[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§ 34. Restrictions on Use or Availability of Funds]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8757-8816]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
         D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
 
Sec. 34.--Restrictions on Use or Availability of Funds

    Amendments that merely place restrictions on the use of funds that 
are authorized or referred to in the bill are frequently held to be 
germane. As in other cases, however, the extent of the restriction or 
the manner in which it is sought to be imposed may affect the propriety 
of the amendment. Thus, to a bill authorizing funds for a given 
purpose, an amendment placing restrictions on funds authorized or 
appropriated in other bills and in prior years will be ruled out as not 
germane.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 31.30, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While it is normally germane to limit the uses to which an 
authorization carried in a bill may be applied, that principle applies 
more appropriately to annual authorization bills reported from the 
committees of jurisdiction, rather than to a (re)organization bill 
creating a new department and transferring thereto existing au

[[Page 8758]]

thorities and programs, in which case amendments restricting authorized 
funds to effect a change in the administration of substantive law may 
not be germane.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 34.38, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above,(10) it is not germane to make the 
effectiveness of an authorization contingent upon an unrelated 
determination involving issues within the jurisdiction of agencies and 
committees outside the purview of the pending bill.(11) But 
where an amendment seeks to adopt as a measure of the availability of 
certain authorizations contained in the bill a condition that is 
logically relevant and objectively discernible, the amendment does not 
present an unrelated contingency and is germane.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See the discussion in the introduction to Sec. 31, supra.
11. See Sec. 31.27, supra.
12. See Sec. 31.16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Restrictions on expenditures, of course, are often sought to be 
    imposed in furtherance of a larger policy or overriding aim. The 
    precedents indicate that in such case, the germaneness of a 
    proposed amendment should be determined from provisions of its 
    text, rather than from the purposes which circumstances may 
    suggest.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 34.35, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increases in Public Debt Limit as Standard Affecting Availability of 
    Funds

Sec. 34.1 An amendment which conditions the expenditure of funds 
    covered by a bill by adopting as a measure of their availability 
    the monthly increase in the public debt limit may be germane so 
    long as the amendment does not directly affect other provisions of 
    law or impose contingencies predicated upon other unrelated actions 
    of Congress; thus, to a joint resolution making continuing 
    appropriations and restricting the use of any fiscal 1980 funds to 
    pay cost-of-living salary increases for Members of Congress and 
    other federal employees above a certain percentage, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of all such funds to pay over 99 percent of 
    Members' salaries in any month in which the public debt has been 
    increased was held germane since not amending or affecting the 
    public debt limit, but rather using that limit as an easily 
    ascertainable standard by which to relate Members' salary 
    entitlements to the entire Federal fiscal situation.

[[Page 8759]]

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 404 (continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 1980), the Speaker overruled a point of 
order against the amendment described above. The proceedings of Sept. 
25, 1979,(14) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 26150-52, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For further discussion of amendments which seek to adopt, 
        as a measure of the availability of funds for particular 
        purposes, a determination required to be made with respect to 
        the existence of certain conditions, related expenditures, or 
        the like, see the introduction to Sec. 31, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Kramer [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kramer: Page 6, insert before line 
        13 the following: Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        joint resolution or any other provision of law, for any month 
        immediately following any month during which the total public 
        debt subject to the statutory debt limit, as reported in the 
        monthly statement of the public debt published by the 
        Department of the Treasury, indicates an increase from the 
        level so reported during the preceding month, no part of the 
        funds appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1980, by this Act or any other Act may be used to pay the 
        salary of any Member of the Congress at a rate greater than 99 
        percent of the rate which would be payable without regard to 
        this sentence. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane.
        The amendment deals with the subject of Federal pay and has the 
    purpose of limiting Federal pay. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Kramer) introduces a new subject of a 
    public debt, a completely new subject of public debt, and a 
    different method of limiting Federal pay, that is, calculated 
    relations between Federal pay and the public debt. . . .
        Mr. Kramer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 25, section 2.1 and also section 2.3. I think 
    the precedents are very clear that this amendment is germane. I 
    read as follows:

            A joint resolution providing continuing appropriations for 
        departments and agencies of government, to provide funds until 
        the regular appropriation bills are enacted, is not a ``general 
        appropriation bill'' within the meaning of clause 2 Rule XXI.
            The restrictions against unauthorized items or legislation 
        in a general appropriation bill or amendment thereto are not 
        applicable to a joint resolution continuing appropriations, 
        despite inclusion of diverse appropriations which are not 
        ``continuing'' in nature.

        Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, in talking to the 
    Parliamentarian's office, that a contingency amendment is, indeed, 
    germane, provided that the contingency itself is within the scope 
    of the performance of Congress.
        I would ask that the amendment be ruled germane on that basis. 
    . . .
        The Speaker: (15) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

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

[[Page 8760]]

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
    Kramer) provides a mechanism for measuring the ceiling to be placed 
    on the amount of fiscal 1980 funds which can be available to pay 
    salary increases for Members. The amendment does not in any way 
    directly affect provisions of law relating to public debt levels 
    during fiscal 1980.
        As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    24.18, the Chair ruled on July 26, 1973, that an amendment which 
    conditions the expenditure of funds in a bill by adopting as a 
    measure of their availability the expenditure during that fiscal 
    year of a comparable percentage of funds authorized by other acts 
    is germane, so long as the amendment does not directly affect the 
    obligation and expenditure of other funds or the administration of 
    other programs.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the legislative standard stated in 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado as a measure 
    of the amount of pay increase to be paid by fiscal 1980 
    appropriated funds is an easily ascertainable method of adjusting 
    the availability of those funds in relation to the Federal 
    financial situation as a whole, and is not drafted as a contingency 
    which is dependent upon specific unrelated events or actions of 
    Congress.
        The gentleman's point of order is overruled.

Levels of Spending in Resolution on Budget as Measure of Spending 
    Authority

Sec. 34.2 To a bill authorizing certain housing programs, an amendment 
    restricting the amounts of direct spending authority in the bill 
    for the next fiscal year to the pertinent levels set forth in the 
    lower of the House or Senate levels as adopted in the concurrent 
    resolution on the budget for that fiscal year was held germane as 
    merely a measure of availability of funds in the bill which did not 
    directly affect the Congressional budget process.

    On June 11, 1987,(16) during consideration of H.R. 4, 
the Housing Authorization Act, the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 133 Cong. Rec. 15540, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Hiler [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hiler: Page 353, after line 9, add 
        the following new title and conform the table of contents 
        accordingly:

                         TITLE VII--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT
        sec. 701. enforcement provisions.

            If this Act and the amendments made by this Act provide for 
        new budget authority, budget outlays, or new entitlement 
        authority, for fiscal year 1988 in excess of the level 
        established (for any budget function or subfunction applicable 
        to programs authorized by this Act and the amendments made by 
        this Act) by

[[Page 8761]]

        the concurrent resolution on the budget for such fiscal year as 
        passed by the House of Representatives or the Senate (whichever 
        is lower), each amount provided by this Act and the amendments 
        made by this Act for such budget function or subfunction shall 
        be reduced by an equal percentage to ensure compliance with 
        such level.
        sec 702. definitions.

            For purposes of this title, the terms ``budget authority'', 
        ``budget outlays'', ``concurrent resolution on the budget'', 
        and ``entitlement authority'' have the meanings given such 
        terms in section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
        U.S.C. 622). . . .

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment is invalid on the face of it because it would commit the 
    House to an improbability of action on the part of the other body, 
    over which we have no jurisdiction whatsoever.
        It is premised on an illusory contingency which may or may 
    never happen. We do not even do that to the Appropriations 
    Committee; so I object on the basis that it foists on the House an 
    unacceptable mandate under the rules. . . .
        Mr. Hiler: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the point of order is 
    in place. It is clear that what we are doing with this amendment is 
    trying to bring this bill within an appropriation budget level, as 
    we do on many, many bills when we have similar kinds of language. I 
    do not think the point of order should be sustained.
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    support the point of order, because this is an attempt to change 
    the Budget Act which is not before us, to put in place a new 
    mechanism and a unique mechanism for enforcement of the Budget Act, 
    which is not a part of this legislation.
        The fact is that it specifies and directs the Secretary in a 
    certain way to enforce this on the Budget Act. It extends to the 
    Budget Act that which cannot be amended. It goes to the 
    reconciliation process and to other processes in the 1974 Budget 
    Act, which is not the subject of this measure that is before us. 
    However important the budget mechanisms that are in place, it is an 
    attempt to modify them in a unique way and I think in a cumbersome 
    way in terms of this issue. . . .

        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will rule that the 
    amendment does not amend the Budget Act. The Budget Act is only a 
    reference point, and levels in the budget resolution are measures 
    of availability of funds authorized or provided by the pending 
    bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Brian J. Donnelly (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will rule that it is not in violation of the rules of 
    the House. No rule of the House requires the Chair to rule on or to 
    determine the workability or unworkability of an amendment.
        The Chair will rule that the amendment is germane and the point 
    of order does not lie.

Expenditures Under Other Acts as Measure of Availability of Funds

Sec. 34.3 An amendment to an authorization bill which conditions the 
    obligation or ex

[[Page 8762]]

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

    During consideration of the Mutual Development and Cooperation Act 
of 1973,(18) on July 26, 1973,(19) the Chair 
overruled a point of order made against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 9360.
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 26210, 26211, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

                         equitable expenditure of funds

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

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    insist on a point of order. . . .
        [T]his bill deals solely with authorizations for appropriations 
    for foreign aid. The amendment of the gentleman covers many 
    programs of agencies: The

[[Page 8763]]

    Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the 
    Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban 
    Development, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the 
    Environmental Protection Agency, and the Veterans' Administration. 
    It goes far afield from the present legislation, and therefore I 
    insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Salaries of Members Who Voted Against Salary Increase

Sec. 34.4 To a proposition limiting the use of any fiscal 1980 funds to 
    pay salary increases for Members of Congress above 5 percent while 
    permitting top executive and judicial salaries to be increased by 7 
    percent, an amendment further restricting availability of those 
    funds to pay salaries of those Members voting against any salary 
    increase for Members contained in the pending joint resolution was 
    held germane as an additional restriction on the use of the same 
    funds, applied to the same category of recipients.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 404 in the House on 
Sept. 25, 1979,(1) the Speaker overruled a point of order 
against the amendment described above, demonstrating that, to a 
proposition restricting the availability of funds to a certain category 
of recipients, an amendment further restricting the availability of 
those funds to a subcategory of the same recipients is germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 26135, 26136, 26138, 26140-43, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.J. Res. 404

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable 
        corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the 
        several departments, agencies, corporations, and other 
        organizational units of the Government for the fiscal year 
        1980, namely:

            Sec. 101. (a)(1) Such amounts as may be necessary for 
        continuing projects or activities. . . .

[[Page 8764]]

            For the fiscal year 1980, funds available for payment to 
        executive employees, which includes Members of Congress, who 
        under existing law are entitled to approximately 12.9 percent 
        increase in pay, shall not be used to pay any such employee or 
        elected or appointed official any sum in excess of 5.5 percent 
        increase in existing pay and such sum if accepted shall be in 
        lieu of the 12.9 percent due for such fiscal year: Provided 
        further, That for the purpose of carrying out this provision 
        and notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Pay 
        Comparability Act of 1970, the Executive Salary Cost-Of-Living 
        Adjustment Act, or any other related provision of law, which 
        would provide an approximate 12.9 percent increase in pay for 
        certain Federal officials for pay periods beginning on or after 
        October 1, 1979, and notwithstanding section 102 of this joint 
        resolution, the provisions of section 304 of the Legislative 
        Branch Appropriation Act, 1979, which limit the pay for certain 
        Federal offices and positions, shall apply to funds 
        appropriated by this joint resolution or any Act for the fiscal 
        year 1980 except that in applying such limitation the term ``at 
        a rate which exceeds by more than 5.5 percent the rate'' shall 
        be substituted for the term ``at a rate which exceeds the 
        rate'' where it appears in subsection (a) of such section for 
        the purpose of limiting pay increases to 5.5 percent. . . .

        Mr. [George M.] O'Brien [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Brien: On page 5, strike lines 
        10 through 16.

            On page 6, line 3, strike everything after ``1980'' through 
        line 8, and insert a period. . . .

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Fisher [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fisher as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. O'Brien: Page 5, beginning on line 3, 
        strike out ``(except as to executive salaries which are covered 
        subsequently)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(without regard to 
        section 305 thereof)''.
            Page 5, strike out line 10 and all that follows down 
        through ``limitation'' on line 4 of page 6 and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            Notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Pay 
        Comparability Act of 1970, the Executive Salary Cost-Of-Living 
        Act, or any other related provision of law, which would provide 
        an approximate 12.9 percent increase in pay for certain Federal 
        officials for pay periods beginning on or after October 1, 
        1979, and notwithstanding section 102 of this joint resolution, 
        the provisions of section 304 of the Legislative Branch 
        Appropriation Act, 1979, shall apply to funds appropriated by 
        this joint resolution or any Act for the fiscal year 1980; 
        except that in applying the limitation in such section 304 to 
        the pay of offices and positions (other than Members of 
        Congress) covered by that section the term ``at a rate which 
        exceeds by more than 7 percent the rate'' shall be substituted 
        for the term ``at a rate which exceeds the rate'' where it 
        appears in subsection (a) of such section for the purpose of 
        limiting such pay increases to 7 percent, and in applying such 
        limitation to the pay of Members of Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 8765]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Fisher as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        O'Brien: After the substitute offered by the gentleman from 
        Virginia add the following:
            Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, no 
        part of the funds appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 1980 
        shall be available to pay the salary of any Member at a rate 
        which exceeds the salary rate payable for that office for 
        September 30, 1978, if at any time in the consideration of this 
        resolution that Member voted in a recorded vote for any 
        amendment that has the effect of limiting the amount payable 
        for Members of Congress to the rate payable for September 30, 
        1978. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: . . . I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the substitute. 
    The amendment conditions the use of funds to pay salaries on the 
    votes of Members of Congress on this resolution and, therefore, 
    introduces new subject matter, both a Member's voting record and a 
    new method of calculating pay depending on the Member's voting 
    record. The amendment places nongermane restrictions on the use of 
    funds and should be ruled out of order. . . .
        The Speaker: (2) . . . The Chair will rule that the 
    Fisher substitute contains a selective restriction on the 
    availability of funds in the bill by separating salaries of certain 
    employees, as opposed to Members of the Congress of the United 
    States, and that is in order. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser) is a further selective 
    restriction on the availability of fiscal 1980 funds for the 
    Members' pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the amendment as offered by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Peyser) is germane to the Fisher amendment, and 
    the point of order of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) 
    is overruled.

