane to the bill itself. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California]: . . . If you will 
    read the language of my regulatory reform-type amendment closely, 
    you will see that it pertains only to rules and regulations 
    connected with ``research, development, or demonstration under any 
    of the acts specified in subsection (a).'' Therefore, the scope of 
    my amendment is expressly limited to coincide with the scope of 
    this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Ketchum) is his 
    argument that

[[Page 8722]]

    this is most assuredly within rule XVI of the House which requires 
    germaneness, because in any such situation where a proposition 
    confers broad discretionary power upon an executive official, it is 
    perfectly within the rights of any Member to offer an amendment 
    that directs that official to take certain actions prior to the 
    expenditure of funds or the exercising of certain policies.
        In chapter 28, paragraph 24.2 of Deschler's Procedure, the 
    general rule is stated that points out the precedents on an 
    authorization bill indicate that the authorization itself may be 
    made contingent upon a future event if the event is related to the 
    subject matter before the House. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . Rules and regulations, under almost all 
    administrative agency acts or acts concerning a department of 
    Government that has a rule or regulatory structure, are contained 
    in a special section of a bill.
        They generally deal with the action of that department or of 
    that regulatory agency having to do with enforcement, but they also 
    in many instances deal with matters of internal operation of the 
    agency, which internal operation concerns both research and 
    development and examination of projects, direction of personnel of 
    highly technical proficiency, and other matters.
        These matters are related not only to the ultimate regulation, 
    but are related to certain research which occurs prior to the 
    making of such final rules affecting the persons so regulated.
        When we permit an amendment to a bill which purports only to 
    deal with demonstration projects, et cetera, under this committee's 
    jurisdiction, with this whole complex subject of rulemaking, and 
    provide an entirely new method of congressional review whereby a 
    rule will not go into effect if Congress, by concurrent resolution, 
    disapproves such rule or regulation, we vastly alter a section in 
    each of these bills that deals not only with rules and regulations 
    or, rather, with demonstration and research, but also is related to 
    the whole operation of the bill.
        One cannot go in and alter those sections piecemeal. And if we 
    permit an amendment on the floor to provide for this kind of 
    congressional review and then a subsequent presidential veto, we 
    deal with a matter so integrally related with the rulemaking 
    process in each of these bills--four of which I believe were under 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, one under the Committee on Agriculture and one under the 
    Committee on Public Works and Transportation--that we invite utter 
    confusion respecting where the dividing line is between the rule's 
    application to research and development and the rule's application 
    to other functions. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would first point out that the research and 
    development programs in the bill itself are very broad and diverse, 
    as is illustrated by the six categories that are set forth on page 
    2, lines 1 through 15. In addition to that, based upon the language 
    of the amendment itself, as well as the colloquy between the 
    gentleman from California and the gentleman from Washington, the 
    amendment is restricted to regula

[[Page 8723]]

    tions promulgated in connection with research, development, and 
    demonstration activities, under the acts that are specified in this 
    bill. Therefore, it does not go to other research and development 
    programs not specified in the bill and not within the Science and 
    Technology Committee's jurisdiction.
        The Chair would also point out that this amendment provides 
    merely for a disapproval mechanism in a manner that does not change 
    the Rules of the House, so it really is a limitation upon the 
    authority granted under the act. The Chair cannot, of course, rule 
    upon the constitutionality of such a disapproval procedure. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order and holds the 
    amendment germane.

Authority of Federal Energy Administrator -- Amendment To Direct 
    Administrator To Restrict Petroleum Exports

Sec. 33.12 To a proposition conferring broad discretionary authority on 
    an executive official, an amendment directing that official to take 
    certain actions in the exercise of that authority is germane; thus, 
    to an amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizing the 
    Federal Energy Administrator to restrict exports of certain energy 
    resources, an amendment directing that official to prohibit the 
    exportation of petroleum products for use in military operations in 
    Indochina was held germane as a delineation of the broad authority 
    conferred by that substitute.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(19) during consideration of H.R. 11450 
(the Energy Emergency Act), the Chair held the following amendment to 
be germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to which it 
was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 41753, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 45, insert 
        after line 9:

           ``sec. 124. prohibition of petroleum exports for military 
                            operations in indochina.

            ``In the exercise of his jurisdiction under the preceding 
        section, and in order to conserve petroleum products for use in 
        the United States, the Administrator shall prohibit the 
        exportation of petroleum products for use, directly or 
        indirectly, in military operations in South Vietnam, Cambodia 
        or Laos.''. . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that this amendment is not germane to the 
    bill since it deals with a subject matter that is under the 
    jurisdiction of other committees of the

[[Page 8724]]

    House of Representatives, the Committee on Armed Services and the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs, as an example. . . .
        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, I do desire to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, certainly the subject of petroleum products seems 
    to be within the jurisdiction of this committee since we have been 
    debating this matter for at least 3 days. So I would urge that that 
    subject is germane, and that my amendment is germane to the bill.

        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    which appears at the bottom of page 44 reads in part as follows:

            To the extent necessary to carry out the purpose of this 
        Act, the Administrator may under authority of this Act, by 
        rule, restrict exports of coal, petroleum products. . . .

        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
    Holtzman) is a further delineation of that type of authority. 
    Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill).

--Amendment Imposing Ceiling Prices on Petroleum Products

Sec. 33.13 To a section of a bill prescribing the functions of a new 
    Federal Energy Administration in meeting the energy needs of the 
    Nation, amended to limit exercise of those functions ``to the 
    extent expressly authorized by other sections of the bill or any 
    other provisions of law,'' an amendment prescribing guidelines to 
    be followed by the Administrator in establishing petroleum prices 
    (a permissible limitation on the discretionary authority conferred 
    in that section), but also directly imposing ceiling prices on 
    petroleum products where the Administrator had not exercised his 
    pricing authority pursuant to those guidelines, was held to 
    directly change substantive law and was held to be not germane.

    On Mar. 6, 1974,(1) during consideration of H.R. 11793 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that, 
while a proposition reorganizing existing discretionary governmental 
authority under a new agency may be amended by imposing limitations on 
the exercise of those functions, an amendment directly changing 
policies in the substantive law to

[[Page 8725]]

be administered by that agency is not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 5433-36, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Federal Energy Administration Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moss: Page 18, line 11, insert 
        ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 5.''.
            Page 20, after line 2 and after the Alexander amendment, 
        insert the following:
            (14) In administering any pricing authority, provide for 
        equitable prices with respect to all sales of crude oil, 
        residual fuel oil, and refined petroleum products in accordance 
        with subsection (b) of this section.
            (b)(1) Pricing authority of the Administrator shall be 
        exercised so as to specify (or prescribe a manner for 
        determining) prices for all sales of domestic crude oil, 
        residual fuel oil, and refined petroleum products in accordance 
        with this subsection.
            (2) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), 
        the provisions of any regulation under pricing authority of the 
        Administrator which specified (or prescribed a manner for 
        determining) the price of domestic crude oil, residual fuel 
        oil, and refined petroleum products, and which were in effect 
        on the date of enactment of this subsection shall remain in 
        effect until modified pursuant to paragraph (5) of this 
        subsection.
            (3) Commencing 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
        subsection, and until any other ceiling price becomes effective 
        pursuant to the terms of paragraph (5) hereof, the ceiling 
        price for the first sale or exchange of a particular grade of 
        domestic crude oil in a particular field shall be the sum of--
            (A) the highest posted price at 6:00 a.m., local time, May 
        15, 1973, for that grade of crude oil at that field, or if 
        there are no posted prices in that field, the related price for 
        that grade of crude oil for which prices are posted; and
            (B) a maximum of $1.35 per barrel. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss) is nongermane 
    to this reorganization bill, and section 5, under rule XVI, clause 
    7.
        The committee yesterday amended section 5 of the bill before us 
    so that the functions listed would clearly not confer any new 
    authority on the FEA Administrator. The authority available to the 
    FEA Administrator must come from other sections of this act, or 
    provisions of other laws which are now in existence.
        As the Chair pointed out yesterday, amendments must be germane 
    to the bill as modified by the Committee of the Whole at the time 
    they are offered, and not as originally referred to the committee. 
    Therefore, amendments attempting to add policy or program powers to 
    section 5 are nongermane to that section.
        The subject matter of this amendment was not considered in the 
    committee, and is not dealt with in any other provisions in this 
    bill; it is a subject matter completely different from the matter 
    under consideration.
        In the interest of orderly legislation . . . the amendment 
    should be ruled out of order. It is inappropriate to section 5, 
    because section 5 does not add any new policy or program. It amends 
    existing law, Mr. Chairman, in ways that are not affected by the 
    bill which is now before the committee. For example, the Economic 
    Stabilization Act, there are sections there that are in

[[Page 8726]]

    this amendment that are not involved in this bill. . . .
        Mr. Moss: . . . Section 5 of the bill before us requires the 
    Administrator to:

            Promote stability in energy prices to the consumer, promote 
        free and open competition in all aspects of the energy field, 
        prevent unreasonable profits within the various segments of the 
        energy industry, and promote free enterprise. . . .

