[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]
[E. Relation of Amendment or Bill to Existing Law]
[Â§ 35. Amendments to Bills Which Amend Existing Law]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8816-8970]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
            E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW
 
Sec. 35. Amendments to Bills Which Amend Existing Law


    It has been held that the rule of germaneness applies to the 
relationship between a proposed amendment and the pending bill to which 
offered and not to the relation between such amendment and an existing 
title of the United States Code which the pending bill seeks to 
amend,(15) except where the bill is a continuation or re-
enactment of existing law, in which case amendments seeking to modify 
the law being extended in a germane manner may be germane to the 
bill,(16) or where the bill so comprehensively or diversely 
amends an existing law as to permit amendments which are germane to 
other provisions of that law.(17) Thus, the germaneness of 
an amendment that proposes to change existing law may depend on the 
extent to which the bill itself seeks to change the law. A bill 
comprehensively amending several sections of existing law may be 
sufficiently broad in scope to admit as germane an amendment which is 
germane to another section of that law not amended by the 
bill.(18) But where a bill amends existing law in one narrow 
particular, an amendment proposing to modify such existing law in other 
particulars will generally be ruled out as not germane.(19) 
As an example, if a bill seeks only to modify the penalty provisions of 
a law proscribing specified conduct, an amendment will not be germane 
if it seeks to broaden the scope or alter the applicability of such 
law.(20) It is generally held, therefore, that, to a bill 
amending existing law in one particular, an amendment proposing to 
modify an unrelated section of the law (1) or relating to 
terms of that law that are not referred to in the bill (2) 
is not ger

[[Page 8817]]

mane. It may be said, then, that, to a bill amending one section of an 
existing law, an amendment proposing further modification of the law, 
as by amending another section of that law, is usually not 
germane.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 18.7, supra.
16. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2941, cited in Sec. 35.7, infra.
17. See Sec. Sec. 35.49, 35.78, 35.81, 35.93, 35.95, infra.
18. See Sec. 35.78, infra.
19. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 35.23, 35.48, 41.12, infra.
20. See Sec. 41.12, infra.
 1. See Sec. 35.48, 35.69, infra.
 2. See Sec. Sec. 35.16, 35.25, 41.5, infra.
            To a bill amending one section of existing law to 
        accomplish a particular purpose, an amendment proposing changes 
        in another section of that law in a manner not within the terms 
        of the bill is not germane. See Sec. 41.14, infra.
 3. See Sec. Sec. 35.6, 35.77, 39.12, 39.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, if a bill amends existing law in several respects, but 
relates to a single subject or has a single purpose, an amendment is 
not germane that proposes to modify the law further in a manner not 
related to the purpose of the bill.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 35.80, 35.91, 41.1, 41.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a bill amending existing law in a limited respect, an amendment 
repealing the law is not germane. Accordingly, to a bill establishing a 
new office within a government department, an amendment to abolish the 
department is not germane.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 42.43, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule may be broadly stated that, to a bill proposing solely to 
amend one subtitle of an act, an amendment is not germane which would 
have the effect of repealing or amending other sections of the act that 
are not within the purview of the bill.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See the ruling of Chairman Warren G. Magnuson (Wash.) at 89 Cong. 
        Rec. 1158, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 19, 1943. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 1605 (Committee on Agriculture), 
        comprising an amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
        1938. The bill is discussed more fully in Sec. 35.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been held that where an amendment to a bill proposes 
modification of a section of existing law in some respects, an 
amendment to the amendment may properly propose modification of the 
same section of the law in other respects.(7) Thus, it is 
held that, to a substitute amendment modifying a section of existing 
law, an amendment further modifying that section may be 
germane.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 35.70, infra.
 8. See Sec. Sec. 35.19, 42.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute, amending 
several sections of an existing law, an amendment proposing further 
modification of one of the sections sought to be amended has been held 
to be germane.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 35.71, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a bill amends existing law in two unrelated respects, an 
amendment proposing a third modification may be germane.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 35.49, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a bill amending two sections of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, an 
amendment proposing a change in a third section of the act was held 
germane.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 35.8, infra.

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

[[Page 8818]]

    To a bill re-enacting an existing law in modified form, an 
amendment proposing further modification of that law may be 
germane.(12) And where a bill narrowly amends only one 
section of existing law, but is broadened by amendment to alter another 
section of the law, a further amendment to change still other sections 
of the law may be germane.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. Sec. 35.30, 39.24, infra.
13. See Sec. 35.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But it should be noted that a bill amending several sections of one 
title of the United States Code does not necessarily bring the entire 
title under consideration so as to permit an amendment to any portion 
thereof.(14) Even where a bill amends an act in several 
particulars, an amendment proposing further modification of the act in 
respects not related to the subject of the bill is not 
germane.(15) Thus, it has been held that, to a bill amending 
an act in two particulars, an amendment offered to amend the act in a 
third particular but in a manner not related to the bill is not 
germane.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 18.7, supra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 35.73, 35.74, infra.
16. See Sec. 35.44, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question for the Chair in such cases is whether the bill 
amending existing law is of such a general or diverse nature as to 
fundamentally change the law involved, and thereby open the law 
generally to amendments.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 35.44, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the proposition under consideration was to amend the Defense 
Production Act of 1950, an amendment proposing to add provisions to 
such act, ``notwithstanding any other provision of this or any other 
law,'' was ruled out of order as an attempt to amend other laws not 
under consideration.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See the ruling of Chairman Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.) at 97 Cong. Rec. 
        8325, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, an amendment must be germane to that title or portion of 
the bill to which offered.(19) Thus, the test of germaneness 
to a pending title of a bill is the relationship of the amendment to 
that title or to the law being amended by that title, and not to other 
portions of the bill not then pending for amendment.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. For discussion, see, for example, Sec. 2; and see Sec. Sec. 18 et 
        seq., supra.
20. See the proceedings of July 31, 1990, relating to H.R. 1180, the 
        Housing and Community Development Act, discussed in Sec. 4.58, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But in some instances, due to the scope and nature of the subject 
matter of a title of the bill sought to be amended, amend

[[Page 8819]]

ments thereto may be allowed which seek to modify laws not directly 
amended by that title. Thus, where a portion of a bill amended several 
miscellaneous laws on a general subject, an amendment to another law 
relating to that subject was held to be germane.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 35.61 and 35.102, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Amending Agriculture Laws--Amendment Providing for Expiration or 
    Repeal of Provisions of Law

Sec. 35.1 To a bill amending various laws relating to agriculture, an 
    amendment providing that, three years after enactment, provisions 
    of the bill would expire and other specified agricultural 
    legislation be repealed, was held to be germane.

    On June 21, 1962,(2) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Food and Agricultural Bill of 
1962,(3) which provided in part as follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 11314 et seq., 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. H.R. 11222 (Committee on Agriculture).
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 11205, 11206, 11215-17, 11373, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 20 and 21, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        title i--land-use adjustment

        Sec. 101. The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (49 
    Stat. 163), as amended, is further amended as follows:
        (1) by repealing subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) 
    of section 7; . . .
        (4) by adding a new subsection at the end of section 16 of said 
    Act to read as follows:
        ``(e)(1) For the purpose of promoting the conservation and 
    economic use of land, the Secretary, without regard to the 
    foregoing provisions of this Act, except those relating to the use 
    of the services of State and local committees, is authorized to 
    enter into agreements . . . with farm and ranch owners and 
    operators providing for changes in cropping systems and land uses 
    and for practices or measures to be carried out on any lands owned 
    or operated by them for the purpose of conserving and developing 
    soil, water, forest, wildlife, and recreation resources. Such 
    agreements shall include such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
    may deem desirable to effectuate the purposes of this subsection. . 
    . .
        Sec. 102. Section 31 and subsection (e) of section 32 of title 
    III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525), as 
    amended, are amended to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 31. The Secretary is authorized and directed to develop 
    a program of land conservation and land utilization, including the 
    more economic use of lands and the retirement of lands which are 
    submarginal or not primarily suitable for cultivation, in order 
    thereby to correct maladjustments in land use, and thus assist in 
    controlling soil erosion, reforestation, providing

[[Page 8820]]

    public recreation, preserving natural resources, protecting fish 
    and wildlife . . . and protecting the public lands, health, safety, 
    and welfare. . . .
        Sec. 103. The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (68 
    Stat. 666), as amended, is amended as follows:
        (1) Paragraph (1) of section 4 of said Act is amended by 
    changing the semicolon at the end thereof to a colon and adding the 
    following: ``Provided, That when a local organization agrees to 
    operate and maintain any reservoir or other area included in a plan 
    for public fish and wildlife or recreational development, the 
    Secretary shall be authorized to bear not to exceed two-thirds of 
    the costs of (a) the land, easements, or rights-of-way acquired or 
    to be acquired by the local organization for such reservoir or 
    other area, and (b) minimum basic facilities needed for public 
    health and safety, access to, and use of such reservoir or other 
    area for such purposes. . . .

                        title iii--marketing orders

        Sec. 301. The Agricultural Adjustment Act, as reenacted and 
    amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as 
    amended, is further amended as follows:
        Section 8c(2) is amended by--
        (1) striking out in (A) thereof ``not including vegetables, 
    other than asparagus, for canning or freezing)'' and inserting in 
    lieu thereof ``(not including vegetables, other than asparagus, for 
    canning or freezing, or potatoes for dehydrating)''. . . .

                        title iv--commodity programs

                          Subtitle A--Feed Grains

        Sec. 401. Subtitle B of title III of the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is further amended by inserting 
    after part VI a new part VII as follows:

                 ``part vii--marketing quotas--feed grains

                           ``Legislative Findings

        ``Sec. 360a. The production of feed grains is a vital part of 
    the agricultural economy of the United States. . . .
        ``Abnormally excessive and abnormally deficient supplies of 
    feed grains on the national market acutely and directly burden, 
    obstruct, and affect interstate and foreign commerce. . . .

                         ``national marketing quota

        ``Sec. 360b. (a) Whenever prior to June 20 in any calendar year 
    the Secretary determines that the total supply of feed grains in 
    the marketing year beginning in the next succeeding calendar year 
    will, in the absence of a marketing quota program, likely be 
    excessive, the Secretary shall proclaim that a national marketing 
    quota for feed grains shall be in effect for such marketing year 
    and for either the following marketing year or the following two 
    marketing years, if the Secretary determines and declares in such 
    proclamation that a two- or three-year marketing quota program is 
    necessary to effectuate the policy of the Act. . . .

                        ``national acreage allotment

        ``Sec. 360c. Whenever the amount of the national marketing 
    quota for feed grains is proclaimed for any marketing year, the 
    Secretary at the same time shall proclaim a national acreage 
    allotment for the crop of feed grains planted for harvest in the 
    calendar year in

[[Page 8821]]

    which such marketing year begins. . . .

                        Title V--General Provisions

        Sec. 501. The Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act of 
    1961 (75 Stat. 307) is amended as follows: . . .
        (2) By inserting in section 306(a) after the words ``soil 
    conservation practices'' the words ``shifts in land use including 
    the development of recreational facilities''. . . .
        Sec. 502. If any provision of this Act is declared 
    unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof to any person or 
    circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this 
    Act and the applicability thereof to other persons and 
    circumstances shall not be affected thereby. . . .

    An amendment was offered which stated in part: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 11377, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: On 
    page 89, after line 4, add the following:

            Sec. 505. (a) All provisions of this Act except subsections 
        (b) and (c) of this section shall expire three years following 
        date of enactment and at that time the following Acts are 
        hereby repealed:
            (1) The Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1421 
        and the following), except sections 410, 411, and 414 thereof, 
        effective with the 1962 crops. . . .
            (c) Notwithstanding other provisions of law the Commodity 
        Credit Corporation is directed, on such terms and under such 
        regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may deem in the 
        public interest, to sell all agricultural commodities and 
        products thereof, now owned or hereafter acquired by it 
        pursuant to any price support program, at such reasonable 
        prices as will result in the orderly and complete disposition 
        of such agricultural commodities and products.

    A point of order was made by Mr. H. Carl Andersen, of Minnesota, 
based on the contention that the amendment went far beyond the purview 
of the bill. The Chairman (6) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the amendment is entirely proper and, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Amending Subtitle of Agricultural Adjustment Act--Amendment 
    Relating to Enforcement of Penalty Provisions of Act

Sec. 35.2 To a bill proposing to amend one subtitle of the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act by adding a section relating to methods and 
    procedures of determining acreage allotments for basic commodities, 
    an amendment proposing modification of an existing section of such 
    subtitle and relating to jurisdiction of courts in the enforcement 
    of penalty provisions of the act generally, was held to be not 
    germane.

[[Page 8822]]

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
which stated in part: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 1605 (Committee on Agriculture).
 8. See 89 Cong. Rec. 1154, 1155, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 19, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That part II of subtitle C of title III of 
    the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended by 
    inserting at the end thereof the following new section:

            Sec. 377. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this act, 
        for any farm . . . which has in 1942 an acreage allotment for 
        any commodity, except wheat, under the provisions of this 
        title, the allotment for any subsequent year shall not be 
        reduced on account of the failure to plant, harvest, or market, 
        in whole or part, the commodity in any of the years beginning 
        February 1, 1943, and ending December 31 of the year in which 
        the President by proclamation or the Congress by concurrent 
        resolution declares that hostilities in the present war have 
        terminated, if such failure was due solely to--
            (1) The shifting from the production of the commodity to 
        the production of one or more needed war crops, in accordance 
        with the request of the Secretary; or [other specified causes]. 
        . . .

    The following amendment was offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 1161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [H. Streett] Baldwin of Maryland: On 
    page 1, line 4, after the last word ``amended'', strike out the 
    balance of the section and insert in lieu thereof ``by amending 
    section 376 thereof by adding thereto the following: `Provided 
    further, That such jurisdiction shall in no case be exercised as to 
    any crop now planted or planted hereafter between the date of the 
    enactment of this act and the date of the conclusion of peace.' ''

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

        Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: I do not believe 
    [the amendment] is in line with the real purpose of the bill, and 
    it goes much further than we intended under the bill, so it is not 
    germane to the bill.

    In support of the point of order, Mr. Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, 
stated:

        Mr. Chairman, I call attention of the Chair to the fact that 
    section 376, which is sought to be amended, deals with one subject, 
    and one only--the jurisdiction of the courts in the enforcement of 
    the penalty provisions of the act. The provision in the bill under 
    consideration, while an amendment to part II of subtitle C, does 
    not in any way go to the enforcement of the act, through the courts 
    or otherwise, but simply provides for a different method of making 
    allotments to individual farms in the case of the basic commodities 
    except wheat, and for making allotments to the counties and States 
    in the case of wheat. It is a new section and does not touch 
    anything at all under this subtitle except the method and procedure 
    of making allotments. I submit that the amendment which the 
    gentleman offers cannot be germane, because it applies only to the 
    subject of

[[Page 8823]]

    court jurisdiction, which is not in any way involved in the 
    committee provision.

    The Chairman (10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Warren G. Magnuson (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule and interprets the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Maryland to involve the question of jurisdiction and 
    enforcement of jurisdiction for the whole act. His amendment 
    provides that such jurisdiction shall in no case be exercised as to 
    any crop. The bill before the Committee restricts itself to certain 
    crops. The amendment of the gentleman from Maryland would in effect 
    suspend jurisdiction to enforcing the entire Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act, because it would do away with the machinery for 
    such suspension, and, therefore, the Chair is inclined to rule that 
    the amendment is too far reaching, and goes beyond the scope of the 
    bill and is not germane, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Agricultural Price Supports--Amendment Adding Commodity to Those 
    Covered

Sec. 35.3 To a bill amending a law dealing with several subjects within 
    a definable class, an amendment further amending that law to add 
    another subject within the same class is germane; thus, to a bill 
    temporarily amending for one year an existing law establishing 
    price support levels for several agricultural commodities, an 
    amendment adding another agricultural commodity to be covered by 
    the same provisions of law for that year was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 4296 (a bill concerning emergency 
price supports for 1975 crops) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
overruled a point of order in the circumstances described above. The 
language of the bill to which the amendment was offered read as 
follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 121 Cong. Rec. 7388, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 20, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That title 
        I of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following new section 108:
            ``Sec. 108. (a) Notwithstanding sections 103, 105, and 107 
        of this Act, the established price for the 1975 crops of upland 
        cotton, corn, and wheat shall be 48 cents per pound, $2.25 per 
        bushel, and $3.10 per bushel, respectively, and the Secretary 
        shall make available to producers loans and purchases on the 
        1975 crops of upland cotton, corn, and wheat at 40 cents per 
        pound, $1.87 per bushel, and $2.50 per bushel, respectively; 
        Provided, That the rates of interest on commodity loans made by 
        the Commodity Credit Corporation to all eligible producers 
        shall be established quarterly on the basis of the lowest 
        current interest rate on ordinary obligations of the United 
        States: Provided further,

[[Page 8824]]

        That the nonrecourse loan for 1975 crop upland cotton as set 
        forth in section 103(e)(1) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as 
        amended, shall be made available for an additional term of 
        eight months at the option of the cooperator.
            ``(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 301 of this 
        Act, the Secretary shall make available to producers loans and 
        purchases on the 1975 crop of soybeans at such levels as 
        reflect the historical average relationship of soybean support 
        levels to corn support levels during the immediately preceding 
        three years.''

        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 2, line 15, after the word 
        ``cooperator'' strike the period and insert ``, except that for 
        the 1975 crops of upland cotton, feed grains and wheat, the 
        Secretary shall establish, insofar as is practicable, the same 
        terms and conditions relative to storage costs and interest 
        rates on all nonrecourse loans extended on such crops.''.

        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment.
        The committee amendment was agreed to.

    During the proceedings of Mar. 20, 1975,(13) the 
following amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 7652, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 2, after line 25, add 
        this new section:
            ``(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 301 of this 
        Act or common sense, the Secretary shall make available to 
        producers loans and purchases on the 1975 crop of fruit nuts at 
        such levels as reflect the historical average relationship of 
        fruit nut support levels to dingleberry support levels during 
        the immediately preceding one hundred and ninety-nine years''. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    chairman of the committee finds it necessary to insist on his point 
    of order.
        I know the gentleman who has offered the amendment is a strong 
    supporter of fruit nuts and is in great seriousness in an effort to 
    improve the bill, but the reference in the amendment is to a 
    standard which cannot be administered because the country was not 
    organized, the Congress was not organized at the time he alleges in 
    the amendment the Dingleberry support price was created. But 
    principally because under rule XVI, clause 7, the fundamental 
    purpose of this amendment does not relate to the fundamental 
    purpose of the bill, which is to effect changes in the target 
    prices of loan rates on wheat, feed grain, and cotton.
        The nuttiness of an amendment has never been found in the 
    precedents of the House as an argument against germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Conte: . . . I feel that this amendment is germane in the 
    context of this bill. The whole bill is nutty, and I am merely 
    institutionalizing what the American people have known all along, 
    that farm subsidies do not grow on trees.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.

[[Page 8825]]

        The Chair would observe that the purpose of this bill as set 
    forth in the report is to establish an emergency price support 
    program in the 1975 crop commodity year for upland cotton, wheat, 
    feed grains, soybeans, and milk.
        Under the general proposition that it is in order to add 
    another subject to a proposition containing subjects of the same 
    class, the Chair would point out that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts adds another agricultural commodity to 
    the commodities proposed to be supported under the bill during the 
    same period of time.
        The Chair rules, therefore, that the gentleman's amendment is 
    germane and overrules the point of order.

Bill Striking Provisions and Inserting Language--Amendment Adding 
    Language Without Striking Provisions

Sec. 35.4 To a bill striking out a section of existing law and 
    inserting new language, an amendment adding the new language at the 
    end of the section of law being amended, rather than striking out 
    the section and inserting new language, is germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a bill (14) relating to the cotton 
industry was under consideration. A provision in such bill sought to 
amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 by striking out a section of that 
law pertaining to corn price supports and inserting in lieu thereof 
language creating a new cotton program. An amendment was offered 
(15) which sought to add the provisions as to the new cotton 
program at the end of the section of existing law, thereby leaving the 
existing section of law pertaining to the corn program intact. Mr. John 
H. Kyl, of Iowa, made the point of order that the amendment was not 
germane; the Chairman,(16) however, having already stated 
that, ``The purpose of this amendment is to correct the technical 
references,'' ruled without further elaboration that the amendment was 
germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 6196 (Committee on Agriculture).
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 23322, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 4, 1963 (amendment 
        offered by Mr. Harold D. Cooley [N.C.]).
16. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Affecting Different Section of Existing Law

Sec. 35.5 To a joint resolution to amend a specific section of the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 relating to the national 
    allotment for cotton, an amendment affecting another section of 
    that act relating to allotment of acreage was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (17) was under 
consideration which re

[[Page 8826]]

lated to minimum national allotments for cotton and which provided:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.J. Res. 247 (Committee on Agriculture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That section 343(b) of the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (relating to the national 
    allotment for cotton), is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
    following new sentence: ``The national allotment for any year 
    (after 1939) shall be not less than 11,500,000 bales.''

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Butler B.] Hare [of South Carolina]: 
    At the end of line 8 add the following: ``Provided, That allotment 
    of acreage to the various States be based upon the ratio of the 
    number of cotton growers and their dependents in each State bears 
    to the total number of such persons in the United States.''

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

        Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a 
    point of order against the amendment, that it is not germane. This 
    resolution deals with section 343 of the Agricultural Adjustment 
    Act, and this amendment has to do with section 344 of the State 
    allotments.

    The Speaker,(18) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair has considered the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from South Carolina and finds upon a careful reading of 
    the amendment that it does not relate to the section of the act 
    that the resolution under consideration seeks to amend and, 
    therefore, cannot possibly be in order.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See the proceedings at 84 Cong. Rec. 5911, 5912, 76th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., May 22, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Affecting Amounts Available for Assistance to Producers of Certain 
    Commodities--Amendment Modifying Portion of Law Addressing 
    Requirements for Eligibility for Funds

Sec. 35.6 To a bill to amend a section of existing law with respect to 
    amounts available for assistance to producers of certain 
    commodities, an amendment to modify another section of that law 
    with respect to substantive requirements for eligibility for funds 
    under the law was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (20) was under 
consideration to increase the credit resources of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation. The following amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. S. 3998 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 9805, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 1, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Orville] Zimmerman [of Missouri]: At 
    the end

[[Page 8827]]

    of line 7, strike out the period and insert a semicolon and add the 
    following: Provided, That to obtain a loan on cotton, producer must 
    furnish a certificate of grade and staple signed by a licensed 
    classer whose license is issued by the United States Department of 
    Agriculture.

    Mr. Henry B. Steagall, of Alabama, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(2) 
sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Graham A. Barden (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill now under consideration seeks to amend section 4, 
    which deals with the amount only. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri seeks to add a proposition which might be 
    germane to the original act but which seems to the Chair not to be 
    related to the section of the act here sought to be amended by the 
    pending bill.