Travel of House Committee

Sec. 34.5 To a resolution authorizing an investigation and incidental 
    travel to be undertaken by a committee of the House, an amendment 
    placing restrictions on the funds permitted to be used in such 
    travel may be germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a resolution (3) reported from the 
Committee on Rules was under consideration. The resolution stated: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 84 (Committee on Rules).
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 1547, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 31, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That effective January 4, 1963, the Committee on 
    Armed Services, acting as a whole or by subcommittee appointed by 
    the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, is authorized to 
    conduct a full and complete investigation and study of all 
    matters--
        (1) relating to the procurement . . . and disposition of . . . 
    equipment, supplies, and services, and the acquisition . . . and 
    disposition of real property, by or within the Department of 
    Defense. . . .

    The following committee amendment was reported:

[[Page 8766]]

        On page 3, after line 4, add the following paragraphs:

            Notwithstanding section 1754 of title 22, United States 
        Code, or any other provision of law, local currencies owned by 
        the United States shall be made available to the Committee on 
        Armed Services of the House of Representatives and employees 
        engaged in carrying out their official duties under section 
        190(d) of title 2, United States Code: Provided, (1) That no 
        member or employee of said committee shall receive or expend 
        local currencies for subsistence an amount in excess of the 
        maximum per diem rates approved for oversea travel as set forth 
        in the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, as revised 
        and amended by the Bureau of the Budget; (2) that no member or 
        employee of said committee shall receive or expend an amount 
        for transportation in excess of actual transportation costs; 
        (3) no appropriated funds shall be expended for the purpose of 
        defraying expenses of members of said committee or its 
        employees in any country where counterpart funds are available 
        for this purpose. . . . 

    Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York, made the point of order that 
``the matter of the appropriation of funds and the authorization of the 
use of funds by any committee of the House is within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on House Administration.'' He further stated:

        There is no authorization for the use of funds in the 
    resolution as presented, yet they attempt by the same resolution 
    now to limit the expenditures that may subsequently be authorized 
    by the Committee on House Administration. . . . 

    The Speaker,(5) in overruling the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution before the House does not deal with funds, but 
    the authorization of funds, and is also a restriction on the use of 
    funds that may be made available. The actual funds are matters that 
    will be passed upon by the Committee on House Administration.

Funds for Expenses of Retiring Members

Sec. 34.6 To a portion of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    providing that use of the contingent fund for committee 
    investigations be confined to travel in the United States and that 
    no appropriated funds be expended for committee expenses outside 
    the United States where local currencies are available, an 
    amendment providing that ``notwithstanding any other provision of 
    law, no part of any appropriation and no local currency'' shall be 
    available to pay any expenses in connection with travel outside the 
    United States of retiring Members was ruled out as not germane, 
    since it waived provisions of law not necessarily related to House 
    committee travel.

[[Page 8767]]

    On Oct. 8, 1974,(6) during consideration of House 
Resolution 988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction and procedures of 
House committees), the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The amendment read, in part, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 34463, 34464, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington:
            Page 28, line 20, strike out ``committee''. . . . 
            Page 29, after line 21, insert the following new 
        subparagraph:
            ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no part 
        of any appropriation and no local currency owned by the United 
        States shall be available for payment of any expenses, nor 
        shall transportation be provided by the United States, in 
        connection with travel outside the fifty States (including the 
        District of Columbia) of the United States of--
             ``(A) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of 
        the House after he has been defeated as a candidate for 
        nomination, or election, to a seat in the House in any primary 
        or regular election until such time as he shall thereafter 
        again become a Member; or
            ``(B) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after the adjournment sine die of the last session of a 
        Congress if he is not a candidate for reelection in the next 
        Congress. . . . 

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment. . . . 
        As I heard the amendment, I believe it is directed at some 
    general laws of the United States, not just at the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives. . . . 
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I think the 
    point of order should be sustained, because it goes far beyond the 
    Rules of the House and it deals with appropriations. It puts 
    jurisdictions on agencies. It puts additional duties on the 
    Department of State, and while I do not know that this directly 
    affects the point of order, it interferes with the 2-year elected 
    term of a Member of Congress. . . . 
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has carefully examined the second amendment read by 
    the Clerk. At the bottom of the page the paragraph starts out:

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
        authorized for a committee, no part of any appropriation shall 
        be available--
    and so forth.

        This prefatory provision itself makes the amendment subject to 
    a point of order. Therefore, the point of order is sustained, and 
    the amendment is not in order.

Sec. 34.7 To a provision in an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    restricting the use of the House contingent fund for committee 
    expenses to travel only in the United States and providing that no

[[Page 8768]]

    appropriated funds be used for committee expenses outside the 
    country, where local currencies are available, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds ``authorized for a committee'' for 
    expenses of retiring Members was held germane as a further 
    restriction on the availability of committee funds.

    During consideration of House Resolution 988 (to reform the 
structure, jurisdiction and procedures of House committees) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings of Oct. 8, 
1974,(8) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 34465, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Duncan [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington: 
        Page 28, line 20, strike out ``committee''. . . . 
            Page 29, after line 21, insert the following new 
        subparagraph:
            ``(2) No funds authorized for a committee shall be 
        available for payment of any expenses, nor shall transportation 
        be provided by the United States, in connection with travel 
        outside the fifty States (including the District of Columbia) 
        of the United States of--
            ``(A) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after he has been defeated as a candidate for nomination, 
        or election, to a seat in the House in any primary or regular 
        election until such time as he shall thereafter again become a 
        Member; or
            ``(B) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after the adjournment sine die of the last session of a 
        Congress if he is not a candidate for reelection in the next 
        Congress. . . . 

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. It changes the Constitution of the 
    United States wherein it reduces the term of office of a Member and 
    takes away some of his prerogatives and privileges that he has for 
    a 2-year term equal to other Members, and it in effect makes a 
    second-class citizen of a Member who may decide to retire. . . . 

        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair cannot pass upon constitutional questions. The Chair 
    can only pass upon the germaneness of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Tennessee.
        The Chair notes that the amendment is directed to the portion 
    of the Hansen amendment relating to funds for committee travel and 
    unlike the language in the prior amendment against which the point 
    of order was sustained, does not appear to be broader in effect 
    than the language in the Hansen amendment. The Chair holds the 
    amendment germane and overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The prior ruling referred to by the Chair 
is discussed in Sec. 34.6, supra.

[[Page 8769]]

Provision Authorizing Missile System Depending on Specified 
    Conditions--Amendment Containing Unconditional Prohibition on 
    Missile System for One Year

Sec. 34.8 To an amendment precluding the availability of an 
    authorization for a program for part of a fiscal year and then 
    permitting availability for the remainder of the year based upon a 
    contingency, an amendment constituting a prohibition on the 
    availability of the same funds for the entire fiscal year is a 
    germane alternative; thus, where an amendment as amended authorized 
    procurement of an MX missile system after a time certain during the 
    fiscal year if the President determined that the Soviet Union was 
    not limiting similar weapons, a subsequent amendment prohibiting 
    the use of funds in that title as a one year moratorium on the MX 
    program notwithstanding other language in the amendment was held 
    germane as an unconditional prohibition for the same fiscal year.

    During consideration of H.R. 5167 (the Military Procurement 
Authorization for fiscal 1985), on May 16, 1984,(10) the 
Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 130 Cong. Rec. 12566, 12567, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Nicholas] Mavroules [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mavroules to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Bennett: At the end of the section proposed to be added 
        by the amendment add the following:

                      moratorium on mx missile procurement

            Sec. 111. (a) Notwithstanding section 103(a) of this title, 
        the maximum amount that may be appropriated for fiscal year 
        1985 for missiles for the Air Force is $5,942,700,000.
            (b) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to 
        authorizations of appropriations in this title may be used for 
        the MX missile program.
            (c) It is the intent of Congress that the denial of funds 
        for procurement under the MX missile system program for fiscal 
        year 1985 constitutes a moratorium on procurement of missiles 
        under such program but does not constitute a unilateral 
        termination of that program.

    Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
point of order on the amendment.

        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from Alabama 
    (Mr. Dickinson) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).

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

[[Page 8770]]

        Mr. Dickinson: The gentleman will insist on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, without having had an opportunity 
    to study it, and I have not, but let me attempt to, it appears that 
    this is broader than the scope of what we have just worked on. And 
    I think it takes out missiles for more than just the MX. At this 
    point it affects 1984 money, and at this point, without having any 
    prior notice, there is no chance for me or staff to study it. . . .
        So I respectfully submit that it is not germane, Mr. Chairman. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would rule that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Massachusetts is germane to the Bennett 
    amendment as amended and the Chair does not rule on the consistency 
    of amendments and, therefore, rules that the amendment is in order.

Production of Chemical Weapons

Sec. 34.9 To an amendment only decreasing the fiscal year 1984 
    authorization for Army ammunition funds in Title I of the Defense 
    Department authorization bill, a substitute adding language 
    prohibiting use of any Defense Department funds for the production 
    or procurement of binary chemical weapons was held to be not 
    germane because addressing funds not addressed by the pending 
    amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 2969 in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 15, 1983,(12) the Chair, in sustaining a point of order 
against the amendment described above, indicated that a substitute for 
an amendment must be germane to the amendment to which offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 15803, 15809, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 2, line 15, strike 
        out ``$2,272,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$2,157,900,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bethune as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 2, line 15, strike out 
        ``$2,272,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$2,157,900,000''.
            Page 10, after line 12, insert the following new section:

          prohibition on procurement of binary chemical munitions and 
            related production facilities, equipment, and precursor 
                                   chemicals

            Sec. 109. (a) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to 
        the authorizations of appropriations in this title may be 
        obligated or expended

[[Page 8771]]

        for procurement of binary chemical munitions or for production 
        facilities, equipment, or precursor chemicals for such 
        munitions.
            (b) No funds available to the Department of Defense may be 
        made available for the production or procurement of binary 
        chemical munitions (or for production facilities, equipment, or 
        precursor chemicals for such munitions) through the use of 
        reprogramming authority. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton (of New York): Mr. Chairman, under 
    section 109 of the amendment, on line 9, it says,

            No funds available to the Department of Defense may be made 
        available for the production or procurement of binary chemical 
        munitions (or for production facilities, equipment, or 
        precursor chemicals for such munitions) through the use of 
        reprogramming authority.

        The point of order is that this bill is a bill that would 
    authorize funds for fiscal year 1984 exclusively, whereas the 
    amendment deals with funds that might have been made available to 
    the Department of Defense in other ways, prior years, or subsequent 
    year, and, therefore, is outside of the scope of the pending 
    legislation and is, therefore, out of order. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) The Chair will rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Zablocki amendment addresses the Army ammunition funds 
    authorized by title I of the pending bill. The Bethune substitute 
    addresses other funds available to the Department of Defense not 
    authorized by the pending title I and is not germane to the 
    Zablocki amendment.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Military Operations in North Vietnam

Sec. 34.10 To a bill authorizing supplemental appropriations for 
    military procurement, research and development, and military 
    construction, an amendment declaring it to be the sense of Congress 
    that none of the funds therein authorized shall be used to carry 
    out military operations in North Vietnam, was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) comprising supplemental military authorizations for 
fiscal 1967, an amendment was offered (15) as described 
above. Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, raised the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane to the bill.(16) 
The Chairman,(17) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 4515 (Committee on Armed Services).
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 5142, 5143, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
16. Id. at p. 5143.
17. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment relates only to funds authorized in this bill and 
    is similar in concept to an amendment offered to the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1950.

[[Page 8772]]

        That amendment provided that no money authorized by the bill 
    should be granted to any country which violated the Charter of the 
    United Nations.
        It was thus a restriction on funds authorized by the bill.
        Chairman [Oren] Harris of Arkansas ruled that it was germane--
    81st Congress, March 30, 1950, Record, page 4550.
        The Chair thinks the present amendment simply places a 
    restriction on authorizations contained in this bill and relates 
    only to the funds in this bill.
        The Chair holds that the amendment is germane.

Congressional Support for Geneva Accords

Sec. 34.11 To a bill authorizing military expenditures, an amendment 
    providing that ``none of the funds authorized herein'' be used 
    except in accordance with a congressional declaration of support 
    for the Geneva accords of 1954 and 1962 was held to be not 
    germane.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 5139, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967. See 
        Sec. 30.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Funds To Relocate Vietnamese Evacuees in High Unemployment Areas 
    in United States

Sec. 34.12 To a substitute dealing with humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance out of South Vietnam, an amendment prohibiting the use 
    of such assistance to relocate or to create employment 
    opportunities for evacuees in high unemployment areas in the United 
    States was held to raise issues beyond the scope of the bill and 
    was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 6096 (19) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Apr. 23, 1975,(20) Chairman Otis G. Pike, of 
New York, sustained a point of order and held that the following 
amendment went beyond the scope of the bill and was therefore not 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 11512, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Clay to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Eckhardt, as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Add a new section to the 
        end of the bill which reads:
            ``No funds authorized under this act shall be used directly 
        or indirectly to transport Vietnamese refugees to any 
        congressional district or

[[Page 8773]]

        create employment opportunities in any congressional district 
        where the unemployment rate exceeds the national unemployment 
        rate as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United 
        States Department of Labor.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. It goes greatly beyond the 
    scope of the bill and the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
    Nothing in the bill or in the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute deals with the national unemployment rate. . . .

        Mr. Clay: . . . The amendment simply imposes a condition that 
    none of the money may be used, or a limitation on the way the money 
    will be spent. I do not know how it goes beyond the scope of this 
    bill or the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. For the reasons 
    stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) and for the 
    fact that the contingency set forth in the gentleman's amendment is 
    not related to the purposes of the bill, the point of order is 
    sustained.

Funds for Deployment of Troops Beyond Specified Period

Sec. 34.13 To a bill authorizing funds and limited use of troops for a 
    specific purpose, an amendment stating that ``notwithstanding any 
    other provision of this Act'' funds authorized in the Act could not 
    be used for deployment of troops beyond a certain period of time 
    was held to be a proper limitation on use of funds and germane to 
    the bill.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(1) during consideration of the Vietnam 
Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act (2) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Otis G. Pike, of New York, overruling 
a point of order, held the following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 11508, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 6096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of 
        a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Page 1, line 5, insert 
        ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 2.'', and page 2, immediately 
        after line 2, add the following new subsection:
            (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no 
        funds authorized or made available under this Act may be used 
        to finance, directly or indirectly, any combat activity, any 
        involvement in hostilities, or any military or paramilitary 
        operation, by the Armed Forces of the United States in, over, 
        or off the shores of South Vietnam after the end of the 30-day 
        period beginning on the first date after the date of enactment 
        of this Act on which any American

[[Page 8774]]

        ground combat forces are introduced into South Vietnam in 
        conjunction with any program of evacuation as defined by 
        Section 4 of this Act. . . .