        The amendment I have offered is a limitation upon the 
    Administrator. It says he cannot go back before the prices set in 
    May of 1973 in the exercise of his authority, excepting that he may 
    add a total of $1.35, bringing to $5.25 a barrel the effective 
    price of crude oil. It does provide that there can, upon certain 
    findings by the Administrator, be an increase to $7.09. . . .
        . . . We are limiting the discretion. We are limiting the 
    authority which we are by this act itself, the proposed legislation 
    in the Committee on Government Operations, granting to the 
    Administrator. Clearly that is germane; clearly that is within the 
    province of this committee and of this House to limit the scope of 
    authority conferred or being conferred upon a new office. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California (Mr. Moss) has offered a 
    substantive amendment to section 5 of this bill. The amendment has 
    been read in its entirety and will appear in the Record of the 
    proceedings of today.
        Against this amendment the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) 
    has made a point of order as follows:

            That the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
        (Mr. Moss) is not germane to the bill or to the section of the 
        bill to which it is presently offered.

        The Chair had, of course, anticipated that further questions 
    regarding the germaneness of amendments to section 5 might arise 
    today, and for that reason the Chair has reviewed the actions taken 
    by the Committee of the Whole on yesterday.
        The Chair has carefully read and fully attempted to analyze 
    each line of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Moss).
        The Chair has diligently endeavored to understand the full 
    import and the total impact of the amendment which the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Moss) has offered. Section 5 of the bill was 
    amended by the amendment offered yesterday by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Holifield), so that the preface to that section now 
    reads as follows:

            To meet the energy needs of the Nation for the foreseeable 
        future, the Administrator, to the extent expressly authorized 
        by other sections of this Act or any other provisions of law. . 
        . .

        There follows in section 5 a list of functions which define the 
    broad areas in which the Administrator may act. This list on 
    enumeration of functions, as the Chair stated yesterday, is, of 
    course, subject to germane amendment. Whether additional functions 
    relating to the energy needs of the Nation, if added to this list 
    by way of amendment, would be authorized by other provisions of 
    this bill or by other law, is a legal question and not a 
    parliamentary question.

[[Page 8727]]

        Whether or not a function given the Administrator under section 
    5 is authorized by existing law is a matter that goes to the effect 
    of the amendment and not to the question as to whether or not it is 
    germane.
        The Chair does not, under the precedents, rule on questions of 
    the consistency of amendments or upon their legal effect. The 
    question upon which the Chair must now rule is, ``Is the amendment 
    in its entirety as offered by the gentleman from California germane 
    to section 5 of the bill H.R. 11793?''
        The Chair will state that section 5 sets forth the functions of 
    the Administrator, and on yesterday the Chair enumerated some of 
    the functions. The section includes a broad range of functions and 
    duties, and under the rules of germaneness other related functions 
    could be added to the list by way of amendment. Functions or duties 
    could also be limited by way of amendment, but substantive law 
    cannot be changed by an amendment to a section dealing with 
    functions.
        Much of what the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss) and 
    others have said is true. Much of the amendment offered deals with 
    functions, and part of the amendment purports to modify the 
    Administrator's functions; but portions of the amendment extend 
    further than defining, restricting, or limiting the functions of 
    the Administrator.
        It should be borne in mind that section 5 of this bill relates 
    to the functions of the Administrator of the Federal Energy 
    Administration. Although part of the amendment does define and 
    limit the functions of the Administrator, other portions of the 
    amendment place a mandatory burden on him or, even without action 
    on his part, effectively change existing law and pricing authority.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from New York.

--Amendment To Prohibit Administrator From Setting Domestic Oil Prices 
    Above Certain Level

Sec. 33.14 To a section of a bill prescribing the functions of a new 
    Federal Energy Administration in meeting the energy needs of the 
    Nation, amended to limit exercise of those functions ``to the 
    extent expressly authorized by other sections of the bill or any 
    other provisions of law,'' an amendment prohibiting the 
    Administrator from setting ceiling prices for domestic crude oil 
    above a designated level in the exercise of the authority 
    transferred to him in the bill was held a germane limitation not 
    directly amending existing law, on the discretionary authority 
    conferred in that section.

    During consideration of the Federal Energy Administration Act (H.R. 
11793) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 6, 1974,(4) the

[[Page 8728]]

Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 5444-46, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell: Page 19 at the end of 
        line 7 strike the semicolon and add the following: ``The 
        Administrator, in exercising the functions transferred by this 
        Act, may not fix the price for domestic crude oil higher than 
        the price prevailing in the United States on May 15, 1973, plus 
        $1.30 per barrel; or $5.25 per barrel plus 35 per centum 
        thereof, if he finds it consistent with the purposes of this 
        Act.''. . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    amends a section of the Economic Stabilization Act that is not 
    involved in this bill. For that reason and the other reasons I have 
    previously stated, I make the point of order that this amendment is 
    nongermane. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: . . . Mr. Chairman, the question before us is, 
    what is the nature of the amendment and to what statute does the 
    amendment apply. The amendment is first of all, Mr. Chairman, a 
    limitation on the powers which may be exercised.
        As the Chair will observe, the amendment relates to section 5, 
    which is entitled, ``Functions,'' which appears in line 10 on page 
    18. The Chair will note that in the sections transferred under 
    section 5 at line 3, page 19, the administrator shall, and then he 
    is directed to do the following:

            (5) Promote stability in energy prices to the consumer, 
        promote free and open competition in all aspects of the energy 
        field, prevent unreasonable profits within the various segments 
        of the energy industry, and promote free enterprise;

        Mr. Chairman, to recapitulate briefly, this amendment relates 
    to functions which are transferred to the administrator from other 
    agencies in Government. It refers specifically only to the powers 
    which are vested in him by the transfers accomplished under this 
    bill.
        Referring to page 19, line 3, the administrator would have the 
    duty transferred to him, and I am now quoting section 5:

            Promote stability in energy prices to the consumer, promote 
        free and open competition in all aspects of the energy field, 
        prevent unreasonable profits within the various segments of the 
        energy industry, and promote free enterprise;

        Now, the administrator in exercising these functions as listed 
    above would not be able to fix prices for domestic crude oil higher 
    than the price prevailing in the United States on May 15, 1973, 
    plus the additional limitations which he could add if he were to 
    feel that it were to be consistent with the purposes of the act.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment here is a limitation of the 
    functions to be transferred and the powers which would be 
    transferred. Clearly, this would then be a germane amendment 
    because the amendment does not add, but rather subtracts, limits 
    and restricts the functions and powers and prerogatives which would 
    be vested in the administrator. It adds nothing that is not in the 
    bill now, but rather limits significantly the powers which would be 
    vested in the administrator.
        For that reason, I submit to the Chair that the amendment is 
    germane.

[[Page 8729]]

        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    support of the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, in my opinion this amendment, by the use of the 
    word ``shall,'' imposes a mandate upon the Administrator. The 
    authors have tried to draw this in the form of a limiting 
    amendment. However, it actually says ``shall.'' It says, ``Shall 
    fix the price for domestic crude oil,'' and then it goes on and 
    says no higher than a certain amount and by a certain date and 
    $1.30 per barrel plus 35 percent of $5.25, if he finds it 
    consistent with the act. Therefore, actually, it mandates a duty 
    upon the Administrator and it interferes, in my opinion, with the 
    general mandate that he should stabilize the functions where the 
    bill promotes stability in energy prices to the consumer.
        That is the general statement of the objective, but it does not 
    tell the Administrator how to do it. This tells the Administrator 
    how to do it, and also imposes upon him certain limitations as to 
    what he can do.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has offered an 
    amendment to section 5 of the bill.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has made a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to 
    the section under consideration. The gentleman from California, 
    speaking in support of the point of order, has stated that the 
    amendment mandates certain action by the Administrator.
        The Chair has carefully studied the language of the amendment 
    and does not interpret any portion thereof as a mandate to set a 
    certain price, because the language of the amendment, as read and 
    to be printed in the Record at this point, does not say, ``shall,'' 
    but, rather, uses the words, ``may not.'' Nor does the amendment 
    amend existing law--the Economic Stabilization Act--as has been 
    suggested.
        Section 5 is a section that includes a broad range of functions 
    and duties. It is clear that functions or duties enumerated therein 
    could be limited by way of amendment.
        The language of this amendment appears to limit the functions 
    stated in section 5 of the bill, and the Chair, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: So that the Chair ruled that 
    the language ``may not'' is permissive. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state in response to the inquiry 
    of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) that the Chair ruled that 
    the language of the amendment was a limitation above which the 
    Administrator could not go in exercising certain functions 
    transferred to it under the provisions of this act.

--Amendment Directing Administrator To Issue Guidelines for Citizens' 
    Fuel Use

Sec. 33.15 To a proposition conferring discretionary authority, an 
    amendment adding a related function or limiting the exercise of 
    that authority is germane; thus, to a section of a bill prescribing 
    the func

[[Page 8730]]

    tions of a new Federal Energy Administration by conferring wide 
    discretionary powers upon the Administrator, an amendment directing 
    the Administrator to issue preliminary summer guidelines for 
    citizens' fuel use was held germane as a further delineation of 
    those functions.