Surplus Agricultural Products for Needy--Amendment Providing for Food 
    Stamp Plan

Sec. 35.7 To a bill to amend the act authorizing the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation to make surplus agricultural products available for 
    needy persons in the United States, an amendment providing a new 
    and comprehensive food stamp plan for the distribution of surplus 
    products was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
to amend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, 
an amendment was offered providing in part: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 8609 (Committee on Agriculture).
 4. 105 Cong. Rec. 16567, 16568, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 20, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. Sullivan: . . . insert the following 
    new section 14 . . . :

            Sec. 14. Title III of the Agricultural Trade Development 
        and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, is further amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 306. (a) In order to promote the general welfare, 
        raise the levels of health and of nourishment for persons whose 
        incomes prevent them from enjoying adequate diets, and dispose 
        in a beneficial manner of food commodities acquired by the 
        Commodity Credit Corporation or the Department of Agriculture . 
        . . the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized to . . . 
        put into operation . . . a program to distribute to needy 
        persons in the United States through a food stamp system such 
        surplus food commodities. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 16568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles B.] Hoeven [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the extension 
    of Public Law 480, as incorporated in the bill H.R. 8609.
        The amendment proposes to establish a new distribution system 
    within

[[Page 8828]]

    the United States. H.R. 8609 contains no such provision to which 
    this proposed amendment is germane.
        In addition, the proposed amendment would suspend the operation 
    of section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, which 
    is not before us.
        The bill, H.R. 8609, contains only one reference to section 
    416, but this provision deals only with the labeling of surplus 
    foods, not with the system of distributing these commodities. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent, Mrs. Leonor Kretzer 
Sullivan, of Missouri, stated as follows:

        . . . H.R. 8609 is a bill to amend the Agricultural Trade 
    Development and Assistance Act of 1954. . . . The Agricultural 
    Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 . . . contains 
    provisions . . . authorizing domestic donations of surplus food to 
    our own needy. This is contained in titles II and III of the law.
        The bill before us amends title II and III in several respects. 
    The bill before us furthermore contains language clearly applicable 
    to the domestic distribution of surplus foods. . . .
        I make one further point in contesting the point of order. 
    Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 2941, states:

            An act continuing and reenacting an existing law is subject 
        to amendment modifying the provisions of the law carried in the 
        act. . . .

    The Chairman (6) agreed with the contentions of Mrs. 
Sullivan and overruled the point of order, also citing the following 
statement of the Chair in a prior similar ruling:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard W. Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The act which the bill proposes to amend and extend contains a 
    provision relating to the subject matter and, as pointed out, is 
    sufficiently broad and does cover the material offered in this 
    amendment. . . .

Formula for State Participation in Food Stamp Program--Amendment 
    Affecting Qualifications of Recipients

Sec. 35.8 To a bill authorizing funds for the food stamp program for 
    the next fiscal year and changing the formula for state 
    participation in the program, an amendment relating to the 
    qualifications for recipients of aid under the program was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill (7) 
amending two sections of the Food Stamp Act of 1964, the following 
amendment was offered, affecting a third section: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 1318 (Committee on Agriculture).
 8. 113 Cong. Rec. 15159, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 8, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Add 
    the following new section at the end of the bill:

[[Page 8829]]

            Sec. 3. Section 5 of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 is amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(c) The Secretary shall issue regulations providing 
        that--
            ``(1) families with very low money incomes may not be 
        excluded from the program by minimum stamp purchase 
        requirements which exceed their budgetary resources. . . .
            ``(3) families with very low money incomes may not be 
        required to commit themselves to purchase stamps every month as 
        a condition of participation in the program.''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 15162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the purposes 
or objectives of this bill, that it does not amend any of the sections 
covered by this bill or the subject matter touched on by this bill.

        This bill relates only to sections 15 and 16. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York relates to section 5 of the 
    Food Stamp Act.

    The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Phillip M. Landrum (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill, which has been amended, amends two sections of 
    existing law.
        The proposed amendment to add another section to the pending 
    bill would amend a third section of existing law.
        The Chair rules, therefore, that the amendment is germane.

Provisions Relating to Importation of Farm Workers--Penalties for 
    Noncompliance With Provisions of Bill

Sec. 35.9 To a bill to amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 to authorize 
    the Secretary of Labor to recruit and make certain provisions for 
    agricultural workers from Mexico, an amendment providing, in one 
    part, penalties for employing any Mexican alien not duly admitted 
    ``under the terms of this act or any other law'' was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (11) was under consideration 
which provided in part as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3283 (Committee on Agriculture).
12. See 97 Cong. Rec. 7168, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the Agricultural Act of 1949 is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof a new title to read as 
    follows:

                         Title V--Agricultural Workers

            Sec. 501. For the purpose of assisting in such production 
        of agricultural commodities and products as the Secretary of 
        Agriculture deems necessary, by supplying agricultural workers 
        from the Republic of Mexico (pursuant to arrangements between 
        the United States and the Republic of Mexico), the Secretary of 
        Labor is authorized--

[[Page 8830]]

            (1) to recruit such workers . . .
            (2) to establish . . . reception centers at or near the 
        places of actual entry of such workers into the continental 
        United States. . . .
            (3) to provide transportation for such workers. . . .

    The following amendment was offered: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 7169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Polk in the nature of a substitute for 
    H.R. 3283: That the Agriculture Act of 1949 is amended by adding at 
    the end thereof a new title to read as follows:

                         Title V--Agricultural Workers

            Sec. 509. Any person who shall employ any Mexican alien . . 
        . not lawfully entitled to enter . . . the United States under 
        the terms of this act or any other law relating to the 
        immigration or expulsion of aliens when such person . . . has 
        reasonable grounds to believe . . . that such alien is not 
        lawfully within the United States . . . shall be guilty of a 
        felony. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at pp. 7169, 7170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harris] Ellsworth [of Oregon]: . . . Section 509 of the 
    proposed substitute deals only with the matter of finding 
    information as to the illegal entry of alien Mexicans into the 
    United States, and imposes a penalty for failure to supply 
    information concerning such illegal entry. That is the sole purpose 
    and the sole effect of this section 509. It does not refer to the 
    employment of farm labor, and it does not go to the purpose of the 
    bill.

    Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, in support of the point of 
order, stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 7170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I would like to call attention to the fact that 
    if section 509 had been introduced as a separate bill, it would not 
    even have been referred to the Committee on Agriculture. It would 
    have gone to the Immigration Committee.

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

        Mr. [James G.] Polk [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I call attention 
    to the fact that this bill amends the Social Security Act, and I am 
    speaking now on the bill before the House, H.R. 3283. It also 
    amends the Immigration Act of 1917, and I refer to lines 7, 8, 9, 
    and 10, on page 5. It amends the Internal Revenue Code, and I refer 
    to lines 2, 3 and 4, at the top of page 5. In other words, in 
    several instances the bill which is before the House amends other 
    Federal statutes.

    The Chairman,(16) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the Chair understands the rule of germaneness, its purpose 
    is to provide for and protect the orderly procedure in the 
    Committee of the Whole and in the House. It is to protect the 
    legislative processes, to protect the membership from hasty, ill-
    considered, and extraneous subject matter being offered to the 
    proposition under consideration. An amendment, to be germane to a 
    bill under consideration, must be akin to and relative to the 
    subject matter of

[[Page 8831]]

    the bill. The Chair does not feel that the provision of a penalty 
    or the provision for civil relief from a law seeking to be enacted 
    would be a matter unakin or unrelated to the bill. However, there 
    is specific matter in the amendment, to wit, ``or any other law 
    relating to the immigration [or] expulsion of aliens'' which is to 
    be found in section 509 to which specific objection was made. The 
    Chair has examined the bill before the Committee and is unable to 
    find reference to any other law relating to the immigration or 
    expulsion of aliens.
        Therefore, because of the references just cited, the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 35.10, infra, for discussion of a similar amendment held 
        to be germane because more narrowly worded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.10 To a proposition relating to the recruitment of farm 
    laborers from Mexico, an amendment imposing penalties on any person 
    employing Mexican labor not lawfully entitled to enter ``under the 
    terms of this act'' was held to be germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a proposition relating 
to the recruitment of farm laborers from Mexico,(18) the 
following amendment was offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Under consideration was H.R. 3283 (Committee on Agriculture) and an 
        amendment thereto offered by Mr. James G. Polk (Ohio) at 97 
        Cong. Rec. 7171, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1951.
            For related proceedings and a description of the bill, see 
        Sec. 35.9, supra.
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 7174, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Celler to the amendment offered by Mr. 
    Polk: Add a new section as follows:

            Sec. --. Any person who shall employ as a farm laborer any 
        Mexican alien . . . not lawfully entitled to enter . . . the 
        United States under the terms of this act, when such person . . 
        . has reasonable grounds to believe . . . that such alien farm 
        laborer is not lawfully within the United States . . . shall be 
        guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be 
        punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment. . 
        . .

    Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, made the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane to the amendment under 
consideration. Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, in support of his 
amendment, stated: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 7175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . This is a bill concerning the operations of alien labor, 
    what they shall do and what they shall not do, under the terms and 
    conditions that they may or may not come over the border, and my 
    amendment certainly is consistent with the purposes and aims of the 
    bill in general. A penalty for violation of the terms laid down is 
    germane.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).

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

[[Page 8832]]

        The Committee has before it a bill to which the gentleman from 
    Ohio has offered an amendment, to which, in turn, the gentleman 
    from New York has offered an amendment providing specific penalties 
    for violation of the provisions of the bill when written into law. 
    The rule of germaneness has been interpreted rather narrowly, but 
    the Chair does not feel that it can declare or hold that the 
    provision of a penalty for the violation of the provisions of the 
    bill is new subject matter or unrelated subject matter.
        Therefore, the point of order is overruled.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 35.9, supra, for discussion of a similar but more broadly 
        worded amendment which was held not to be germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment Relating to Detention of Aliens and Affecting Prior 
    Appropriations

Sec. 35.11 To a bill amending the Agricultural Act of 1949 to permit 
    importation of Mexican agricultural workers, an amendment relating 
    to the detention of Mexican aliens generally in the United States 
    and providing that prior appropriations be available to carry out 
    the purposes of the provision was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
relating to importation of Mexican agricultural workers, the following 
amendment was offered: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 3283 (Committee on Agriculture). See Sec. 35.9, supra, for 
        further discussion of the bill.
 4. 97 Cong. Rec. 7274, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., June 27, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Add a 
    new section:

            Sec. 512. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the 
        contrary and without regard to section 3709 of the revised 
        statutes, the Attorney General is authorized to purchase, 
        construct . . . and maintain . . . such detention facilities as 
        may be necessary for the apprehension and removal to Mexico of 
        Mexican aliens illegally in the United States. Appropriations 
        made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be 
        available for expenditures to carry out the purposes of this 
        act.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 7275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: [The amendment] 
    broadens the scope of the legislation under consideration. It is 
    not germane, and it actually constitutes an appropriation.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . As the Chair understands the bill before the committee, 
    H.R. 3283, it applies to certain Mexican aliens as a class and as 
    described in the bill. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York broadens the group to include Mexican aliens illegally in 
    the United States, beyond the class de

[[Page 8833]]

    scribed in the bill. The amendment also proposes to appropriate 
    funds for a certain purpose described in the amendment.
        For these two reasons, the Chair is constrained to sustain the 
    point of order.

--Amendment Affecting Labor Standards Under Different Act

Sec. 35.12 To a bill amending the Agricultural Act of 1949 to permit 
    importation of Mexican agricultural workers, an amendment providing 
    that notwithstanding the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards 
    Act, ``the Secretary of Labor is empowered to authorize . . . the 
    employment in agriculture of employees under the age of 16 years,'' 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a bill (7) 
relating to importation of Mexican agricultural workers, an amendment 
was offered (8) as described above. A point of order was 
raised against the amendment, as follows: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 3283 (Committee on Agriculture). See Sec. 35.9, supra, for 
        further discussion of the bill.
 8. See 97 Cong. Rec. 7275, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., June 27, 1951.
 9. Id. at p. 7276.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: . . . The amendment 
    is obviously not in order, since the author of the amendment 
    clearly indicates it is an effort to amend the Fair Labor Standards 
    Act, which is not before the House at this time at all.

    Mr. Eugene J. McCarthy, of Minnesota, in support of the amendment, 
stated:

        Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that there is an amendment to the 
    Fair Labor Standards Act already in the bill, and it would seem to 
    me another amendment to the same effect would not constitute a 
    serious obstacle.

    The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill H.R. 3283 refers to a certain class of Mexican 
    nationals, as described in the bill. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas does not relate to this group described in the 
    bill, but to an entirely different group of individuals--American 
    citizens and residents of the United States. The amendment 
    therefore is beyond the purview of the bill H.R. 3283, and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Common Carrier Rates for Manufactured Products--Amendment Relating to 
    Rates for Farm Commodities

Sec. 35.13 To a bill to amend the Interstate Commerce Act with respect 
    to those provisions making it unlawful for a common carrier to give 
    un

[[Page 8834]]

    reasonable preferences and authorizing the Interstate Commerce 
    Commission to investigate rates for manufactured products, an 
    amendment relating to rates for farm commodities and authorizing 
    the Commission to investigate such rates was held to be germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (11) was under 
consideration amending the Interstate Commerce Act. The bill stated in 
part: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. S. 2009 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
12. See 84 Cong. Rec. 9868, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 24, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 6. (a) Paragraph (1) of section 3 of the Interstate 
        Commerce Act, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
            (1) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier . . . to . 
        . . give . . . any undue or unreasonable preference or 
        advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation 
        . . . district, territory, or any particular description of 
        traffic, in any respect whatsoever. . . .

        (b) The Interstate Commerce Commission is authorized and 
    directed to institute an investigation into (certain) rates on 
    manufactured products. . . .

    The following amendment was offered: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 9868, 9869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Texas: On page 202, line 12, 
    after the word ``ever'', strike out the quotation marks; and, after 
    line 12, add the following:

            (1a) It is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress 
        that shippers of wheat, cotton, and other farm commodities for 
        export should have substantially the same advantage of reduced 
        rates as compared to shippers of such commodities not for 
        export that are in effect in the case of shipment of industrial 
        products for export as compared with shipments of industrial 
        products not for export, and the Interstate Commerce Commission 
        is hereby directed to institute such investigations, to conduct 
        such hearings, and to issue orders making such revision of 
        rates as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out such 
        policy.

    Mr. Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, raised the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane to the section of the bill to 
which offered, and contended that the language to which the amendment 
was directed was that referring to investigation of rates on 
manufactured products.(14) Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, in 
responding to the point of order made by Mr. Bulwinkle, pointed out 
that paragraph (1), to which the amendment was actually directed, 
related to ``all kinds of discrimination in freight rates.'' The 
Chairman (15) overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 9869.
15. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).

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

[[Page 8835]]

Free Importation of Commodity--Amendment To Increase Domestic Supply of 
    Commodity by Action of National Production Authority

Sec. 35.14 To a bill proposing to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to 
    provide for the free importation of twine used for baling hay, 
    straw and the like, an amendment proposing an increase in the 
    domestic supply of baling twine through allocation by the National 
    Production Authority was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a bill (16) 
providing as described above, the following amendment was offered: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 1005 (Committee on Ways and Means).
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 11281, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall: Page 1, line 7, 
    insert a new section as follows:

            The National Production Authority shall take all steps 
        possible to allocate from domestic supplies enough baling twine 
        to meet the needs of American farmers not only for the 1951 
        purpose but for all subsequent emergencies.

    Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. In defense of the amendment, the 
proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, we are here 
    to try to get baling twine for the farmers of the country. . . . 
    [T]his amendment should be submitted to a vote since it is an 
    honest effort to accomplish the objective which we are all here to 
    try to accomplish.

    The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Brooks Hays (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York offers an amendment that has for 
    its purpose apparently an increase in the domestic supply of baling 
    twine. The pending legislation is an amendment to the Tariff Act of 
    1930. It appears from an examination of the gentleman's amendment 
    that it goes far beyond the scope of the bill, in that it applies 
    to different legislation; therefore the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Notice to Congress of Curtailment of Agricultural Exports--Payments to 
    Farmers Affected

Sec. 35.15 To a section requiring notice to Congress of curtailment of 
    export of agricultural commodities, contained in a title of a bill 
    reported from the Committee on International Relations extending 
    and amending the Export Administration Act, an amendment requiring 
    domestic

[[Page 8836]]

    payments to farmers having in storage commodities for which exports 
    have been suspended was held not germane as beyond the scope and 
    subject matter of the section or title.

    On Apr. 20, 1977,(19) during consideration of H.R. 5840 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 11437, 11440, 11441, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. The Export Administration Amendments of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 105. Section 4(f) of the Export Administration Act of 
        1969, as amended by section 104 of this Act, is further amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) If the authority conferred by this section is 
        exercised to prohibit or curtail the exportation of any 
        agricultural commodity in order to effectuate the policies set 
        forth in clause (B) of paragraph (2) of section 3 of this Act, 
        the President shall immediately report such prohibition or 
        curtailment to the Congress, setting forth the reasons therefor 
        in detail. If the Congress, within 30 days after the date of 
        its receipt of such report, adopts a concurrent resolution 
        disapproving such prohibition or curtailment, then such 
        prohibition or curtailment shall cease to be effective with the 
        adoption of such resolution. . . .

        Mr. [Keith G.] Sebelius [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sebelius: Page 8 after line 21, 
        insert the following:
            ``(4)(A) Notwithstanding any provision of law, whenever the 
        President of the United States or any other member of the 
        executive branch of the Federal Government suspends or causes a 
        suspension of export sales of corn, wheat, soybeans, grain 
        sorghum, or cotton, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make 
        payments described in subsection (B) and (C) to any farmowner 
        or operator who has in storage at the beginning of the 
        suspension any amount of the commodity for which export sales 
        have been suspended; except that no such payments may be made 
        with regard to any such commodity unless, at the close of the 
        calendar month preceding the calendar month in which the 
        suspension is initiated, the price received by producers of 
        such commodity was less than the parity price.
            ``(B) The first payment described in subsection (A) shall 
        become payable at the initiation of the suspension of export 
        sales of the commodity concerned. Such payment shall be made at 
        a rate of 10 per centum of the parity price per bushel or bale 
        of the commodity concerned which was produced by the farm owner 
        or operator and which is held in storage by him at the time of 
        the initiation of the suspension. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, 
    apparently the amendment the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Sebelius) 
    has presented is a parity amendment pending in the part of the bill 
    before the Agriculture Committee.
        Mr. Sebelius: That is right.
        Mr. Zablocki: It is not germane to section 105, which deals 
    solely with existing authority of the President to

[[Page 8837]]

    limit export controls for foreign policy purposes under the Export 
    Administration Act.
        Second, the amendment gives the President new authority where 
    export controls are imposed for new purposes under a new act.
        And, third, this new authority deals solely with domestic 
    matters which are within the jurisdiction of another country.
        As I said, it is a parity amendment.
        Lastly, this is a farm subsidy issue, not an issue of foreign 
    affairs.
        This bill does not deal with agricultural parity, it does not 
    deal with support controls.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment is not in 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        H.R. 5840 is a bill to amend the Export Administration Act of 
    1969 in order to extend the authorities of that act, improve the 
    administration of export controls under that act, and to strengthen 
    the antiboycott provisions of that act.
        Section 105 of the bill as amended amends the procedure by 
    which the Secretary of Commerce can notify the Congress of the 
    exercise of authority curtailing exports of agricultural products. 
    It thereafter gives the Congress a certain period of time within 
    which to disapprove if it so chooses.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
    Sebelius) goes beyond the purview of the title and the section to 
    which offered, in that it would require payments by the Secretary 
    of Agriculture to any farmowner or operator who has in storage at 
    the beginning of the suspension any amount of the commodity for 
    which export sales have been suspended.
        For the reasons stated by the Chair and the reasons given by 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin, the point of order is sustained.

Size of Specified Container Under Standard Container Act--Amendment 
    Delegating Authority to Secretary of Agriculture to Regulate 
    Various Container Sizes

Sec. 35.16 To a bill amending the Standard Container Act only to 
    provide for one additional size of container, an amendment 
    inserting in the act a new section delegating to the Secretary of 
    Agriculture authority to regulate the size of certain containers 
    was held not germane.

    In the 83d Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
to amend the Standard Container Act of 1928. The bill stated in part: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 8357 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
 3. See 100 Cong. Rec. 6408, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (bb) The standard three-eighths bushel hamper or round-stave 
    basket shall contain eight hundred and six and four-tenths cubic 
    inches.

[[Page 8838]]

    An amendment was offered (4) which stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 6408, 6409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 3. Whenever in his judgment such action is advisable . . . 
    the Secretary of Agriculture may by regulations--
        (1) provide for standard hampers and round stave baskets for 
    fruits and vegetables. . . .

    Mr. Joseph P. O'Hara, of Minnesota, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane, stating,(5) ``[I]t involves 
an attempt to change the Constitution of the United States in 
delegating authority to the Secretary of Agriculture. . . .'' Mr. Peter 
F. Mack, Jr., of Illinois, the proponent of the amendment, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 6409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I believe this amendment merely delegates authority for 
    administration to the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of 
    Agriculture already has, by reason of the act of 1928, authority to 
    establish allowances for various containers. I believe that this 
    amendment merely gives him additional authority to establish 
    containers in addition to the ones already provided for.

    The Chairman (6) sustained the point of order, citing 
the rule that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Timothy P. Sheehan (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Where a bill proposes to amend a law in one particular . . . 
    amendments seeking to repeal the law or relating to the terms of 
    the law rather than to the bill are not germane.

Bill To Extend Price Control Act--Amendment To Exempt Livestock 
    Products

Sec. 35.17 To a bill to extend the Price Control Act, an amendment 
    providing that notwithstanding any provisions of the act no 
    regulation, directive, or allocation should be issued or maintained 
    with respect to livestock or any edible product processed from 
    livestock was held germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of the Emergency Price 
Control Act,(7) the following amendment was offered: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 6042 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 3909, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 17, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James W.] Wadsworth [Jr., of New 
    York]: On page 4, after line 25, add a new section to read as 
    follows:

            Sec. 4. Section 2 of the Emergency Price Control Act of 
        1942, as amended, is amended by inserting at the end of such 
        section a new subsection as follows:
            ``(p) Notwithstanding any provisions of this act no 
        regulation, order, directive, or allocation shall be issued, 
        made, or maintained (including directives for distribution or 
        price schedules) with respect to livestock or any edible 
        product processed in whole or substantial part from 
        livestock.''

[[Page 8839]]

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

        Mr. [Frank E.] Hook [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it goes beyond 
    the scope of the bill and is not germane to either the section or 
    the bill.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    amendment is confined to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 
    which is sought here to be amended, and the Chair is of the opinion 
    that the amendment is germane.

Section of Price Control Act Extension Relating to Meat Subsidies--
    Amendment To Eliminate Livestock and Meat Subsidies

Sec. 35.18 To a section of the Emergency Price Control Act relating to 
    subsidies for meat and other commodities, an amendment seeking to 
    eliminate livestock and meat subsidies was held germane.

    The following proceedings in the 79th Congress,(10) 
during consideration of the Emergency Price Control Act,(11) 
concerned the germaneness of an amendment offered by Mr. John W. 
Flannagan, Jr., of Virginia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 3904, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 17, 1946.
11. H.R. 6042 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Flannagan:

            1. Amend section 5, page 6, line 20, by striking out 
        ``meat, $715,000,000.''
            2. Amend section 5, page 8, line 2, by inserting a colon in 
        lieu of the period at the end of the sentence and adding the 
        following: ``Provided further, That no funds . . . shall be 
        used after June 30, 1946, to continue any existing program or 
        to institute any new program for the payment of subsidies on 
        livestock or meat derived from livestock . . . And provided 
        further, That in order to prevent the reduction of livestock 
        prices upon the elimination of such livestock and meat subsidy 
        payments, the Administrator shall make corresponding increases 
        in maximum prices of livestock, meat, and meat products. . . 
        .''