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        From the few brief words that I heard, the amendment talks 
    about authorizing funds, authorizing the President to operate in 
    combat areas after a 30-day period of time, and I do not know 
    whether that has to do with any provision in the bill. I raise a 
    point of order against it. . . .
        Mr. Solarz: . . . I think it is quite clear from the debate 
    today that the President had the inherent constitutional authority 
    to send American troops to evacuate American citizens and their 
    dependents.
        My amendment says, in effect, if any troops are sent in, they 
    cannot be sent in for any more than 30 days. I think it is quite 
    clear under the constitutional powers that this amendment is 
    germane. . . .
        Ms. Holtzman: . . . I did not understand that there was 
    anything in the bill that authorized the President to engage our 
    troops in combat in Laos or anyplace else and, therefore, it seems 
    to me the gentleman's amendment is not germane and subject to a 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: . . . There is no question in my 
    mind, with all of the precedents I have heard around here for many 
    years, that this is a germane amendment. It is simply a limitation 
    of the proposed legislation, no more and no less. It limits the 
    time that the President can do the things that this bill will give 
    him permission to do for 30 days. It is that simple.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        This amendment constitutes and states in its language, 
    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, no funds 
    authorized or made available under this act may be used to 
    finance,'' et cetera.
        It is a limitation on the funds authorized in the act.
        The amendment is germane, and the point of order is overruled.

Assistance Barred for Country Engaging in Aggression

Sec. 34.14 To a bill to provide foreign economic assistance, an 
    amendment proposing that none of the money therein authorized be 
    granted to any country which violates the Charter of the United 
    Nations or engages in acts of aggression was held to be germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
to provide foreign economic assistance, the following amendment was 
offered: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 7797 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 4550, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 31, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: On 
    page 31, after line 10, insert the following:

[[Page 8775]]

            Title IV, section 401. No money under any of the previous 
        titles of this bill, or any of the acts amended by this bill, 
        shall be granted, lent, or used directly or indirectly, and no 
        assistance provided for, shall be made available to . . . any 
        country which violates any provisions of the Charter of the 
        United Nations, or directly or indirectly engages in acts of 
        aggression as determined by proclamation of the President of 
        the United States of America, or by the United Nations, so long 
        as such acts continue, nor to, for, or in any country which 
        directly or indirectly sells, gives, or ships any material to 
        any country to which American nationals cannot obtain licenses 
        for the sale, gift, or shipment of similar materials unless the 
        consent of the President shall have first been obtained.

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(5) 
in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the amendment relates to a title of the bill.
        The point of order is overruled.

Operation of Early-warning System in Sinai--Amendment Making Funds 
    Dependent on Reduction in United States Contribution to United 
    Nations' Peacekeeping Forces

Sec. 34.15 To a joint resolution authorizing the use of American 
    civilians to operate an early-warning system in the Sinai, an 
    amendment providing that funds subsequently authorized to carry out 
    the provisions of the resolution may only be used to the extent 
    that the United States contribution to the United Nations' 
    peacekeeping forces in the Middle East is proportionately reduced, 
    there being no mention of the United Nations' peacekeeping role or 
    of United States contributions thereto in the resolution, was held 
    to go beyond the scope of the resolution and was ruled out as not 
    germane.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 683 (to implement 
the United States proposal for the early-warning system in the Sinai), 
the Chair sustained a point of order against the amendment described 
above. The proceedings of Oct. 8, 1975,(6) in the Committee 
of the Whole, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 32430, 32431, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: Page 2, line 10, 
        after the period insert the following new sentence: To the 
        extent funds are authorized to carry out the provisions of this 
        resolution, such funds may be

[[Page 8776]]

        used only to the extent that the United States contribution to 
        the United Nations for the purpose of peacekeeping forces in 
        the Middle East is reduced. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane under clause 7 of 
    rule 16 because it deals with a subject matter which is not dealt 
    with in this resolution. The resolution would authorize the 
    stationing of American technicians in the Sinai.
        The cost of this operation would come from the special 
    requirements fund for the Middle East, under section 903 of the 
    Foreign Assistance Act. Neither the resolution before the House, 
    nor section 903 of the Foreign Assistance Act, deal with the U.N. 
    peacekeeping force.
        The U.S. participation in the U.N. peacekeeping force is 
    authorized by different legislation. U.S. contribution to that 
    force comes also from separate legislation. The amendment, by 
    attempting to tie this resolution to U.S. contribution to the U.N. 
    peacekeeping force, goes far afield from the purpose of this 
    legislation. It would considerably broaden the scope of this 
    legislation and is therefore not germane. . . .
        Mr. Young of Florida: . . . The title of House Joint Resolution 
    683 reads:

            To implement the United States proposal for the early-
        warning system in Sinai.

        The resolving clause says:

            That the President is authorized to implement the ``United 
        States Proposal for the Early-Warning System in Sinai''

        Mr. Chairman, the vast authority to implement stressed in the 
    title and resolving clause make this an extremely broad and 
    encompassing piece of legislation, in fact, more so than most.
        For example, according to the report and also according to my 
    earlier colloquy with the chairman, implementation of this early 
    warning proposal will require $20 million the first year of already 
    appropriated funds or funds still to be appropriated.
        Since this resolution authorizes the implementation of the 
    proposal, without a doubt, it inherently authorizes the spending of 
    the funds.
        The Chair has ruled many times that amendments to place a 
    limitation on appropriations bills are in order if said amendments 
    are limiting in nature and do not include legislation. . . .
        Further, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the language of the title 
    and resolving clause of this resolution are in fact broad enough 
    that this amendment be considered in order.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. K. Gunn McKay (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) makes a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Young) on the grounds that it is not germane to the joint 
    resolution.
        The Chair observes that the resolution does not involve the 
    role of the U.N., and that the amendment would broaden the scope of 
    the pending measure in a significant manner. By requiring a 
    reduction in the U.S. contribution to the U.N. peacekeeping force, 
    in an

[[Page 8777]]

    amount necessary to accomplish the purpose of the joint resolution, 
    the amendment would inject into the joint resolution the issue of 
    the extent of U.S. participation in the U.N. peacekeeping force and 
    the issue of the curtailment of the entire peacekeeping role of the 
    United Nations in the Middle East. As stated in Cannon's Procedure, 
    page 205, two subjects are not necessarily germane because related, 
    and the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill, as indicated at page 199, Cannon's 
    Procedure.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Federal Aid Road Act--Restriction Affecting States Practicing 
    Segregation

Sec. 34.16 To a bill to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, 
    an amendment providing that no funds collected under the act be 
    available to any state or subdivision in which segregation is 
    practiced in restaurants, restrooms, or in road construction was 
    held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
amending the Federal Aid Road Act. The following amendment was offered 
to the bill: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 7474 (Committee on Public Works).
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 11710, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana:

            On page 32, following line 7, add a new section 19:
            No funds collected under this act may be available to any 
        State, city, or subdivision in which segregation is practiced 
        in restaurants, restrooms, or in road construction. . . .

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

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. Wilson [of Indiana]: . . . Here we are authorizing this 
    great appropriation, under which we are going to spend billions of 
    dollars in every State in the Union. Yet, there are some States in 
    which the Negroes are not going to have a chance to work and earn 
    part of this money to pay the taxes to build the highways, to earn 
    money to pay the excise taxes on their trucks, to earn money to pay 
    the extra cost of their tires.
        . . . I think these Negroes should be given the opportunity to 
    help build the highways because they are going to help to pay the 
    taxes. I think they should be able to use the facilities, the 
    restaurants, and the comfort stations, and so forth, that appear 
    along the highways.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman from Indiana offers 
    an amendment to provide for a limitation on the funds collected 
    under the pending bill, to which the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
    Jones] makes a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that since the amendment refers 
    to and

[[Page 8778]]

    touches upon the funds collected under this act, limiting their 
    use, the amendment is germane; therefore, the Chair overrules the 
    point of order.

Branches of Air Force Practicing Segregation

Sec. 34.17 To that section of a supplemental appropriation bill making 
    appropriations for the Air Force, an amendment providing that none 
    of the funds appropriated therein be used in branches of the 
    Department of the Air Force in which racial segregation exists was 
    held to be germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(11) comprising Supplemental National Defense Appropriations 
of 1948, an amendment was offered (12) as described above. A 
point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 6226 (Committee on Appropriations).
12. 94 Cong. Rec. 4543, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 15, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment is not germane and it is, 
    therefore, not in order on this bill; that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; that [it] imposes additional burdens and 
    restrictions that are entirely out of place.
        This is an aircraft procurement bill. This is not a labor bill. 
    . . .

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., 
of New York, stated:

        . . . This is an amendment which has limitations; it is 
    negative; it is the type that has been ruled in order on previous 
    appropriation bills.

    The Chairman (13) overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph P. O'Hara (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons or Corporations Practicing Discrimination in Employment

Sec. 34.18 To a bill on the Consent Calendar seeking to remove from a 
    paragraph of an appropriation bill a provision that no loans be 
    made for the construction of any public works except in pursuance 
    of a specific authorization, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which provided that none of the funds appropriated in the 
    same paragraph ``shall be paid to any person, firm or corporation 
    which refuses equality in employment because of race, color or 
    creed.''

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) relating to loans by federal agencies for the 
construction of certain public

[[Page 8779]]

works, an amendment was offered (15) as described above. A 
point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 1771 (Committee on Public Works).
15. 95 Cong. Rec. 7951, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., June 20, 1949.
16. Id. at pp. 7951, 7952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment that it is not germane 
    to the bill under consideration. It is not a limitation because 
    there is no appropriation involved. The purpose of the pending bill 
    is merely to remove a restriction on legislation already passed 
    where appropriations have been made. This makes no appropriation 
    whatever.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 7952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, my amendment 
    refers to the First Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1946. This 
    bill, H.R. 1771, seeks to make amendments to that act. I submit the 
    amendment I have offered to the pending bill is a further amendment 
    of the Federal Public Works section of that act. My amendment is a 
    further proviso restricting the use of funds. . . .

    The Speaker pro tempore,(18) without elaboration, 
sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actions Brought on Account of Discriminatory Practices of State and 
    Local Governments

Sec. 34.19 To that title of a bill authorizing the Attorney General to 
    participate in actions brought on account of discriminatory 
    practices of state and local governments, an amendment to limit 
    expenditures to carry out purposes of the title was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 88th Congress, during consideration of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1963,(19) the following amendment was offered: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 7152 (Committee on the Judiciary).
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 2274, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: On page 
    50, line 3, after the word ``title'' insert a new section 305 to 
    read as follows:

            In carrying out the provisions of title III of H.R. 7152 
        expenditures shall be limited to not more than $312,530.

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa is not 
    germane to the title of the bill. It would limit expenditures. The 
    title itself makes no mention of expenditures; therefore, the 
    amendment is not germane.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will hold that the amendment is in the form of a 
    limitation on

[[Page 8780]]

    the authorizations of appropriations which may be made under the 
    title; that there are sections authorizing activities for carrying 
    out the provisions and of the title; and therefore the Chair 
    overrules the point of order. . . .

Transportation Programs Intended To Overcome Racial Imbalance

Sec. 34.20 To a program authorizing federal financial assistance, an 
    amendment limiting the uses to which those funds may be put is 
    germane; thus, to a bill providing assistance for mass 
    transportation programs, including language permitting school 
    systems to be eligible applicants for schoolbus construction and 
    operating subsidies where not in competition with private 
    operators, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds authorized by 
    the bill to implement transportation programs intended to overcome 
    racial imbalance in school systems was held germane as a 
    restriction on the availability of assistance contained in the 
    bill.

    On Aug. 15, 1974,(2) during consideration of H.R. 12859 
(3) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that 
the germaneness of an amendment should be determined from provisions of 
its text rather than from the purposes which circumstances may suggest. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 28423, 28438, 28439, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. The Federal Mass Transportation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``Sec. 520. schoolbuses

        ``No Federal financial assistance shall be provided under this 
    title for the construction or operation of facilities and equipment 
    for use in providing public mass transportation service to any 
    applicant for such assistance unless such applicant and the 
    Secretary shall have first entered into an agreement that such 
    applicant will not engage in schoolbus operations, exclusively for 
    the transportation of students and school personnel, in competition 
    with private schoolbus operators. This section shall not apply to 
    an applicant with respect to operation of a schoolbus program if 
    the applicant operates a school system in the area to be served and 
    operates a separate and exclusive schoolbus program for this school 
    system. This section shall not apply unless private schoolbus 
    operators are able to provide adequate transportation, at 
    reasonable rates, and in conformance with applicable safety 
    standards; and this section shall not apply with respect to any 
    State or local public body or agency thereof if it (or a direct 
    predecessor in interest from which it acquired the function of so 
    transporting schoolchildren and personnel along with facilities to 
    be used therefor) was so engaged in schoolbus operations any time 
    during the twelve-month period immediately prior to the

[[Page 8781]]

    date of the enactment of this section. A violation of an agreement 
    under this section shall bar such applicant from receiving any 
    other Federal financial assistance under this title.
        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Snyder: Page 68, line 4. After the 
        period insert the following: ``No funds appropriated for the 
        purpose of carrying out any applicable program may be used for 
        the transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase 
        of equipment for such transportation) in order to overcome 
        racial imbalance in any school or school system, or for the 
        transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase of 
        equipment for such transportation), in order to carry out a 
        plan of racial desegregation of any school or school system,'' 
        . . .

        Mr. James V. Stanton [of Ohio]: I do insist on my point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the amendment as offered by the 
    gentleman from Kentucky is totally unrelated to a national bus 
    transportation policy that is being considered under this act. His 
    amendment goes to a policy of social concern that he apparently has 
    a deep commitment to, that I do not think should be considered in 
    this bill, because this bill is dealing with physical property in 
    transportation. It is not dealing with social causes involved in 
    the gentleman's amendment. . . .
        Mr. Snyder: . . . Certainly there is no question that what the 
    gentleman says is absolutely correct. This is unrelated to the mass 
    transit policy of this country, but it is absolutely related to the 
    language of this bill and the exception to the prohibition that 
    appears on line 13, page 67, relates not to the mass transit policy 
    of this Nation, but to an individual school system that might 
    operate a schoolbus system in connection with their school 
    operation. There is where the prohibition is necessary if, in fact, 
    the funds are not going to be used for this purpose.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James W. Symington (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would remind the committee that the germaneness of an 
    amendment should be determined from provisions of its text, rather 
    than from the purposes which circumstances may suggest (Hinds' 
    Precedents, volume V, sections 5783, 5803).
        Since the text of the amendment is related to a subject covered 
    by the bill, which is to say there is money authorized in the bill 
    for the construction and operation of buses which might be used for 
    the transportation of students, it is germane to place a limitation 
    on the uses for which that money may be directed.