    On Mar. 5 (6) and 6,(7) 1974, the Committee 
of the Whole had under consideration a section of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act (H.R. 11793) stating in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 5301, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. Id. at pp. 5436, 5437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 5. To meet the energy needs of the Nation for the 
    foreseeable future, the Administrator shall--
        (1) advise the President and the Congress with respect to the 
    establishment of a comprehensive national energy policy for the 
    balance of the twentieth century, and in coordination with the 
    Secretary of State, the integration of domestic and foreign 
    policies relating to energy resource management;
        (2) assess the adequacy of energy resources in meeting demands 
    for the immediate and long-range future for all sectors of the 
    economy and for the general public;
        (3) develop effective arrangements for the participation of 
    State and local governments in the resolution of energy problems;
        (4) develop plans and programs for dealing with energy 
    production shortages;
        (5) promote stability in energy prices to the consumer, promote 
    free and open competition in all aspects of the energy field, 
    prevent unreasonable profits within the various segments of the 
    energy industry, and promote free enterprise;
        (6) assure that programs are designed and implemented in a fair 
    and efficient manner so as to minimize hardship and inequity while 
    assuring that the priority needs of the Nation are met;
        (7) develop and oversee the implementation of equitable 
    voluntary and mandatory energy conservation programs and promote 
    efficiencies in the use of energy resources;
        (8) develop and recommend policies on import and export of 
    energy resources;
        (9) collect, evaluate, assemble, and analyze energy information 
    on reserves, production and demand and related economic data;
        (10) identify the need for and take action to expedite the 
    development of energy resources;
        (11) work with business, labor, consumer and other interests 
    and obtain their cooperation; and
        (12) perform such other functions as may be prescribed by law.
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 5 be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. . 
    . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Gunter [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 8731]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Gunter: Page 19, line 23, add the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(11) Issue preliminary summer guidelines for citizen fuel 
        use within 30 days of the enactment of this Act.
            Page 19, line 23, strike out ``(11)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``(12)''.
            Page 20, line 1, strike out ``(12)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``(13)''.

        Mr. Horton: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendments. Basically they are the same arguments I made before and 
    also this sets up a policy or program which is outside the section 
    and not a subject matter of this bill.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gunter: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment is rather simple and easy to 
    understand. It requires the Administrator to issue within 30 days, 
    upon enactment of this act, a preliminary summary. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment as stated would simply require the 
    Administrator, to issue within 30 days upon enactment of this act, 
    preliminary summer guidelines for fuel use which, Mr. Chairman, I 
    think falls within the framework of the section specifying the 
    functions. I do not interpret this particular specification as 
    outside of those programs which are spelled out in the committee 
    report, and in the body of the act.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gunter) has offered an 
    amendment to section 5 of the bill, to which amendment the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of order.
        The Chair has carefully read the language of the amendment, and 
    has carefully listened to the arguments made by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Horton), in support of his point of order, and the 
    arguments made by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gunter), in 
    opposition to the point of order.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the language of the amendment as 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida clearly relates to the 
    functions of the Administrator, which are otherwise enumerated and 
    defined within the section now under consideration.
        The Chair finds nothing in the language of the amendment which 
    mandates the Administrator any more than do the other functions 
    enumerated, nor does the Chair find anything in the amendment which 
    would in any way amend or seek to amend existing law.
        The Chair does not rule now or at any other time on the 
    consistency of amendments; the Chair, therefore, after analyzing 
    the amendment and listening to the argument, rules that the 
    amendment is germane and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

--Amendment To Prohibit Rationing Without Congressional Approval

Sec. 33.16 To a section of a bill prescribing the functions of a new 
    Federal Energy Administration, an amendment prohibiting the 
    promulgation

[[Page 8732]]

    of petroleum rationing rules as an exercise of the authority 
    conferred in that section, without prior approval by Congress 
    (which did not constitute a change in House rules), was held a 
    germane limitation on that discretionary authority.

    On Mar. 6, 1974,(9) during consideration of H.R. 11793 
(10) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman John J. Flynt, 
Jr., of Georgia, overruled a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 120 Cong. Rec. 5439, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Federal Energy Administration Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: Page 20, line 2, strike 
        out the period and insert the following: ``; Provided however, 
        That none of the powers or functions granted to the 
        Administrator under the terms of this Act shall permit the 
        promulgation of any rule or rules providing for the 
        establishment of a program for the rationing among classes of 
        users of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any refined petroleum 
        product, and for the assignment to such users of such products 
        of rights, and evidence of such rights, entitling them to 
        obtain such products in precedence to other classes of users 
        not similarly entitled, without the prior approval of 
        Congress.''. . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment for the reasons that I have stated 
    earlier. In addition, in effect it indirectly amends section 4 of 
    the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act, and it also gives specific 
    negative direction to the administrator in a section which purports 
    to outline the general powers or functions of the administrator. 
    Therefore, I think it is a nongermane amendment, and I ask that the 
    Chair declare it nongermane. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: . . . [T]he amendment specifically states that it 
    applies to the limitations of the powers and functions granted to 
    the administrator under the terms of this act. . . .
        For the . . . reason that this is no more than a limitation on 
    the powers granted in the bill, I think this is perfectly germane. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) has offered an 
    amendment to section 5 of the bill. The gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of order against the amendment on 
    the ground of nongermaneness. The Chair has carefully read the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). It 
    is well settled that section 5 includes a broad range of functions 
    and duties of the administrator. It is clear that under the rules 
    of germaneness, other related functions may be added to the list by 
    way of amendment.
        Also, the functions or duties therein enumerated may be limited 
    by way of amendment.
        The Chair feels that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Maryland is in the nature of a limitation

[[Page 8733]]

    and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

--Limitation on Authority Regarding Setting of Prices for Propane Gas

Sec. 33.17 To a proposition conferring discretionary authority, an 
    amendment limiting the exercise of that authority is germane; thus, 
    to a section of a bill prescribing the functions of a new Federal 
    Energy Administration by conferring wide discretionary powers upon 
    the Administrator, an amendment limiting the authority of the 
    Administrator in setting prices for propane gas by requiring an 
    equitable allocation of costs of production based upon certain 
    delineated standards was held germane where the amendment did not 
    directly amend existing law.

    During consideration of H.R. 11793 (11) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Mar. 5, 1974,(12) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The Federal Energy Administration Act.
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 5309, 5310, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Page 20, after line 2, 
        insert the following new subsection:
            (13) in administering any pricing authority, by rule, 
        provide for equitable allocation of all component costs of 
        producing propane gas. Such rules may require that (a) only 
        those costs directly related to the production of propane may 
        be allocated by any producer to such gas for purposes of 
        establishing any price for propane, and (b) prices for propane 
        shall be based on the prices for propane in effect on May 15, 
        1973. . . .

    Mr. Frank Horton, of New York, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane, and referred to the arguments he had 
successfully used against a prior amendment, which had sought directly 
to amend a statute not amended by the bill.(13) In addition 
to arguing on the basis of committee jurisdiction of the subject matter 
of the bill and amendment, he had sought to establish that the bill's 
purpose was to change the organizational structure through which energy 
programs were administered, without changing substantive laws and 
without changing policies or granting authority to substantially change 
existing programs, so that an amendment which in effect sought to 
achieve the latter would not be germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 120 Cong. Rec. 5306-08, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 5, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York in 
    raising a

[[Page 8734]]

    point of order with reference to my amendment addresses himself to 
    the transfer of functions, which is the entire basis of his 
    argument.
        I point out to the Chairman that the transfer of functions is 
    achieved under section 6, page 20, of the bill entitled 
    ``Transfers.''
        My amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to section 5 entitled 
    ``Functions.''
        While this bill establishes a new Federal Energy Administration 
    for administering the authority transferred to it by the enactment 
    of this bill, it also grants authority to exercise the power of 
    discretion.
        Discretion with respect to the establishment of a comprehensive 
    national energy policy for the balance of the 20th century.
        Discretion to develop plans and programs for dealing with 
    energy production shortages.
        Discretion to promote stability in energy prices to the 
    consumer.
        Discretion to prevent unreasonable profits within the various 
    segments of the energy industry.
        And, discretion to assure that programs are designed and 
    implemented in a fair and efficient manner so as to minimize 
    hardships and inequity.
        Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the exercise of previous Federal 
    discretion has in fact caused hardships and inequity--has in fact 
    been unfair--I offer this amendment to limit the discretion of the 
    Administrator granted in this bill so as to insure that he shall, 
    by rule, assure that programs are in fact designed and implemented 
    in a fair and efficient manner so as to minimize hardship and 
    inequity.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander) has offered an 
    amendment on page 20, after line 2. . . .
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is a nongermane 
    amendment and on the ground that it seeks to amend existing law.
        The Chair has carefully examined the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander) and has listened carefully 
    to the arguments made in support of the point of order by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) and the arguments made against 
    the point of order by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander). 
    The Chair does not find anything in the amendment which seeks to 
    amend any existing law.
        The Chair has referred to volume VIII, Cannon's Precedents, 
    sections 3022 and 3023, where it is stated that to a provision 
    delegating certain powers a proposal to limit such powers is 
    germane.
        To a section authorizing the Interstate Commerce Commission to 
    change rates, an amendment providing that the Commission in making 
    such changes shall not increase rates was held to be germane.
        To a proposal to grant certain authority, an amendment proposed 
    to limit such authority is germane.
        To a bill authorizing the imposition of war risk insurance to 
    insure vessels, an amendment denying such insurance to vessels 
    charging exorbitant rates was held to be germane.
        The pending section, as the Chair points out, contains a list 
    of functions or authority.