        Mr. [Frank E.] Hook [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground, first, that it is not 
    germane to the bill, and, second, that it goes far beyond the 
    authorization and scope of this bill. The bill only provides for 
    the extension of the Office of Price Administration and 
    Stabilization and this takes in many other acts and agencies. . . .

        Mr. Flannagan: The only purpose this amendment would accomplish 
    would be to eliminate entirely meat subsidies.
        The Chairman: (12) . . . The section relates to the 
    question of subsidies. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Virginia (Mr. Flannagan)

[[Page 8840]]

    likewise relates to the question of subsidies. The Chair believes 
    the amendment is germane and overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Modifying Definition of ``Agriculture'' in Fair Labor 
    Standards Act

Sec. 35.19 To a substitute modifying the definition of the term 
    ``agriculture'' in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to include 
    the processing of tobacco, and containing diverse other amendments 
    to that Act, an amendment adding to that definition transportation 
    of fruit and vegetables and transportation of persons employed in 
    harvesting such commodities was held to be germane.

    In the 87th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and to 
establish a new minimum wage. The following amendment was offered to 
the bill: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 3935 (Committee on Education and Labor).
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 4797, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1961. See also 
        Sec. 42.7, infra, for discussion of this ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: Strike 
    out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: ``That 
    this Act may be cited as the `Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 
    1961.' ''

                                  Definitions

            Sec. 2. (a) Paragraph (f) of section 3 of the Fair Labor 
        Standards Act of 1938 is amended by inserting after 
        ``Agricultural Marketing Act, as amended),'' the following: 
        ``the processing of shade-grown tobacco for use as cigar 
        wrapper tobacco by agricultural employees employed in the 
        growing and harvesting of such tobacco, which processing shall 
        include, but shall not be limited to, drying, curing . . . and 
        bailing, prior to the stemming process,''.
            (b) Paragraph (m) of section 3 of such Act, defining the 
        term ``wage'', is amended by inserting before the period at the 
        end thereof a colon and the following: ``Provided, That the 
        cost of board, lodging or other facilities shall not be 
        included as a part of the wage paid to any employee to the 
        extent it is excluded therefrom under the terms of a bona fide 
        individual contract or collective bargaining agreement 
        applicable to the particular employee''.
            (c) Section 3 of such Act is further amended by adding at 
        the end thereof the following new paragraphs: . . .
            ``(q) `Enterprise' means the related activities performed 
        (either through unified operation or common control) by any 
        person or persons for a common retail business purpose . . .
            ``(r) `Enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production 
        of goods for commerce' means any enterprise which has five or 
        more retail establishments and which operates such 
        establishment in two or more States.
            ``(s) `Retail establishment' shall mean an establishment 75 
        per centum of whose annual dollar volume of sales of goods is 
        not for resale and is recognized as retail sales in the 
        particular industry. . . .''
            Sec. 3. Section 4 of such Act is amended by adding at the 
        end thereof the following new subsection:

[[Page 8841]]

            ``(e) Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that in 
        any industry under this Act the competition of foreign 
        producers in United States markets or in markets abroad, or 
        both, has resulted, or is likely to result, in increased 
        unemployment in the United States, he shall undertake an 
        investigation to gain full information with respect to the 
        matter and shall make a full and complete report of his 
        findings and determinations to the President and to the 
        Congress.''. . .
            Sec. 11. The Secretary of Labor shall study the complicated 
        system of exemptions now available for the handling and 
        processing of agricultural products under such Act and 
        particularly sections 7(b)(3), 7(c), and 13(a)(10), and shall 
        submit to the second session of the Eighty-seventh Congress at 
        the time of his report under section 4(d) of such Act a special 
        report containing the results of such study and information, 
        data, and recommendations for further legislation designed to 
        simplify and remove the inequities in the application of such 
        exemptions.

    Subsequently, the following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 4806.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert S.] Herlong [Jr.], of Florida, 
    to the amendment offered by Mr. Ayres, of Ohio:

            Page 2, line 5, strike out the period and add the 
        following: ``and in the case of fruits and vegetables includes 
        transportation and preparation for transportation, whether or 
        not performed by the farmer, of the commodity from the farm to 
        a place of first processing or first marketing within the same 
        State, (2) transportation, whether or not performed by the 
        farmer, between the farm and any point within the same State of 
        persons employed or to be employed in the harvesting of the 
        commodity.''

    Mr. Roman C. Pucinski, of Illinois, made a point of order against 
the Herlong amendment on the ground that it was not germane. In support 
of the point of order, Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, stated:

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida attempts to 
    amend not the act before us, but Public Law 78, under which migrant 
    labor is brought into the country, and the other act of Congress 
    under which the U.S. Employment Service is established.
        An exemption already exists under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
    exempting agricultural labor from the application of the Fair Labor 
    Standards Act, and this is an attempt to amend not the Fair Labor 
    Standards Act, but other acts passed by various Congresses.

    The Chairman,(16) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This is unquestionably an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards 
    Act. It specifically refers to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Broadly Amending National Labor Relations Act--Amendment Providing 
    for Injunctions Against Violation of No-strike Agreements

Sec. 35.20 To a bill amending several sections of the National

[[Page 8842]]

    Labor Relations Act dealing with procedures and remedies as to 
    labor elections, organization and activities both during and after 
    the initial stage of labor organization, an amendment adding a new 
    section to amend a section of the law, already amended by the bill, 
    to afford a judicial remedy to enjoin violation of no-strike 
    agreements between employers and labor organizations, was held 
    germane.

    On Oct. 6, 1977,(17) during consideration of H.R. 8410 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 32609, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) Are there amendments to section 
    10 of the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Sec. 11. Section 10(m) is amended by inserting ``under 
    circumstances not subject to section 10(l),'' after ``section 8.''

                     amendment offered by mr. erlenborn

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn: Page 28, after line 5, 
        insert the following new section 12, and renumber the 
        subsequent section accordingly:
            Sec. 12. Section 10 of the National Labor Relations Act, as 
        amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
        new subsection:
            ``(n) Where there exists an agreement between an employer 
        and a labor organization, whether express or implied, not to 
        strike, picket or lockout, a party to the agreement, or the 
        Board if it finds that the public interest would be served 
        thereby, shall have the power to petition any district court of 
        the United States (including the District Court of the United 
        States for the District of Columbia) within any district where 
        either or both of the parties reside or transact business, for 
        such temporary injunctive relief or restraining order as is 
        necessary to prevent any person from engaging in, or inducing 
        or encouraging any employee of the employer to engage in, 
        conduct in breach of such agreement, irrespective of the nature 
        of the dispute underlying such strike, picket or lockout, and 
        such court shall have jurisdiction to grant to such party or 
        the Board such temporary injunctive relief or restraining order 
        as it deems just and proper.''

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment amends the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 
    1932 prohibiting Federal courts from issuing injunctions in labor 
    disputes.
        It also amends title II, the National emergency dispute 
    provision of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. It 
    eliminates the 80-day cooling-off period provided in title II. It 
    re

[[Page 8843]]

    writes the definition of what constitutes an emergency to be any 
    situation in which ``the public interest would be served.'' H.R. 
    8410 is limited to the subject of remedies and procedures relating 
    to the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively. 
    Amendments to Norris-LaGuardia and Taft-Hartley are not germane. . 
    . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: . . . My amendment, as I think the Chair is 
    aware, amends section 10 of the National Labor Relations Act. 
    Section 10 is amended in the bill before us.
        This amendment would add section 10(n) to that act. It is 
    remedial, it is procedural, and it is consonant with the bill 
    before us as reported by the committee.
        Mr. Chairman, I think it is clearly a remedial, procedural 
    amendment to a section of the act which has been amended by the 
    committee bill and is in order under all of the previous rulings of 
    the Chair.

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Erlenborn] adds a new section to the bill. The bill as a whole does 
    not deal exclusively with the period of initial organizational 
    activity as it relates to remedies. Certain remedies in the bill go 
    to post-organizational conduct. The amendment adds a new remedy.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is germane to the 
    bill as a whole and the point of order is overruled.

Bill Amending One Section of Labor-Management Relations Act--Amendment 
    Affecting Entire Act

Sec. 35.21 To a bill amending a section of the Labor-Management 
    Relations Act to permit employer contributions for joint industry 
    promotion of products within the construction industry, an 
    amendment applicable in scope to all industries covered by the act 
    and relating to funds established for political education was held 
    to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(20) amending the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, 
the following amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 15198 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 23403, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 25, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Marvin L.] Esch [of Michigan]: On 
    page 3, line 17, before the period, insert the following:

            Provided further, That nothing in the Labor-Management 
        Relations Act, 1947, as amended, shall be construed to make 
        unlawful or to prohibit an employer from participating in the 
        joint administration of funds established by a labor 
        organization for purposes of political education.

[[Page 8844]]

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

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment on the ground it is not 
    germane. It would establish the joint administration of funds for 
    political purposes, a subject not mentioned in the subject matter 
    of the legislation before us.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration amends only section 302(c) of the 
    act, whereas the proposed amendment attempts to amend the entire 
    act and brings in new matter that is not covered in section 302(c) 
    or in the bill.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is not germane, and sustains 
    the point of order.

Negotiation of Labor Disputes--Amendment To Empower President To Seize 
    Plants Threatened With Work Stoppages

Sec. 35.22 To a bill extending and amending a law that provided for 
    settlement of labor disputes primarily through negotiation between 
    the parties to such disputes, an amendment to empower the President 
    to take possession of plants threatened with work stoppages that 
    are considered to endanger the national defense was held not 
    germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Defense Production 
Act Amendments of 1952,(3) the following amendment was 
offered: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 8210 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 4. 98 Cong. Rec. 7654, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 19, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Richard W.] Bolling [of Missouri]: On 
    page 3, line 15, insert the following section:

            Sec. 103: Title II of the Defense Production Act of 1950, 
        as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 202. (a) Whenever the President . . . acting upon 
        the written recommendation of the National Security Council, 
        shall find that the national defense is endangered by a 
        stoppage of production or a threatened stoppage of production 
        in any one or more plants, mines, or facilities, as a result of 
        the present management-labor dispute in the steel industry, the 
        President is . . . authorized to take possession of and to 
        operate such plants, mines, or facilities. . . .''

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

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is out of order on the ground 
    that it is not germane to this section or to this bill; that it is 
    affirmative legislation not within the purview of the jurisdic

[[Page 8845]]

    tion covered by the language of this act.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 6. 98 Cong. Rec. 7655, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 19, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had an opportunity to study the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bolling] and it is the opinion 
    of the Chair that the amendment proposes to make basic changes in 
    our labor legislation. The amendment proposes further to amend 
    title II of the Defense Production Act of 1950, which is the 
    authority to requisition property. The amendment goes beyond . . . 
    the mere requisition of property and . . . proposes to make changes 
    in our labor laws.
        In view of the fact that it goes beyond the scope of title II 
    of the Defense Production Act of 1950, the Chair is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order. . . .

Bill To Permit Common Situs Picketing--Amendment Relating to Another 
    Section of Law Providing Remedies for Unfair Practices

Sec. 35.23 Where it is proposed to amend existing law in one 
    particular, an amendment to further amend the law in another 
    respect unrelated to the bill is not germane; thus, to a narrowly 
    drafted bill designed to amend section 8 of the National Labor 
    Relations Act, dealing with unfair labor practices, to permit 
    common situs picketing under certain circumstances, an amendment 
    further qualifying the right to so picket and providing a civil 
    remedy for persons injured by illegal pickets was ruled out as not 
    germane, being beyond the scope of the bill, since the law itself 
    provided remedies for unfair labor practices in another section and 
    the bill was not sufficiently broad to admit as germane amendments 
    relating to that section.

    During consideration of H.R. 5900 in the Committee of the Whole on 
July 25, 1975,(7) the Chair sustained a point of order in 
the circumstances described above. The section of the bill pending and 
the amendment offered thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 24819, 24841, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act, as 
        amended, is amended by inserting before the semicolon at the 
        end thereof ``; Provided further, That nothing contained in 
        clause (B) of this paragraph (4) shall be construed to prohibit 
        any strike or refusal to

[[Page 8846]]

        perform services or any inducement of any individual employed 
        by any person to strike or refuse to perform services at the 
        site of the construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a 
        building, structure, or other work and directed at any of 
        several employers who are in the construction industry and are 
        jointly engaged as joint venturers or in the relationship of 
        contractors and subcontractors in such construction, 
        alteration, painting, or repair at such site, and there is a 
        labor dispute, not unlawful under this Act or in violation of 
        an existing collective-bargaining contract, relating to the 
        wages, hours, or other working conditions of employees employed 
        at such site by any of such employers and the issues in the 
        dispute do not involve a labor organization which is 
        representing the employees of an employer at the site who is 
        not engaged primarily in the construction industry; Provided 
        further, Except as provided in the above proviso nothing herein 
        shall be construed to permit any act or conduct which was or 
        may have been an unfair labor practice under this subsection; 
        Provided further, That nothing in the above provisos shall be 
        construed to prohibit any act which was not an unfair labor 
        practice under the provisions of this subsection existing prior 
        to the enactment of such provisos: Provided further, that 
        nothing in the above provisos shall be construed to authorize 
        picketing, threatening to picket, or causing to be picketed, 
        any employer where an object thereof is the removal or 
        exclusion from the site of any employee on the ground of sex, 
        race, creed, color, or national origin. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moore: Page 5, line 3, immediately 
        after ``proviso;'' add the following: ``Provided further, That 
        nothing in the above provisos shall be construed to permit 
        picketing of an employer who is not a party to a dispute over 
        an economic matter in cases when picketing is conducted in a 
        manner that would cause that employer's employees to cease work 
        and the employees of that employer have a lower wage scale than 
        that of the aggrieved labor organization; and any employee who 
        ceases work because of a violation of this proviso may bring a 
        civil action against the labor organization in any United 
        States district court of competent jurisdiction to recover the 
        wages lost as a result of such violation, and the court shall 
        award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing 
        plaintiff.''. . .

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: . . . I make the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
    (Mr. Moore) is not germane to the purposes of the bill before us.
        The bill before us is a very narrowly drawn piece of 
    legislation that affects only 8(b)(4)(B) of the act. It affects 
    only the question of construction workers picketing a construction 
    site, and it goes very narrowly to that point.
        On the other hand, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Moore) goes ahead and sets up a cause of action 
    against labor organizations in Federal district courts, recovering 
    lost wages and so forth.
        It might be a germane provision to the National Labor Relations 
    Act, but it is not a germane amendment to this particular section 
    of the act or to the bill that is now before us. . . .
        Mr. Moore: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the point of order on the 
    ground that

[[Page 8847]]

    this bill takes away this power under the appropriate section of 
    this act. All this does is exempt this proviso of this particular 
    action as it applies to these particular employees, and this 
    exemption to such a provision in this bill is germane. The fact 
    that it gives the right of civil action means nothing more than to 
    strengthen the abilities of this particular proviso. Therefore, Mr. 
    Chairman, I submit that it is indeed very much germane.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
    (Mr. Moore) is not germane.
        The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Moore) has been kind enough 
    to submit a copy of his amendment in advance, and the Chair has had 
    the opportunity to study the amendment and to read the report of 
    the committee, and the bill.
        The Chair would state that the fundamental purpose of the bill 
    is to permit under certain conditions situs strikes which are, as 
    the result of a Supreme Court decision, considered to be unfair 
    labor practices under section 8(b) of the National Labor Relations 
    Act.
        The Chair notes that the amendment provides a civil remedy for 
    violation of the provisions of the amendment. The act itself, in 
    another section, provides remedies for unfair labor practices. The 
    remedy proposed here might be germane to that section of the act 
    containing such remedies, however that section of the act is not 
    before the Committee, and the specific amendment to section 8(b)(4) 
    of the act contained in this bill is not such an inclusive 
    amendment to existing law as to open the entire act to amendment 
    under the precedents of the House.
        The Chair therefore finds that the provision for civil remedies 
    for unfair labor practices is not germane to the portion of the act 
    defining those practices, and sustains the point of order.

Requirement of Certification of Elections Involving Labor Unions--
    Amendment Containing Additional Circumstances in Which 
    Certification Required

Sec. 35.24 While an amendment narrowly amending one portion of existing 
    law does not necessarily open up the entire law to amendment, such 
    an amendment may be amended by adding exceptions and definitions 
    modifying its effect on that portion of law if related to the same 
    subject; thus, to an amendment amending sec. 10(e) of the National 
    Labor Relations Act to require NLRB certifications of employee 
    elections of unions as exclusive bargaining agents only where there 
    has been a secret ballot, a substitute amendment containing the 
    same requirement with ex

[[Page 8848]]

    ceptions where an employer has been shown to have undermined the 
    election or is otherwise estopped from challenging the election was 
    held germane as a restatement of the original amendment with 
    related exceptions.

    During consideration of H.R. 8410 (9) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Oct. 6, 1977,(10) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 32607, 32608, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) If there are no additional 
    amendments to section 8, the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 9. (a) The third sentence of subsection 10(e) is 
        amended by inserting immediately before the period at the end 
        therof a comma and the following: ``nor shall any objection be 
        considered by the court unless a petition for review pursuant 
        to subsection (f) of this section has been timely filed by the 
        party stating the objection''. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Amend Section 9 by 
        renumbering subsection (b) thereof as (c) and inserting the 
        following new subsection 9(b):
            ``(b) The fourth sentence of Section 10(e) is amended to 
        read as follows:
            ``The findings of the Board with respect to questions of 
        fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record 
        considered as a whole shall be conclusive, Provided, That no 
        finding of the Board that a representative is the exclusive 
        representative of the employees in a unit for purposes of 
        collective bargaining shall be accepted by the court unless 
        such representative has been certified by the Board after a 
        secret ballot election conducted in accordance with Section 
        9(c).''. . .

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Amend section 9 by 
        renumbering subsection (b) thereof as (c) and inserting the 
        following new subsection 9(b):
            ``(b) The fourth sentence of section 10(e) is amended to 
        read as follows:
            ``The findings of the Board with respect to questions of 
        fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record 
        considered as a whole shall be conclusive: Provided, That no 
        finding of the Board that a representative is the exclusive 
        representative of the employees in a unit for purposes of 
        collective bargaining shall be accepted by the court unless 
        such representative has been certified by the Board after a 
        secret ballot election conducted in accordance with subsection 
        (c) of section 9 or has been determined to be a representative 
        defined in subsection (a) of section 9 by the Board in an order 
        entered pursuant to subsection (c) of this section: Provided, 
        That no such order shall be entered where the employer has not 
        engaged in conduct, unlawful under this Act, which undermines a

[[Page 8849]]

        free and fair election under subsection (c) of section 9: . . . 
        provided further, That where the employer agrees to recognize 
        an individual or labor organization as a representative defined 
        in subsection (a) of section 9 on the basis of proof of 
        majority support other than a Board certification and such 
        support is in fact demonstrated, the individual or labor 
        organization so chosen shall be considered to be a 
        representative for purposes of subsection (a) of section 9. . . 
        .

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order on the 
    basis of the Chair's previous construction of H.R. 8410 and 
    amendments offered thereto.
        I point out to the Chair the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Ford) is not within the scope of the bill. It 
    refers in three places to section 9(a) of the National Labor 
    Relations Act. Section 9(a) is not opened up, as the Chair can 
    determine, by H.R. 8410. It is nongermane to my amendment. It goes 
    beyond the scope of my amendment. The gentleman from Michigan 
    himself has indicated that what he is trying to do is codify a 
    principle in case law. That in effect is a substantive effort. . . 
    .

        Mr. Ford of Michigan: . . . Mr. Chairman, I agree with the 
    gentleman that I am attempting to codify the case law, but I 
    thought that I was agreeing with his attempt to codify the case law 
    because we are both citing the same case as authority for the 
    language we would now have as a part of the statute.
        As to that part of the change in the amendment that is common 
    to both his amendment and mine, the basis of the case law we have 
    cited is exactly the same. Mine certainly could not be found not to 
    be germane, inasmuch as we rely on exactly the same basis for the 
    language. Moreover, there is nothing in my substitute that makes 
    substantive changes in the law with respect to the rights of 
    employers and employees. It has to do only with procedural 
    practices in keeping with the entire thrust of this bill to improve 
    and streamline and codify for that purpose past practices and 
    procedures.
        With respect to section 9 of the act, while it might be said 
    that these procedures refer to section 9 of the act, for that 
    matter they refer to all of the act. But they are limited, and this 
    amendment is limited to affecting the method by which these 
    improvements achieve the end of the act and not intended in any way 
    to effect a substantial change in the sections of the act that are 
    subject to this procedure. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I would merely want to reiterate 
    that the gentleman's amendment clearly refers to section 9(a). 
    Section 9(a) has not been opened up by this act. It is not a proper 
    substitute. The Chair on several occasions has taken a very strict 
    interpretation of H.R. 8410 as it relates to the National Labor 
    Relations Act, and I do not believe it can be opened up at this 
    point inconsistent with those rulings.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Ford) as to how his substitute would affect 
    section 9(a) of the act.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: 9(a) of the bill?
        The Chairman: In a manner not affected by the amendment offered 
    by

[[Page 8850]]

    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook). . . .
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that I do. 
    I believe that the gentleman limits the method by which a 
    collective bargaining arrangement can come into being, and we 
    simply return to the existing law.
        If the gentleman would make a change in existing law, we stay 
    with the existing law.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The question, of course, pertains to the germaneness of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford) as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Ashbrook). That is the test.
        The substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Ford), down to section 9, in the middle of the first page, 
    contains the same language of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook). From that point in the 
    substitute, the Chair is of the opinion that the substitute sets 
    forth exceptions to the Ashbrook amendment and incorporates 
    definitions contained in section 9(a) of the act without amending 
    other sections of the law, and it seems to be related to and is 
    germane to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Ashbrook).
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Procedural Rules Governing Labor Organization and Elections--Amendment 
    Relating to Unfair Labor Practices

Sec. 35.25 Where the pending section of a bill proposes to amend 
    existing law in one particular, an amendment to further amend the 
    law in another respect unrelated to the pending portion of the bill 
    and to the portion of existing law which it amends is not germane; 
    thus, to a section of a bill amending that section of the National 
    Labor Relations Act relating to procedural rules governing labor 
    elections and organization, an amendment changing the same section 
    of existing law to require the promulgation of rules defining 
    certain conduct as grounds for voiding a labor election was held 
    not germane, where neither the pending section nor the bill itself 
    addressed the subject of unfair labor practices as dealt with in 
    another section of existing law.

    During consideration of H.R. 8410 (12) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Oct. 5, 1977,(13) the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 32500, 32501, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 8851]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 17, line 5, insert 
        ``(i)'' after ``(A)'' and insert the following new subparagraph 
        (ii) after line 15:
            ``(ii) which shall assure that the expressing of any views, 
        arguments, opinion, or the making of any statement (including 
        expressions intended to influence the outcome of an organizing 
        campaign, a bargaining controversy, a strike, lockout, or other 
        labor dispute), or the dissemination thereof, whether in 
        written, printed, graphic, visual, or auditory form, shall not 
        constitute grounds for, or evidence justifying, setting aside 
        the results of any election conducted under any of the 
        provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no threat 
        of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.''. . .