Funds To Purchase Foreign-made Goods

Sec. 34.21 To a bill granting authorities to the federal government or 
    authorizing the appropriation of funds, an amendment denying the 
    use of those authorities or funds to purchase foreign-made goods or 
    equipment is germane.

    The proceedings of Dec. 4, 1980, during consideration of H.R. 6417,

[[Page 8782]]

the Surface Transportation Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 35.82, 
infra.

Funding Denied Unless Goods Produced by Slave Labor in Soviet Union are 
    Barred From Customs Entry

Sec. 34.22 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    prohibiting the availability of funds in any Act for salaries and 
    expenses for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for 
    Enforcement and Operations after a date certain unless Congress 
    enacts authorizing legislation for the Customs Service, a proposed 
    substitute amendment restricting availability of funds in that bill 
    for the same office unless specific categories of products, 
    determined to have been produced by slave or convict labor in the 
    Soviet Union, are barred from customs entry into the United States 
    was conceded to be not germane as a condition totally unrelated to 
    that contained in the Senate amendment.

    On Nov. 7, 1985,(5) during consideration of H.R. 3036 
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against an amendment, thereby holding that to a 
proposition conditioning the availability of funds upon the enactment 
of an authorizing statute for an enforcing agency, a substitute 
proposal conditioning the availability of some of those funds upon a 
prohibition of certain imports into the United States was not germane, 
as establishing a contingency unrelated to that contained in the 
proposition to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 131 Cong. Rec. 30984, 30985, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. The Department of the Treasury and Postal Service Appropriations, 
        fiscal 1986.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Clerk will 
    designate the first amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

[[Page 8783]]

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

            Mr. Roybal moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following: 
        ``Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act 
        shall be available for the salaries and expenses of the Office 
        of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and 
        Operations if any of the following products of the Union of 
        Soviet Socialist Republics are entered, or withdrawn from 
        warehouse, for consumption in the customs territory of the 
        United States after December 31, 1985, unless the Commissioner 
        of Customs is provided with sufficient information pursuant to 
        19 CFR 12.43 attesting to the fact that the products have not 
        been produced, manufactured, or mined (in whole or in part) by 
        forced labor, convict labor, or indentured labor under penal 
        sanctions:
            ``(1) gold ore,
            ``(2) agricultural machinery . . .
            ``(8) any other product that the Commissioner of Customs 
        determines to have been produced, manufactured, or mined (in 
        whole or in part) by forced labor, convict labor, or indentured 
        labor under penal sanctions: Provided further, That none of the 
        funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to hinder or 
        impede the Commissioner of Customs in making determinations 
        tons in making determinations under subsection (8) of the 
        preceding proviso''. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment 
    numbered 3 under clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House.
        Senate amendment numbered 3 provides that no funds shall be 
    available for salaries and expenses for the Office of the Assistant 
    Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and Operations after 
    March 1, 1986, unless Congress passes authorizing legislation for 
    the U.S. Customs Service.
        The proposed substitute amendment, on the other hand, prohibits 
    funding of that office unless seven specific categories of products 
    and other categories determined by the Commissioner of Customs to 
    be produced by slave or convict labor in the Soviet Union are 
    barred entry into the United States after December 31.
        The amendment clearly raises new issues and involves subject 
    matter quite different from the Senate amendment. It also 
    constitutes legislation specifically to prohibit certain imports 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
        Mr. Roybal: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order at this particular point, and I just would like to state that 
    the original Senate amendment provided that none of the funds 
    contained in this or any other act shall be available unless the 
    U.S. Customs Service authorizing legislation is passed by the 
    Congress. . . .
        This provision is more restrictive than the amendment in the 
    Senate bill in that, No. 1, it limits the prohibition of funds to 
    those made available by this act only and it does not apply to any 
    other act.
        No. 2, the language included in the amendment could 
    appropriately be included in the authorizing legislation designated 
    in the Senate amendment. It, therefore, does not address any ad

[[Page 8784]]

    ditional topic, question, issue, or proposition not committed to 
    committee or conference because the Customs authorizing legislation 
    could contain all of the provisions included in the amendment.
        It is the committee's position that the primary purpose of this 
    provision is not to change the scope of existing law. The purpose 
    of this amendment is to compel the U.S. Customs Service to enforce 
    existing laws.
        I would like to put the administration on notice that we expect 
    them to start enforcing the law.

        Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman concedes the point of 
    order, and the point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
    Frenzel] is sustained.

United States Payments to Asian Development Bank

Sec. 34.23 To be germane an amendment restricting authorized funds in a 
    pending title must relate solely to those funds and may not apply 
    to another related category of funds; thus, to a title of a bill 
    authorizing a United States contribution to the Asian Development 
    Fund, a special fund of the Asian Development Bank, and providing 
    for accounting procedures by the Bank applicable to such 
    contribution, an amendment restricting United States payments to 
    the Bank for subscriptions in Bank stock, as well as payments to 
    the special Fund, was held not germane since affecting funds not 
    carried in the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 3829 (8) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Mar. 6, 1980,(9) the Chair sustained a point 
of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. A bill increasing United States participation in international 
        financial institutions.
 9. 126 Cong. Rec. 4960, 4970, 4971, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        TITLE II--ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

            Sec. 201. The Asian Development Bank Act, as amended (22 
        U.S.C. 285 et seq.), is further amended by adding at the end 
        the following new section:
            ``Sec. 24. (a) The United States Governor of the Bank is 
        hereby authorized to contribute on behalf of the United States 
        $445,000,000 to the Asian Development Fund, a special fund of 
        the Bank: Provided however, That any commitment to make such 
        contribution shall be made subject to obtaining the necessary 
        appropriations.
            ``(b) In order to pay for the United States contribution to 
        the Asian Development Fund provided for in this section, there 
        are hereby authorized to be appropriated without fiscal year 
        limitation $445,000,000 for pay

[[Page 8785]]

        ment by the Secretary of the Treasury.
            ``(c) For the purpose of keeping to a minimum the cost to 
        the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay the 
        United States contribution to the Asian Development Fund 
        authorized by this section by letter of credit in four annual 
        installments. The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to take 
        the steps necessary to obtain a certification from the Bank 
        that any undisbursed balances resulting from drawdowns on such 
        letter of credit will not exceed at any time the United States 
        share of expected disbursement requirements for the following 
        three-month period.''. . .

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 3, line 24, strike 
        out ``section'' and insert in lieu thereof ``sections''.
            Page 4, insert the following after line 21:
            ``Sec. 25. No payment may be made to the Bank by the 
        Secretary of the Treasury for (1) the United States share of 
        the increase in subscriptions to the paid-in capital stock and 
        callable capital stock, or (2) the United States contribution 
        to the Asian Development Fund, if Taiwan (before January 1, 
        1979, known as the Republic of China) is excluded from 
        membership in the Bank.''
            Page 4, line 21, strike out the closed quotation marks and 
        final period. . . .

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    is not germane to the bill before us. Chapter 28 of ``Deschler's 
    Procedure'' sets forth many examples of and precedents indicating 
    that an amendment must be germane to the bill before the committee.
        In this instance, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York would, if adopted, amend the relationship of the United 
    States to the Asian Development Bank.
        The bill before the committee in no way makes any reference to 
    the Asian Development Fund.
        I would argue that the gentleman's amendment is not germane and 
    should be ruled out of order. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    legislation before us is the general authorizing legislation for 
    all of the various multilateral lending institutions covered by the 
    bill. The terms of this bill before us are broad in scope, and in 
    the case of the Asian Development Bank, they specifically, for 
    instance, in title IV, section 401, direct the Secretary of the 
    Treasury to instruct the Directors of the Asian Development Bank to 
    take certain steps regarding some future contingent event described 
    therein. There are a number of other restrictions placed upon the 
    lending institutions described in this bill.
        The gentleman from New York's amendment simply suggests an 
    additional limitation of the same quality and type already included 
    in this bill be imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury as it 
    pertains to the Asian Development Bank, one of the institutions 
    that the bill authorizes. The amendment is germane. . . .
        Mr. Solomon: . . . I would just like to explain, in reference 
    to the germaneness of the amendment, that this amendment would 
    prohibit the U.S. participation in the Asian Development

[[Page 8786]]

    Bank if Taiwan is excluded from membership in that particular bank.
        The gentleman is talking about the Asian Development Fund, 
    rather, capital stock, and the pending bill makes no reference to 
    capital stock. We are talking about the Asian Development Fund.
        So the gentleman's amendment properly is not germane to the 
    subject matter under consideration.
        Mr. Solomon: With all due respect to the chairman, it is simply 
    a limitation. It refers to title II, the Asian Development Bank. I 
    would state that the amendment is germane.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, I do so 
    only to underline the major motivation for my point of order, and 
    this is that our bill addresses itself to the Asian Development 
    Fund. At no point is it considering the question of capitalization 
    structure or the stock. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair would direct [a] 
    question to the gentleman and ask whether or not the $445 million 
    authorized to be contributed in title II, does it include in that 
    the U.S. share of subscriptions to the paid-up in capital stock and 
    the callable capital stock, as well as the contribution to the 
    Asian Development Fund?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Robert Duncan (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gonzalez: No; if the distinguished chairman will look at 
    page 4 of the bill, the first line, section 24(a):

            The United States Governor of the Bank is hereby authorized 
        to contribute on behalf of the United States $445 million to 
        the Asian Development Fund.

        There is a distinction between the fund and the bank. The 
    amendment of the gentleman addresses itself to the bank and the 
    capitalization structure, et cetera, et cetera. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Having examined title II, and concurring with the gentleman 
    from Texas that the authorizations are entirely to the Asian 
    Development Fund and without reference to the bank and without 
    reference to either paid in capital stock or callable capital 
    stock, the Chair is forced to rule that to that extent the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is 
    nongermane to title II of H.R. 3829.

Restriction on Funds for Abortions

Sec. 34.24 To the ``general provisions'' title of the annual Defense 
    Department authorization bill, including authorizations for special 
    pay to health professionals within the armed services and 
    authorization ceilings on payments to physicians under the 
    uniformed services health benefit program (CHAMPUS) as well as 
    other miscellaneous provisions and authorizations, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds authorized by the bill to pay for 
    abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered 
    if the fetus were carried to term

[[Page 8787]]

    was held in order as a germane limitation on the use of the funds 
    and authorities provided in the bill.

    On Oct. 4, 1978,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering an amendment to H.R. 14042 when a point of order was raised 
against the amendment on grounds that it was not germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 33529, 33530, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 39, immediately after 
        line 3, insert the following new section:

                   prohibition on use of funds for abortions

            Sec. 818. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
        by this Act may be used to pay for abortions performed by any 
        means except where the life of the mother is in danger if the 
        fetus is carried to term, nor may such funds be used to promote 
        or encourage abortion.

        Mr. [Mendel J.] Davis [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the basis of germaneness. In this bill, title I 
    authorizes money for the procurement of major weapons systems for 
    the Department of Defense.
        Title II authorizes funds for R. & D. by the Department of 
    Defense, and title VII authorizes funds for Civil Defense. However 
    in the operation and maintenance of hospitals, medical clinics, 
    payments for the services, and so forth, they are operated and paid 
    for out of the O. & M. account and therefore not subject for 
    authorization by this bill.
        The amendment was introduced likewise on the appropriation 
    bill. That is where it should have been, because that is where the 
    moneys are, but, Mr. Chairman, to burden this bill with a 
    nongermane amendment going to a limitation of funds that are not 
    authorized by this bill is improper, and I would hope the Chair 
    would sustain the point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Dornan) care to be heard on that point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dornan: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The distinguished gentleman from South Carolina did not mention 
    title VIII. If my colleagues will turn to title VIII of this bill 
    they will see a section entitled ``Extension of Authority for 
    Special Pay for Health Professionals.'' This impacts of course in 
    some areas on abortion. On page 29 they will see the heading 
    ``Ceiling for Payments to Physicians Under CHAMPUS.'' It was this 
    very program that first called my attention to how far we had moved 
    in supporting and encouraging abortion with Defense dollars, 
    because it was under this program in a military medical journal 
    where they began to outline how vigorously they were going to move 
    in the area of abortion far and beyond the movement we have seen, 
    contrary to the wishes of the President and of Mr. Califano even in 
    HEW.

[[Page 8788]]

        So I believe it is not only germane, it is super-germane to 
    this bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Dornan) and noted the arguments made by the 
    gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Davis). There are in title VIII 
    authorizations for appropriations for certain programs involving 
    military personnel as well as ceilings for payments and limitations 
    with respect to the expenditure of funds involving personnel. It is 
    for this reason and because of the specific provisions in title 
    VIII mentioned by the gentleman from California that the Chair 
    overrules the point of order and sustains the germaneness of the 
    amendment.
        The gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) is recognized for 5 
    minutes in support of his amendment.

Education Bill--Funds for Teaching or Counseling as to Use of Abortion

Sec. 34.25 To a title of a bill establishing a new Department of 
    Education, containing findings and purposes and setting forth 
    restrictions on the authority of the new department to exercise 
    federal control over education, an amendment denying the use of 
    funds under federal programs to assist the teaching of or 
    counseling as to the use of abortion was ruled out of order as not 
    germane, being unrelated to the fundamental purpose of the title to 
    restrict federal control over public education and curricula, 
    inasmuch as it sought to address funding authority rather than 
    legal restrictions.