[[Page 8735]]

        The Chair will again point out that committee jurisdiction is 
    not the sole test of germaneness. The primary test is always the 
    relationship of the amendment to the text of the bill to which it 
    is offered.

        Section 5 of the bill under consideration sets forth the 
    functions of the Administrator. Under the provisions of section 5 
    the Administrator is directed to engage in the following:
        To advise the President and the Congress on energy policies; 
    assess the adequacy of energy resources; develop plans and programs 
    for dealing with energy production shortages; promote stability in 
    energy prices and prevent unreasonable profits; assure that 
    programs are designed and implemented to assure the priority needs 
    of the Nation are met; develop and oversee voluntary and mandatory 
    energy conservation programs; recommend policies on import and 
    export policy; and take action to expedite development of energy 
    resources.
        This section includes a broad range of powers; therefore it is 
    clear that to the list functions so enumerated in this section, 
    other related functions could be added by way of amendment. It is 
    also clear that these functions or duties could be limited by way 
    of amendment. For these reasons, the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Energy Conservation Measures by Civil Aeronautics Board--Amendment To 
    Require Congressional Approval of Revisions of Airline Flights

Sec. 33.18 To a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    providing that the Civil Aeronautics Board and other regulatory 
    agencies shall have authority within their jurisdictions to take 
    actions to conserve energy, an amendment requiring Congressional 
    approval of revisions of scheduled airline flights (but not 
    amending the rules of the House) was held germane as a restriction 
    on the authority granted in that section.

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (H.R. 11450) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 14, 1973,(15) the Chair 
held germane an amendment to the following section of an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 41746, 41747, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        sec. 107. regulated carriers.

        (a) Agency Authority.--The Interstate Commerce Commission (with 
    respect to common or contract carriers subject to economic 
    regulation under the Interstate Commerce Act), the Civil 
    Aeronautics Board, and the Federal Maritime Commission shall, for 
    the duration of the period beginning on the date of enactment of 
    this Act and ending on May 15, 1975, have authority to take any 
    action for the purpose of conserving energy consumption in a manner 
    found by such Commission or Board to be consistent with the 
    objectives and purposes of the Acts adminis

[[Page 8736]]

    tered by such Commission or Board on its own motion or on the 
    petition of the Administrator which existing law permits such 
    Commission or Board to take upon the motion or petition of any 
    regulated common or contract carrier or other person. . . .
        (c) Reports.--Within sixty days after the date of enactment of 
    this Act, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Maritime 
    Commission, and the Interstate Commerce Commission shall report 
    separately to the appropriate committees of the Congress on the 
    need for additional regulatory authority in order to conserve fuel 
    during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act 
    and ending on May 15, 1975, while continuing to provide for the 
    public convenience and necessity. . . .
    Each such report shall further make recommendations with respect to 
    changes in any existing fuel allocation programs which are deemed 
    necessary to provide for the public convenience and necessity 
    during such period.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois] to 
        the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: on Page 16 following 
        line 14, add the following newparagraph and renumber the 
        ensuing paragraphs accordingly:
            ``(c) The revision of regular airline schedules, including 
        the elimination of scheduled flights shall be permitted only 
        pursuant to authority granted by the Civil Aeronautics Board. 
        In exercising this authority, the Civil Aeronautics Board shall 
        report to both Houses of the Congress within 30 days following 
        such approved revision of plane schedules or elimination of 
        regularly scheduled plane flights. The Civil Aeronautics Board 
        shall be empowered to reinstate any such revised plane 
        schedules or elimination of commercial air flights as to which 
        both Houses of Congress shall by affirmative vote overrule any 
        such orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and with respect to 
        which the Congress shall find that such joint Congressional 
        action shall not jeopardize the energy control purposes of this 
        legislation.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    substitutes an entirely new procedure and requires a proceedings 
    essentially similar to or identical to that required by the 
    Reorganization Act on reorganization in connection with actions to 
    be taken by a Federal regulatory agency. Nowhere else in the bill 
    which is now before us is any language imposing that kind of a 
    procedure or process of congressional approval over the Federal 
    regulatory agencies.
        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane and 
    falls as violative of the rule of germaneness. Since we are not 
    engaging in an action or after an authority to the regulatory 
    agency involved, but rather to set up an entirely new procedure 
    involving congressional action, congressional approval of agency 
    actions through a device which is totally different than that found 
    anywhere else in the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the language 
    appearing on

[[Page 8737]]

    page 15, section 107. It appears to the Chair that insofar as the 
    amendment is concerned, it represents a restriction in the exercise 
    of the power outlined in section 107(a), so the Chair feels that 
    the amendment is germane to the matter and overrules the point of 
    order.

Broad Authority To Minimize Effect of Energy Emergency Act on 
    Employment--Amendment Directing Particular Means to Assist 
    Unemployed

Sec. 33.19 To a proposition conferring a broad authority to accomplish 
    a particular result, an amendment authorizing and directing a 
    specific approach to be taken in the exercise of such authority is 
    germane; thus, to a section of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute directing the president to minimize any adverse impact 
    upon employment because of actions taken under the Energy Emergency 
    Act to conserve energy resources, an amendment authorizing grants 
    to states for assistance to individuals unemployed as the result of 
    administration of that Act and not eligible for assistance under 
    other unemployment compensation programs was held to be germane.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(17) during consideration of H.R. 11450 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that 
a specific proposition is germane to a proposition more general in 
scope, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, holding an amendment to 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute to be germane, as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 41732, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The Energy Emergency Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        sec. 122. employment impact and worker assistance.

            (a) Carrying out his responsibilities under this Act, the 
        President shall take into consideration and shall minimize, to 
        the fullest extent practicable, any adverse impact of actions 
        taken pursuant to this Act upon employment. All agencies of 
        government shall cooperate fully under their existing statutory 
        authority to minimize any such adverse impact.
            (b) On or before the sixtieth day following the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the President shall report to the 
        Congress concerning the present and prospective impact of 
        energy shortages upon employment. Such report shall contain an 
        assessment of the adequacy of existing programs in meeting the 
        needs of adversely affected workers and shall include 
        legislative recommendations which the President deems 
        appropriate to meet such needs, including revisions in the 
        unemployment insurance laws.

        Mr. [Ronald A.] Sarasin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the

[[Page 8738]]

    gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sarasin to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 44, after 
        line 12, insert the following:
            (b) The President is authorized and directed to make grants 
        to States to provide to any individual unemployed, if such 
        unemployment resulted from the administration and enforcement 
        of this Act and was in no way due to the fault of such 
        individual, such assistance as the President deems appropriate 
        while such individual is unemployed. Such assistance as a State 
        shall provide under such a grant shall be available to 
        individuals not otherwise eligible for unemployment 
        compensation and individuals who have otherwise exhausted their 
        eligibility for such unemployment compensation, and shall 
        continue as long as unemployment in the area caused by such 
        administration and enforcement continues (but not less than six 
        months) or until the individual is reemployed in a suitable 
        position, but not longer than two years after the individual 
        becomes eligible for such assistance. Such assistance shall not 
        exceed the maximum weekly amount under the unemployment 
        compensation program of the State in which the employment loss 
        occurred. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment, that the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill.
        I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane to 
    the section. . . .
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, my point in 
    supporting the point of order raised by the gentleman from Michigan 
    is that the Unemployment Compensation Act is not being amended in 
    any place in this act. The gentleman in the well is attempting to 
    amend the Unemployment Compensation Act.
        I happen to be rather familiar with it; it is one of the acts 
    that is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    and I am sure it is not within the scope of this act at all. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: . . . As the Chair will note, the bill in 
    subsection (a) of section 122, which is amended, provides for the 
    President taking certain actions to minimize the impact of the 
    adverse effect of the act. In the second part, the President is 
    directed to perform a study.
        As the Chair will note, the amendment offered by my good friend 
    from Connecticut--and I commend him for offering it; it is an 
    amendment that appears to have a great deal of merit--but I would 
    point out it is not an amendment which is germane, because the 
    amendment directs the President and the States to provide for 
    individual unemployed and to make payments for unemployment.
        It relates to the eligibility of unemployed for compensation 
    and Federal grants which in turn support the unemployment 
    compensation, and also authorizes appropriations, which is not 
    authorized in the act before us.
        It is for those reasons, since some of the provisions are 
    carried elsewhere in the bill or in the section before us, it is 
    obvious the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Sarasin: . . . On line 7, page 44, the first section of 
    paragraph A, it says:

[[Page 8739]]

            Carrying out his responsibilities under this Act, the 
        President shall take into consideration and shall minimize, to 
        the fullest extent practicable, any adverse impact of actions 
        taken pursuant to this Act upon employment.