        Mr. [William D.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I insist 
    upon my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered is to section 3 of the 
    bill, which in its present form amends section 6 of the National 
    Labor Relations Act, which is the rulemaking authority of that act. 
    Under section 3, the Board is directed to make rules that: First, 
    affect union actions during representation campaigns; second, 
    define classes of representation cases; and third, schedules 
    governing the holding of elections.
        The amendment proposed effectively changes section 8(c) of the 
    National Labor Relations Act, not before us in this bill, which 
    deals with unfair labor practices. As such, it is not directed at 
    the limited subject and scope of this bill in dealing with 
    rulemaking amendments, as H.R. 8410 directs.
        It is not in keeping with the act, and the bill, which provides 
    broad discretion to the Board in its rulemaking capacity. Rather, 
    it restricts absolutely the nature and substance of the rule the 
    Board is directed to make.
        The amendment deals not only with organization campaign and 
    representation cases, which is the subject matter of this bill, but 
    with strikes, lockouts, and other labor disputes which are not 
    within the parameters of H.R. 8410, or section 3 of the committee 
    bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment is therefore nongermane. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, on page 17 of the bill, starting 
    with line 1 of this act, it says:

            The Board shall within 12 months after the date of 
        enactment of the Labor Reform Act of 1977 issue regulations to 
        implement the provisions of section 9(c)(6) including rules--

        And it goes on, as a matter of fact, on lines 3 through 15 in 
    the subject matter we just dispensed with a few moments ago. We 
    specifically dealt with the subject matter of both employers and 
    employees attempting free speech, speaking to those employees, I 
    think, going back again to page 16 and talking about making the 
    regulations, referring to rules and regulations as may be necessary 
    to carry out the provisions of this act.
        Mr. Chairman, in the very preamble of this act it says:

            To amend the National Labor Relations Act to strengthen the 
        remedies and expedite the procedures under such Act.

        Mr. Chairman, I feel that this amendment, calling upon the 
    Board to issue rules, in addition to the rules that are in H.R. 
    8410, is within the parameters of the debate and therefore the 
    point of order should be overruled.

[[Page 8852]]

        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has carefully followed the remarks of both gentlemen. 
    The Chair is of the opinion that the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford) should be sustained.
        The Chair would like to state that under section 3 of the 
    committee bill that is now before the Committee it amends section 6 
    of the National Labor Relations Act and restates the existing 
    authority of the NLRB to promulgate rules and regulations to carry 
    out the provisions of the act, specifically including certain 
    authority to make procedural rules governing elections and 
    governing the period of initial stages of organizational activity. 
    The section of the bill does not go to newly mandated directions to 
    the Board to promulgate regulations to implement section 8 of the 
    act.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Ashbrook), while not directly amending section 8 of the act, would 
    amend section 6 of the act to direct the Board to promulgate 
    regulations, and the amendment would by its terms elevate those 
    regulations to a position of substantive law, which regulations 
    would conclusively pronounce what conduct shall or shall not 
    constitute grounds for setting aside an election.
        In such form, the amendment goes beyond the issue of 
    implementing rule-making authority and deals directly with the 
    question of whether conduct, for the first time, would constitute 
    an unfair labor practice beyond the period of initial stages of 
    organizational activity, a matter not addressed by the committee 
    bill in section 3.
        Therefore, the point of order is sustained.

Sec. 35.26 To a section of a bill narrowly amending one section of 
    existing law dealing with procedural rules governing labor 
    elections and organization, an amendment to require promulgation of 
    rules defining unfair labor practices, a subject covered in another 
    section of the law but not addressed in the pending section of the 
    bill, was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 8410 (15) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Oct. 5, 1977,(16) the Chair, in sustaining a 
point of order against the amendment described above, reiterated the 
proposition that an amendment must be germane to the section of the 
bill to which it is offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 32507, 32508, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 19, after line 5, 
        insert the following new paragraph (c):
            ``(c) The Board shall within three months after the date of 
        enactment of the Labor Reform Act of 1977, issue rules or 
        regulations to imple

[[Page 8853]]

        ment the provisions of section 8(b)(1) including rules which 
        shall assure that no labor organization shall threaten or 
        impose an unreasonable disciplinary fine or other economic 
        sanction against any person in the exercise of rights under the 
        Act (including but not limited to the right to refrain from any 
        or all concerted activity or to invoke the processes of the 
        Board).''

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by my colleague and friend 
    from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook), although in some ways meritorious, is 
    offered to section 3 of the bill which amends section 6 of the 
    National Labor Relations Act, the rulemaking authority. Under 
    section 3, the Board is directed to make rules, first, that assure 
    equal access during representation campaigns, which we have done; 
    second, that define classes of representation cases; and three, 
    schedules governing the holding of elections.
        The amendment offered, in effect, changes section 8 of the act 
    relating to unfair labor practices. It is directed, therefore, at a 
    subject not contemplated in the bill and establishes a new unfair 
    labor practice, and is not germane to the committee bill or to 
    section 3. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . I believe this does come under the general 
    rulemaking. It is in section 6. Furthermore, when we refer to 
    willful violations, on page 22, in section 7, this bill does refer 
    to unfair labor practices, and I think under the previous 
    precedents established, where we open up a section referring to 
    unfair labor practices, it is now not timely for the chairman to 
    say that this bill does not amend unfair labor practices. Section 7 
    clearly refers to unfair labor practices, as does my amendment to 
    section 3, and I would hope the Chair would overrule the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) has offered an amendment 
    that, while not directly amending section 8 of the act, would amend 
    section 6 of the act to direct the Board to promulgate regulations. 
    The amendment would really reach issues of substantive law, since 
    the regulations would conclusively pronounce that certain union 
    conduct shall constitute an unfair labor practice under section 8. 
    In such form, the amendment goes beyond the issue of implementing 
    rulemaking authority and deals directly with the question of 
    conduct which for the first time would constitute an unfair labor 
    practice beyond the period of initial stages of organizational 
    activity, a matter not addressed by the committee bill in section 
    3.
        The reference of the gentleman from Ohio to the provisions of 
    section 7 does not alter the fact that an amendment must be germane 
    to the pending section.
        For that reason, the Chair must sustain the point of order.

Provisions Affecting Ceiling Prices Applicable to Certain Personal 
    Services--Amendment Affecting Prices Applicable to Manufacturers

Sec. 35.27 To a committee amendment making price and wage

[[Page 8854]]

    ceilings inapplicable to services of barbers and beauticians, an 
    amendment to govern ceiling prices ``applicable to manufacturers or 
    processors for any item of material derived . . . from an 
    agricultural commodity,'' was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (18) was under consideration 
comprising amendments to the Defense Production Act of 1950. To a 
committee amendment as described above, the following amendment was 
offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 3871 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 8322, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Page 
    18, after line 4, insert the following:

            (j) Section 402 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 is 
        hereby amended by adding at the end thereof a new subsection 
        reading as follows:
            ``It shall be unlawful to establish or maintain any ceiling 
        price applicable to manufacturers or processors for any item of 
        material derived in whole or in substantial part from an 
        agricultural commodity if such ceiling price for any such item 
        of material is fixed and maintained at less than the sum of the 
        following:
            ``(1) The current cost of the material used . . .
            ``(2) All costs currently incurred in the processing or 
        manufacturing operation and distribution of such item . . .
            ``(3) A reasonable profit. . . .''

    Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, having raised a point of order against 
the amendment, the Chairman (20) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the purpose of the amendment is not 
    germane to the committee amendment and therefore the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Persons Eligible for Disaster Loans--Amendment Adding ``Freeze'' to 
    Types of Disaster Included Within Terms

Sec. 35.28 To a bill enlarging the class of persons eligible under 
    existing law for loans necessitated by ``floods or other 
    catastrophes,'' an amendment modifying the title of the existing 
    act expressly to include ``freeze'' as one form of disaster to be 
    included within the terms of the bill was held to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
to extend the lending authority of the Disaster Loan Corporation. The 
purposes of the bill were explained as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.J. Res. 251 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 3353, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 9, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry B.] Steagall [of Alabama]: . . . It will be 
    remembered

[[Page 8855]]

    that on February 11, 1937, we passed an act for the establishment 
    of the Disaster Loan Corporation to be officered by officials of 
    the Reconstruction Finance Corporation for the purpose of making 
    loans to sufferers from disasters during the year 1937. . . .
        The provisions of the pending resolution extend the benefits of 
    the act of February 11, 1937, to sufferers from disasters during 
    the year 1936, so that anybody who was not taken care of under the 
    former act will be eligible for loans under the recent legislation. 
    Victims of disasters in 1936 will share in the benefits of the 
    recent act. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas F.] Ford of California: On 
    page 1, line 4, after the word ``floods'', add a comma and the word 
    ``freeze.''

    Mr. Steagall having raised a point of order against the amendment, 
the Speaker (3) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Ford] proposes to amend the title of an existing law. The Chair is 
    of the opinion that an amendment to the title of an existing act is 
    not germane to the substantive matter of the proposed joint 
    resolution, and, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Mutual Security Act--Amendment Modifying Provisions Affecting Use of 
    Surplus Agricultural Commodities

Sec. 35.29 To a bill amending the Mutual Security Act of 1954, an 
    amendment, offered for purposes of modifying that part of the act 
    relating to the use of surplus agricultural commodities, which 
    sought to give the President the authority to furnish surplus 
    agricultural commodities to the United Nations for certain purposes 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill (4) 
to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954, the following amendment was 
offered: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 7500 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 11297, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Leonard G.] Wolf [of Iowa]: On page 
    8, line 16, strike out the quotation mark and immediately below 
    line 16 insert the following:

            Sec. 401A. (a) In keeping with the purpose and objective of 
        the Mutual Security Act, to assist in stabilizing economies . . 
        . and to help eliminate famines and hunger in ways that will 
        promote economic development, the President is authorized . . . 
        to furnish, without charge, to the United Nations or to any 
        agency thereof, from stocks of the Commodity Credit 
        Corporation, commodities which are surplus, as determined by 
        the Secretary of Agriculture. . . .

    Mr. John Taber, of New York, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to

[[Page 8856]]

the bill. The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 11298, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment, also 
    the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, particularly title IV 
    thereof, which has to do with special assistance and other 
    programs, and calls attention to the fact that in title IV there is 
    specific mention of surplus agricultural commodities pursuant to 
    the Agricultural Trade, Development, and Assistance Act of 1954.

        The Chair feels that this amendment is germane to the bill now 
    before the Committee, and, therefore, overrules the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from New York.

--Additional Sense of Congress Expression

Sec. 35.30 Where a bill under consideration reenacted and amended the 
    Mutual Security Act of 1954, an amendment adding to the statements 
    of congressional policy contained in the act a further statement of 
    policy which related to treaties affecting jurisdiction over 
    American military personnel in foreign countries was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954. To such bill, the following 
amendment was offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. S. 2130 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 9. 103 Cong. Rec. 12007, 12008, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson [of Texas]: On page 
    1, after line 4, insert: Section 2 of the Mutual Security Act of 
    1954, as amended, which expresses a statement of policy, is amended 
    by the addition of the following paragraph at the end of the 
    statement:

            (a) It is the sense of the Congress . . . that in order to 
        . . . maintain the rights and privileges for our citizens who 
        are serving with our Armed Forces in other countries . . . the 
        President should forthwith address to the North Atlantic 
        Council . . . a request for revision of article VII of (the 
        NATO Status of Forces Agreement) for the purpose of eliminating 
        or modifying article VII so that the United States may exercise 
        exclusive criminal jurisdiction over American military 
        personnel stationed within the boundaries of parties to the 
        treaty. . . .

    A point of order against the amendment was raised by Mr. Albert S. 
J. Carnahan, of Missouri, who stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 12008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, the Mutual Security Act of 1954, which the bill 
    S. 2130 seeks to amend, states in its statement of policy among 
    other things that the Congress of the United States ``declares it 
    to be the policy of the United States to continue as long as such 
    danger to the peace of the world and to the security of the United 
    States persists to make available to free nations and

[[Page 8857]]

    peoples upon request, assistance of such nature and in such amounts 
    as the United States deems advisable, compatible with its own 
    stability, strength, and other obligations, and as may be needed 
    and effectively used by such free nations and peoples to help them 
    maintain their freedom.''
        This legislation does not provide for the conduct, management, 
    or regulation of American forces abroad. Consequently, the 
    amendment is not germane.

    Speaking in support of the point of order, Mr. John M. Vorys, of 
Ohio, stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 12008, 12009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, on page 407 of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives on the matter of germaneness appears the statement 
    that to a bill modifying an existing law as to one specific 
    particular an amendment relating to the terms of the law other than 
    those dealt with by the bill is not germane. Volume V, page 806, of 
    Cannon's Precedents is cited and there are other citations as well.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to amend the purpose 
    clauses of the mutual security law, which is a part of the bill 
    which is not amended by the amendment contained in the bill, S. 
    2130, which is now before the House. . . . In addition, the 
    amendment . . . would amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 
    Article 14 of the code provides that under such regulations as the 
    Secretary concerned may prescribe, a member of the Armed Forces 
    accused of an offense against civil authority may be delivered upon 
    request to the civil authority for trial.
        Article 5 of the same code says:
        ``This chapter applies in all places.''
        So that this would purport to amend the Uniform Code of 
    Military Justice. . . .

    Other Members spoke on the point of order, as follows: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 12009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, 
    certainly in the first place the method of trial of United States 
    troops stationed abroad is not germane in an economic and military 
    aid bill for foreign countries.
        Secondly, attention should be called to the statement that has 
    been made by the gentleman from Ohio that the revision of United 
    States treaties or executive agreements in this type of a bill is 
    clearly not germane to the purpose of the bill.
        Thirdly, as stated by the gentleman from Texas, the sponsor of 
    the particular amendment, if his purpose is directly or indirectly 
    to have a reduction effect upon the number of armed United States 
    forces abroad or the number of military people in our military 
    installations, that policy is clearly a matter of jurisdiction of 
    the House Armed Services Committee, and is not in any way connected 
    with or germane to this legislation. . . .
        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: . . . This amendment merely 
    amends the purpose clauses of the act of 1954, in which there are 
    other purposes other than the ones which have been referred to. 
    This does not attempt to amend the treaty. . . . It simply 
    expresses the sense of the Congress that the President take some 
    action to at

[[Page 8858]]

    tempt to renegotiate and place no mandatory provisions at all upon 
    the President. It simply expresses the will of the Congress under 
    the purpose clauses of this legislation, as a matter of policy. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Winston L.] Prouty [of Vermont]: . . . I think if we look 
    at the proposed amendment we will find it deals with a different 
    subject matter. The subject matter of the bill S. 2130 is mutual 
    security. The subject matter of the amendment is qualification of 
    treaties or other international agreements. . . .

    Mr. Vorys further observed:

        . . . The fact that it is a policy statement rather than a 
    direct amendment does not make it any the more germane.

    The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
14. 103 Cong. Rec. 12010, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Attention is . . . invited to the fact that the amendment does 
    not seek to amend the treaty-making powers, it does not seek to 
    amend the Code of Military Justice. It simply expresses the sense 
    of Congress that the President should forthwith address to the 
    North Atlantic Council, and so forth. It is an expression of the 
    sense of Congress going one step further than the expressions of 
    the sense of Congress provided in the Mutual Security Act of 1954. 
    . . .
        . . . [T]he Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is an 
    additional expression of the sense of Congress in line with the 
    expressions of the sense of Congress contained in the Mutual 
    Security Act of 1954, it is germane to the pending bill, and, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Amending Foreign Assistance Act--Amendment to Law Referred to in 
    Act

Sec. 35.31 To a bill amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which 
    had authorized the use of funds generated under the Agricultural 
    Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, an amendment offered 
    as a new section which sought to amend the Agricultural Trade 
    Development and Assistance Act of 1954 by adding further provisions 
    relating to agreements with foreign nations under which such funds 
    were generated, specifically with respect to the power of the 
    President to negotiate agreements with foreign nations for sale of 
    surplus commodities in exchange for foreign currencies, was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(15) amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the 
following amendment was offered which related to the

[[Page 8859]]

power of the President to negotiate agreements for the sale of surplus 
commodities in exchange for foreign currencies: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 11921 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 13431, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 12, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Barry: On page 16, after line 15 
    insert the following:

            Sec. 404. Section 101(f) of the Agricultural Trade 
        Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, is amended 
        to read as follows:
            ``(f) obtain rates of exchange applicable to the sale of 
        commodities in European countries under such agreements which 
        are not less favorable than the highest of exchange rates 
        legally obtainable from the Government or agencies thereof in 
        the respective countries.''

    In regard to the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Robert R. Barry, of 
New York, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I am proposing is intended to 
    assure that our surplus farm commodities are sold on best possible 
    terms--specifically, at rates of exchange not less favorable than 
    the highest rates legally obtainable from the governments, or 
    governmental agencies, of the purchasing countries.

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

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment here is to Public Law 480, which is the Agricultural Act, 
    and the particular section to which it is addressed is section 
    101(f) of Public Law 480. That is not now before the House. The 
    gentleman's amendment is not germane to any section of the bill. I 
    therefore insist on the point of order.

    The following exchange (17) related to the point of 
order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 13431, 13432.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The burden of proof is always on 
    the person who proposes an amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Barry: I believe it is germane. Therefore, I am asking for 
    a ruling to sustain my belief.
        The Chairman: The bill before the Committee, H.R. 11921, to 
    amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and 
    for other purposes, refers, of course, to the act of 1961. In the 
    act of 1961 itself specific provision was made for amendment of the 
    Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, to which 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York refers.
        The Chair believes that the subject matter of the Agricultural 
    Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 is included within the 
    purview of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which is the bill 
    before the Committee and, therefore, feels that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Barry] is germane to 
    the bill. The Chair overrules the point of order.

--Amendment Relating To Subject Matter Stricken From Bill

Sec. 35.32 To a bill amending the Foreign Assistance Act of

[[Page 8860]]

    1961 and other general laws related to the mutual security program, 
    an amendment relating to the appointment of Members to attend the 
    NATO Parliamentary Conferences, which had been the subject matter 
    of a provision stricken from the bill, was held to be not germane.

    In the 87th Congress, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1962 
(19) was under consideration, containing the following 
provision: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 11921 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
20. See 108 Cong. Rec. 13428, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 12, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Part IV--Amendments to Other Laws

        Sec. 403. The first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
    authorize participation by the United States in the 
    Interparliamentary Union,'' approved June 28, 1935, as amended (22 
    U.S.C. 276), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 
    ``Not less than two of the principal delegates to each of the 
    Conferences of the Interparliamentary Union shall be members of the 
    House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and not less than two of such 
    delegates shall be members of the Senate Committee on Foreign 
    Relations.''

    The above provision having been stricken, the following amendment 
was offered to the bill: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 13431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert R.] Barry [of New York]: On 
    page 16, after line 15, insert the following:

            Sec. 404. The first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
        authorize participation by the United States in parliamentary 
        conferences of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,'' 
        approved July 11, 1956, is amended by adding at the end thereof 
        the following: ``Of the appointments made by the Speaker of the 
        House not less than two shall be members of the Foreign Affairs 
        Committee.''

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

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: . . . [The amendment] deals with 
    an act of Congress which is a separate act, and which is not 
    contained in this bill. Since section 403 has been stricken, there 
    is nothing in this bill about any interparliamentary group 
    whatever. Therefore it is not germane to the bill.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Just a moment ago section 403 was stricken from the bill. 
    That section was the only section that had anything to do with any 
    international group. This amendment refers to parliamentary 
    conferences of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The bill 
    itself has the purpose of further amending the Foreign Assistance 
    Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Barry] under the circumstances goes 
    beyond the purport of the bill, and therefore sustains the

[[Page 8861]]

    point of order raised by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hays].

Amendments to Other Acts

Sec. 35.33 To a bill amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
    amendments to the Mutual Security Act of 1954 and the Legislative 
    Appropriation Act of 1961, were conceded to be not 
    germane.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 13432, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 12, 1962. See Sec. 
        35.34, infra, for fuller treatment of this precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foreign Assistance--Amendment Relating to Committee Expenses for 
    Foreign Travel

Sec. 35.34 To a bill authorizing general foreign assistance programs, 
    an amendment relating to reports on committee expenditures for 
    foreign travel was conceded to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
1961,(4) the following amendment was offered as a new 
section: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 11921 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 13432, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 12, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 404. (a) Subsection (b) of section 502 of the Mutual 
    Security Act of 1954 is amended by inserting immediately before the 
    last sentence thereof the following new sentences: ``No such report 
    shall contain any miscellaneous item or other item grouping 
    together under a general heading expenditures for dissimilar 
    purposes but shall specify, item by item, each individual 
    expenditure. . . .''
        (b) Subsection (b) of section 105 of the Legislative Branch 
    Appropriation Act, 1961, is amended by inserting immediately before 
    the last sentence thereof the following new sentences:

        ``No such report shall contain any miscellaneous item. . . .''

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

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground again that there is 
    nothing in this bill relating to the expenditure of committee 
    funds, of select or special committees, or traveling committees 
    and, therefore, the amendment is not germane to the bill.

    The following exchange then occurred:

        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Iowa concedes 
    the point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military Assistance to Foreign Nations--Transfer of Military Equipment 
    to Israel

Sec. 35.35 To a bill authorizing foreign assistance and

[[Page 8862]]

    amending several provisions of the basic law relating to military 
    assistance, an amendment authorizing the President to negotiate 
    with Israel concerning the sale to that nation of certain military 
    equipment was held to be germane.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 22098, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 18, 1968. See 
        Sec. 35.36, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.36 To a bill amending those provisions of the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1961 relating to military assistance to foreign 
    nations, an amendment authorizing the transfer of military planes 
    to Israel under conditions and procedures compatible with the basic 
    law was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1968,(8) the following amendment was 
offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 15263 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 9. 114 Cong. Rec. 22098, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 18, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered to the committee amendments offered by Mr. 
    [Lester L.] Wolff [of New York]: on page 11, line 9, after the 
    Conte amendment insert:

            (d) The President shall take such steps as may be necessary 
        . . . to negotiate an agreement with the Government of Israel 
        providing for the sale by the United States of not less than 50 
        military planes. . . .

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

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: I raise a point of order against 
    the amendment because it would order the President to make an 
    affirmative determination. It has been ruled here many times that 
    one cannot do that.
        In addition, it is not germane to the bill because we are 
    coming up with a military sales bill, and this bill has nothing 
    about military sales in it. The amendment may be germane to the 
    military sales bill.