    On June 12, 1979,(13) the Chair sustained a point of 
order against an amendment to a title of a bill (14) which 
restricted the authority of an entity to exercise control over 
institutions for which it was to administer funding under existing 
laws, holding that the amendment, which curtailed the authority of the 
agency to provide funds for certain reasons, was not germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 14464, 14465, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 2444, Department of Education Organization Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 57, after line 7 
        insert new section:

              prohibition against abortion educational expenditure

            Sec. 104. 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

[[Page 8789]]

        construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to 
        fund, control, supervise, or to assist in any manner, directly 
        or indirectly, the teaching of abortion as a method of family 
        planning, or counseling the use of abortion by students or 
        others, or the practice of abortion, through or in conjunction 
        with the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-864), 
        as amended; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
        (P.L. 80-10), as amended; the Higher Education Act of 1965 
        (P.L. 89-329), as amended; the Adult Education Act (P.L. 89-
        750), as amended; or any other federally sponsored educational 
        program, except as explicitly provided by statute. . . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I would say (the 
    germaneness rule) requires an amendment to be germane to the 
    subject under consideration and to be germane the amendment must 
    have the same fundamental purpose as the bill under consideration. 
    This amendment does not and I would like to speak on it if I might. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment has the effect of amending 
    statutes not before the House. The amendment imposes an additional 
    restriction on the expenditure of funds that are not now in the 
    law. The amendment is not related to Federal control but is a 
    direct restriction on Federal funding.
        Mr. Chairman, the prior amendments to this title have been 
    ruled proper as clarifying the intent of the legislation, not to 
    extend the authority of the Federal Government in the areas of 
    discrimination and religion. They did not undermine or add new 
    restrictions to the authority but merely offer to prevent its undue 
    expansion.
        This amendment would curtail, in a manner not previously 
    considered by the committee of substantive jurisdiction, existing 
    authority to assist biological and health educational programs and 
    rather than protecting the local authority from Federal control 
    will add a new restriction and extend Federal control over that 
    local authority. This is not a matter appropriate to a 
    reorganization bill. It is not a decision that is within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations and should 
    not be approved, ``except as explicitly provided by statute.'' It 
    just does not eliminate a flaw in this amendment because it simply 
    leads us in circles. In effect, the amendment says no provision of 
    law shall be construed to do so and so except as explicitly 
    provided by statute. Of course, no provision of the law can be 
    construed to do anything except as provided by statute. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . I would indicate that my colleague, the 
    gentleman from Texas, is correct in indicating that my amendment 
    would attach to several provisions of law; however, under this 
    reorganization that is precisely what we are doing. We are bringing 
    the administration provisions of law, of statutes heretofore 
    enacted under the jurisdiction of the new Secretary of Education.
        I would also point out that on page 90 in section 437 the 
    General Education Provision Act is specifically referred to.
        The Speaker in November of 1971 in a direct ruling similar to 
    this indicated where the General Education Provision Act is brought 
    before the Congress, that opens up the provisions that are covered 
    by the General Education Provisions Act.
        Even beyond that, I limited the amendment to specific 
    educational acts

[[Page 8790]]

    that under this reorganization are brought under the jurisdiction 
    of the new Secretary of the Cabinet office to be created.
        I think the rulings of the Chair in the past days, yesterday 
    and today, clearly indicate that this amendment as a limitation on 
    programs administered by the Secretary of the new department to be 
    created would be germane.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio on the grounds that it 
    is not germane to the bill.
        The Chair might state that the precedent cited by the gentleman 
    from Ohio did not involve a reorganization bill.
        The amendment which the gentleman from Ohio has offered would 
    provide that no provision of law shall be construed to authorize 
    the Secretary of Education or any other officer to fund, control, 
    or assist the teaching of abortion as a family planning method or 
    the counseling or use of the practice of abortion in connection 
    with federally sponsored educational programs, except where 
    explicitly provided by statute.
        The gentleman has argued in opposition to the point of order 
    that the provisions of title I as perfected by the Committee of the 
    Whole yesterday already limit in various respects the authority of 
    the Department of Education and other Federal officials to control 
    the activities of local educational agencies receiving Federal 
    funds for educational purposes.
        The provisions of section 103 of the bill as amended contain 
    restrictions on the authority of the Federal Government to exercise 
    control over the local discretionary use of Federal funds and to 
    require eligibility standards for the receipt of such funds; but it 
    is contrary to the fundamental purpose of those limitations to 
    directly change the Secretary's authority to provide funds to local 
    educational agencies.
        Nothing in the bill before the Committee of the Whole, which is 
    essentially an organizational bill, changes the authority to 
    provide Federal funds for educational purposes under those laws 
    whose administration is transferred to the new Department.
        Title I, as amended, remains restricted in scope to expressions 
    of policy which indicate that the authorities being transferred by 
    this bill are not to be construed as being expanded to permit 
    increased Federal control over local educational policies.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment Denying Assistance to Health Centers in States That Permit 
    Public Bath Houses

Sec. 34.26 It is not germane to condition assistance to a particular 
    class of recipient covered by a bill upon an unrelated contingency, 
    such as action or inaction by another class of recipient or agent 
    not covered by the bill; thus,

[[Page 8791]]

    to a bill only relating to federal funding and programs for 
    community and migrant health centers not operated by state 
    governments, an amendment denying assistance under the bill to any 
    health center located in any state which permitted the operation of 
    public bath houses was ruled out as imposing a nongermane 
    contingency to bar the use of funds, since state governments were 
    not recipients of funds in, or otherwise affected by, the 
    provisions of the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 2418 (Health Services Amendments of 
1985), in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 5, 1986,(16) 
the Chair sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 132 Cong. Rec. 3613, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 5, after line 23 
        insert the following:
        sec. 7. grant condition.

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

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I assert 
    my point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by our colleague, the 
    gentleman from California, is not germane to this bill. This bill 
    provides for the operation of community health centers and migrant 
    health centers. To our knowledge, no community or migrant health 
    centers are operated by State governments. This amendment would 
    delay the operation of the legislation until a contingency not 
    related to the purposes of this bill is carried out by States. This 
    amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . Mr. Chairman, the point of order that is 
    being asserted by my friend from Los Angeles may have some merit if 
    the proscription of the amendment had general applicability to all 
    health care funds. It does not.
        It is limited exclusively to any funding that may be available 
    under the two programs. Community Health Centers and Migrant Health 
    Centers. With that limitation, I think it is most appropriate to 
    say in this authorization bill that none of the funds can be used 
    unless, within 6 months, States of the Union who seek to apply for 
    these funds have shut down bathhouses in their jurisdictions. In 
    that narrow area, I believe it should pass muster as having 
    germaneness and applicability.
        Mr. Waxman: Mr. Chairman, if I might be heard further on this 
    amend

[[Page 8792]]

    ment. An amendment delaying the operation of proposed legislation 
    pending an unrelated contingency is not germane. The funds granted 
    under this program are to private entities, not to State 
    governments.
        To permit that those funds be cut off to private entities 
    because of the inaction by State government is not germane because 
    it is a contingency that cannot be met by the organization to which 
    the funds would be granted. Chapter 28, section 24, provides that 
    an amendment making the implementation of Federal legislation 
    contingent upon the enactment of unrelated State legislation is not 
    germane.
        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: . . . There is reference 
    in this amendment that would close down these programs if something 
    was ``used for sexual relations between males.'' There is nothing 
    in this bill dealing with that. It introduces an entire new subject 
    and would require the ascertainment of a fact that has nothing to 
    do with the subject matter of this bill and would delay the 
    enactment of the program on that basis. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This bill, H.R. 2418, is a categorical grant program. The money 
    that is authorized under the bill, if appropriated, goes to 
    community and migrant health centers and not to the States. The 
    bill was narrowed earlier in these proceedings to remove from the 
    bill the only paragraph that referred to the States.
        This amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr. 
    Dannemeyer, seeks to impose a condition upon a State which must be 
    met by the State government before community health centers that 
    may be in that State or partly in that State can receive the funds. 
    States are not recipients of the funds provided in the bill or 
    otherwise within the purview of the bill.
        An earlier ruling of September 25, 1975, which appears in 
    Deschler's Procedures of the House at page 596, states, ``That an 
    amendment is not germane if it makes the effectiveness of a bill 
    contingent upon an unrelated event or determination.''
        Therefore, the amendment is not germane and the point of order 
    is sustained.

Federal Energy Administration Hearings To Be Conducted in Specified 
    Areas

Sec. 34.27 To a bill extending the existence of the Federal Energy 
    Administration and authorizing appropriations for that agency, an 
    amendment requiring that agency to promulgate regulations to assure 
    that the agency hearings funded by the bill are conducted in the 
    areas to be affected by that agency's actions was held germane as a 
    restriction on the use of funds authorized by the bill.

    On June 1, 1976,(18) during consideration of H.R. 12169, 
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Ken

[[Page 8793]]

tucky, overruled a point of order against an amendment to the bill. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 16057, 16058, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lagomarsino: Page 10, immediately 
        after line 4, insert the following:

           requirements for hearings in areas affected by rules and 
                        regulations of the administrator

            Sec. 3. Section 7(i)(1) is amended by adding after 
        subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph:
            ``(D)(i) The Administrator shall, not later than 60 days 
        after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, prescribe 
        and implement rules to assure that any hearing the expenses of 
        which are paid by any funds authorized to be appropriated under 
        this Act shall--
            ``(I) if such hearing concerns a single unit of local 
        government or the residents thereof, be held within the 
        boundaries of such unit;
            ``(II) if such hearing concerns a single geographic area 
        within a State or the residents thereof, be held within the 
        boundaries of such area; or
            ``(III) if such hearing concerns a single State or the 
        residents thereof, be held within such State. . . .''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        [T]he amendment is not germane. If my colleagues will observe, 
    we have a lengthy amendment here which embodies a number of things 
    including extensive requirements for hearings in different parts of 
    the country. But in addition to this it vests broad new discretion 
    in the Administrator of FEA by saying that he can have a hearing or 
    not have a hearing, or determine none is appropriate.
        It also provides new quasi-judicial powers to the Administrator 
    of the FEA to consolidate these hearings, raising great questions. 
    There is also a series of cross-references to a large number of 
    other parts of the Federal Energy Agency Act and of the EPCA, and 
    as a result it is impossible to discern very quickly just what 
    discretions and what authorities and what requirements are imposed 
    upon the Administrator. . . .
        Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino [of California]: Mr. Chairman, to 
    alleviate any doubts any of my colleagues may have regarding the 
    germaneness of this amendment, let me stress this is an amendment 
    dealing not with just any hearings but would be one specifically 
    tied to any hearing with respect to the disagreement over an 
    expenditure of FEA funds. My amendment would assure that in 
    connection with the administrative expenses paid out for FEA, the 
    hearings--and it does not require any hearings to be held which are 
    not now required to be held--will be held within the jurisdictions 
    affected. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Lagomarsino) is limited to hearings paid for by the funds 
    authorized in this bill. The amendment restricts the uses to which 
    such funds may be used and is germane. The Chair therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8794]]

Contracts for Development of Synthetic Fuels--Prohibition Against 
    Contracts With Major Oil Producers

Sec. 34.28 To a bill authorizing appropriations to enter into contracts 
    for the development of synthetic fuels, an amendment prohibiting 
    the use of the funds authorized to enter into contracts with any 
    major oil company was held germane.

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (19) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated 
that to a bill authorizing appropriations and providing contracting 
authority, an amendment restricting the use of the authorization or 
contracting authority for the benefit of a certain class of recipients 
is germane. The proceedings of June 26, 1979,(20) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 3930.
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 16694-96, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: On page 11, after line 2, 
        insert the following:
            ``(3) by inserting ``(1)'' before the first word of section 
        (a) and by inserting the following after the last sentence.
            ``(2) No funds authorized in subparagraph (1) above to 
        carry out the purposes of Sections 305(d)(3) and 305(d)(5) may 
        be used to contract for the purchase or the commitment to 
        purchase any amount of synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical 
        feedstock with any major oil company. For the purposes of this 
        section:
            ``(A) The term `major oil company' means any person, 
        association, or corporation which, together with its 
        affiliates, either produces or refines a daily world-wide 
        volume of 1,600,000 barrels of crude oil, natural gas liquids 
        equivalents, and natural gas equivalents''. . . .

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, according to 
    rule XVI, clause 7--that is the germaneness rule of the House--one 
    of the tests is the jurisdiction of the committee of jurisdiction. 
    Certainly a bill of this nature which we are talking about, when we 
    have sort of a divestiture of certain oil companies, legislation of 
    this sort should come from the Committee on the Judiciary.
        Second, the title of the bill is another test of jurisdiction. 
    According to the title, this is a bill ``to amend the Defense 
    Production Act of 1950 to extend the authority granted by such act 
    and to provide for the purchase of synthetic fuels and synthetic 
    chemical feedstocks, and for other purposes.''
        Certainly that does not come under germaneness test and the 
    defense title of the bill. If there is any purpose to this bill, it 
    is to provide for the production because of defense purposes, and 
    this is an attempt to interfere and stop a substantial section of 
    our country from participating in the program.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think certainly under rule XVI, clause 7, 
    my argument stands up. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The amendment is 
    carefully draft

[[Page 8795]]

    ed as a limitation on authorization. It says, ``No funds authorized 
    . . . to carry out the purposes of sections'' so-and-so ``may be 
    used to contract for the purchase or the commitment to purchase any 
    amount of synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical feedstock with any 
    major oil company.''
        The amendment is clearly germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to suggest that the point of order is not well taken. The 
    provisions of this act that provide for an opportunity for 
    Government-based cooperation provides for the limitation on the 
    size of the contract in terms of 100-billion-a-day equivalent 
    synthetic fuels. It has all sorts of parameters in the nature of 
    purchases by contractors and the nature of the agreement. I think 
    this is one further limitation that is in order in terms of this 
    legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair cannot see any questions of germaneness raised by the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). It 
    appears to the Chair to be simply an additional restriction or 
    condition on the contracting authority granted under this act and, 
    therefore, to be germane.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Direction to Department of Energy Concerning Purchase of Alternative 
    Fuels

Sec. 34.29 To a title of the annual Department of Energy authorization 
    bill, providing limitations and directions on the use of operating 
    expenses for the entire Department funded throughout the bill, and 
    specifically limiting the use of funds for physical facilities and 
    for the purchase of gasoline for use of the Department, an 
    amendment providing procedures for the Department to follow in 
    purchasing alternative fuels for use in its vehicles during the 
    fiscal year covered by the bill, was held germane as a further 
    related restriction or direction on the use of operating funds for 
    the fiscal year.