        It is the responsibility of various agencies. I do not see that 
    this amendment I have offered to authorize the President to make 
    grants to States providing assistance to any individual unemployed, 
    if such unemployment is resulting from the administration and 
    enforcement of this act, is nongermane.
        It would seem to me that it certainly is a logical extension of 
    what is in here within section 122 as it now stands.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair will state that the section sought to be amended by 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    Sarasin), as he has just read it, directs the President, in 
    carrying out his responsibilities under this act, that he shall 
    take into consideration and shall minimize, to the fullest extent 
    practicable, any adverse impact of actions taken pursuant to this 
    act upon unemployment.
        The amendment does not amend another act. It seeks to provide 
    an authorization for a specific approach for the carrying out of 
    the broad authority bestowed upon the President to ``minimize'' 
    adverse impact of actions taken under the act.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order, and, under 
    clause 6 of rule XXIII, recognizes the gentleman for 5 minutes.

Authority of Price Control Administrator

Sec. 33.20 To a bill amending the Price Control Act of 1942 and 
    containing provisions relating to powers of the Administrator under 
    that act, an amendment was held to be germane which proposed 
    further restrictions and limitations on the authority of the 
    Administrator and employees of the Office of Price Administration, 
    especially with respect to the authority to impose penalties.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(19) to extend the period of operation of the Emergency 
Price Control Act of 1942, the following amendment was offered: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 4941 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
20.  90 Cong. Rec. 5713, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John] Jennings [Jr., of Tennessee]: 
    On page 12, line 2, add a new paragraph as follows:

            Sec. 2. Section 201 of the Emergency Price Control Act of 
        1942, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(f) . . . No person, who in good faith acts upon a 
        written interpretation of any . . . regulation . . . of the 
        Office of Price Administration made by any official authorized 
        by the Price Administrator . . . shall be subjected to any 
        penalty . . unless such interpretation shall have been revoked 
        and notice of such revocation shall have been given. . . .''

[[Page 8740]]

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

        Mr. [A. S. Mike] Monroney [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to 
    this bill. It involves the rationing powers conferred on the O.P.A. 
    by Executive order under authority of the Second War Powers Act, 
    and thus is not germane to price control.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 2. 90 Cong. Rec. 5714, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he pending bill provides for amendment to the 
    Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and contains provisions 
    relating to the Administrator of that act and imposes certain 
    limitations and restrictions on the Administrator. The Chair is of 
    the opinion that the pending amendment also seeks to impose certain 
    restrictions and limitations on the Administrator of the Emergency 
    Price Control Act of 1942. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.

Price and Wage Stabilization--Jurisdiction of Bureau of Internal 
    Revenue

Sec. 33.21 To a bill amending and extending an act providing for price 
    and wage stabilization, an amendment was held to be germane which 
    sought to give to the Bureau of Internal Revenue jurisdiction over 
    stabilization of salaries of executive and professional personnel, 
    and which incorporated by reference certain definitions of terms 
    contained in existing laws.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Defense Production 
Act Amendments of 1952,(3) the following amendment was 
offered: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 821 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 4. 98 Cong. Rec. 8061, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 25, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Cole of Kansas: Page 9, line 3, insert 
    a new section as follows:

            Sec. 110. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this 
        section, administration of salary stabilization for executive, 
        administrative, supervisory, and professional personnel shall 
        be under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, 
        under stabilization policies promulgated by the Economic 
        Stabilization Administrator. The term ``supervisory personnel'' 
        as used herein shall have the same meaning as the term 
        ``supervisor'' as defined by the ``Labor-Management Relations 
        Act, 1947,'' and the terms ``executive,'' ``administrative,'' 
        and ``professional'' shall have the same meaning as the 
        corresponding terms as defined in existing regulations of the 
        Administrator for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

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

[[Page 8741]]

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill but attempts to amend other legislation that is 
    not before us. It attempts to impose other duties upon the Bureau 
    of Internal Revenue, Treasury Department, and also attempts to 
    change the Fair Labor Standards Act.

    Mr. Albert M. Cole, of Kansas, who had offered the amendment, 
stated:

        The amendment . . . merely transfers the responsibility of 
    salary stabilization from the Wage Stabilization Board to the 
    Bureau of Internal Revenue. . . .

    Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, also speaking in defense of the 
amendment, stated:

        . . . The manner of stabilizing salaries and wages surely is 
    not only germane to the bill, because the bill compels the 
    President to stabilize wages and salaries when he controls prices, 
    but in this particular section he is compelled to stabilize wages 
    and salaries, even though the present act was silent on the manner 
    in which he stabilizes salaries. An amendment which provides the 
    machinery for stabilization of salaries would surely be in order.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 6. 98 Cong. Rec. 8062, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 25, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Cole] proposes to change the existing 
    provisions of section 403 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 as 
    amended) by making specific, whereas 403 now leaves discretion.
        The Chair is of the opinion, therefore, that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Cole] is germane. . . .

Discretion of Interstate Commerce Commission in Establishing Rates of 
    Common Carriers

Sec. 33.22 To a bill granting discretion to the Interstate Commerce 
    Commission in establishing rates charged by common carriers, an 
    amendment prohibiting rate increases was held to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a bill (7) 
to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, the following amendment was 
offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 1668 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 3486, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 14, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John R.] Murdock of Arizona: On page 
    2, line 17, after the word ``act'', strike out the period, insert a 
    colon and the words ``And provided further, That rates, fares, or 
    charges existing at the time of the passage of this act to or from

[[Page 8742]]

    points other than water ports shall not be increased.''

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

        Mr. [Samuel P.] Pettengill [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane, because, as I 
    understand it, if agreed to, it would freeze every rate, fare, and 
    charge in the United States, and would forever forbid the 
    Interstate Commerce Commission to permit any change thereafter to 
    be made. Therefore it is not germane to the section of the bill or 
    to the bill itself which was intended to give the Interstate 
    Commerce Commission full authority from time to time to agree to 
    the raising or lowering of rates.

    The Chairman,(9) rejecting the argument that ``the 
purpose of this bill is the fixing of rates,'' sustained the point of 
order. The Chairman commented that the amendment sought ``to accomplish 
directly the opposite purpose to that set forth in the bill.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. J. Mark Wilcox (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority of Carriers of Coal by Pipeline--Reference to Rules Affecting 
    Contracts of Railroad Carriers as Measure of Duration of Contracts 
    of Coal Carriers

Sec. 33.23 An amendment limiting authorities conferred in a bill may be 
    germane if restricted to those authorities, though incorporating as 
    a term of measurement qualifications applicable to authorities 
    beyond the scope of the bill; thus, to a bill authorizing the 
    carriage of coal by pipeline and the exercise of the power of 
    eminent domain by carriers licensed under the bill, an amendment 
    limiting the duration of contracts by a ``carrier'' to the maximum 
    duration of similar contracts by railroad carriers was held germane 
    as a limitation on powers granted in the bill (``carrier'' being 
    defined in the bill as a carrier of coal by coal pipeline subject 
    to the provisions of the bill), which did not limit authorities of 
    rail-carriers.

    On July 19, 1978,(10) during consideration of H.R. 1609 
(the Coal Pipeline Act of 1978) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 21703, 21704, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ichord: At the end of section 5 of 
        the amendment in the nature of a substitute, add the following 
        new subsection:

[[Page 8743]]

            (h) No carrier may enter into any contract or agreement 
        with any person to transport coal for a period of time which is 
        longer than the longest period of time during which any common 
        carrier by railroad may transport coal for any person pursuant 
        to any contract or agreement authorized under the Interstate 
        Commerce Act. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I . . . insist on 
    my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is doing much more than 
    affecting just coal slurry pipelines. The provision is as follows:

            No carrier may enter into any contract or agreement with 
        any person to transport coal for a period of time which is 
        longer than the longest period of time during which any common 
        carrier by railroad may transport coal for any person pursuant 
        to any contract or agreement authorized under the Interstate 
        Commerce Act.

        As I read this amendment it amends the Interstate Commerce Act 
    to provide that the period of time permissible or required or limit 
    for a railroad to permit a contract is applicable to all other 
    carriers. . . .
        Mr. Ichord: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the Chair that 
    it does not touch the Interstate Commerce Act at all. It does not 
    touch the operations of railroads at all. All it says is that these 
    contracts shall not be permitted to be longer than those permitted 
    by the railroads.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had opportunity to study this amendment. The term 
    ``carrier'' as defined in the Udall substitute which would apply to 
    this amendment means carrier of coal by coal pipeline. It does not 
    refer to other types of carriers. The limitation involved in the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ichord) 
    applies to the duration of contracts of coal slurry pipeline 
    carriers. It only refers to the duration of railroad contracts as a 
    term of measurement. It does not seek to reach out to contracts of 
    other types of carriers beyond the coal pipeline carriers and, 
    therefore, does not affect railroad contracts or any carriers in 
    other ways. Therefore, the amendment is germane.
        The point of order is overruled.