    The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Part II of chapter 2 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961, section 503, designating the general authority, states the 
    President is authorized to furnish military assistance on such 
    terms and conditions as he may determine, to any friendly country 
    or international organization, the assisting of which the President 
    finds will strengthen the security of the United States and promote 
    world peace and which is otherwise eligible to receive such 
    assistance.
        The Chair will hold that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York further authorizes the President to take such steps 
    as may be necessary to negotiate an agreement with the Government 
    of Israel providing for the sale of military planes, and is a 
    condition in keeping with the authority

[[Page 8863]]

    already given to the President in section 503 of the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and therefore holds the 
    amendment to be germane. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Amending Mutual Security Act of 1954--Amendment Authorizing 
    Librarian of Congress To Use Foreign Currencies in Acquisitions

Sec. 35.37 To a bill relating to military and economic assistance to 
    foreign countries and amending the Mutual Security Act of 1954, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which authorized the Librarian 
    of Congress to use designated foreign currencies in connection with 
    programs for the evaluation and acquisition of certain foreign 
    books and materials.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (11) was under 
consideration amending the Mutual Security Act of 1954. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 12181 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
12. 104 Cong. Rec. 8751, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of 
        Michigan]:

        (m) Add a new section as follows:
        Sec. 519. Overseas programs relating to scientific and other 
    significant works (a) The Librarian of Congress, in consultation 
    with the National Science Foundation and other interested agencies, 
    is authorized to establish programs outside of the United States 
    for (1) the analysis and evaluation of foreign books . . . and 
    other materials to determine whether they would provide information 
    of technical or scientific significance in the United States . . . 
    and the acquisition of such books. . . .
        . . . [T]he Librarian of Congress may, in carrying out the 
    provisions of this section . . . use currencies, or credits for 
    currencies, of any foreign government (1) held or available for 
    expenditure by the United States and not required by law or 
    agreement with such government to be expended or used for another 
    purpose. . . .

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

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is 
    not germane to the bill or at this place in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment sets up an outfit in the Library 
    of Congress which is not mentioned anywhere else to review a great 
    bunch of books. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) . . . The Chair is not, of 
    course, passing on the merits of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan. The amendment is obviously not germane to 
    the purposes of the pending bill. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A subsequent exchange concerned the timeliness of Mr. Taber's point 
of order:

[[Page 8864]]

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] was much too 
    late in making his point of order, inasmuch as the amendment had 
    already been read and debate had started.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] was on 
    his feet at the time and was recognized by the Chair as soon as the 
    Chair saw the gentleman on his feet. The point of order of the 
    gentleman from Ohio comes too late.

Foreign Assistance to Certain Nations--Amendment Requiring Reports on 
    Human Rights Violations by Any Nation

Sec. 35.38 To a bill amending existing law to authorize foreign 
    economic assistance to nations qualifying as recipients under that 
    law, but not addressing foreign relations with countries not 
    receiving such assistance, an amendment to that law to require 
    reports on human rights violations by all foreign countries, not 
    merely those receiving aid under the law, was conceded to be 
    broader in scope and was ruled out as not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 12222 (14) in the Committee 
of the Whole, a point of order against the amendment described above 
was conceded and sustained. The proceedings of May 12, 
1978,(15) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1978.
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 13499, 13500, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Michel: On page 48, immediately 
        after line 15, insert the following new subsection:
            ``(e) Section 116(d)(1) of such Act is amended by inserting 
        immediately before the semicolon ``and in all other foreign 
        countries (except those countries with respect to which a 
        report is transmitted pursuant [to another section] ).''

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Michel: . . . [I]f the gentleman insists on his point of 
    order, I would concede it in the interests of time.
        Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I will concede the point 
    of order and will offer another amendment.
        The Chairman: (16) The point of order is conceded 
    and sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laws Concerning State Department and Foreign Relations--Guidelines for 
    Acceptance of Foreign Gifts

Sec. 35.39 To a House bill containing diverse amendments

[[Page 8865]]

    to existing laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations, relating to foreign relations and the 
    operation of the Department of State and related agencies, a 
    portion of a Senate amendment thereto contained in a conference 
    report, amending the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (within the 
    jurisdiction of the same committee) to provide guidelines and 
    procedures for the acceptance of foreign gifts by United States 
    employees and to provide that the House Committee on Standards of 
    Official Conduct adopt regulations governing acceptance by Members 
    and House employees of foreign gifts, was held germane when a point 
    of order was raised against a portion of the conference report 
    under Rule XXVIII, clause 4.

    The proceedings of Aug. 3, 1977, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 6689, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal 1978, 
are discussed in Sec. 26.28, supra.

General Sanctions Offered to Specific Sanctions

Sec. 35.40 To a bill dealing with enforcement of United Nations 
    sanctions against one country in relation to a specific trade 
    commodity, an amendment permitting the president to suspend all 
    economic relations and communications between the United States and 
    any other country, on the basis of human rights violations as 
    determined by the president, was held to be not germane.

    On Mar. 14, 1977,(17) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 1746, amending the United Nations 
Participation Act of 1945 to halt the importation of Rhodesian chrome. 
The bill permitted the president to enforce United States compliance 
with United Nations Security Council sanctions against trade with 
Rhodesia particularly with reference to the importation of Rhodesian 
chrome. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 7432, 7446, 7447, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it amended by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 5 of 
    the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287c) is 
    amended--
        (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following new 
    sentence: ``Any Executive order which is issued under this 
    subsection and which applies measures against Southern Rho

[[Page 8866]]

    desia pursuant to any United Nations Security Council Resolution 
    may be enforced, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law; 
    and
        (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
        ``(c)(1) During the period in which measures are applied 
    against Southern Rhodesia under subsection (a) pursuant to any 
    United Nations Security Council Resolution, a shipment of any steel 
    mill product (as such product may be defined by the Secretary) 
    containing chromium in any form may not be released from customs 
    custody for entry into the United States if--
        ``(A) a certificate of origin with respect to such shipment has 
    not been filed with the Secretary; or
        ``(B) in the case of a shipment with respect to which a 
    certificate of origin has been filed with the Secretary, the 
    Secretary determines that the information contained in such 
    certificate does not adequately establish that the steel mill 
    product in such shipment does not contain chromium in any form 
    which is of Southern Rhodesian origin. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Elliott] Levitas [of Georgia]: 
        Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
        That section 5(a) of the United Nations Participation Act of 
        1945 is amended--

            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2)(A) Subject to the conditions prescribed in 
        subparagraph (B), if the President determines that the 
        government of a foreign country is engaged in a consistent 
        pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human 
        rights (including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading 
        treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, 
        or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the 
        security of person), the President may, through any agency 
        which he may designate and under such orders, rules, and 
        regulations as may be prescribed by him, suspend (in whole or 
        in part) economic relations or rail, sea, air, postal, 
        telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication between 
        that foreign country or any national thereof or any person 
        therein and the United States or any person subject to the 
        jurisdiction thereof, or involving any property subject to the 
        jurisdiction of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order the amendment is not germane.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill deals only with United Nations sanctions against 
    importation of chrome, while the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Georgia deals with embargoes and other economic sanctions on 
    any material or commercial transaction. Also, the bill deals only 
    with sanctions against Rhodesia, both in the title and in the body 
    of the bill. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
    permits U.S. rather than U.N. sanctions to be imposed on products 
    or communications from any foreign country. It is the opinion of 
    the Chair that the amendment is not germane, and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Sec. 35.41 To a bill amending existing law for limited pur

[[Page 8867]]

    poses, an amendment further changing that law but affecting 
    programs beyond the scope of the bill and the law being amended and 
    waiving other inconsistent provisions of law is not germane.

    On Sept. 23, 1977,(19) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (20) jointly reported from the 
Committees on Ways and Means and Interstate and Foreign Commerce to 
enable the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to investigate 
and prosecute fraud and abuse in the medicare and medicaid health 
programs within their respective jurisdictions. An amendment was 
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means to prohibit any federal 
officer or employee from disclosing any identifiable medical record in 
the absence of patient approval. The amendment was held not germane, as 
exceeding the scope and subject matter of the bill. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 30532-34, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 3, Medicare-Medicaid Antifraud and Abuse Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will report the second 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by the Committee on Ways and Means: Page 
        66, strike out line 22 down through and including line 5 on 
        page 70 and insert in lieu thereof:
            (l)(1) Part A of title XI of such Act (as amended by 
        section 3(a) of this Act) is amended by adding after section 
        1124 the following new section:

           ``disclosure of individually identifiable medical records

            ``Sec. 1125. (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act except paragraph (2) of this subsection, no officer, 
        employee, or agent of the United States, or any office, agency, 
        or department thereof, or any Professional Standards Review 
        Organization or any person acting or purporting to act on 
        behalf of such Organization, may inspect, acquire, or require 
        the disclosure of, for any reason whatever, any individually 
        identifiable medical record of a patient, unless the patient 
        has authorized such inspection, acquisition, or disclosure in 
        accordance with subsection (b). . . .
            (2) After taking into consideration the recommendations 
        contained in the final report of the Privacy Protection Study 
        Commission (established under section 5 of the Privacy Act of 
        1974), the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall 
        prepare and submit, not later than three months after the date 
        such Commission submits its final report, to the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Committee on Ways and 
        Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on 
        Human Resources and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
        report containing specific recommendations (including draft 
        legislation) for the timely development and implementation of 
        appropriate procedures (including use of detailed written 
        consent forms) in order to (A) maintain the confidentiality of 
        individually identifiable

[[Page 8868]]

        medical records (whether they relate to medical care provided 
        directly by, or through the financial assistance of, the 
        Federal Government or not), and (B) prevent the unwarranted 
        inspection by, and disclosure to, Federal officers, employees, 
        and agents and Professional Standards Review Organizations of 
        such records. . . .

        Mr. [Richardson] Preyer [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    raise a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]his amendment in its scope would apply far beyond the 
    purpose of the bill and the jurisdiction of the committee. The 
    jurisdiction of the committee and the purpose of the bill is to 
    deal with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and 
    increase the Department's ability to investigate and prosecute 
    medicare and medicaid fraud and abuse.
        However, the amendment covers not only the Department of 
    Health, Education, and Welfare but all the officers, employees, and 
    agents of the United States. The committee report specifically 
    states, ``Under the bill PSRO's and employees or agents of the 
    Federal Government may not inspect, acquire or require the 
    disclosure of individually identifiable medical records.'' The Ways 
    and Means Committee does not have jurisdiction, for example, over 
    the employees of the Department of Defense, the Veterans' 
    Administration, or the Federal courts.
        In addition this amendment clearly conflicts with the Deschler 
    precedent in chapter 28, section 8.1, which states that--

            To a bill limited in its application to certain departments 
        and agencies of government, an amendment applicable to all 
        departments and agencies is not germane.

        Finally, Mr. Chairman, I note the amendment attempts to 
    supersede all other laws and regulations of the United States in 
    conflict with this amendment. This violates the principle of the 
    Deschler precedent in chapter 28, section 29.4 which states that--

            To a bill referring to certain provisions of existing law, 
        an amendment repealing a portion of that law was held not 
        germane. . . .

        Mr. [Philip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the point of order. The Ways and Means amendment, 
    set forth as section 5(l) of H.R. 3 as reported by that committee, 
    is clearly germane to the original bill and the bill in its current 
    form.
        In the first place, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3 ostensibly has as its 
    purpose the prevention of fraud and abuse in the medicare and 
    medicaid programs. To achieve that objective, a very complex set of 
    provisions were put into the original bill, including provisions in 
    section 5, that greatly strengthen the investigatory and 
    enforcement roles of professional standards review organizations 
    (PSRO's).
        These organizations do not simply acquire and inspect records 
    only of medicare and medicaid patients, or of doctors and other 
    health professionals who treat only those patients. Quite the 
    contrary is true. PSRO's are required to compile statistically 
    valid ``profiles'' of patients and providers, in order to identify, 
    among other things, patterns of suspected unnecessary services and 
    treatment that does not conform to ``appropriate'' medical 
    standards. In so doing, they not only

[[Page 8869]]

    may--they must--inspect, acquire, and require the disclosure of the 
    records of private patients and their doctors. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the precedents of this body--
    and I am certain that my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee 
    are as well--that would not allow section 5(l) of H.R. 3 to be 
    broader in scope than the original bill. The fact is, however, that 
    section 5(h) of the bill now before us clearly extends the specter 
    of unauthorized violations of patients' rights to confidentiality 
    to all patients, by all Federal agencies and departments. There is 
    no way for Congress to know, in advance, precisely who will seek to 
    inspect, acquire or require the disclosure of the data and records 
    gathered by a PSRO and mandated to be shared with others by the 
    original language of H.R. 3. Furthermore, a private patient's 
    medical record can be transformed into a medicare or medicaid 
    patient's record simply by a change in the status of the patient--
    his becoming eligible, for example, through disability, age, or 
    poverty. The medicare and medicaid programs have much to fear if 
    the kinds of safeguards provided for in the Crane-Stark amendment 
    are not extended to all records of patients and all Federal 
    officials.
        The Crane-Stark amendment most certainly relates to the 
    fundamental purpose of H.R. 3, and applies only to those 
    individuals, agencies and departments that are within the scope of 
    the original bill. To decide otherwise would, I respectfully 
    submit, significantly and adversely affect the very patients who 
    are the intended beneficiaries of this important legislation. It 
    would create potential barriers between patient and doctor by 
    inhibiting free communication, since there would be no guarantees 
    that their jobs would be secure or their friends and families would 
    be free from interrogation and investigation by the Federal 
    Government. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from North Carolina makes the point of order 
    against the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
    Means printed on page 66, line 22, through page 70, line 5, on the 
    grounds that it is not germane to the bill H.R. 3.
        The bill amends several titles of the Social Security Act to 
    correct fraudulent activities under the medicare and medicaid 
    programs by strengthening penalty sanctions, increasing disclosure 
    of information requirements, improving the professional standards 
    review program, and by proposing certain administrative reforms.
        The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    while addressing the role of professional standards review 
    organizations in permitting disclosure of confidential medical 
    records of patients under medicare and medicaid programs, goes 
    beyond that issue and encompasses a prohibition against any officer 
    or employee of the Federal Government from disclosing any 
    identifiable medical record absent specific authorization from the 
    patient. As drafted, the amendment would supersede any other 
    provision of law which would otherwise permit Federal officials to 
    disclose medical records, and would appear to affect health 
    programs which are not medicare or medicaid related which do

[[Page 8870]]

    not involve PSRO participation and which are not established under 
    the Social Security Act.
        For this reason, the Chair holds that the amendment recommended 
    by the Committee on Ways and Means is not germane to H.R. 3 and 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill Amending One Title of Social Security Act--Amendment to Different 
    Title

Sec. 35.42 To a bill to amend one title of the Social Security Act to 
    provide a national program for war mobilization and reconversion, 
    an amendment offered to amend another title of the act and relating 
    to military pay and allowances was held not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the War Mobilization 
and Reconversion Bill of 1944,(2) the following amendment 
was offered: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. S. 2051 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 3. 90 Cong. Rec. 7465, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [H. Jerry] Voorhis of California: On 
    page 39, line 24, add the following new title, Title 4, section 
    401:

            Title II of the Social Security Act, as amended, is amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

                          ``Military Service Benefits

            ``Sec. 210. (a) For the purposes of this title, an 
        individual who is engaged in military service within the period 
        beginning with October 1, 1940, and ending 1 year after the 
        termination of the emergency declared by the President on May 
        27, 1941, shall be deemed to have been paid for each month in 
        which he performs any military service within such period wages 
        equal to [a specified amount]. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 7465, 7466.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Voorhis) that it is not germane to this bill or any 
    part of it. It relates to military pay and allowances, which is 
    certainly not within the scope of anything in this bill. . . .
        . . . I submit further that the gentleman's amendment is to 
    title II of the Social Security Act, which is not . . . dealt with 
    in the pending bill at all. The only amendment to the Social 
    Security Act in this bill relates to title III.

    The Chairman,(5) adopting the reasoning of Mr. Cooper, 
sustained the point of order.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 7466, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 1944.

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

[[Page 8871]]

Continuing Appropriations and Imposing Conditions on Availability--
    Amendment To Change Law Governing Eligibility

Sec. 35.43 To a proposal continuing the availability of appropriated 
    funds and also imposing diverse legislative conditions upon the 
    availability of appropriations, an amendment directly and 
    permanently changing existing law as to the eligibility of certain 
    recipients was conceded to go beyond the scope of the categories of 
    legislative changes contained therein and to be nongermane.

    The proceedings of Dec. 10, 1981, relating to House Joint 
Resolution 370, continuing appropriations for fiscal 1982, are 
discussed in Sec. 23.4, supra.

Bill Relating to Exchange Value and Gold Content of Dollar--Amendment 
    Affecting Purchase of Foreign Gold

Sec. 35.44 To a bill amending the Gold Reserve Act to extend certain 
    powers of the President with respect to use of the stabilization 
    fund for purposes of stabilizing the exchange value of the dollar, 
    and with respect to altering the gold content of the dollar, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which referred to another part 
    of the act and related to terms upon which foreign gold could be 
    purchased by the Secretary of the Treasury.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill (7) 
as described above, the following amendment was offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 3325 (Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures).
 8. 84 Cong. Rec. 4628, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 21, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: On 
    page 2, at the end of section 3, add a new section, as follows:

            Sec. 4. That section 3700 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C., 
        title 31, sec. 734, as amended by section 8 of the Gold Reserve 
        Act of 1934 (73d Cong., H.R. 6976), is further amended to read 
        as follows:
             ``Sec. 3700. With the approval of the President, the 
        Secretary of the Treasury may purchase gold . . . at home or 
        abroad . . . upon such terms . . . as he may deem most 
        advantageous to the public interest: Provided, That no payments 
        for gold so purchased shall be made . . . to any foreign vendor 
        (including foreign governments) . . . unless and until such 
        vendor . . . shall guarantee to the Secretary of the Treasury 
        as a condition precedent to receiving such payment: (1) That [a 
        specified amount] shall be used exclusively for the purchase of 
        commodities or articles produced, grown, or manufactured in the 
        United States. . . .''

[[Page 8872]]

    Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. He argued that, where only one 
amendment to existing law is contained in the bill, no other amendments 
to the law can be proposed by way of amendment of the bill; and that, 
where more than one amendment is proposed in the bill, the question for 
the Chair is whether the bill is a general amendatory bill and thus 
open to amendments further modifying the law. The 
Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 4629, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 21, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill picks out two powers granted in the Gold Reserve Act 
    of 1934, from a number of other powers in that act, and it extends 
    the date of expiration of those powers vested in the President and 
    also in the Secretary of the Treasury, and continues those powers 
    for an additional period.

    Chairman McCormack then cited prior instances in which, ``to a bill 
amending the Federal Reserve Act in a number of particulars an 
amendment relating to the Federal Reserve Act, but to no portion 
provided for in the pending bill, was held not to be germane''; and in 
which it was held that, ``to a bill amendatory of an act in several 
particulars an amendment proposing to modify the act but not related to 
the bill'' was not germane.
    A further ruling of the Speaker in a prior situation was quoted, as 
follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 4630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It does not seem to the Chair that this bill brings the whole 
    National Defense Act before the House. It only brings before the 
    House a very limited portion of it, and not the portion affected by 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. The 
    Chair is disposed to sustain the point of order. The point of order 
    is sustained.

    The Chair sustained the point of order.

Penalties Under Export Administration Act--Amendment Relating to 
    Different Class of Penalties

Sec. 35.45 To a bill relating to the imposition of penalties of a 
    certain class, all falling within the jurisdiction of one 
    committee, an amendment relating to another class of penalties 
    falling within the jurisdiction of another committee is not 
    germane; thus, to a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs comprehensively amending the Export Administration 
    Act, and addressing

[[Page 8873]]

    penalties for violating export controls within that committee's 
    jurisdiction, such as revocation of export licenses and forfeiture 
    of property interests and proceeds related to exports, an amendment 
    authorizing the President to control imports by persons violating 
    export controls was held to be not germane because it was a penalty 
    not within the class covered by the title and by the Export 
    Administration Act, and was a matter within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee (Ways and Means).

    The proceedings of Sept. 29, 1983, relating to H.R. 3231, the 
Export Administration Amendments Act of 1983, are discussed in 
Sec. 4.55, supra.

Bill Affecting Gold Reserve Requirements--Amendment Relating to 
    France's War Debt to United States

Sec. 35.46 To a bill eliminating the gold reserve requirements for 
    certain United States currencies, an amendment providing that no 
    redemption in gold be made to France until agreement is reached 
    respecting payment of France's World War I debt to the United 
    States was held to be not germane.

    The following ruling (12) of the Chair was made with 
respect to the germaneness of an amendment offered by Mr. Lester L. 
Wolff, of New York, to a bill (13) eliminating certain gold 
reserve requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 114 Cong. Rec. 3687, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 21, 1968.
13. H.R. 14743 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) . . . The bill before the House, 
    H.R. 14743, deals only with the question of eliminating reserve 
    requirements for Federal Reserve notes and for U.S. notes and 
    Treasury notes of 1890. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York, while put in the form of an amendment to the same section 
    of the Gold Reserve Act amended by section 8 of the bill before the 
    Committee, has to do with war debts, a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and a matter not 
    involved in the subject before the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Contributions to International Financial Organization--Restriction on 
    Uses of Funds

Sec. 35.47 To a bill continuing authority under existing law to make 
    contributions to an international financial orga

[[Page 8874]]

    nization and authorizing appropriations for those contributions, an 
    amendment adding a further restriction on the use of United States 
    contributions to those already contained in that law is germane.

    On July 2, 1974,(15) during consideration of a bill 
continuing United States participation under the International 
Development Association Act (H.R. 15465), an amendment prohibiting the 
use of United States contributions as loans for the purchase of nuclear 
weapons or materials was held germane as a restriction on the use of 
loans by recipient nations which added to several restrictions already 
contained in the Act:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 22026, 22028, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        International Development Association Act (22 U.S.C. 284 et 
        seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        section:
            Sec. 14. (a) The United States Governor is hereby 
        authorized to agree on behalf of the United States to pay to 
        the Association four annual installments of $375,000,000 each 
        as the United States contribution to the Fourth Replenishment 
        of the Resources of the Association.
            ``(b) In order to pay for the United States contribution, 
        there is hereby authorized to be appropriated without fiscal 
        year limitation four annual installments of $375,000,000 each 
        for payment by the Secretary of the Treasury.''.

        The Chairman: (16) Are there any amendments to this 
    section? There being no amendments the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. Subsections 3 (b) and (c) of Public Law 93-110 (87 
        Stat. 352) are repealed and in lieu thereof add the following:
            ``(b) No rule, regulation, or order in effect on the date 
        subsections (a) and (b) become effective may be construed to 
        prohibit any person from purchasing, holding, selling, or 
        otherwise dealing with gold in the United States or abroad. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Biaggi: Page 2, immediately after 
        line 9, insert the following new section:
            Sec. 2. The International Development Association Act (22 
        U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 15. No moneys contributed by the United States to 
        the Association may be loaned to, or utilized by, any country 
        for the purpose of purchasing nuclear materials, or nuclear 
        energy technology or for the purpose of developing nuclear 
        explosive devices or nuclear weapons.''. . .