    During consideration of H.R. 3000 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Oct. 18, 1979,(2) the Chair overruled a point of order, 
demonstrating that to a title of an annual authorization bill 
containing both limitations on the use of funds and directions to the 
agency for the fiscal year covered by the bill, an amendment adding 
further directions to that agency to be followed during the same period 
is germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 28795, 28796, 28798-800, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 8796]]

                    limitation of reprogramming of funds

        Sec. 801. (a)(1) Subject to the limitations of sections 201(b) 
    and 802, no amount appropriated pursuant to this Act (other than 
    title I) may be used for any program, function, or purpose in 
    excess of the amount expressly authorized to be appropriated for 
    that program, function, or purpose by this Act, nor may the amount 
    available for any program, function, or purpose from sums 
    appropriated pursuant to this Act (other than title I) be reduced 
    by more than 5 percent of the total of the sums appropriated 
    pursuant to this Act for such program, function, or purpose or by 
    more than $10,000,000 (whichever is the lesser) . . .
        ``(e) Not later than 120 days after the close of a fiscal year, 
    the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to the Congress a report 
    on--
        ``(1) revenues received during such fiscal year from uranium 
    enrichment activities and other programs, and . . .

        limitation of funds for facilities for department of energy

        Sec. 809. No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
    may be used for the renovation . . . of facilities to provide 
    temporary or permanent space for personnel relocated as a result of 
    the establishment and activation of the Department of Energy and 
    for which funds were appropriated by chapter V of title I of the 
    Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1978.

                limitation on use of gasoline by department

         Sec. 810. No funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to 
    this Act for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, may be used 
    to purchase motor gasoline or to reimburse any other Federal agency 
    for motor gasoline in an amount which exceeds 85 percent of the 
    amount of motor gasoline purchased . . . during the fiscal year 
    ending September 30, 1979, by any component of the Department for 
    which funds are authorized to be appropriated by this Act. . . .
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 78, line 11, 
        insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 810.''.
            Page 78, after line 20, insert the following new 
        subsection:
            (b)(1) The Secretary of Energy shall advertise in the 
        Federal Register to request bids from distributors of 
        alternative fuels produced in the United States for the 
        purchase of such alternative fuels for use during the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 1980, in motor vehicles owned by the 
        Department of Energy.
            (2) The Secretary shall require that each such distributor 
        who submits such a bid include in such bid an agreement--
            (A) to provide a quantity of an alternative fuel--
            (i) which will produce an amount of energy which is not 
        less than the amount of energy produced by 200,000 gallons of 
        motor gasoline, and
            (ii) the cost of which does not exceed the cost that the 
        Secretary would incur to purchase 200,000 gallons of motor 
        gasoline,
            (B) to pay any amount, as determined by the Secretary, by 
        which any cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining any 
        facility for the storage of such alternative fuel ex

[[Page 8797]]

        ceeds the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining any 
        facility for the storage of motor gasoline that would have been 
        incurred if such motor gasoline had been purchased by the 
        Secretary in lieu of such alternative fuel. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the rules of 
    the House require that amendments to legislation shall be germane, 
    first, to the bill, and second, to the portion of the bill to which 
    they are directed.
        Mr. Chairman, without addressing at this particular moment 
    whether or not the amendment is germane to the bill, I will address 
    the second point, which is the lack of germaneness of the amendment 
    to the portion of the bill to which it is offered.
        Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will observe, the portion of the 
    bill to which the amendment is offered, it can be observed it is a 
    limitation on the use of gasoline by a department. It then is a 
    limitation on funds, which reads as follows:

            No funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this Act 
        for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, may be used to 
        purchase motor gasoline or reimburse any other Federal agency 
        for motor gasoline in an amount which exceeds 85 percent of the 
        amount of the motor gasoline purchase.

        In other words, we have here a limitation. The proposal that is 
    offered by my dear friend, the gentleman from California, is one 
    which would set up a rather large program which would require the 
    Secretary of Energy to do a whole series of things, none of which 
    are consistent with or which are relevant to this limitation. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, section 810 of the committee bill 
    which is before the committee now for its consideration contains a 
    restriction on the use of funds during the existing fiscal year for 
    the purchase of motor gasoline. That is in section 810 of the bill 
    before the committee.
        For instance, it provides that the Department of Energy is 
    required to reduce its consumption of gasoline by not less than 15 
    percent during this 1980 fiscal year.
        That is the very thrust of this proposed amendment. It is 
    designed also to reduce the quantity of gasoline that is being 
    consumed by the Department of Energy through the medium of 
    soliciting alternative sources of supply. It is not specific; it 
    just says, ``alternative fuels'' in the proposed amendment. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will observe that the rules of the House require that 
    the amendment first be germane to the pending portion of the bill 
    to which it is offered.
        Title VIII deals with operating funds and personnel expenses of 
    the entire Department of Energy for the fiscal year 1980. The 
    amendment appears to the Chair to be confined to fiscal year 1980 
    and to constitute an appropriate restriction or direction on how 
    the Department uses its operating funds for the fiscal year in 
    question, and it is, therefore, germane.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Administrative Services Related to Construction of Electrical Power 
    Facilities

Sec. 34.30 To that paragraph of the Agriculture Appropria

[[Page 8798]]

    tions Bill making appropriations for the Rural Electrification 
    Administration, an amendment was held to be germane which provided 
    that ``during the period of the war . . . no part of [the 
    appropriation in the paragraph] shall be expended for 
    administrative services which have to do with the construction of 
    any facilities for the production . . . of electric power in any 
    area now receiving central station service.''

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Agricultural 
Appropriations Bill of 1943,(4) an amendment was offered 
(5) to a paragraph of the bill in an attempt to place 
restrictions, in the manner described above, on the expenditure of the 
appropriation in that paragraph. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane, and that 
it constituted legislation on an appropriation bill. He stated: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 6709 (Committee on Appropriations).
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 2445, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1942.
 6. Id. at pp. 2445, 2446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that the duties 
    of the Rural Electrification Administration are already prescribed 
    in existing law. This amendment attempts to change that, which 
    makes it purely legislation on an appropriation bill. Besides, as I 
    pointed out a moment ago, this expense account has nothing whatever 
    to do with the disposition of the money borrowed by the rural 
    electrification cooperatives from the R.F.C. or through the R.F.C. 
    . . .

    The following exchange (7) ensued between Mr. Malcolm C. 
Tarver, of Georgia, who spoke in support of the point of order, and the 
Chairman: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 2446.
 8. The Chairman was Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, may I offer an observation in 
    connection with this argument? The limitation which the gentleman 
    seeks to impose upon the administrative expenses cannot be germane 
    to this paragraph of the bill, which has nothing to do with 
    administrative expenses but merely with the item of loans. The item 
    of administrative expenses has already been passed.
        The Chairman: The Chair would call attention to the fact that 
    the amendment is offered to the total amount for rural 
    electrification, which includes everything for rural 
    electrification.

    Subsequently, the Chairman overruled the point of order. He stated:

        The gentleman from Mississippi makes the point of order [that 
    the amendment] is not germane. The Chair feels that the present 
    amend

[[Page 8799]]

    ment . . . being limited to the amount proposed to be appropriated 
    for the Rural Electrification Administration, and being a 
    limitation only upon the expenditure of those funds, is in order. . 
    . .

    Prior to the above ruling, the Chairman had ruled that a similar 
amendment, providing that no part of the money appropriated ``under 
this bill'' should be expended for the stated purposes, was not germane 
to the paragraph in question. Inclusion of the quoted language, the 
Chairman indicated, rendered the amendment improper at that point, 
``since the amendment is directed to the entire bill.'' (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See the proceedings at 88 Cong. Rec. 2445, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Mar. 13, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds for Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Amendment Affecting Exports of 
    Uranium

Sec. 34.31 It is germane to a bill authorizing appropriations for an 
    agency, to prohibit the use of such funds for any purpose to which 
    the funds may otherwise be applied; thus, to a bill authorizing 
    appropriations for all the annual activities of the Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission, including review and approval of exports of 
    uranium, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds authorized in 
    the bill to review, process or approve exports of certain uranium 
    was held germane.

    On Nov. 5, 1981,(10) during consideration of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission authorization bill for fiscal years 1982 and 
1983,(11) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 127 Cong. Rec. 26715, 26716, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 4255.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Page 16, after line 20, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 14. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no part 
        of any funds authorized to be appropriated by the Act may be 
        used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review, process, 
        or approve any application for a license to export uranium 
        enriched to greater than 20 percent U-235.
            (b) The prohibition contained in subsection (a) shall not 
        apply to any application for a license to export uranium if 
        such uranium is exported for use in reactors which the Nuclear 
        Regulatory Commission determines cannot feasibly be converted 
        to low enriched uranium. . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, I make a point of order against this amendment. I make 
    the point of order against the amendment on the grounds that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill and the amendment is not 
    germane to the nature of the substitute

[[Page 8800]]

    that is before us and thus is in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI 
    of the rules of the House.
        Proceeding further with my argument, I would point out that the 
    measure before us, the purpose is to authorize appropriations 
    through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with the 
    provisions of section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act.
        In addition, the bill before us makes other changes in the 
    authority of the NRC, granting them rights to issue temporary 
    operating licenses to nuclear-powered electric generating plants 
    and also gives (discretion to the NRC) to report to the Congress on 
    their recommendations for reducing the licensing time for nuclear-
    powered electric generating facilities.
        Now the amendment as proposed by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is an amendment to entirely different 
    sections of the act. It sets up new criteria governing the 
    exportation of certain nuclear material. That subject matter is 
    found nowhere in the bill before us.
        The bill before us does not address in any way the question of 
    exportation of nuclear matter. In fact, the question of criteria 
    governing the export of nuclear material is found in an entirely 
    different section of the act, section 127. . . .
        I would remind the Chair that not only should the fundamental 
    purpose of an amendment be germane to the fundamental purpose of 
    the bill, but also any amendment seeking to restrict the use of 
    funds must be limited to the subject matter and scope of the 
    provision sought to be amended. I do not believe that the amendment 
    meets either test.
        I would also question whether an amendment of this nature 
    involving exportation of material to foreign countries might also 
    fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
    Their jurisdiction is over measures to foster commercial 
    intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business 
    interests abroad.
        I am questioning whether or not there might be jurisdiction of 
    another committee involved here.
        For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is imperative 
    that this amendment is not germane and would urge the Chair to 
    sustain the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, what 
    we have before us at this time is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
    authorization. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is for all 
    purposes, for all funding. This is merely a limitation on the 
    expenditure of those funds from one of those functions.
        Clearly, it is germane within the definition of the functions 
    of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to place a restriction upon 
    the expenditure of funds for these purposes. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from North Carolina makes a point of order that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts is not 
    germane to the bill and is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI, of 
    the rules of the House.
        The bill before the Committee is a general authorization bill 
    for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which

[[Page 8801]]

    provides funds for a variety of functions of the Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission, including nuclear reactor regulations, instructions and 
    enforcement standards development, nuclear materials safety, 
    safeguards, nuclear regulatory research program, technical support 
    administration and international programs.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    merely limits whatever funds are available under this authorization 
    bill for the issuing of export licenses, that is, those funds that 
    are used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review, process, 
    or approve any application for license to export uranium. If there 
    are no funds authorized to perform those activities, the amendment 
    would not be relevant; but the amendment merely restricts whatever 
    role the NRC has with respect to the export of enriched uranium and 
    it goes no further.
        In addition, in the Interior Committee report the chairman of 
    the Foreign Affairs Committee in a letter to the chairman of the 
    Interior and Insular Affairs Committee states, and I read from his 
    letter:

            We have paid particular attention to activities within both 
        the Office of International Programs and the Office of Nuclear 
        Material Safety and Safeguards, both of which have major 
        responsibilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 
        to upgrade international standards, strengthen the export and 
        import licensing process, and explore further international 
        cooperation in the area of nuclear health and safety.

        The letter goes on to relate those activities to the operation 
    of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
        So the Chair finds that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts is germane and the point of order is overruled.

Funds for Airport Access Road

Sec. 34.32 To a bill appropriating funds for an additional Washington 
    airport, an amendment placing a limit on the amount of the 
    appropriation permitted to be used for the construction of an 
    authorized access road was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of the Supplemental 
Appropriation Act of 1960,(13) an amendment was offered 
(14) as described above. Ruling on a point of order raised 
by Mr. Harold R. Gross, of Iowa, the Chairman (15) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 7978 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. 105 Cong. Rec. 12121, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1959.
15. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment . . . to which the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross) has made a point of order on the 
    grounds that the amendment is not germane and that it constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair is constrained to hold that inasmuch as the access 
    roads were authorized by legislation creating the airport and that 
    the amount of $400,000 is a limitation on the purposes for which 
    funds may be used, that it is

[[Page 8802]]

    germane to the bill and is not legislation.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Salaries Within Public Housing Administration

Sec. 34.33 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment providing that 
    no part of an appropriation therein for ``defense housing'' be used 
    for administrative expenses or salaries within the Public Housing 
    Administration ``so long as that agency proceeds with'' certain 
    projects was held to be germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a supplemental 
appropriation bill,(16) the following amendment was offered: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 8370 (Committee on Appropriations).
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 8353, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 27, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Gordon L.] McDonough [of California]: 
    On page 14, line 18, after the period, insert the following: ``No 
    part of this appropriation may be used for administrative expenses 
    or to pay salaries to any employee within the Public Housing 
    Administration or for any other purposes so long as that agency 
    proceeds with any public-housing project after such project has 
    been rejected or previous approval thereof canceled by the 
    governing body of the locality by resolution or otherwise or by 
    public vote and the governing body has recognized local liability 
    to reimburse the Federal Government for funds, if any, advanced on 
    such project prior to such cancellations.''

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

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to 
    the bill, and it introduces new subject matter.
        The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair has had opportunity to examine this amendment, 
    and is of the opinion that it is merely a limitation upon the 
    manner in which, and the purpose for which, the money can be used 
    and therefore is germane and overrules the point of order.

Payments to Persons Who Strike Against Government

Sec. 34.34 To a bill proposing to establish a national housing 
    objective and the policy to be followed in the attainment thereof, 
    an amendment providing that no part of any appropriation, loan, or 
    expenditure authorized in the act be paid to any person who engages 
    in a strike against the government or who seeks the overthrow of 
    the government was held to be germane.

[[Page 8803]]

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of the Housing Act of 
1949,(19) an amendment was offered (20) as 
described above. The following exchange (1) concerned a 
point of order raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 4009 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 8659, 8660, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1949.
 1. Id. at p. 8660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to this bill. 
    . . .