Authorization of Funds To Carry Out Urban Mass Transportation Act--
    ``Buy America'' Restrictions on Contracts Not Requiring Use of 
    American-made Goods

Sec. 33.24 To a bill granting authorities to the federal government or 
    authorizing the appropriation of funds, an amendment prohibiting 
    the use of those authorities or funds to purchase foreign-made 
    goods or equipment is germane; thus, to an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute comprehensively amending the Urban Mass 
    Transportation Act and authorizing the appropriation of funds to 
    carry out that

[[Page 8744]]

    Act, an amendment amending the Act to prohibit the obligation of 
    funds authorized to be appropriated thereunder for certain 
    contracts unless a certain percentage of American-made goods be 
    used pursuant to the contract was held germane, as a restriction on 
    the broad authorities granted in the bill, and as an incorporation 
    of provisions of another Act which in effect already amended the 
    Urban Mass Transportation Act.

    On Dec. 4, 1980,(12) during consideration of the Surface 
Transportation Act of 1980 (H.R. 6417) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 126 Cong. Rec. 32169, 32170, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James L.] Oberstar [of Minnesota] to 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Howard, 
    as amended: Page 44, after line 7, insert the following:

                                  buy america

            Sec. 225. (a) Section 12 of the Urban Mass Transportation 
        Act of 1964 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(h)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        Secretary of Transportation shall not obligate any funds 
        authorized to be appropriated by this Act for any project 
        contract whose total cost exceeds $500,000 unless only such 
        unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been 
        mined or produced in the United States, and only such 
        manufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been 
        manufactured in the United States at least 50 per centum from 
        articles, materials, and supplies mined, produced, or 
        manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States, will be 
        used in such project contract. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the Oberstar amendment seeks to introduce a new 
    subject which is part neither of this bill nor of the statue which 
    this bill seeks to amend. The Oberstar amendment would introduce a 
    Buy America requirement, through which funds will be limited, into 
    the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964, where none now exists, and in 
    so doing, it repeals the similar provision that currently exists in 
    the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978. It is an attempt 
    to amend the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 by 
    adding to the statute which this bill amends and repealing it where 
    it currently exists.
        It may be argued that the amendments made by this bill are 
    sufficiently broad to open the entire 1964 act for amendment. But 
    the 1964 act contains no such domestic content provision.
        The Oberstar amendment introduces a new subject, and couching 
    it in language that tacks the provision on at the end of the 
    existing section of the

[[Page 8745]]

    1964 act is not enough to make it germane.

        The Oberstar amendment really amends the Surface Transportation 
    Act of 1978, an act which itself amended the 1964 act.
        I submit that regardless of whether H.R. 6417 is broad enough 
    to open the entire 1964 act for amendment, it is not broad enough 
    to open other acts for amendments as well, and neither is it broad 
    enough to render germane any new subject, even though not addressed 
    either in this bill or the act it omits. . . .
        Mr. Oberstar: . . . I rise in opposition to the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering is to the Howard 
    substitute, which is substantially broad enough to admit an 
    amendment dealing with the Buy America Act, which is a part of the 
    original Urban Mass Transit Act. There was a Buy America provision 
    in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, which 
    provided that a final manufactured article should be substantially 
    all-American produced and established the 10-percent price 
    differential between foreign and domestic bids.
        My amendment would broaden that language, which is existing law 
    somewhat, and is perfectly in order because it is an amendment to 
    the Howard substitute and is restricted entirely to the language of 
    the Urban Mass Transportation Act and does not, as the gentleman 
    from Minnesota suggested, go beyond the provisions of the Urban 
    Mass Transportation Act. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has heard the aqrguments of both the maker of the 
    point of order and the opponent of it, and the Chair is constrained 
    to agree with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the 
    amendment amends only the Urban Mass Transportation Act. That law 
    in 1978 was in effect amended by the Buy America title contained in 
    the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and the pending 
    amendment only alters the effect of the 1978 law as it relates to 
    authorities under UMTA. On two previous occasions, Buy America 
    amendments have been held germane when offered to bills, 
    comprehensively amending existing laws and drafted as restrictions 
    on authorities contained in those laws.
        The first was on May 7, 1959, when Chairman Bass held germane 
    to a bill permitting the Tennessee Valley Authority to raise 
    capital by issuance of bonds, an amendment prohibiting use of such 
    funds to purchase foreign-made equipment. On another occasion 
    perhaps the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) will recall, 
    when he made a similar point of order to the Outer Continental 
    Shelf Lands Act amendments; and the chairman of the committee at 
    that time, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher), on July 21, 
    1976, held the amendment to be in order. These precedents are 
    contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, sections 4.27 and 
    23.7.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Authority of Secretary of Interior

Sec. 33.25 To that section of a bill authorizing the Secretary of

[[Page 8746]]

    the Interior to promulgate regulations in order to put the bill's 
    provisions into effect, an amendment limiting the Secretary's 
    authority by requiring him, before promulgating such regulations, 
    to consult with persons who would be affected by the regulations 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration to provide subsistence for Eskimos and other natives of 
Alaska in all branches of the reindeer industry. The bill stated in 
part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. S. 1722 (Committee on Territories).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 12. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to 
    promulgate such rules and regulations as, in his judgment, are 
    necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this act.

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dimond: Page 7, line 21, after the 
    period, insert the following:

            Prior to the promulgation of any such rules and regulations 
        the Secretary of the Interior shall endeavor to ascertain the 
        views of the natives of Alaska who may be affected thereby as 
        to the nature of the rules and regulations desirable for making 
        effective the provisions of this act. . . .

    Mr. John Taber, of New York, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. Mr. Anthony J. Dimond, of 
Alaska, in response to the point of order, stated:

        The proposed amendment merely provides that prior to the making 
    and promulgation of such rules and regulations, the Secretary of 
    the Interior shall consult with the natives affected and endeavor 
    to ascertain their wishes. It does not take away any power 
    conferred by the act upon the Secretary of the Interior. It is 
    intensely and intimately related to the provisions of section 12.

    The Chairman,(15) overruled the point of 
order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Arthur H. Greenwood (Ind.).
16. See the proceedings at 81 Cong. Rec. 9491, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Aug. 20, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority of Secretary of Agriculture

Sec. 33.26 To a bill granting authority to an executive officer to 
    employ persons to assist in exercising powers and duties conferred 
    by the act, an amendment placing limitations upon such authority by 
    specifying certain requirements as to the employment or separation 
    of persons was held to be germane.

[[Page 8747]]

    On June 29, 1937, the farm tenancy bill (17) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 7562 (Committee on Agriculture).
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 6574, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Title IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                        farm security administration

        Section 41. (a) The Secretary shall establish in the Department 
    of Agriculture a Farm Security Administration to assist him in the 
    exercise of the powers and duties conferred by this act.
        (b) For the purposes of this act, the Secretary shall have 
    power to--
        (1) Appoint (without regard to the civil-service laws and 
    regulations) and fix the compensation of such officers and 
    employees as may be necessary. . . .

    The following amendment was offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 6578, 6579.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Faddis: On page 11, line 25, after the 
    word ``Territory'', strike out the period, insert a semicolon and 
    the following:

            Provided hereafter, That appointment of persons to the 
        Federal service for employment within the District of Columbia 
        under the provisions of this act, whether such appointment be 
        within the classified civil service or otherwise, shall be 
        apportioned among the several States and the District of 
        Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained at the 
        last preceding census.
            In making separations from the Federal service . . . of 
        persons employed within the District of Columbia under the 
        provisions of this act, the appointing power shall give 
        preference in retention to appointees from States that have not 
        received their share of appointments according to population. . 
        . .

    Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the paragraph or to the bill. He stated: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 6579
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The second paragraph of the amendment treats with making 
    separations from the Federal service through furloughs and 
    otherwise, it deals with employment in the District of Columbia, 
    and so forth.

    Mr. Charles I. Faddis, of Pennsylvania, in response to the point of 
order, stated:

        . . . The portion of the amendment referred to by the gentleman 
    from Texas as treating with separations refers to separations from 
    the Federal service of those coming under the provisions of this 
    bill.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration seeks to vest in the Secretary of 
    Agriculture, by the language beginning in line 3, on page 11, 
    authority to employ certain persons in connection with the 
    operation of the business, the duties and responsibilities of 
    making acquisitions of land, and making those lands available to 
    the classes of persons embraced in the bill.

[[Page 8748]]

        The amendment under consideration is nothing more nor less than 
    a mere limitation on the authority granted by the bill.