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane. It 
    purports to amend subsections 3 (b) and (c) of Pub

[[Page 8875]]

    lic Law 93-110 (87 Stat. 352). Public Law 93-110 is the Par Value 
    Act which affected the gold value of the dollar. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Biaggi) attempts to 
    amend the International Development Association Act, this has to do 
    with nuclear materials, it is, therefore, entirely nongermane to 
    the act which it seeks to amend. . . .
        Mr. Biaggi: . . . Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply seeks to 
    add a new section to this bill, section 15. This section would 
    condition any of the moneys to be spent in the event IDA is 
    successful this afternoon, or any of the moneys to be loaned, and I 
    use that as a euphemism because, in fact, it is an outright grant 
    in its nature, and we have recognized it as such, and I do not 
    think anyone thinks that we will ever have the money returned, but 
    it represents a condition under which the money can be loaned.
        The fact of the matter is, the money, if it is to be loaned, 
    cannot be used to provide nuclear technology or nuclear material in 
    any of the proposed countries, and it is my judgment that the 
    appropriate manner in which to do that is to add an additional 
    section, and we do that in my amendment by creating section 15.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Reuss).
        The bill is drafted as a continuation of the U.S. Governor's 
    authority to agree to make U.S. money available to IDA under terms 
    of the International Development Association Act. That statute 
    already contains several restrictions on the Governor's authority 
    to cast dissenting votes for loans to nations lacking certain 
    qualifications. Therefore an amendment to further restrict the use 
    of funds for loans under IDA, part of which are authorized by the 
    bill, would be germane, and the point of order is 
    overruled.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. In response to a further point of order, the Chair ruled that the 
        Biaggi amendment came too late, because section 2 of the bill 
        had already been read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extending Authorization for Contributions to International Monetary 
    Fund--Amendment Restricting Total Budget Outlays of Government

Sec. 35.48 An amendment must be germane to the pending bill, and where 
    the bill amends one portion of an existing law, an amendment that 
    affects another provision of that law, not related to the subject 
    of the bill, is not germane; thus, to a title of a bill amending 
    that portion of an existing law to extend the authorization for 
    United States contributions to the International Monetary Fund, 
    amendments affecting another section of that law by mandating, or 
    affirming congressional commitment to mandate, that the total 
    budget outlays of the federal gov

[[Page 8876]]

    ernment shall not exceed its receipts were held not germane, as 
    addressing issues of federal spending and revenue beyond the scope 
    of the title and amending or referencing a section originally added 
    to the law as a nongermane Senate amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 2957 (18) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Aug. 3, 1983,(19) the Chair sustained points 
of order in the circumstances described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. International Recovery and Financial Stability Act.
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 22678, 22679, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 28, after line 8, 
        add the following:
            Sec. 308. Consistent with the objective of sustaining 
        worldwide economic growth and recovery set forth in this title, 
        section 3 of Public Law 96-389, the Bretton Woods Agreements 
        Act Amendments of 1980, is amended by striking it in its 
        entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following: Beginning 
        in fiscal year 1985, the total budget outlays of the Federal 
        Government shall not exceed its receipts. . . .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [M]y point of order is that it relates to a balanced budget for 
    the United States and is therefore not germane to that part of the 
    legislation before us.
        Title III of the legislation provides for U.S. contributions to 
    the IMF, as well as certain conditions and restrictions of those 
    contributions and on lending by U.S. banks. The title does not 
    address the far broader issues of overall Federal Government 
    spending and taxing raised by this amendment.
        The amendment also has a different fundamental purpose from 
    title III, in that it seeks to impose limitations on aggregate 
    receipts and expenditures of the Federal Government, which has 
    nothing to do with the purposes of the IMF legislation.
        The mere fact that previous nongermane amendments dealing with 
    budget outlays and receipts have been attached to IMF legislation 
    in past Congresses does not make the amendment germane. The 
    amendment must be germane to the bill, not to the underlying law 
    being amended in the bill.
        Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 27.
        I ask the Chair to rule the amendment out of order. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have placed 
    before the House relates precisely to the law to which this 
    particular piece of legislation speaks. And let me also cite 
    Deschler's Procedure. Deschler's Procedure, 28.55, says that a bill 
    amending several sections of an existing law may be sufficiently 
    comprehensive to permit amendments which are germane to other 
    sections of that law.
        That is precisely what I am doing here. The language of this 
    amendment

[[Page 8877]]

    relates to balanced budget language that is in the present law. 
    This bill amends several sections of that law. So, therefore, this 
    particular amendment is entirely germane to that which is before 
    us.
        Deschler's Procedure also says, in section 28.57, to a bill 
    amending a law dealing with several subjects within a definable 
    class, an amendment further amending that law to add another 
    subject within the same class is germane.
        This again is the same subject area. We have balanced budget 
    language which exists in the present law. This is in the same 
    class. So, therefore, it seems to me that under precedents of the 
    House it is entirely germane to the bill that we are considering.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Although the balanced budget provision of law which would be 
    amended by this amendment was originally added to the Bretton Woods 
    Agreement Act as a nongermane Senate amendment in the 95th Congress 
    and was subsequently amended in a similar bill in the 96th 
    Congress, the pending bill does not relate to the entire Federal 
    budget.
        The Chair rules that the amendment must be germane to the 
    pending bill, it not being sufficient that the amendment relate to 
    a nongermane provision of a law being amended by the pending bill.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Mr. Walker then offered a further amendment:

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 28, after line 8, 
        add the following:
            Sec. 308. Consistent with the objective of sustaining 
        worldwide economic growth and recovery set forth in this title, 
        Congress reaffirms its commitment to the mandates required 
        under section 7 of Public Law 95-435, the Bretton Woods 
        Agreements Act Amendments of 1978. . . .

        Mr. St Germain: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against 
    the amendment. . . .
        [T]he amendment relates to a balanced budget for the United 
    States and is therefore not germane to that part of the legislation 
    before us. Title III of the legislation provides for U.S. 
    contributions to the IMF, as well as certain conditions and 
    restrictions on those contributions and on lending by U.S. banks. 
    The title does not address the far broader issues of overall 
    Federal Government spending and taxing raised by this amendment.

        The amendment also has a different fundamental purpose from 
    title III, in that it seeks to impose limitations on aggregate 
    receipts and expenditures of the Federal Government, which has 
    nothing to do with the purposes of the IMF legislation.
        The mere fact that previous nongermane amendments dealing with 
    budget outlays and receipts have been attached to IMF legislation 
    in past Congresses does not make this amendment germane. The 
    amendment must be germane to the bill, not to the underlying law 
    being amended in the bill.
        Deschler's, chapter 28, section 27.
        I ask the Chair to rule the amendment out of order. . . .

[[Page 8878]]

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, in the case of this amendment, it 
    does two things. No. 1, it speaks to exactly the same kinds of 
    issues that were involved in amendment language that was added in 
    the committee to the bill dealing with apartheid. This particular 
    language simply says that consistent with the objectives sustaining 
    worldwide economic growth and recovery set forth in the title--so 
    it relates directly to the title of the bill under consideration. 
    We are reaffirming the process of the law that was previously 
    decided by this Congress. This simply reaffirms section 7 of Public 
    Law 95-435 which already exists. This is a different amendment from 
    the previous one. The precedent cited by the gentleman--I could 
    agree with the Chair--applied to the previous amendment. In this 
    case, though, the amendment language is specifically consistent 
    with the title under consideration, and I think that the amendment 
    is entirely germane to the bill that we are considering.
        The Chairman: The Chair rules that the issues raised with this 
    amendment are fundamentally the same as those raised by the 
    previous amendment. The issues are not germane to the bill at hand, 
    and the point of order is sustained.

Bill and Amendment Affecting Definitions of Terms in Bank Holding 
    Company Act

Sec. 35.49 To a bill amending two sections of the Bank Holding Company 
    Act to, first, redefine ``bank holding company'' to include 
    companies having actual control of any bank and, second, exempt 
    from the definition of such term certain institutions controlling 
    banks engaged primarily in foreign business, an amendment to a 
    third section of the act to change the definition of the word 
    ``company'' to include partnerships was held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
amending the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. During consideration of 
the bill, an amendment had been offered as follows,(2) and 
subsequently adopted: G5(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 6778 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 2. 115 Cong. Rec. 33141, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 5, 1969.
 3. Id. at p. 33142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Page 12, 
    strike lines 18 through 21 and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following:

            (b) Section 2(a) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 2. (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (5) of 
        this subsection, `bank holding company' means any company that 
        has control over any bank or over any company that is or 
        becomes a bank holding company by virtue of this Act.
            ``(2) Any given person has control.
            ``(A) over any company which is a corporation if the person 
        . . . has power to vote 25 percent or more of any class of 
        voting securities of that corporation.

[[Page 8879]]

            ``(B) over any company which is a corporation or trust if 
        the person controls in any manner the election of a majority of 
        its directors or trustees. . . .''
            (c) Section 4(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(12) . . . activities conducted by any company organized 
        under the laws of a foreign country the greater part of whose 
        business is conducted outside the United States, if the Board . 
        . . determines that . . . the exemption would not be 
        substantially at variance with the purposes of this Act. . . 
        .''

    In explaining the amendment, the proponent had stated: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 33141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is concerned with the criteria for 
    determining whether or not a company is a bank holding company for 
    purposes of the 1956 act, as amended. The bill before us, H.R. 
    6778, defines a bank holding company as any company that directly 
    or indirectly owns or controls 25 percent or more of the voting 
    shares of any bank. . . .
        Testimony before our committee indicated that in some instances 
    companies might seek to avoid coverage of the act by keeping their 
    stock ownership at less than 25 percent. My amendment simply 
    modifies H.R. 6778 by providing that actual control of any bank, 
    even at less than 25 percent, is sufficient to require the 
    controlling company to register as a bank holding company. . . .
        Second, Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes it clear, subject to 
    action by the Federal Reserve Board, that no foreign institution 
    will be a bank holding company by virtue of its ownership or 
    control of any bank the greater part of whose business is conducted 
    outside the United States. . . .

    After adoption of the Ashley amendment, the following amendment was 
offered to the bill: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 33142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Page 
    12, immediately after line 21, insert the following:

            (c) Section 2(b) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 is 
        amended (A) by inserting ``partnership,'' immediately after 
        ``corporation,'', (B) by striking ``(1)'', and (C) by striking 
        ``, or (2) any partnership''. . . .

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

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Rees [of California]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is out of order as it is not germane to the bill now 
    before us. The bill before us is in the form of one committee 
    amendment. The committee amendment deals with section 2(a) of the 
    Bank Holding Company Act. It then on line 22 proceeds to jump to 
    section 4(c) of the Bank Holding Act. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio goes to 2(b) and there is no mention in the 
    bill before us of section 2(b) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

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

        Mr. Wylie: Mr. Chairman, the principle is well established that 
    in passing on the germaneness of an amendment,

[[Page 8880]]

    the Chair considers the relationship of the amendment to the bill 
    as modified by the Committee of the Whole at the time the amendment 
    is offered, and not as originally referred to the committee--
    Cannon's Procedure, page 200.
        Mr. Chairman, in the light of this principle, the attention of 
    the Chair is respectfully directed to the present status of the 
    committee amendment, which under the rule is considered as an 
    original bill for the purpose of amendment. The Committee of the 
    Whole has adopted, among others, the Ashley amendment, which 
    completely rewrites the definition of ``bank holding company'' in 
    the Bank Holding Company Act.
        It is obvious that the legal significance of the definition of 
    ``bank holding company'' depends in turn on the definition of 
    ``company.'' It is equally obvious that a change in the definition 
    of ``company'' will, to that extent, modify the definition of 
    ``bank holding company.''
        My amendment, Mr. Chairman, amends the definition of 
    ``company'' so as to include partnerships. I think it is clear, Mr. 
    Chairman, that my amendment thereby modifies the definition of 
    ``bank holding company''--indeed, Mr. Chairman, this is its 
    principal purpose. By adopting the Ashley amendment, the Committee 
    of the Whole necessarily made in order any amendment proposing a 
    germane modification of the bill as so amended, in accord with the 
    principle which I stated at the beginning of my remarks. . . .

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

        . . . The fact that there was no point of order raised to the 
    Ashley amendment allowed the Ashley amendment to be considered and 
    adopted by the committee and that changed the tenor of the bill to 
    the extent that the language therein be changed, and the committee 
    amendment now under consideration amends sections 2(a) and 4(c) of 
    the act. These two sections, and the amendment proposed to them, 
    are unrelated. The committee report on the pending bill discloses 
    that the committee amendment does two things: Subjects single bank 
    holding companies to the 1956 act and changes the existing law with 
    respect to what particular nonbanking activities are prohibited to 
    them.
        It is a well-established principle of the germaneness rule that 
    where a bill amends existing law in two or more unrelated respects, 
    other amendments to that law may be germane. . . .

        Section 2(b) of existing law . . . defines the word ``company'' 
    as it is used in the term ``bank holding company'' and elsewhere in 
    the act. . . .
        Since the committee amendment amends two provisions of existing 
    law and opened up for consideration the meaning of the term ``bank 
    holding company,'' . . . words within or dependent upon that term, 
    even if defined elsewhere in the act, are also subject to 
    interpretation and definition.
        The Chair holds the amendment germane and overrules the point 
    of order.

Bill Amending Federal Reserve Act--Amendment To Permit National Banks 
    To Purchase Certain Banks Under Another Law

Sec. 35.50 To a bill amending an existing law to accomplish a

[[Page 8881]]

    particular purpose, an amendment to another law not related to the 
    same subject is not germane; thus, to a bill amending several 
    sections of the Federal Reserve Act to expand the authority of the 
    Federal Reserve Board to manage the national monetary supply by 
    providing mandatory reserve requirements and by imposing other 
    requirements on member banks, an amendment to another law to permit 
    national banks to purchase small banker-owned banks was conceded to 
    be nongermane since unrelated to the Federal Reserve Act.

    During consideration of H.R. 7 (7) in the Committee of 
the Whole on July 20, 1979,(8) a point of order was conceded 
and sustained against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The Monetary Control Act of 1979.
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 19673, 19674, 19688-90, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 3. (a) Section 19(a) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 
        U.S.C. 461) is amended (1) by changing ``member bank'' to read 
        ``depository institution'' each place it appears therein, and 
        (2) by adding at the end thereof the following: ``The Board 
        shall exercise its authority to define the term `deposit' when 
        applicable to reserve requirements of nonmember depository 
        institutions after consultation with the Board of Directors of 
        the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Home 
        Loan Bank Board, and the National Credit Union 
        Administration.''. . .

        Mr. [James A.] Mattox [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Mr. Mattox: Add a new section:
            Sec. 8. Section 5136 of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 
        24(7)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
        thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That, 
        notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the 
        association may purchase for its own account shares of stock of 
        a bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation if 
        the stock of such bank is owned exclusively by other banks and 
        if such bank is engaged exclusively in providing banking 
        services for other banks and their officers, directors, or 
        employees, but in no event shall the total amount of such stock 
        held by the association exceed at any time 10 per centum of its 
        capital stock and paid in and unimpaired surplus, and in no 
        event shall the purchase of such stock result in the 
        association's acquiring more than 5 per centum of any class of 
        voting securities of such bank''. . . .

        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: . . . The amendment is 
    clearly not germane to this bill. I might say I have some sympathy 
    with the gentleman's amendment, but it is a rather complicated 
    amendment which ought to be debated more fully than we have time 
    here today to do, in my judgment. This bill we have before us today 
    is a bill to facilitate the implementation of monetary policy and 
    to promote competitive equality among depository institutions.
        The gentleman's amendment would establish a new bank. It would 
    estab

[[Page 8882]]

    lish a whole new concept and it is obviously not within the purview 
    of the bill before us today.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman wish to be 
    heard against the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mattox: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Deposit Insurance Coverage--Amendment Imposing Maximum Interest and 
    Dividend Rates Payable

Sec. 35.51 To a proposition to amend existing law in one particular, an 
    amendment to further change that law in another respect not covered 
    by the bill is not germane; thus, to a bill limited in scope to the 
    amount and extent of deposit insurance coverage in various savings 
    institutions, an amendment imposing uniform maximum interest or 
    dividend rates which may be paid by those savings institutions was 
    held not germane.

    On Feb. 5, 1974,(10) during consideration of H.R. 11221 
(amending the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 2064-66, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert W.] Johnson of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Johnson of Pennsylvania: On page 
        3, strike the quotation mark at the end of line 17, and insert 
        the following after line 17:
            ``(C) In order to provide for the equality of interest or 
        dividend rates, terms and conditions on deposits or investments 
        in insured banks or insured institutions made by any depositor 
        referred to in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the 
        Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
        System, and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, shall, in the 
        event that limitations on interest or dividend rates are 
        imposed on such deposits or investments, issue uniform 
        regulations specifying maximum interest or dividend rates which 
        may be paid on such deposits or investments made under the same 
        terms and conditions.''. . .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, I make a point of order against the so-called Johnson 
    amendment to H.R. 11221.
        This section merely provides full Federal insurance on such 
    funds placed in financial institutions, and restricts itself to 
    that.
        The amendment before us speaks to the question of what interest 
    rates may be offered to such funds and, therefore, is not germane 
    since it is beyond the scope of the legislation contained in H.R. 
    11221, as well as this particular section.

[[Page 8883]]

        Mr. Johnson of Pennsylvania: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    defend the amendment against the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Rhode Island. The amendment is indeed germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill before us today. On its face, the 
    bill provides full insurance of the deposits of public units in all 
    insured banks and institutions. As such, it is designed and 
    intended to make a basic change in the relationships between the 
    financial institutions which are regulated by the Federal Reserve, 
    the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Home 
    Loan Bank Board--the intention is to redistribute the deposits 
    among these institutions.
        In the bill, the primary method for achieving this 
    redistribution is through the provision of insurance. Whereas, 
    public deposits are presently limited for all practical purposes to 
    commercial banks, which can supplement their account insurance with 
    the protection afforded by the pledging of collateral to secure 
    these public deposits--and this pledging is required in most 
    instances by State law--the thrust of the pending legislation is to 
    enable thrift institutions, savings and loan associations, and 
    mutual savings banks in particular, to accept these public 
    deposits.
        My amendment would only serve to modify these terms and 
    conditions under which the deposits of public funds would be 
    accepted by the financial institutions involved. The same 
    fundamental purpose would be sought by amendment as by the bill 
    itself, that of regulating the flow of public funds between these 
    institutions. . . .
        It is claimed that the difference in terms on its face makes my 
    amendment nongermane, since the bill deals with insurance of 
    deposits, and my amendment deals with the interest or dividends 
    payable on those deposits. However, I must insist that the purpose 
    and thrust be examined, rather than just the language.
        The reason for extending full insurance of these deposits is to 
    influence the custodians of these public funds in their decisions 
    as to where they will be deposited--that is the stated purpose of 
    this bill, as reported by the Banking and Currency Committee and as 
    discussed here on the House floor today.
        In no way does my amendment depart from this same fundamental 
    purpose--it seeks to use the powers of the same regulatory agencies 
    to influence the same deposits of the same public depositors in the 
    same institutions. . . .

        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Spark Matsunaga (Hi.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St Germain) makes the 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Johnson) is not germane to the bill H.R. 11221. . 
    . .
        The pending bill provides for full deposit insurance coverage 
    for deposits of public funds in various types of savings 
    institutions without regard to the existing $20,000 ceiling, and 
    provides for an increase in the present $20,000 ceiling on deposit 
    insurance for individual accounts to $50,000. The bill is thus 
    limited in scope to the question of amount and extent of deposit 
    insurance.
        The proposed amendment provides that in order to assure 
    equality of in

[[Page 8884]]

    terest or dividend rates, terms and conditions in the savings 
    institutions covered by the bill, the regulatory authorities of 
    those institutions must issue uniform regulations, specifying 
    maximum interest or dividend rates which may be paid on deposits or 
    investments made under the same terms and conditions.
        On September 8, 1966, Chairman Boland, the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts, held that to a substitute amendment amending several 
    banking acts relating to interest rates, and amending one 
    subsection of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, an amendment 
    proposing further modifications to the latter act to increase the 
    insurance coverage on deposits was not germane. In that case, the 
    Chair, citing ``Cannon's Precedents'' (VIII, 2937), stated that 
    where it is proposed to amend existing law in one particular, an 
    amendment to amend the law in another respect not covered by the 
    bill is not germane.
        Accordingly, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Bill Amending Internal Revenue Code To Provide Tax Credits--Senate 
    Amendment Authorizing Payments to Social Security Recipients

Sec. 35.52 To a House bill containing several diverse amendments to the 
    Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and business tax 
    credits, that part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute contained in a conference report which authorized 
    appropriations for special payments to social security recipients 
    was deemed not to be related to tax benefit provisions in the 
    Internal Revenue Code and was held to be not germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(12) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 2166,(13) it was held that to a 
proposition seeking to reduce tax liabilities of individuals and 
businesses by providing diverse tax credits within the Internal Revenue 
Code, an amendment to provide rebates to recipients under retirement 
and survivor benefit programs was not germane. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 8911, 8912, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The Tax Reduction Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sec. 702. Special Payment to Recipients of Benefits Under Certain 
                 Retirement and Survivor Benefit Programs.

        (a) Payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, at the 
    earliest practicable date after the enactment of this Act, make a 
    $50 payment to each individual, who for the month of March, 1975, 
    was entitled . . . to--
        (1) a monthly insurance benefit payable under title II of the 
    Social Security Act,
        (2) a monthly annuity or pension payment under the Railroad 
    Retire

[[Page 8885]]

    ment Act of 1935, the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, or the 
    Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, or
        (3) a benefit under the supplemental security income benefits 
    program established by title XVI of the Social Security Act; . . .
        (c) Coordination With Other Federal Programs.--Any payment made 
    by the Secretary of the Treasury under this section to any 
    individual shall not be regarded as income (or, in the calendar 
    year 1975, as a resource) of such individual (or of the family of 
    which he is a member) for purposes of any Federal or State program 
    which undertakes to furnish aid or assistance to individuals or 
    families, where eligibility to receive such aid or assistance (or 
    the amount of such aid or assistance) under such program is based 
    on the need therefor of the individual or family involved. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: I make a point of 
    order against the conference report on the ground that it contains 
    matter which is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI.
        The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is that 
    section of the report dealing with a rebate to social security 
    recipients. This section appears as section 702 of the conference 
    report on page 55. . . .
        There is clearly nothing in the House bill dealing with social 
    security matters. There is nothing relating to a trust fund or the 
    relationship of trust fund and general fund.
        For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this . . . is 
    clearly outside the scope of the House bill. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: . . . In the House-passed bill 
    there was a provision very specifically rebating funds to 
    individuals under title I. The measure included in this conference 
    report does not affect the trust fund in any way. It does not in 
    any way amend the Social Security Code.
        In the statement of the managers we say the following:

            The conferees emphasize that these payments are not Social 
        Security benefits in any sense, but are intended to provide to 
        the aged, blind, and disabled a payment comparable in nature to 
        the tax rebate which the bill provides to those who are 
        working.

        Therefore, in a broadly based bill such as this kind, where 
    various kinds of rebates are passed along to different segments of 
    the public, it seems to me that this is perfectly within the scope 
    of the bill and should be determined germane to the bill. . . .
        The Speaker: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title V of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    ``Miscellaneous Provisions'' contained sections which did not amend 
    the Internal Revenue Code and which could not be considered germane 
    to any portion of the House-passed bill or the bill as a whole. 
    Specifically, section 501 of the Senate amendment providing a 
    special payment to recipients of benefits under certain retirement 
    and survivor benefit programs, a modification of which was 
    incorporated into section 702 of the conference report, is not 
    germane to the House-passed bill. That provision is not related to 
    the Internal Revenue Code and would provide an authorization of 
    appropriations from the Treasury.