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a similar 
    provision has been placed in every appropriation bill which this 
    House has passed during this session of Congress. . . . [The 
    provision] is a limitation which is in effect in both appropriation 
    and authorization bills.
        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, this is not an appropriation bill. In 
    an appropriation bill it probably would be in order.
        Mr. Jensen: This bill has the effect of an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (2) . . . The legislation before the 
    committee authorizes loans and other funds to be used, consequently 
    the Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lease of Property by National Park Service to Concessioners

Sec. 34.35 For an amendment to a general appropriation bill directing 
    the National Park Service to lease certain land at fair market 
    rental value, a substitute prohibiting the use of funds in the bill 
    for lease of that same property by the National Park Service to 
    concessioners was held germane and a negative limitation on the use 
    of funds which did not add legislation to that permitted to remain 
    in the original amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 14231 (3) in the Committee 
of the Whole on June 25, 1976,(4) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. The Department of Interior Appropriation bill for fiscal 1977.
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 20548-50, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 10, line 2, strike 
        the period, insert a semicolon and the following:
            Provided, That the National Park Service shall not lease 
        the facilities located at 900 Ohio Drive in the District of 
        Columbia on any other basis than the fair market rental value 
        generally pertaining for such premises in the area.

        Mr. [Gilbert] Gude [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gude as a substitute for the 
        amendment

[[Page 8804]]

        offered by Mr. Yates: On page 27, between lines 18 and 19, 
        insert the following:
            ``Sec. 109. No part of the appropriations made available 
        under this title shall be available for the use of the Federal 
        buildings located at 900 Ohio Drive, Haines Point in the 
        District of Columbia by any concessioner of the National Park 
        Service for any purpose.''

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Gude). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, while this amendment has the appearance of a 
    simple limitation, as a matter of fact, it is much more than that. 
    The amendment prohibits the use of funds in the bill for use by a 
    national park concessioner of a National Park Service building. The 
    intent of the amendment is to evict the concessioner from the 
    building. At the present time, the concessioner which occupies the 
    building pays an annual rent and also pays for utilities and 
    routine maintenance. If the concessioner vacates the building, the 
    National Park Service must assume responsibility for maintenance 
    and utility costs. The National Park Service estimates these costs 
    to be about $26,000 per year.
        Mr. Chairman, there are ample precedents in the rules of the 
    House and I suggest that on page 551 under the Rules of the House, 
    under section 843, ample precedents are cited to demonstrate that 
    limitations on appropriation bills ``must not impose new duties 
    upon an executive officer.''
        Clearly this amendment imposes additional duties and 
    responsibilities on the National Park Service. . . .
        Mr. Gude: Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment provides nothing 
    more than the Park Service merely targets a lease. I do not think 
    it confers any responsibilities on them that they do not already 
    have. I think it is clearly germane and in order. It is no less 
    germane than the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Yates).
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) raises a point of order 
    to the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York.
        The question the Chair must decide is whether the substitute 
    amendment is germane to the original amendment and whether it adds 
    additional legislation to that which is already in the amendment of 
    the gentleman from Illinois.
        The substitute amendment of the gentleman from Maryland, in the 
    opinion of the Chair, is germane--relating to leasing of the same 
    property, and does not add additional legislation to that which is 
    already in the original amendment. Rather, the substitute is a 
    negative limitation on funds in the bill.
        The Chair must, therefore, reluctantly overrule the point of 
    order.

Amendment To Limit Use of Funds by Agency Funded in Previous Title of 
    Bill

Sec. 34.36 An amendment limiting the use of funds by a particular 
    agency funded in a

[[Page 8805]]

    general appropriations bill may be germane to more than one portion 
    of the bill, and so may be offered, for example, to the paragraph 
    carrying such funds or to any general provisions portion of the 
    bill affecting that agency or all agencies funded by the bill; 
    thus, where the last title of a general appropriations bill 
    contains general provisions applying to funds carried throughout 
    the bill, an amendment offered to that title which limits the use 
    of funds by an agency funded in a previous title of the bill may be 
    germane.

    On July 16, 1979,(6) during consideration of the 
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations for 
fiscal 1980,(7) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 125 Cong. Rec. 18807, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 4393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: On page 39, after line 16, 
        add the following new section:
            Sec. 613. No part of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
        made available to the Internal Revenue Service by this Act 
        shall be paid to any person as a reward or bounty for 
        information concerning violations of the internal revenue laws. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    out of order. We have already passed that place in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not legislate on an 
    appropriation bill. It is only a limitation of spending and adds a 
    new section to the bill. I would maintain that it is in order and 
    it is germane to the bill as a whole.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order. The Chair feels that the amendment comes at an 
    appropriate point in the bill and is germane to the general 
    provisions title and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this bill, there were ``general 
provisions'' in the Internal Revenue Service title applicable only to 
that agency, as well as a general provisions title at the end of the 
bill containing limitations and legislation applicable to all agencies 
funded by the bill. Thus in this case the amendment could have been 
germane at three places in the bill.

[[Page 8806]]

Application of Separate Substantive Law to Operations of Agency as 
    Nongermane Despite Language Restricting Amendment's Effects to 
    ``Use of Funds in the Bill''

Sec. 34.37 The mere recitation that the application of separate 
    substantive law cited in an amendment is only ``with respect to the 
    use of funds in the bill'' for an agency does not assure that the 
    amendment is confined in its application to a restriction on the 
    use of funds (and therefore germane to a proposition containing 
    other such funding restrictions), where the laws being applied are 
    not directly related to funding but rather are statutes governing 
    the conduct of individuals and the relationship of government 
    agencies to each other; thus, to a proposal to restrict 
    availability of funds to an agency for a year and amending the 
    organic law as it relates to the internal functions of that agency, 
    an amendment not only placing further restrictions on funding but 
    also applying to the operation of that agency provisions of 
    separate criminal and other law not otherwise applicable thereto is 
    nongermane, even though it is offered ``with respect to the use of 
    funds in the bill,'' as going beyond the limitation on funding and 
    issues of organization to the positive enactment and enlargement of 
    the applicability of those separate laws.

    During consideration of H.R. 2991 (9) in the House on 
Oct. 26, 1989,(10) the Speaker sustained a point of order in 
the circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
        Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990.
10. 135 Cong. Rec. p. __, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. David R. Nagle (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 179: Page 19, after line 16, insert:
            Sec. 608. Funds appropriated to the Legal Services 
        Corporation and distributed to each grantee funded in fiscal 
        year 1990 pursuant to the number of poor people determined by 
        the Bureau of the Census to be within its geographical area 
        shall be distributed in the following order:
            (1) grants from the Legal Services Corporation and 
        contracts entered into with the Legal Services Corporation 
        under section 1006(a)(1)

[[Page 8807]]

        shall be maintained in fiscal year 1990 at not less than $8.98 
        per poor person within the geographical area of each grantee or 
        contractor under the 1980 census . . . Provided, That none of 
        the funds appropriated in this Act for the Legal Services 
        Corporation shall be used to bring a class action suit against 
        the Federal Government or any State or local government 
        unless--
            (1) the project director of a recipient has expressly 
        approved the filing of such an action in accordance with 
        policies established by the governing body of such recipient . 
        . . Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in 
        this Act made available by the Legal Services Corporation may 
        be used--
            (1) to pay for any publicity or propaganda intended or 
        designed to support or defeat legislation pending before 
        Congress or State or local legislative bodies . . . Provided 
        further, That none of the funds appropriated in this Act for 
        the Legal Services Corporation may be used to carry out the 
        procedures established pursuant to section 1011(2) of the Legal 
        Services Corporation Act unless the Corporation prescribes 
        procedures to ensure that an application for refunding shall 
        not be denied unless the grantee, contractor, or person or 
        entity receiving assistance under this Act has been afforded 
        reasonable notice and opportunity for a timely, full, and fair 
        hearing . . . Provided further, That the fourteenth and 
        fifteenth provisos of this section (relating to parts 1607 and 
        1612 of the Corporation's regulations) shall expire if such 
        action is directed by a majority vote of a Board of Directors 
        of the Legal Services Corporation composed of eleven 
        individuals nominated by the President after January 20, 1989, 
        and subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate: 
        Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
        this Act or under any prior Act for the Legal Services 
        Corporation shall be used to consider, develop, or implement 
        any system for the competitive award of grants or contracts 
        until such action is authorized pursuant to a majority vote of 
        a Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation composed 
        of eleven individuals nominated by the President after January 
        20, 1989, and subsequently confirmed by the United States 
        Senate, except that nothing herein shall prohibit the 
        Corporation Board, members, or staff from engaging in in-house 
        reviews of or holding hearings on proposals for a system for 
        the competitive award of all grants and contracts . . . 
        subsequent to confirmation such new Board of Directors shall 
        develop and implement a proposed system for the competitive 
        award of all grants and contracts, Provided further, That the 
        Corporation shall insure that all grants and contracts made for 
        calendar year 1990 to all grantees receiving funds under 
        sections 1006(a) (1)(A) and (3) of the Legal Services 
        Corporation Act as of September 30, 1989, with funds 
        appropriated by this Act or prior appropriations Acts, shall be 
        made for a period of at least twelve months beginning on 
        January 1, 1990, so as to insure that the total annual funding 
        for each current grantee or contractor is no less than the 
        amount provided pursuant to this Act . . . Provided further, 
        That any new rules or regulations, or revisions to existing 
        rules or regulations adopted by the Board of the Legal Services 
        Corporation after October 1, 1989, shall not become effective 
        until after October 1, 1990, or until authorized pursuant to a 
        majority vote of a Board of Directors of the Legal Services 
        Corporation composed of eleven individuals nominated by the 
        President after January 20, 1989, and subsequently confirmed by 
        the United States Senate: Provided further, That, 
        notwithstanding any decision or action of the President of the

[[Page 8808]]

        Corporation after September 7, 1989, funds appropriated under 
        this Act or any prior Acts shall not be denied, for the period 
        October 1, 1989 through December 31, 1990, to any grantee or 
        contractor which in fiscal year 1989 received funding 
        appropriated under any prior Act, as a result of activities 
        which have found by an independent hearing officer appointed by 
        the President of the Corporation prior to October 1, 1989, not 
        to constitute grounds for a denial of refunding, and any 
        decisions or action of the President of the Corporation 
        reversing or setting aside such decision of an independent 
        hearing officer concerning section 1010(c) of the Act rendered 
        in fiscal year 1989 shall be null or void. . . .

        Mr. [Charles W.] Stenholm [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Stenholm moves that the House concur in the Senate 
        amendment No. 179 with the following amendment: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, insert the 
        following:
            Sec. 608. Funds appropriated to the Legal Services 
        Corporation and distributed to each grantee funded in fiscal 
        year 1990 pursuant to the number of poor people determined by 
        the Bureau of the Census to be within its geographical area 
        shall be distributed in the following order:
            (1) grants from the Legal Services Corporation and 
        contracts entered into with the Legal Services Corporation 
        under section 1006(a)(1) shall be maintained in fiscal year 
        1990 at not less than $8.98 per poor person within the 
        geographical area of each grantee or contractor under the 1980 
        census . . . Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in 
        this Act for the Legal Services Corporation shall be used to 
        bring a class action suit against the Federal Government or any 
        State or local government unless--
            (1) the project director of a recipient has expressly 
        approved the filing of such an action in accordance with 
        policies established by the governing body of such recipient;
            (2) the class relief which is the subject of such an action 
        is sought for the primary benefit of individuals who are 
        eligible for legal assistance; and
            (3) that prior to filing such an action, the recipient 
        project director has determined that the government entity is 
        not likely to change the policy or practice in question, that 
        the policy or practice will continue to adversely affect 
        eligible clients, that the recipient has given notice of its 
        intention to seek class relief and that responsible efforts to 
        resolve without litigation the adverse effects of the policy or 
        practice have not been successful or would be adverse to the 
        interest of the clients:
        except that this proviso may be superseded by regulations 
        governing the bringing of class action suits promulgated by a 
        majority of the Board of Directors of the Corporation who have 
        been confirmed in accordance with section 1004(a) of the Legal 
        Services Corporation Act . . . Provided further, That none of 
        the funds appropriated under this Act for the Legal Services 
        Corporation will be expended to provide legal assistance for or 
        on behalf of any alien unless the alien is present in the 
        United States and is--

            (1) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence as 
        defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)) . . .
            (3) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States 
        pursuant to an admission under section 207 of the Immigration 
        and Nation

[[Page 8809]]

        ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157, relating to refugee admissions) or 
        who has been granted asylum by the Attorney General under such 
        Act; or
            (4) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States 
        as a result of the Attorney General's withholding of 
        deportation pursuant to section 243(h) of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(h)):
        Provided further, That an alien who is lawfully present in the 
        United States as a result of being granted conditional entry 
        pursuant to section 202(a)(7) of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(7)) before April 1, 1980, 
        because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of 
        race, religion, or political opinion or because of being 
        uprooted by catastrophic natural calamity shall be deemed, for 
        purposes of the previous proviso, to be an alien described in 
        clause (3) of the previous proviso . . .
        Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
        Act for the Legal Services Corporation may be used to carry out 
        the procedures established pursuant to section 1011(2) of the 
        Legal Services Corporation Act unless the Corporation 
        prescribes procedures to ensure that an application for 
        refunding shall not be denied unless the grantee, contractor, 
        or person or entity receiving assistance under this Act has 
        been afforded reasonable notice and opportunity for a timely, 
        full, and fair hearing to show cause why such action should not 
        be taken and subject to all other conditions of the previous 
        proviso: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated 
        in this Act for the Legal Services Corporation shall be used by 
        the Corporation in making grants or entering into contracts for 
        legal assistance unless the Corporation insures that the 
        recipient is either (1) a private attorney or attorneys (for 
        the sole purpose of furnishing legal assistance to eligible 
        clients) or (2) a qualified nonprofit organization chartered 
        under the laws of one of the States, a purpose of which is 
        furnishing legal assistance to eligible clients, the majority 
        of the board of directors or other governing body of which 
        organization is comprised of attorneys who are admitted to 
        practice in one of the States and who are appointed to terms of 
        office on such board or body by the governing bodies of State, 
        county, or municipal bar associations the membership of which 
        represents a majority of the attorneys practicing law in the 
        locality in which the organization is to provide legal 
        assistance, or, with regard to national support centers, the 
        locality where the organization maintains its principal 
        headquarters: Provided further, That none of the funds 
        appropriated in this Act for the Corporation shall be used, 
        directly or indirectly, by the Corporation to promulgate new 
        regulations or to enforce, implement, or operate in accordance 
        with regulations effective after April 27, 1984, unless the 
        Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress have been 
        notified fifteen days prior to such use of funds as provided 
        for in section 606 of this Act . . . Provided further, That if 
        a Presidential Order pursuant to Public Law 100-119, the 
        Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act 
        of 1987, is issued for fiscal year 1990, funds provided to each 
        grantee of the Legal Services Corporation shall be reduced by 
        the percentage specified in the Presidential Order . . . 
        Provided further, That, with respect to the use of funds 
        appropriated by this Act to the Legal Services Corporation--