        The Chair therefore rules that the amendment is germane to the 
    bill.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration--Authority of 
    Administrator

Sec. 33.27 To a bill authorizing funds for the National Aeronautics and 
    Space Administration, an amendment was held to be germane which 
    prohibited the Administrator from entering contracts for 
    ``support'' services except where certain comparisons had been made 
    between the cost of such contracts and the cost of obtaining the 
    services by directly hiring employees.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
authorizing appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the following amendment was offered: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 10340 (Committee on Science and Astronautics).
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 17748, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Hardy to H.R. 10340, as reported: On 
    page 5, after line 22, insert the following:

            (h) After January 1, 1968, no support service contract in 
        the amount of $100,000 or more shall be awarded, renewed or 
        extended unless--
            (1) A study has been made showing the relative cost of 
        obtaining the services through contract and through direct hire 
        employees . . . and
            (2) The Administrator has made a written determination 
        (with respect to cost or necessity of obtaining services by the 
        methods specified).
            The Administrator shall maintain a central file of the 
        determinations made pursuant to clause (2) of this subsection 
        and shall make them available upon request to the Senate and 
        the House of Representatives. . . . As used in this subsection 
        the term ``support service contract'' does not include 
        contracts for the production of commercial and industrial 
        products or for the construction of facilities.

    Mr. George P. Miller, of California, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill. In defense of the amendment, 
the proponent, Mr. Porter Hardy, Jr., of Virginia, stated:

        . . . The bill provides authorizations for NASA's operations, 
    and this amendment would simply require that on their service 
    contracts--and the bill provides for service contracts--this 
    amendment would be a limitation upon the manner in which they could 
    engage in service contracts.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It appears to the Chair that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hardy) relates to

[[Page 8749]]

    contracts under the terms of the authorization bill now under 
    consideration.
        The Chair is constrained to rule that the amendment is germane. 
    . . .

Authority of Administrator of Veterans' Affairs To Establish Interest 
    Rates for Loans

Sec. 33.28 To the proposition that the Administrator of Veterans' 
    Affairs be authorized to establish a maximum interest rate for 
    loans, an amendment stating that ``the rate fixed shall not be 
    higher than the FHA rate'' was held germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
extending the authority of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to 
set interest rates on mortgages. An amendment was offered 
(6) as described above. The following exchange concerned a 
point of order raised against the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 13369 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 27351, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 29, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John P.] Saylor [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman makes his point too 
    late. The gentleman from Texas was recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Saylor: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet trying to get 
    recognition. . . . [The Chair then stated that he would hear Mr. 
    Saylor on the point of order.]
        Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the gentleman's 
    amendment comes too late. The committee amendment has been adopted.
        The Chairman: The committee amendment, as amended, is still 
    pending. . . .
        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a further point 
    of order, and I was on my feet when the gentleman offered his 
    amendment. His amendment is not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania made a point of order and the Chairman recognized 
    the gentleman for that purpose. The Chair never ruled against the 
    point of order of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair intended to rule against the point of 
    order of the gentleman from Pennsylvania because the premise of his 
    point of order was not factual. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    made the point of order on the hypothesis that the committee 
    amendment to the bill had been adopted. . . .

    Subsequently, the Chairman, overruling the point of order raised by 
Mr. Teague, stated:

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Patman) offered an amendment to 
    the amendment of the committee. The committee amendment gives the 
    Administrator authority to set the interest and the amendment of 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Patman) establishes a maximum 
    interest.

[[Page 8750]]

Participation in International Development Association--Direction to 
    United States Representative To Oppose Certain Loans

Sec. 33.29 To a bill containing diverse sections (1) continuing United 
    States participation under the International Development 
    Association Act; and (2) repealing existing law which prohibited 
    United States citizens from holding gold, an amendment adding a new 
    section at the end of the bill directing the United States 
    representative to IDA to oppose loans to nations not party to a 
    nuclear non-proliferation treaty was held in order as a germane 
    restriction on authority contained in section 1 of the bill.

    On July 2, 1974,(8) during consideration of the 
International Development Association Act (9) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order against an 
amendment, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 22029, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. H.R. 15465.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Maryland: Page 2, 
        immediately after line 20, insert the following:
            Sec. 3. The International Development Association Act (22 
        U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by inserting at the end thereof 
        the following:
            ``Sec. 15. The United States Governor is authorized and 
        directed to vote against any loan or other utilization of the 
        funds of the Association for the benefit of any country which 
        develops any nuclear explosive device, unless the country is or 
        becomes a State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
        Nuclear Weapons (21 UST 483).''
            Redesignate the succeeding section accordingly.

        Mr. [Charles W.] Whalen [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . . [T]he Chair has ruled 
    that the amendment previously offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Biaggi) was out of order because it should have been 
    offered during the committee's consideration of section 1 which 
    deals directly with the International Development Association.
        Mr. Chairman, this is a very similar amendment to the one 
    previously ruled out of order, except it creates a new section 
    instead of amending an existing one.
        This is an effort to thwart the Chair's earlier ruling. 
    Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Maryland 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Long of Maryland: I should respond by saying that the 
    gentleman's objection is specious. The amendment

[[Page 8751]]

    is a genuine amendment. It fits in logically in the place that it 
    is offered. I see no substance at all to the point of order.

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Ohio.
        The Chair would observe that when the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Biaggi) offered his amendment it was ruled out of order 
    because section 2 of the bill had already been read; but since the 
    pending amendment is offered as a separate subsequent section, as a 
    new section 3, the amendment is in order and the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.
        The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An amendment in the form of a new section 
at the end of a bill 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.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority of Export-Import Bank--Amendment To Require Consideration of 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission Data in Transactions Involving 
    Nuclear Reactor Sales

Sec. 33.30 To a bill extending the authorities of one agency, including 
    requirements for consultation with several other agencies, an 
    amendment requiring that agency to perform a function based upon an 
    analysis furnished by yet another agency was held germane as an 
    additional limitation on the authority of the agency being extended 
    which did not separately mandate the performance of an unrelated 
    function by another agency.

    On July 27, 1978,(12) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 12151, a bill amending and extending the 
authorities of the Export-Import Bank. The bill incorporated existing 
and new requirements for cooperation and consultation by that agency 
with other designated government agencies. An amendment was offered to 
require, in the case of transactions involving nuclear reactor sales, 
that the Bank first undertake an evaluation based upon an analysis by 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of regulatory and safety practices of 
recipient countries. The amendment was held germane as an additional 
limitation on the authority of the Export-Import Bank to finance 
certain commercial transactions which did not separately mandate the 
performance of an

[[Page 8752]]

unrelated function by another agency. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 23107, 23108, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cavanaugh: Page 5, after line 6, 
        add the following new section and renumber all successive 
        sections accordingly:
            Sec. 10. Section 2(b)(3) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 
        1945 is further amended by inserting at the end thereof the 
        following:
        ``; and

            ``(C) in the case of any transaction involving the sale of 
        a nuclear reactor, an evaluation based upon an analysis 
        prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (i) describing 
        the nuclear regulatory organization and practices of the 
        recipient country, and (ii) indicating the extent to which the 
        Health and Safety standards adopted and implemented by the 
        recipient country are consistent with those established by the 
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and, where applicable, with 
        International Atomic Energy Agency's standards and 
        recommendations.''. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language of the amendment on the ground 
    that it violates rule XVI, clause 7, of the rules of the House and 
    is not germane to the subject matter before us.
        The bill before us deals with amendments to the Export-Import 
    Bank Act, and this pending amendment, although it goes to a section 
    of the act and does pertain to the export of nuclear technology, 
    does not confine itself to that.
        If the Chair will address himself to section 2(b)(3) of the 
    Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, the Chair will find that the only 
    requirements imposed there for reporting are those on the president 
    of the Bank to give Congress a complete analysis of the proposed 
    loans to be made. The section does not in fact impose any duties on 
    anyone else or any other agency.
        Section 2(b)(4) also imposes duties on the Secretary of State, 
    as well as the Board of Directors of the Bank.
        The gentleman's amendment, however, goes beyond anything in the 
    present act and requires a scientific analysis by the Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission, which is not heretofore mentioned in the 
    act, describing completely both the aspects of the organization and 
    the practices of the recipient country, and even beyond that, the 
    health and safety standards applied within that country.
        I am informed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it has 
    no jurisdiction under existing law to address the question of 
    nuclear exports in this matter. Neither the Atomic Energy Act of 
    1954 nor the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 requires the 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review the health and safety 
    standards of the recipient nations of nuclear exports. It has 
    neither the staff nor the funding previously authorized to carry 
    out these duties which are newly imposed by this language.
        So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is beyond the scope of the 
    legislation now before the committee and is outside the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
    Affairs. I would submit it is not germane to the bill before us. . 
    . .