[[Page 8886]]

        For this reason, the Chair holds that the section 702 of the 
    conference report is not germane to the House bill and sustains the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Conable: Mr. Speaker, I move the House reject the 
    nongermane amendment covered by my point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 20 
    minutes in support of his motion.

--Senate Amendment Providing Unemployment Compensation Benefits

Sec. 35.53 To a House bill amending diverse portions of the Internal 
    Revenue Code to provide individual and business tax credits, a 
    portion of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    contained in a conference report providing certain unemployment 
    compensation benefits--a matter not within the class of tax 
    benefits contained in the House bill--was conceded to be not 
    germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(15) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 2166,(16) a point of order against 
a Senate matter in the report was conceded and held to be not germane. 
The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 8911, 8933, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. The Tax Reduction Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
    Sec. 701. Certain Unemployment Compensation.

        (a) Amendment of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 
    1974.--Section 102(e) of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 
    Act of 1974 is amended--
        (1) in paragraph (2) thereof, by striking out ``The amount'' 
    and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as provided in paragraph 
    (3), the amount''; and
        (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
        ``(3) Effective only with respect to benefits for weeks of 
    unemployment ending before July 1, 1975, the amount established in 
    such account for any individual shall be equal to the lesser of--
        ``(A) 100 per centum of the total amount of regular 
    compensation (including the dependents'' allowances) payable to him 
    with respect to the benefit year (as determined under the State 
    law) on the basis of which he most recently received regular 
    compensation; or
        ``(B) twenty-six times his average weekly benefit amount (as 
    determined for purposes of section 202(b)(i)(C) of the Federal-
    State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970) for his 
    benefit year.''
        (b) Modification of Agreements.--The Secretary of Labor shall, 
    at the earliest practicable date after the enactment of this Act, 
    propose to each State with which he has in effect an agreement 
    entered into pursuant to

[[Page 8887]]

    section 102 of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1974 
    a modification of such agreement designed to cause payments of 
    emergency compensation thereunder to be made in the manner 
    prescribed by such Act, as amended by subsection (a) of this 
    section. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the conference report on the ground that it 
    contains matter which is in violation of the provisions of clause 7 
    of rule XVI. The nongermane matter that I am specifically referring 
    to is that section of the report dealing with section 701, 
    providing certain unemployment compensation benefits. . . .
        I have looked over the House bill, and I can find no reference 
    therein to unemployment compensation benefits. As nearly as I can 
    figure it, this particular section came from a Senate nongermane 
    amendment and has no relation whatsoever to anything that was 
    contained in the House bill.
        I, therefore, say the point of order should be sustained.
        The Speaker: (17) Does the gentleman from Oregon 
    desire to be heard upon the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Oregon concedes the point of 
    order, and the point of order is sustained.

--Senate Amendment Limiting Use of Foreign Tax Credits

Sec. 35.54 Where a bill amends existing law relating to a certain 
    subject in several diverse respects, additional amendments germane 
    to that subject may be germane to the bill.

    To a House bill containing several sections amending diverse 
portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide certain individual and 
business tax credits, a new section of a Senate amendment in the nature 
of a substitute contained in a conference report, which added a new 
section to the House bill and which dealt with earnings and profits of 
controlled foreign corporations and included limitations on the use of 
foreign tax credits from foreign oil-related income was held germane. 
The proceedings of Mar. 26, 1975,(18) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 8909, 8915, 8933, 8934, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was the conference report on H.R. 2166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sec. 602. Taxation of Earnings and Profits of Controlled Foreign 
                    Corporations and Their Shareholders.

        (a) Repeal of Minimum Distribution Exception to Requirement of 
    Current Taxation of Subpart F Income.--
        (1) Repeal of minimum distribution provisions.--Section 963 
    (relating to receipt of minimum distributions by domestic 
    corporations) is hereby repealed.

[[Page 8888]]

        (2) Certain distributions by controlled foreign corporations to 
    regulated investment companies treated as dividends.--Subsection 
    (b) of section 851 (relating to limitations on definition of 
    regulated investment company) is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following new sentence:
        ``For purposes of paragraph (2), there shall be treated as 
    dividends amounts included in gross income under section 
    951(a)(1)(A)(i) for the taxable year to the extent that, under 
    section 959(a)(1), there is a distribution out of the earnings and 
    profits of the taxable year which are attributable to the amounts 
    so included.''. . .

    limitation on foreign tax credit for taxes paid in connection with 
                         foreign oil and gas income

        House bill.--No provision.
        Senate amendment.--The Senate amendment repeals the foreign tax 
    credit on all foreign oil-related income and allows any taxes on 
    that income as a deduction. The amendment also provides that 
    foreign oil-related income is to be taxed at a 24-percent rate.
        Conference substitute.--The conference substitute modifies the 
    Senate amendment and applies a strict limitation on the use of 
    foreign tax credits from foreign oil extraction income and foreign 
    oil-related income. . . .
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the conference report on the ground that it 
    contains matter which is in violation of the provisions of clause 7 
    of rule XVI. The nongermane matter that I am specifically referring 
    to is that section of the report dealing with taxation of earnings 
    and profits of controlled foreign corporations and their 
    shareholders in section 602 as reported by the committee of 
    conference. . . .
        As the Speaker well knows, I am sure, from listening carefully 
    to the explanations regarding previous points of order, at no point 
    during the consideration of the House-passed bill is there any 
    mention of foreign taxation and the dealings of foreign taxes 
    insofar as American corporations and their subsidiaries are 
    concerned.
        Title I of the 1975 tax bill dealt with the refund for 1974 
    taxes. Title II dealt with reductions in individual income taxes. 
    Title III dealt with certain changes in business taxes, the title 
    which dealt with the investment tax credit or income tax total, 
    particularly as related to small businesses.

        This particular provision, Mr. Speaker, in no way deals with a 
    matter that was covered, mentioned, or dealt with by the bill that 
    is presented to the House, or voted upon by the House. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Speaker, the bill that 
    the House passed had a great many diverse sections in it; it had 
    credits. The matter that has been raised is an amendment to the 
    Internal Revenue Code very clearly, and much of it is in the way of 
    a credit. We have dealt with credits here both for individuals and 
    for corporations in the bill that the House passed.
        It seems to me that in a bill of this scope and in a bill that 
    deals as broadly with tax credits and matters such as this that 
    does involve an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code, it is very 
    clearly within the province of the bill, and should be ruled 
    germane.

[[Page 8889]]

        The Speaker: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated in the opinion of the Chair on a similar 
    point of order made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) 
    and for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Oregon, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Qualifications for Entering Armed Forces--Amendment To Allow 
    Noncitizens To Volunteer

Sec. 35.55 To a proposition that within certain limits persons of 
    prescribed ages be given an opportunity to enter the armed forces, 
    an amendment providing that within certain limits any person, 
    whether a citizen of the United States or of any friendly nation, 
    be given an opportunity to enter the armed forces was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (20) was under consideration 
comprising amendments to the Universal Military Training and Service 
Act. The following amendment was offered to the bill: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. S. 1-1951 (Committee on Armed Services).
 1. 97 Cong. Rec. 3889, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Poage: Page 30, strike out all of line 
    10 through 17, inclusive, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

            (2) Within the limits of the overall military manpower 
        needs of the United States and notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law any person whether a citizen of the United 
        States or of any friendly nation and any national of Western 
        Germany or Japan who meets all the other qualifications for 
        service in the Armed Forces of the United States . . . shall be 
        afforded an opportunity to volunteer for induction for service 
        in the Armed Forces of the United States. . . .

        A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas upon the ground that it indirectly affects the naturalization 
    laws of the country which are not a part of the pending measure.

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

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    simply changes the provisions under which persons may be taken into 
    the armed services of the United States. The bill now provides that 
    within certain limits persons of prescribed ages shall be given an 
    opportunity to come into the service of the United States. We 
    change those conditions and one of the limitations we impose is to 
    say that no one shall become a citizen of the United States simply 
    by virtue of this act. That in no wise changes or any manner 
    affects the present immigration laws of the United States because 
    there is no immigration law of the

[[Page 8890]]

    United States that says that anyone who serves under the terms of 
    this bill shall or shall not become a citizen of the United States. 
    . .

    The Chairman (2) ruled: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 3890, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is inclined to think that on the face of the 
    amendment, as it appears, it would be germane to the pending bill, 
    and overrules the point of order.

Bill To Amend Selective Service Act To Provide for Induction of Medical 
    Specialists--Amendment Relating to Induction of Aliens

Sec. 35.56 To a bill to amend the Selective Service Act of 1948 to 
    provide for special registration, classification, and induction of 
    certain medical and dental and ``allied specialists,'' an amendment 
    relating to induction of aliens was held to be not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill (4) 
to amend the Selective Service Act of 1948, the following amendment was 
offered: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 9554 (Committee on Armed Services).
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 13866, 13867, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 30, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Mike] Mansfield [of Montana]: Page 8, 
    line 22, insert a new section 7 as follows:

            That the second sentence of section 4 (a) of the Selective 
        Service Act of 1948, as amended, is hereby amended to read as 
        follows:

        Any citizen of a foreign country, who is not . . . exempt from 
    . . . service under the provisions of this title . . . shall be 
    relieved from liability for . . . service . . . if . . . he has 
    made application to be relieved from such liability in the manner 
    prescribed by . . . rules and regulations prescribed by the 
    President; but any person who makes such application shall 
    thereafter be debarred from becoming a citizen of the United 
    States. . . .

    A point of order against the amendment was reserved, as follows: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 13867.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order on the amendment on the ground that the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill which is to provide for special registration of 
    certain medical, dental, and allied specialist categories and does 
    not embrace the subject matter which the gentleman is seeking to 
    add to the bill by his amendment.

    The Chairman (7) sustained the point of order. He 
stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Porter Hardy, Jr. (Va.).
 8. 96 Cong. Rec. 13867, 13868, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 30, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is true that the bill mentions the Selective Service Act of 
    1948; however, it amends it in a certain specific manner and in 
    certain specific categories.
        The Chair is inclined to believe that the amendment offered by 
    the gen

[[Page 8891]]

    tleman from Montana goes far beyond the scope of the bill now 
    before us and therefore sustains the point of order.

Bill Amending Various Education Acts--Amendment Making Principles of 
    Civil Rights Act Applicable in Administration of Programs

Sec. 35.57 To a bill amending various education acts and providing new 
    authorizations for education grants to states, an amendment 
    designed to insure that administration of programs authorized by 
    the bill or amended acts conform to principles established by the 
    Civil Rights Act of 1964 was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1967,(9) the following 
amendment was offered: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 7819 (Committee on Education and Labor).
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 13582, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., May 23, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: On page 
    44, after line 8, insert the following:

                                 Administration

            Sec. 2. Rules . . . guidelines, or other published 
        interpretations or orders issued by the Department of Health, 
        Education, and Welfare or the United States Office of Education 
        . . . affecting . . . administration of programs authorized by 
        this Act or by any Act amended by this Act shall contain 
        immediately following each substantive provision of such rules 
        . . . citations to the . . . statutory law upon which such 
        provision is based. All such rules . . . guidelines, 
        interpretations, or orders shall be uniformly applied and 
        enforced throughout the fifty States.

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

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment which has been offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. Green], based upon the proposition 
    that the gentlewoman makes references to rules and regulations 
    promulgated pursuant to titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act.
        And then she goes into a question of guidelines. . . . [T]he 
    reference to guidelines is not an amendment to any piece of 
    legislation that is being considered by us at this time, and 
    therefore is out of order and not germane.

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to point out that this amendment is 
    specifically, by the language contained therein, directed toward 
    the administration of programs authorized by this act, or by any 
    act amended by this act. The Chair therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

[[Page 8892]]

Bill Amending Higher Education Laws--Amendment To Prohibit Student 
    Admission Quotas in All Schools

Sec. 35.58 To a bill amending the General Education Provisions Act in 
    one narrow respect relating to higher education, an amendment to 
    that Act prohibiting the imposition of student admission quotas not 
    only in institutions of higher education but also in public 
    preschool, elementary and secondary programs was held more general 
    in scope and not germane.

    On May 12, 1976,(12) during consideration of H.R. 12851 
(13) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair, in sustaining 
a point of order against an amendment, held that to a bill amending and 
extending various laws relating to higher education, an amendment 
imposing restrictions on pre-school, elementary and secondary education 
policy broadened the scope of the bill and was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 122 Cong. Rec. 13529, 13530, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Eshleman: On page 86, line 25, insert 
    ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 202''.
        On page 87, immediately after line 7, insert the following new 
    subsection:
        (b) Section 440 of the General Education Provisions Act is 
    amended by inserting ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 440'' and 
    adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
        ``(b) It shall be unlawful for the Secretary to require the 
    imposition of quotas, goals, or any other numerical requirements on 
    the student admission practice of a State or local educational 
    agency or institution of higher education, community college 
    school, agency offering a pre-school program, or other educational 
    institution receiving Federal funds, whether directly or 
    indirectly, under any provision of law, and funds shall not be 
    deferred or limited on the basis of failure to comply with such 
    numerical requirements.'' . . .
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order--I respectfully regret that I must do so, I will 
    say to my friend from Pennsylvania--that the amendment is 
    nongermane.
        Mr. Chairman, this is a higher education bill. While a very few 
    of these provisions may have an impact on secondary schools, it is 
    entirely indirect. The great majority of the bill, more than 90 
    percent, is in higher education. As a matter of fact, 100 percent 
    of it is. This can only be characterized as a higher education 
    bill.
        The gentleman's amendment deals with the admissions practices 
    of elementary and secondary schools, and even preschools. That 
    subject matter is completely foreign to the subject matter of the 
    bill. I repeat, it is a higher education bill.

[[Page 8893]]

        The gentleman's amendment, by reaching out to admissions 
    policies of preschool, elementary and secondary schools, goes too 
    far and is, therefore, not germane. There is one amendment in the 
    bill, Mr. Chairman, of the General Education Provision Act which 
    the gentleman's amendment attempts to amend. Here too, however, the 
    committee bill is exclusively a higher education bill.
        The committee amendment to the General Education Provisions Act 
    proposes a 1-year extension of the ``fund for the improvement of 
    postsecondary education.'' This is the only way the committee bill 
    amends the general education provisions at all.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, the amendment deals with the institution 
    for receiving Federal funds directly or indirectly under any 
    provision of law. Mr. Chairman, I repeat that under any provision 
    of law, this is beyond the limited scope of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin D.] Eshleman [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    would just point out to the Chair that I submitted this amendment 
    under section 202, which is opening section 404 of the General 
    Education Provisions Act, which I think we have amended on occasion 
    before in this House, because we are under the provision of general 
    education. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee amendment clearly refers to higher education and, 
    with only extremely narrow exceptions, contains no matter that 
    would substantially relate to other programs.
        On the other hand, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Eshleman) contains a prohibition against certain 
    requirements with respect to admission policies by the language of 
    the amendment, ``. . . a State or local educational agency,'' or 
    further by the language of the amendment, ``. . . agency offering a 
    pre-school program,'' or, in even broader language contained in the 
    amendment, ``. . . other educational institution receiving Federal 
    funds--under any provision of law.''
        Under the circumstances, the Chair is persuaded that the 
    amendment as drafted is not germane to the bill before the 
    committee and, therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

--Amendment To Prohibit Student Admission Quotas in Higher Education 
    Programs

Sec. 35.59 To a bill amending and extending various laws relating to 
    higher education, a further amendment to one of those laws 
    prohibiting the imposition of student admission quotas in 
    applicable higher education programs was held germane as within the 
    category of laws being amended by the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 12851 (15) in the Committee 
of the Whole on May 12, 1976,(16) the Chair, in overruling a 
point of

[[Page 8894]]

order against an amendment to that bill, demonstrated that, to a bill 
comprehensively amending several laws within the same class, an 
amendment further amending one of those laws on a subject within that 
same class is germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965.
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 13530, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edwin D.] Eshleman [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eshleman: On page 86, line 25, 
        insert ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 202''.
            On page 87, immediately after line 7, insert the following 
        new subsection:
            (b) Section 440 of the General Education Provisions Act is 
        amended by inserting ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 440'' and 
        adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(b) It shall be unlawful for the Secretary to require the 
        imposition of quotas, goals, or any other numerical 
        requirements on the student admission practice of an 
        institution of higher education, community college receiving 
        Federal funds, whether directly or indirectly, under any 
        applicable programs, and funds shall not be deferred or limited 
        on the basis of failure to comply with such numerical 
        requirements.''

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the fact is that there remains language in the 
    gentleman's amendment which says, ``. . .  under any provisions of 
    law, and funds shall not be deferred or limited on the basis of 
    failure to comply with such numerical requirements.''
        The fact that the entire scope of the act is quoted, and ``. . 
    . any provision of law'' still remains in, I would insist, Mr. 
    Chairman, makes it not germane to the legislation to which it is 
    addressed. . . .
        Mr. Eshleman: Mr. Chairman, I would first point out, 
    respectfully, that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson) is 
    incorrect. I did not leave in ``under any provision of law.'' I 
    changed it to ``under any applicable programs.'' And that original 
    terminology is not in there, as the gentleman stated. I have 
    attempted--maybe, let me say, in Pennsylvania Dutch--to limit this 
    to institutions of higher education. . . .

        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has very carefully reviewed the changes made by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Eshleman) in the language 
    contained in the amendment as originally offered. The Chair 
    observes that the amendment presently before the Committee is 
    limited in its scope to institutions of higher education or 
    community colleges, and that it applies only to those institutions 
    of higher education and community colleges which receive Federal 
    funds under any applicable program.
        The Chair believes that the amendment as presently drafted 
    before the Committee is germane to the bill, and the point of order 
    is overruled.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Eshleman) in support of his amendment.

[[Page 8895]]

Administration of Federally Funded Educational Programs--Remedies for 
    Denial of Equal Educational Opportunity

Sec. 35.60 To an Education and Labor Committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute extending and amending several laws relating to 
    federal assistance to state and local educational agencies and 
    prescribing standards to be followed by educational agencies in the 
    administration of federally funded educational programs, an 
    amendment proscribing educational agencies from denying equal 
    educational opportunity to public school students and providing 
    judicial and administrative remedies for denials of equal 
    educational opportunity and of equal protection of the laws was 
    held germane.

    The proceedings of Mar. 26, 1974, during consideration of H.R. 69, 
to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, are 
discussed in Sec. 3, supra.

Amendments to Diverse Educational Assistance Laws--Amendment Affecting 
    Type of Assistance Covered in Another Title .

Sec. 35.61 To a portion of a bill amending several miscellaneous laws 
    on a general subject, an amendment to another law relating to that 
    subject is germane; thus, to a title of an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute amending several diverse educational assistance 
    laws, an amendment affecting laws relating to federal impact school 
    assistance was held germane, even though that subject matter had 
    been contained in another title already passed in the reading for 
    amendment.

    On Mar. 27, 1974,(18) during consideration of H.R. 69 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 8508, 8509, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
19. A bill to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 8896]]

                       TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

                     amendment of emergency school aid act

            Sec. 901. (a) Section 706(a) of the Emergency School Aid 
        Act is amended (1) by striking out paragraph (3), (2) by 
        striking out the period at the end of paragraph (1)(D) and 
        inserting, ``; or'' and (3) by adding at the end of such 
        paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(E) which will establish or maintain one or more 
        integrated schools as defined in section 720(7) and which--
            ``(i) has a sufficient number of minority group children to 
        comprise more than 50 per centum of the number of children in 
        attendance at the schools of such agency, and
            ``(ii) has agreed to apply for an equal amount of 
        assistance under subsection (b).''. . .
            Sec. 902. (a)(1) Sections 134(b) (as redesignated by 
        sections 109 and 110(h) of this Act), 202(a)(1), and 302(a)(1) 
        of the Act are each amended by striking out ``Puerto Rico,''. . 
        . .
            (b)(1) Section 612(a)(1) of the Education of the 
        Handicapped Act is amended by striking out ``Puerto Rico,''.
            (2) Sections 612(a)(2) and 613(a)(1) of the Education of 
        the Handicapped Act are each amended by striking out ``the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,''. . . .
            Mr. [Robert J.] Huber [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
        an amendment to the committee substitute.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Huber to the committee substitute: 
        Page 131, immediately after line 15, insert the following new 
        section:

                          amendment to public law 874

            Sec. 906. Section 403(3) of the Act of September 30, 1950 
        (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), is amended to read as 
        follows:
            ``(3) The term `parent' means any parent, stepparent, legal 
        guardian, or other individual standing in loco parentis, whose 
        income from employment on Federal property is more than 50 
        percent of the total combined income of such individual and the 
        spouse of such individual.''.

    Points of order against the amendment were reserved and 
subsequently discussed by Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, and Mr. 
Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan:

        Mr. Perkins: I insist on the point of order. This is an impact 
    amendment and we have already passed that title.
        The Chairman: Is that the position of the gentleman from 
    Michigan?
        Mr. Ford: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I insist on the point of order. I 
    did not press the point of order before the gentleman had an 
    opportunity to explain what he was trying to do. I think his 
    motives are fine, but I disagree with the result it would have. I 
    wanted him to have an opportunity to do that; but clearly his 
    amendment comes too late, since we have already concluded title III 
    of the act which dealt with impact aid.
        The amendment the gentleman now offers is not a peripheral or 
    general amendment. It is a substantive amendment of the definition 
    of a child qualifying for impact aid under the basic act covered in 
    title III of this bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair holds that while an examination of the amendment 
    shows it

[[Page 8897]]

    would have been more appropriately offered to another title of the 
    bill, the Chair does observe that the title which is under 
    consideration is referred to as Miscellaneous Amendments and it 
    amends several other acts, the Emergency School Aid Act, the 
    Education of the Handicapped Act and others; so in view of these 
    circumstances, the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order.

Amendment Not Confined to Law Under Consideration; Restrictions Imposed 
    Under ``This or Any Other Act''

Sec. 35.62 To a bill amending an existing law, an amendment prohibiting 
    assistance under that Act or under any other Act for a particular 
    purpose was held too general in scope, affecting laws not being 
    amended by the bill and was ruled out as not germane.

    On May 11, 1976,(1) during consideration of H.R. 12835 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 122 Cong. Rec. 13419, 13427, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The Vocational Education Act amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conlan: On page 190, between lines 
        3 and 4, add the following new subsection:
            ``Sec. 302. (g) The General Education Provisions Act is 
        amended by adding the following new section:
            `` `Sec. ( ). No grants, contracts, or support are 
        authorized under this or any other Act for any purpose in 
        connection with the Man: A Course of Study (MACOS) curriculum 
        program or materials, or in connection with the high school 
        sequel to MACOS, Exploring Human Nature.' ''. . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment because it is not germane.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Perkins: It is funded by the National Science Foundation, 
    Mr. Chairman. It affects the National Science Foundation; 
    therefore, it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Conlan [of Arizona]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    National Institute for Education, which is a part of this bill, has 
    the educational resource information clearing houses--18 of them--
    across the Nation, including the one at the University of Indiana, 
    which is totally computerized and which disseminates information in 
    this area. So I do think the matter is germane.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Kentucky makes a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona on the basis of 
    germaneness. The Chair in a quick examination of the amendment 
    notes that the amendment reads:

            No grants, contracts, or support are authorized under this 
        or any other Act. . . .