            (1) for purposes of sections 286, 287, 641, 1001, and 1002 
        of title 18, United States Code, the Legal Services Corporation 
        shall be considered to be a department or agency of the United 
        States Government;

[[Page 8810]]

            (2) for purposes of sections 3729 through 3733 of title 31, 
        United States Code, the term 'United States Government' shall 
        include the Legal Services Corporation;
            (3) for purposes of section 3801 of title 31, United States 
        Code, the term ``authority'' includes the Legal Services 
        Corporation, and the provisions of section 3801 through 3812 of 
        title 31, United States Code, shall apply to all parties with 
        whom the Corporation makes grants or contracts under sections 
        1006(a)(1) and 1006(a)(3) of the Legal Services Corporation Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 2996e(a)(1) and 2996e(a)(3));
            (4) applicants for financial assistance from the Legal 
        Services Corporation shall file applications supported by 
        written declaration pursuant to section 1746 of title 28, 
        United States Code, and such declarations shall be subject to 
        sections 1621(2) and 1622 of title 18, United States Code, 
        relating to perjury;
            (5) for purposes of sections 716 and 717 of title 31, 
        United States Code, the Legal Services Corporation shall be 
        considered to be a department or agency of the United States 
        Government;
            (6) for purposes of section 1516 of title 18, United States 
        Code, as added by section 7078 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
        1988 (Public Law 100-680)--
            (A) the term ``Federal auditor'' shall include any auditor 
        employed or retained on a contractual basis by the Legal 
        Services Corporation,
            (B) the term ``contract'' shall include any grant or 
        contract made by the Legal Services Corporation, and
            (C) the term ``person'', as used in subsection (a) of such 
        section, shall include any grantee or contractor receiving 
        financial assistance under section 1006(a)(1) or 1006(a)(3) of 
        the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996e(a)(1) or 
        2996e(a)(3)); and
            (7) funds provided by the Legal Services Corporation under 
        section 1006 of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 
        2996e) shall be deemed to be Federal appropriations when used 
        by a contractor, grantee, subcontractor, or subgrantee of the 
        Legal Services Corporation. . . .

        Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion on the grounds that it violates 
    rule XVI, clause 7, of the rules of the House of Representatives in 
    that the subject matter of the proposed amendment is not germane to 
    the matter under consideration.
        The proposed motion deals with eight different issues relevant 
    to the operation of the Legal Services Corporation and funds 
    provided thereunder.
        Six of the eight issues are not addressed at all in the 
    underlying amendment. These six issues are as follows: First, 
    prohibition on redistricting activity--the 19th proviso; second, 
    protection against theft and fraud--the 20th proviso; third, 
    procedural safeguards for agricultural litigation--the 21st 
    proviso; fourth, timekeeping--the 22d proviso; fifth, authority of 
    local governing boards--the 23d proviso; and sixth, earmarking of 
    certain funds--the 24th proviso.
        With regard to the seventh issue addressed by the motion, that 
    dealing with the regulation of nonpublic resources--also addressed 
    in the 24th proviso--the proposed motion is substantially broader 
    than the provision dealing with nonpublic resources contained in 
    the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment would prevent the 
    Corporation from implementing pro

[[Page 8811]]

    posed regulations that would place restrictions on nonpublic 
    resources. The proposed amendment, on the other hand, would amend 
    the Legal Services Act to extend existing restrictions on the use 
    of private funds to ``all nonpublic funds and in-kind services used 
    or obtained by that person or entity.'' Current restrictions in the 
    act apply only to funds provided for the purpose of providing legal 
    services and not other activities for which funds may be received.
        The last issue in the proposed amendment is the amendment 
    dealing with competition--the 25th proviso. The underlying Senate 
    amendment would prohibit the implementation of a competitive 
    bidding process unless done under the authority of a confirmed 
    board of directors composed of members named by the current 
    president. The motion under consideration here, however, goes 
    considerably beyond the question of whether the current board may 
    implement a competitive bidding process. In addition, to that 
    question, the proposed amendment would eliminate critical 
    procedural safeguards against termination or defunding or existing 
    LSC grantees within the context of a competitive bidding process.
        In addition to the foregoing, the provisions of the motion 
    relating to theft and fraud--the 20th proviso--would criminalize 
    activity not previously subject to Federal criminal statutes. The 
    amendment proposes to do so by applying the provisions of sections 
    286, 287, 641, 1001, and 1002 of title 18, United States Code to 
    the Legal Services Corporation. In addition, the amendment would 
    make applications for financial assistance subject to section 1746 
    of title 28, United States Code, and sections 1621(2) and 1622 of 
    title 18, United States Code, relating to perjury. The underlying 
    Senate amendment makes no reference to federal criminal statutes 
    and such conduct is not now covered by such acts.
        Also, the theft and fraud provisions--the 20th proviso--would 
    make sections 716 and 717 of title 31, United States Code, relating 
    to audits by the Controller General and the evaluation of programs 
    and activities of the U.S. Government, applicable to the Legal 
    Services Corporation. That section of the amendment also provides 
    that funds provided to the Legal Services Corporation shall be 
    ``deemed to be Federal appropriations when used by a contractor, 
    grantee, subcontractor, or subgrantee of the Legal Services 
    Corporation.'' Those issues are not dealt with in any way in the 
    underlying Senate amendment and deal with subject matter properly 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations.
        Finally, the 21st provision, which places limits on the ability 
    of employees of Legal Services supported programs to represent farm 
    workers is a substantial intrusion on the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor in that it would subtantially 
    diminish the ability of farm workers to assert their Federal rights 
    under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Act, and would 
    set up barriers not contemplated in that act for the exercise of 
    such rights. The amendment would require that, before a legal 
    services attorney could file a suit on behalf of such a farm worker 
    to vindicate Federal rights, the farm worker would have to exhaust 
    all administra

[[Page 8812]]

    tive remedies and participate in negotiations and in mediation 
    programs, if available. In each case, the name of the farm worker 
    would have to be revealed to the grower. Finally, attorneys could 
    not act without receiving a ``documented request from the named 
    worker or employer.''
        Mr. Speaker, on all these grounds, I ask that the amendment be 
    ruled not in order. . . .
        Mr. Stenholm: . . . I would respond to the point of germaneness 
    by simply pointing out that our amendment is germane to the Rudman 
    amendment, which is the purpose for which we offer this amendment.
        The Rudman amendment has already had all points of order 
    relating to authorizing in the appropriation bill waived by the 
    rule under which we are being considered today.

        The second point that I would make is that every item in our 
    amendment refers to how these appropriations are or are not 
    supposed to be spent. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Do any other Members desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Morrison) makes the point 
    of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Stenholm) is not germane to the Senate amendment No. 179. As 
    described on pages 82 and 83 of the joint statement of the 
    managers, Senate amendment No. 179 is a comprehensive series of 
    restrictions on Legal Services Corporation activities accomplished 
    by means of funding restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation 
    and its grantees.
        In addition to the various funding restrictions in the Senate 
    amendment, changes in the Legal Services Corporation law governing 
    corporation activities, a directive that the Corporation 
    reconstitute its board of directors, are included. The Senate 
    amendment does not, however, incorporate provisions of criminal 
    law, the False Claims Act and other laws requiring the furnishing 
    of information to the General Accounting Office.
        The proposed amendment, in addition to the inclusion of 
    additional funding restrictions, attempts to indirectly apply 
    substantive provisions of Federal criminal law and other laws to 
    render the Legal Services Corporation an agency of a department of 
    the U.S. Government for purposes of prosecution of certain activity 
    and the furnishing of information. While these incorporations of 
    provisions of law are prefaced as being ``with respect to the use 
    of funds appropriated by this act to the Legal Services 
    Corporation,'' it appears that these provisions in the amendment go 
    beyond merely a restriction on the use of funds and constitute an 
    application of other Federal law for the period covered by the 
    appropriation in the bill.
        On June 16, 1983, the Chair ruled nongermane an amendment 
    conditioning the availability to certain recipients of the funds in 
    an authorization bill upon their compliance with Federal law not 
    otherwise applicable to those recipients and within the 
    jurisdiction of other House committees.
        In the opinion of the Chair, that portion of the proposed 
    amendment which incorporates several provisions of law not 
    contained in the Senate amendment and enacts those provisions as 
    positive law applicable to the Legal Services Corporation and its 
    grantees

[[Page 8813]]

    for the period fiscal 1990 renders the amendment not germane.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Creating New Department and Transferring Administration of 
    Existing Laws Thereto--Amendments Changing Substantive Laws Being 
    Administered

Sec. 34.38 Although it is ordinarily germane by way of amendment to 
    limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations carried 
    in a bill may be applied, that principle normally applies to annual 
    authorization bills reported by the committees having legislative 
    and oversight jurisdiction over the statutes for which the funds 
    are authorized; but where the Committee on Government Operations 
    has reported an organizational bill to create a new department in 
    the executive branch, which transfers the administration of 
    existing statutes and programs to that department without modifying 
    such statutes and programs, and which contains a general 
    authorization of appropriations for the department to carry out its 
    functions under the Act, such a bill is not necessarily open to 
    amendments which change the substantive laws to be administered.

    On June 19, 1979, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 2444, reported from the Committee on Government 
Operations, to establish a new Department of Education, and 
transferring to such Department the administration of federally funded 
programs within the jurisdiction of other committees. The bill 
contained an authorization of appropriations to carry out its 
provisions and to enable the Department to perform the functions 
transferred to it, subject to existing laws limiting appropriations 
applicable to any of those functions.(12) An amendment was 
offered (13) to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated 
under such authorization to provide for transportation of students or 
teachers for purposes of establishing racial or ethnic quotas in 
schools. The amendment was ruled out as not germane, on the grounds 
that the bill was merely organizational in nature and only transferred 
the administration of

[[Page 8814]]

educational laws to the Department without modifying those laws; and 
because the amendment would impinge on the jurisdiction of other House 
committees having jurisdiction over those basic laws. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 14717, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1979.
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 15570, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        authorization of appropriations

            Sec. 436. Subject to any limitation on appropriations 
        applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
        Department or the Secretary, there are authorized to be 
        appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the 
        provisions of this Act and to enable the Department and the 
        Secretary to perform any function or conduct any office that 
        may be vested in the Department or the Secretary. Funds 
        appropriated in accordance with this section shall remain 
        available until expended.

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 90, after line 6, insert 
    the following new section and redesignate the following sections 
    accordingly:

        prohibition against the use of personnel funds to force racial/
                              ethnic quota busing

            Sec. 437. No funds appropriated under the authorization 
        contained in section 436 may be used to assign Department of 
        Education personnel to promote or to provide for the 
        transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase of 
        equipment for such transportation) in order to establish racial 
        or ethnic school attendance quotas or guidelines in any school 
        or school system, or for the transportation of students or 
        teachers (of for the purchase of equipment for such 
        transportation) in order to carry out such a plan in any school 
        or school system.

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . . [T]he language of section 436 
    that says that this authorization is subject to any limitation 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    department, was added to the bill to negate any inference that this 
    section authorizes any funds for programs so transferred.
        Now, the section is designed to authorize only those additional 
    appropriations which are necessary to establish and operate the 
    department. Funds provided to public and private entities under the 
    programs of the department are not authorized by this section, but 
    by legislation subject to the jurisdiction of other committees and 
    not now before the house.
        An amendment to limit or constrain the use of those funds is, 
    therefore, not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    may be supporting the bill. I do not think this is a frivolous 
    amendment. I believe it is germane.
        So as not to waste the time of this body or of this committee, 
    I asked the parliamentarian last week to take an initial look at 
    this. He said that it might take some further study, but that it 
    looked germane at first view.
        What it attempts to do, if it appears slightly redundant, is to 
    make sure that the Department of Education is not crippled by the 
    burden of reverse discrimination dealing with quotas, busing or 
    teacher transfers. The teacher transfer problem is one to which my 
    own brother has been subjected after teaching in a Los Angeles 
    school system for 12 years.
        I will accept whatever ruling the Chair issues to this one 
    section and

[[Page 8815]]

    not legislating in an appropriations bill, to point out areas in 
    which money cannot be spent and to allocate any personnel to carry 
    out someone else's school plan or to have a brand new department of 
    education suffering under the burden of coming up with their own, I 
    think would get the new department off to a bad footing for this or 
    what I expect to be a whole new administration starting on January 
    20 of 1981. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes that amendments are ordinarily germane 
    which limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations or 
    an appropriation for an existing program may be put; however, the 
    Chair knows of no precedent applying that principle to a bill which 
    is only organizational in nature. Ordinarily, bills authorizing or 
    making appropriations to carry out existing statutes emerge from 
    the committees which have reported such statutes and which during 
    the authorization and appropriation process have exercised 
    oversight over the manner in which those programs are and should be 
    carried out; but the fundamental issue involved with the pending 
    bill is not whether those programs should be carried out as it is 
    with annual authorizations or appropriations, but who should 
    administer them. . . .
        To allow as germane the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
    from California would be to impinge upon the jurisdiction of the 
    committees responsible for overseeing and authorizing the 
    administration of the laws transferred by the pending legislation, 
    and would broaden its scope beyond an organizational bill to one 
    also modifying and limiting the programs proposed to be transferred 
    intact to the new department.
        The Chair believes that it is important to understand the 
    impact which section 436 has upon the bill.
        In this regard, the Chair will focus upon the first clause in 
    that section, which on its face renders the authorization for 
    appropriations subject to any limitations on appropriations 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    department or secretary. Since the basic purpose of this bill is to 
    create a new departmental entity to carry out existing educational 
    programs and policies, it is reasonable to infer that the thrust of 
    section 436 is merely to assure under the rules of the House that 
    appropriations both for substantive educational programs and for 
    administrative expenses of the new department as an organizational 
    entity will continue to be considered as authorized by and subject 
    to provisions of existing law.
        Thus, amendments to section 436 which attempt to restrict the 
    availability of funds authorized therein in ways which are not 
    addressed by existing law, such as the denial of funds to pay 
    salaries and expenses to persons who promulgate regulations 
    relating to some newly stated aspect of educational policy, are 
    beyond the scope of title IV. Title IV establishes an 
    administrative structure within the new department to carry out 
    presently enacted educational programs and policies. Such a title 
    should not, in an organizational bill, be open to amendments which 
    redirect the administration of educational programs in ways

[[Page 8816]]

    not precisely contemplated by existing law.
        Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order.