[[Page 8753]]

        Mr. Cavanaugh: . . . Mr. Chairman, the arguments of the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) do not primarily go to the 
    issue of germaneness here. He vastly expands his argument to the 
    question of the capability of the agency, and those should be 
    substantive arguments based on requirements set out in my 
    amendment. The issue here is whether or not this Congress can, 
    through this legislation, require reports to it on a specific 
    transaction involving the sale of nuclear facilities and whether it 
    can require interagency cooperation in order to achieve that. The 
    entire history of the legislation is replete with interagency 
    cooperation provisions reflecting all aspects of the Federal 
    Government.
        The Small Business Administration is mandated by this 
    legislation to cooperate with Ex-Im, as is the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation, and more specifically, with regard to sections 2(b)(3) 
    and 2(b)(4) to which this amendment is particularly germane, the 
    Secretary of State already has analogous responsibilities mandated 
    by Ex-Im legislation conferring particular responsibilities on the 
    Secretary of State and in fact requiring the Secretary of State to 
    similarly, as this amendment provides, examine cooperation with the 
    International Atomic Energy Agency. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
    Cavanaugh) conveniently ignored my major point. Under the rule of 
    germaneness, the amendment must be germane to the proposition 
    before us.
        The gentleman cites as his authority that the present act, the 
    Export-Import Bank Act, in 2 sections requires certain reporting 
    regarding the export of nuclear materials or the financing of them 
    by the Board of the Bank and by the Secretary of State.
        The gentleman's amendment goes far beyond that and imposes, for 
    the first time, on a completely different governmental entity, the 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, certain judgments to be made, as I 
    have described, as to what the recipient country is doing regarding 
    nuclear matters for health and safety, and to describe completely 
    that country's nuclear capabilities and organization. It even goes 
    so far as to require the NRC to apply the International Atomic 
    Energy Agency's standards, which are not under their jurisdiction, 
    adding still a fourth agency.
        Nothing in the present law supports that extension of the power 
    of the Export-Import Bank to make these judgments or to require 
    them from another agency. Therefore, I feel that it is not germane, 
    and the gentleman has not addressed the fact that there is no 
    statutory law which allows the NRC to engage in these practices, 
    nor is there anything in the law that this bill seeks to amend that 
    covers the matters the amendment addresses. . . .
        Mr. Cavanaugh: Mr. Chairman, first of all, this amendment does 
    not, as the gentleman from Maryland has stated, require the 
    imposition of IAEA standards or NRC standards on this transaction. 
    It simply requires that the Export-Import Bank provide the Congress 
    with an evaluation based upon an analysis performed by the NRC, and 
    in no way expands the authority of Exim to the imposition of 
    foreign standards or, indeed, of any standards, but simply a 
    compilation of information which is peculiarly within the ex

[[Page 8754]]

    pertise of the NRC, and it would be impossible for the Export-
    Import Bank to accomplish its appropriate legislative mandate or 
    evaluation to the Congress preliminary to an extension of credit 
    for the sale of nuclear facilities. . . .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    speaking on the point of order, very briefly, a careful reading of 
    the amendment shows that the amendment itself does not in any way 
    impose on the NRC any additional duties. Clearly this Congress 
    could provide that the Export-Import Bank would not export any 
    nuclear energy or nuclear reactor information and technology. And 
    if the Export-Import Bank is unable to provide this information 
    which is called for in this amendment, my reading of it is they 
    prohibit the exportation of it and the subsidy of it. A careful 
    reading will show it does not impose on the NRC any additional 
    duty.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment is drafted as a further condition to be imposed 
    on the Bank before it may approve certain transactions.
        From page 20 of the report it is evident that the Eximbank is 
    already required by the bill and by the section of law being 
    amended to consult with and seek the cooperation of diverse 
    Government resources and agencies, including the Small Business 
    Administration, the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Department of 
    State, and the President himself.
        For example, on page 20 the report indicates that the Commodity 
    Credit Corporation is called upon to perform new functions in 
    cooperation with the Eximbank.
        In addition, section 2(b)(4) of the act already requires that 
    the Bank be in receipt of information relating to compliance with 
    the International Atomic Energy Agency standards.
        The Chair will also turn to chapter 28, section 23.1 of 
    Deschler's Procedure, which reads as follows:

            To a bill authorizing the procurement of military weapons 
        for the fiscal year, an amendment prohibiting procurement from 
        a particular facility pending the submission of a report by the 
        Comptroller General relating to the feasibility of deactivating 
        that facility was held to be germane. 116 Cong. Rec. 14481, 
        91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 6, 1970.

        The Chair also refers to chapter 28, section 24.21 of 
    Deschler's Procedure, which reads as follows:

            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. 121 Cong. Rec. p.--, 
        94th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 23, 1975 [H.R. 6096, the Vietnam 
        Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act].

        Therefore, the Chair rules the amendment is germane as a 
    restriction on the authority of the Eximbank.
        Accordingly the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8755]]

Enforcement of Voting Rights

Sec. 33.31 To a bill authorizing proceedings instituted by the Attorney 
    General in federal courts to obtain injunctive relief for citizens 
    deprived of voting rights, an amendment was held to be germane 
    which sought to guarantee a right to a speedy and public trial by 
    jury in certain cases of contempt related to orders issued in such 
    proceedings.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration to provide means of protecting civil rights of persons 
within the jurisdiction of the United States. An amendment was offered 
(15) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
15. 103 Cong. Rec. 9184, 9185, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 14, 1957.
16. Id. at p. 9185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment . . . is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the instant bill provides authority in Attorney 
    General to file an action for injunction for the enforcement of 
    civil rights created under old statutes. . . . We provide no method 
    of procedure after the injunction is applied for. . . .

    The Chairman,(17) in overruling the point of order, 
cited the principle that, ``to a proposal to grant certain authority an 
amendment proposing to limit such authority is germane,'' and stated: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 9187, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 14, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair holds that the amendment is a restriction upon 
    the Attorney General and the courts. It deals with procedures and 
    not penalties, and in the opinion of the Chair is 
    germane.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. An amendment having a similar purpose was subsequently held to be 
        germane to the same bill. See the proceedings at 103 Cong. Rec. 
        9365, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment Limiting Jurisdiction of Courts in Contempt Cases

Sec. 33.32 To a bill giving federal courts authority in civil actions 
    for injunctive relief for citizens alleging deprivation of their 
    right to vote, an amendment limiting the jurisdiction of the courts 
    so that no person could be tried for contempt except within the 
    judicial district wherein the alleged contempt occurred, was held 
    to be germane.

[[Page 8756]]

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (20) was under 
consideration to provide means of further securing and protecting the 
civil rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. 
The following amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 9374, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Brooks of Louisiana: On page 12, line 
    4, after the period insert, ``No person shall be tried for contempt 
    of any such restraining order or injunction except within the 
    judicial district wherein the alleged contempt occurred.''

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

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to any 
    legislation here and would seek to change the jurisdiction of the 
    court that might have charge of the contempt proceeding. It relates 
    purely to venues and has nothing whatsoever to do with the 
    legislation here, as it relates to jurisdiction.

    Mr. Overton Brooks, of Louisiana, speaking in response to the point 
of order, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment involves substantially the same 
    principle as the original amendment presented to the Chair for 
    decision which is known as the trial by jury amendment. It simply 
    provides procedure within the framework of the terms of this bill 
    for carrying out the terms of the bill. It does not add anything to 
    it. It provides additional procedure. . . .

    The Chairman,(2) alluding to that part of the bill 
sought to be amended and noting that ``the amendment has to do with 
practically the same subject,'' overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment Relating to Jurisdiction of State Courts

Sec. 33.33 To a bill vesting jurisdiction in the District Courts over 
    certain civil actions for protection of voting rights, amendments 
    to preserve the jurisdiction of the state courts over elections 
    were held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
as described above, the following amendments were offered: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 9394, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendments offered by Mr. Hemphill: At the end of line 12, on 
    page 10, of the bill, add a new section, to be known as (par. 
    sixth), section 121, of the bill (42 U.S.C. 1935)), which will read 
    as follows:

            Sixth: Nothing herein contained shall deprive the courts of 
        record of

[[Page 8757]]

        the several States of their jurisdiction over elections, nor 
        shall this legislation preempt the right of the several States 
        in jurisdiction over all elections within the several States.

        Amend at the end of line 13, page 12, of the bill by inserting 
    therein a subparagraph (E), section 131 of the bill (sec. 2004 of 
    the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971)):

            (E) Nothing herein contained shall deprive the courts of 
        record of the several States of their jurisdiction over 
        elections. . . .

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

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: I make the point of 
    order against the amendment that it is not germane to the bill. It 
    provides for election machinery, which certainly has nothing to do 
    with this legislation.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Robert W. Hemphill, 
of South Carolina, stated: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 9394, 9395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The specific language of the statutes in question, which are 
    the statutes referred to in the bill and which are the statutes 
    sought to be amended by this legislation and by these amendments, 
    takes up the question of voting in elections. My amendments take up 
    the same question.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 9395, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Hemphill) offers 
    two amendments, both dealing with the jurisdiction of the courts of 
    the several States over elections. The amendments are offered to 
    sections of the bill that have to do with voting, therefore with 
    elections. For that reason the Chair holds that the amendments are 
    germane and overrules the point of order.