[[Page 8898]]

        And on that basis the Chair is going to sustain the point of 
    order because of the fact that the amendment goes beyond the scope 
    of this pending bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 35.63 To a title of a bill primarily amending the Foreign 
    Assistance Act reported from the Committee on Foreign Affairs to 
    authorize assistance for Africa (containing one reference to 
    another law, the Export-Import Bank Act, not directly amended and 
    also within the jurisdiction of another committee), an amendment 
    restricting the availability of funds in that bill ``or any other 
    Act'' to support the activities of the African National Congress 
    was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 3100 (4) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Dec. 9 and 10, 1987,(5) it was held that to 
a bill amending an existing law to authorize a program, an amendment 
restricting authorizations under that or any other Act is not germane. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1987.
 5. 133 Cong. Rec. 34592, 34595, 34675, 34676, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               title viii--africa

                 Part A--Africa Famine Recovery and Development
    sec. 801. short title.

            This part may be cited as the ``Africa Famine Recovery and 
        Development Act''. . . .
            Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by 
        adding after chapter 6 the following new chapter:

              ``CHAPTER 7--AFRICA FAMINE RECOVERY AND DEVELOPMENT
    ``sec. 476. other assistance programs.

            ``To the maximum extent practicable, resources allocated 
        for sub-Saharan Africa under chapter 4 of part II (relating to 
        the Economic Support Fund), title IV of chapter 2 of this part 
        (relating to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation), the 
        Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, the Peace Corps Act, and the 
        African Development Foundation Act shall be used to provide 
        assistance which meets the criteria specified in section 
        472(b). To the maximum extent practicable, the agency primarily 
        responsible for administering this part should use resources 
        and authorities available under the Agricultural Trade 
        Development and Assistance Act of 1954, section 416(b) of the 
        Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Food for Progress Act of 1985 
        to complement the assistance provided under section 472. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 201, after 
        line 5, insert the following:
    sec. 830. prohibition on assistance to the african national 
    congress.

[[Page 8899]]

            (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds authorized to be 
        appropriated by this or any other Act may be used to support, 
        directly or indirectly, activities of the African National 
        Congress.
            (b) Waiver.--Subsection (a) may be waived by the President 
        if he certifies to the Congress that--
            (1) the National Executive Committee of the African 
        National Congress has taken a stand publicly and officially 
        opposing the practice of ``necklacing'', the practice of 
        execution by fire, used against South African blacks. . . .
            (3) the African National Congress no longer receives its 
        primary financial, military, and training support from the 
        Soviet Union or other Communist countries listed in section 
        620(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. . . .

        Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        The point of order has to do with germaneness, Mr. Chairman. 
    The gentleman's amendment goes a lot farther beyond the purview of 
    the responsibility of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and thus also 
    the parameters of the bill itself that we are debating here. It 
    reaches the interest of other agencies that are not within the 
    jurisdiction of the consideration of this legislation at this time, 
    and therefore it is nongermane to the arguments that we pursue here 
    today.
        Also, Mr. Chairman, the amendment that the gentleman has 
    offered goes a lot farther than any other amendment that has been 
    offered here today. It is much broader, the scope of which is too 
    far reaching to be relevant to the discussions we have here today 
    under the foreign aid bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Les AuCoin (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would state that according to the Procedures of the 
    House, and quoting from section 8, chapter 28, the following:

            . . . a bill authorizing appropriations for a particular 
        program for 10 fiscal years, an amendment restricting 
        authorizations under any act of Congress for any fiscal year 
        contingent upon implementation of a plan to reduce spending 
        under the bill was held not germane as not confined to the bill 
        under consideration.

        The Chair would note in reading that amendment of the gentleman 
    from Indiana that the gentleman provides a prohibition on funds 
    appropriated by this or any other act, and the Chair can find in no 
    other instance in title VIII as amended where there is any similar 
    prohibition.
        For that reason, the Chair would rule that the gentleman's 
    amendment goes beyond the scope of title VIII and is not germane. 
    Therefore, the point of order is sustained.

Entities Subject to Penalties of Antidiscrimination Laws--Amendment To 
    Redefine Nature of Sex Discrimination

Sec. 35.64 To a bill amending existing law in several particulars but 
    relating to a single subject affected thereby, an amendment 
    proposing to modify the law but not related to the single subject 
    of the bill is not germane; thus, to a bill narrowly amending an 
    anti-discrimination provision in the Education

[[Page 8900]]

    Amendments of 1972 only to clarify the definition of a 
    discriminating entity subject to the statutory penalties, an 
    amendment redefining one class of discrimination (sex 
    discrimination) was ruled non-germane as beyond the scope of the 
    bill.

    On June 26, 1984,(7) during consideration of H.R. 5490 
(the Civil Rights Act of 1984), the Chair sustained a point of order 
against an amendment as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 130 Cong. Rec. 18842, 18846, 18847, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. (a) The matter preceding clause (1) of section 
        901(a) of the Education Amendments of 1972 (hereafter in this 
        section referred to as the ``Act'') is amended--
            (1) by striking out ``in'' the second time it appears;
            (2) by striking out ``the benefits of'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``benefits''; and
            (3) by striking out ``under any education program or 
        activity receiving'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``by any 
        education recipient of''.
            (b) Section 901(c) of the Act is amended by inserting 
        ``(1)'' after the subsection designation and by adding at the 
        end thereof the following new paragraph:
            ``(2) For the purpose of this title, the term `recipient' 
        means--
            ``(A) any State or political subdivision thereof, or any 
        instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, or 
        any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or 
        other entity (including any subunit of any such State, 
        subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity), and
            ``(B) any successor, assignee, or transferee of any such 
        State, subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity or of any such subunit,
        to which Federal financial assistance is extended (directly or 
        through another entity or a person), or which receives support 
        from the extension of Federal financial assistance to any of 
        its subunits.''. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: On page 3, line 10, 
        strike out ``paragraph'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``paragraphs''.
            On page 3, line 25, strike out the close quotation marks 
        and the period at the end thereof.
            On page 3, after line 25, insert the following:
            ``(3) For the purpose of this title, the term `sex' does 
        not include sexual preference or orientation.''.

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: . . . The point of order is 
    that this is not germane to this bill. The classifications that 
    historically have been considered and have been considered under 
    this bill are race, national origin, sex, handicapped, and aged.
        The gentleman from California is attempting to add a new 
    clarification here that is not germane to the legislation pending 
    before this body. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . I am not seeking to add a new term. The 
    term ``sex'' is in the law.
        All I am seeking to do by this amendment is to make clear that 
    we

[[Page 8901]]

    do not, as the policymaking body of this country, in terms of law, 
    choose to take our society down the road where someone sooner or 
    later is going to argue that the term ``sex'' in the law includes 
    sexual preference or orientation. I am not adding anything. I am 
    just clarifying what that term means today as it is used in the 
    law.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Committee's report indicates that the purpose of this 
    legislation is to reaffirm the scope and the application of four 
    civil rights laws to an interpretation which was generally accepted 
    before the Grove City College decision. It does not seek to define 
    what is a discriminatory act.
        In other words, the bill deals with the definition of 
    ``potential discriminators,'' in this instance, recipients of 
    Federal financial assistance. It does not deal with the definition 
    of ``discrimination.''
        Because the gentleman's amendment would address the definition 
    of what constitutes discrimination, his amendment would not be in 
    order.
        The Chair would cite Deschler's Procedure, 28.2:

            To the proposition amending existing law in several 
        particulars but relating to a single subject affected thereby, 
        an amendment proposing to modify the law but not related to the 
        subject of the pending proposition is not germane.
        And in 28.4, Deschler continues:

            Similarly, if a bill seeks only to modify the penalty 
        provisions of a law prescribing specific conduct, an amendment 
        is not germane if it seeks to broaden the scope or alter the 
        applicability of such law.

        Therefore, the Chair finds the gentleman's amendment not in 
    order.

--Amendment To Expand Definition of Persons Who Are Subjects of 
    Discrimination

Sec. 35.65 To a bill amending a general law but only with respect to a 
    specific issue, an amendment relating to terms of the law not 
    amended by the bill, rather than to the issues contained in the 
    bill, is not germane; thus, to a section of a bill amending the Age 
    Discrimination Act only to clarify the definition of a 
    discriminating entity subject to the penalties under that statute, 
    an amendment to expand the definition of persons who are the 
    subject of discrimination (to include the unborn) was ruled 
    nongermane as beyond the scope of the bill.

    During consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 1984 (H.R. 5490) in 
the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 1984,(9) the Chair 
sustained a point of order against the amendment described

[[Page 8902]]

above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 18856, 18857, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            (e) Section 309 of the Act is amended by-- . . .
            (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
            ``(4) the term `recipient' means--
            ``(A) any State or political subdivision thereof, or any 
        instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, or 
        any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or 
        other entity (including any subunit of any such State, 
        subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity), and
            ``(B) any successor, assignee, or transferee of any such 
        State, subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity or of any such subunit,
        to which Federal financial assistance is extended (directly or 
        through another entity or a person), or which receives support 
        from the extension of Federal financial assistance to any of 
        its subunits.''. . . .

        Mr. [Mark] Siljander [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Siljander: Page 6, after line 18, 
        insert the following:
            (1) by inserting after ``person'', ``(including unborn 
        children, from the moment of conception)''. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        Again it is the same point of order that I made earlier. It is 
    an attempt to add a totally new definition. Again we are dealing 
    with the traditional definitions of race, national origin, sex, 
    handicapped, and aged.
        This is a very legitimate issue to be brought before this body, 
    but this is not the vehicle by which to do it. This is not the 
    intent of it, and it does not fall within the germaneness of this 
    particular bill. . . .
        Mr. Siljander: Mr. Chairman, one of the differences is that the 
    word, ``person,'' is mentioned in the bill several times, whereas 
    in the other point of order the word, ``sex,'' was not at all 
    mentioned in the specific bill.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This amendment amends a part of the Age Discrimination Act of 
    1975 that is not before the committee. The bill has a very narrow 
    purpose, and the gentleman's amendment does not fall within that 
    purpose.
        The Chair would refer the gentleman to clause 7, rule XVI, the 
    annotation of which reads:

            To a bill amending a general law on a specific point an 
        amendment relating to the terms of the law rather than to those 
        of the bill was ruled not to be germane; thus a bill amending 
        several sections of one title of the United States Code does 
        not necessarily bring the entire title under consideration so 
        as to permit an amendment to any portion thereof, and where a 
        bill amends existing law in one narrow particular, an amendment 
        proposing to modify such existing law in other particulars will 
        generally be ruled out as not germane. Unless a bill so 
        extensively amends existing law as to open up the entire law to 
        amendment, the germaneness of an amendment to the bill depends 
        on its relationship to the subject of the bill and not to the 
        entire law being amended.

        The Chair finds the amendment not germane and, therefore, not 
    in order.

[[Page 8903]]

--Amendment To Extend Coverage of Laws to Members of Congress

Sec. 35.66 To a bill narrowly amending several civil rights statutes 
    only to clarify the circumstances under which any institution 
    currently receiving federal financial assistance may have such 
    assistance terminated because of discrimination by such 
    institution, an amendment to deem Members of Congress as recipients 
    of federal financial assistance for the purpose of those statutes 
    was held not germane, since the amendment required no showing that 
    Members of Congress do in fact receive federal financial assistance 
    as defined in those statutes, and thus expanded the scope of 
    coverage of the laws amended to a class unrelated to the group of 
    institutions addressed in the bill and the laws amended.

    On June 26, 1984,(11) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole, in holding the amendment described above as not being 
germane demonstrated that, to a bill having as its fundamental purpose 
the clarification of eligibility of existing recipients for federal 
financial assistance under several statutes, an amendment deeming a 
specified entity to be a recipient of federal financial assistance for 
the purposes of those laws was not germane since it expanded the scope 
of the coverage of the laws being amended to a class not necessarily 
covered by the class of recipients in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 130 Cong. Rec. 18857-62, 18864, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 5. (a) Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
        (hereafter in this section referred to as the ``Act'') is 
        amended-- . . .
            (3) by striking out ``under any program or activity 
        receiving'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``by any recipient 
        of''. . . .
            (c) Title VI of the Act is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new section: . . .
            ``Sec. 606. For the purpose of this title, the term 
        `recipient' means--
            ``(1) any State or political subdivision thereof, or any 
        instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, or 
        any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or 
        other entity (including any subunit of any such State, 
        subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity), and
            ``(2) any successor, assignee, or transferee of any such 
        State, subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity or of any such subunit,
        to which Federal financial assistance is extended (directly or 
        through another entity or a person), or which receives support 
        from the extension of Federal financial assistance to any of 
        its subunits.''. . . .

[[Page 8904]]

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk labeled amendment No. 1 which I offer at this 
    time.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett: Page 10, after line 22, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 6. With respect to matters relating to the performance 
        of their official duties, Members of Congress shall be deemed 
        to be recipients of Federal financial assistance for purposes 
        of section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 
        of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, section 303 of the Age 
        Discrimination Act of 1975, and section 601 of the Civil Rights 
        Act of 1964. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I renew my point 
    of order, and let me say in renewing it that in theory I am in 
    agreement with the gentleman from Texas. I am a cosponsor of a bill 
    to cover Members of Congress under separate legislation.
        This, however, this legislation covers Federal executive 
    agencies. It does not cover the U.S. Congress. . . .
        What the gentleman is attempting to do is to go beyond the 
    scope, beyond the germaneness of this particular legislation, and I 
    believe the amendment is not in order. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: . . . Several points. No. 1, section 504 does 
    apply to executive agencies, and that is the General Accounting 
    Office.
        Congress may already--and let us take it point by point--the 
    Congress may already be covered in the bill's definition of 
    recipient, which is, in part, ``any public or private agency, 
    institution, or organization to which Federal financial assistance 
    is extended.'' . . .

        Congress is also, obviously a recipient and, therefore, if 
    Congress receives ``Federal financial assistance'' it would be 
    covered under H.R. 5490. Nowhere in any of the covered acts is 
    there a specific definition of ``Federal financial assistance,'' 
    but Mr. Chairman, Congress obviously must pay its bills from 
    somewhere and that somewhere is the Federal Government, so that 
    means that there is assistance. Federal financial assistance. . . .
        Mr. Simon: . . . The question is whether the law up to this 
    point has covered the legislative branch. The answer is clearly 
    that it has not.
        So what the gentleman from Texas is doing is going appreciably 
    beyond the present law and the law has not covered Congress for a 
    perfectly sound reason, and that is the separation of powers. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: It seems to me that the 
    point of order rests upon the well-established rule that an 
    amendment is not germane if it extends the law to cover an entirely 
    separate and distinctly different class of people than those whom 
    the law in its initial presentation in the bill would be made 
    applicable.
        It seems clear to me that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman would indeed extend the application of that statute to an 
    entirely separate and different class of people. . . .
        Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: . . . The amendment is 
    not germane. The separation of powers doctrine, if we do not 
    recognize it even here in this sensitive area, we would be inviting 
    the Department of Justice to come in to enforce the civil rights 
    laws. We tried many times to deal with

[[Page 8905]]

    this problem in other ways. For example, the House fair employment 
    practices agreement is one way of creating the mechanism. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the bill the term ``recipient'' means those entities to 
    which Federal assistance is extended.
        The gentleman's amendment deems Congress to be a recipient of 
    Federal financial assistance. That does not mean that there may not 
    be some instances in which Congress may in fact receive Federal 
    financial assistance, but it deems Congress to receive Federal 
    financial assistance even without any showing whatever that in fact 
    it has that financial assistance extended to it.
        Doing that expands the bill from defined group in the 
    legislation and in the law today to a much different group and in 
    that sense goes beyond the scope of the legislation, and the 
    gentleman's amendment is not in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On a roll call vote of 277 yeas to 125 
nays, the Committee of the Whole sustained on appeal the ruling of the 
Chair on the question of germaneness of the amendment.

--Amendment To Define ``Person'' as Used in Bill To Include Unborn

Sec. 35.67 An amendment defining a term in a bill may be germane so 
    long as it relates to the bill and not to portions of laws being 
    amended which are not the subject of the bill; thus, to a bill 
    clarifying the definition of persons or institutions which may have 
    federal financial assistance terminated under several civil rights 
    statutes because of discrimination, an amendment providing that the 
    term ``person'' for the purpose of the bill shall include unborn 
    children was held germane.

    On June 26, 1984,(13) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 5490, the Civil Rights Act of 1984. The bill 
amended several laws for purposes of clarifying the definition of 
recipients of federal financial assistance (including persons) who 
engage in discrimination so as to become subject to the penalties of 
those laws. The amendment expanded the definition of recipient persons 
to include unborn children from the moment of conception, but did not 
effectively expand the definition of persons who are the objects of 
discrimination, whatever its intent may have been, a point which was 
noted in the remarks of Mr. Williams of Montana, below. Had the amend

[[Page 8906]]

ment effectively defined the unborn as possible objects of 
discrimination and thus changed existing laws in a manner not 
contemplated by the bill, the amendment would not have been germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 130 Cong. Rec. 18865, 18866, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mark] Siljander [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Siljander: Page 10, after line 22, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 6. For the purposes of this act, the term ``person'' 
        shall include unborn children from the moment of conception.

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .
        It is an attempt to expand with a new definition beyond the 
    scope of this act. It is not germane as the previous amendment was 
    not germane. . . .
        Mr. Siljander: Chapter 28 of the procedures of the House, 
    section 9.12, says ``. . . to a bill containing definitions of 
    several of the terms used therein, an amendment modifying one of 
    the definitions and adding another may be germane.
        On page 3, on page 6 and page 8 and page 10 the word ``person'' 
    is used, which is substantially different from the former 
    amendment.
        I yield to the chairman.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On page 8, line 24, the bill uses the term ``person.''
        In the gentleman's amendment he says for the purposes of this 
    bill the term ``person'' shall, and defines the term ``person'' 
    and, therefore, the amendment is germane. . . .
        Mr. [Pat] Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
    the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to the 
    amendment.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If my information is correct, the term 
    ``person'' appears four times in this act and each time it appears, 
    it refers to a person receiving or distributing Federal funds.
        Now, if I understand the gentleman's amendment, he is including 
    children at the moment of conception as those receiving or 
    distributing Federal funds. What is the purpose of the amendment? 
    The amendment is moot. Unborn children do not receive or distribute 
    Federal funds. The amendment has no meaning.

Bill Authorizing Programs To Increase Understanding of Foreign 
    Languages and Cultures--Amendment To Prohibit Programs Promoting 
    Secular Humanism

Sec. 35.68 To a bill narrowly amending the National Defense Education 
    Act of 1958 to authorize programs to increase understanding of 
    foreign languages and cultures, an amendment prohibiting any 
    assistance under that Act to any education program offering the 
    ``religion of secular humanism'' was con

[[Page 8907]]

    strued as a restriction on other programs under that Act not 
    amended by the pending bill and was held to be not germane.

    On May 12, 1976,(15) during consideration of H.R. 12851 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against an amendment holding that to a bill amending 
various laws relating primarily to higher education, an amendment to a 
law being amended by the bill, but affecting programs under that law 
dealing with other levels of education was beyond the scope of the 
pending bill and in violation of Rule XVI clause 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 13531, 13532, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Conlan [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conlan: On page 86, between lines 
        6 and 7, add the following new subsection:
            ``(d) No grant, contract, or support is authorized under 
        this Act for any educational program, curriculum research and 
        development, administrator-teacher orientation, or any project 
        involving one or more students or teacher-administrator 
        involving any aspect of the religion of secular humanism. . . .

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: . . . The amendment as 
    offered says, ``grant, contract, or support is authorized under 
    this act,'' and in the context in which it is offered the gentleman 
    from Arizona would apply it to all of the parts of the National 
    Defense Education Act because he inserts it on page 86 between 
    lines 6 and 7, which is all of it, as an amendment of section 603 
    of the National Defense Education Act. So he goes very considerably 
    beyond the scope of the provisions of the section he offers to 
    amend or, for that matter, he goes beyond the scope of the higher 
    education laws that are amended by this particular bill. Therefore, 
    his amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Conlan: . . . I think the gentleman is construing it in a 
    very unnecessary and narrow area, Mr. Chairman. We are dealing here 
    with the National Defense Education Act. We are dealing with an 
    enlargement of it. We are dealing with a whole broadened area of 
    financing as part of that whole act. I think the amendment is quite 
    germane, and legal counsel has advised us that it is.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona appears in 
    section 201, all of which consists of an amendment to the National 
    Defense Education Act of 1958. The material contained in the bill 
    amends that act very narrowly only to the extent of providing for 
    specialists and persons trained in languages and foreign cultures. 
    By contrast, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
    would appear to amend the totality of the National Defense 
    Education Act of 1958 and impose its restrictions upon

[[Page 8908]]

    any grant or contract or funds under that act which under other 
    titles of that law could go to schools of secondary and other 
    levels of education.
        For this reason the Chair believes that the amendment as 
    drafted and offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Conlan) 
    expressly making reference to ``no grant, contract, or support as 
    authorized under this act'', thereby referring to the National 
    Defense Education Act of 1958 and not to the pending bill, is 
    beyond the scope of the bill and, therefore, not germane to the 
    language of the bill.

Fair Prices for Housing--Amendment To Prohibit Discrimination

Sec. 35.69 To a bill adding a new title to the National Housing Act to 
    insure availability of housing at fair prices, amendments to add a 
    section to the act to prohibit, in the administration of the act, 
    any discrimination on account of race, creed, or the like were held 
    not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(18) relating to housing stabilization, the following 
amendment was offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 4761 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
19. 92 Cong. Rec. 1990, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dirksen: On page 17, after line 6, 
    insert a new section, as follows:

            Sec. 711. In the administration of the National Housing Act 
        as amended and the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended 
        and in making available the benefits of said acts as amended, 
        there shall be no discrimination on account of race, creed, 
        color, or national origin, and in addition thereto maximum 
        preferences and priorities shall be secured to veterans of 
        World War II and their immediate families.

    Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(20) in 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Obviously, the gentleman's amendment is much too broad to 
    come within the purview of the pending bill. The amendment relates 
    to the National Housing Act as amended, the United States Housing 
    Act of 1937, as amended. The point of order is sustained.

    Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, then offered the amendment, 
deleting the reference to the United States Housing Act of 
1937.(1) Mr. Spence again raised a point of order. In 
defense of the amendment, Mr. Dirksen stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 92 Cong. Rec. 1991, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is nothing more than 
    an additional developing of the National Housing Act, it amends the 
    entire act in many particulars. So the amendment before us now 
    relates only to the Housing Act which is presently covered by

[[Page 8909]]

    the bill and is very definitely before the Committee of the Whole.

    The Chairman then stated:

        The gentleman's amendment would take in entirely different 
    provisions of the Housing Act than that contained in the pending 
    bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Amendment and Amendment Thereto Modifying Same Section of Law

Sec. 35.70 Where an amendment to a bill proposes modification of a 
    section of existing law in some respects, an amendment to the 
    amendment may properly propose modification of the same section of 
    the law in similar respects.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
to extend and amend laws relating to improvement of housing, an 
amendment was offered (3) which in part related to 
authorization of payments to parties in lieu of those moving expenses 
occasioned by certain urban projects. The amendment stated in part: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 6659 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 3. See the Talle amendment at 103 Cong. Rec. 6621-23, 85th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., May 8, 1957.
 4. Id. at p. 6622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 302. Section 106(f)(2) of the Housing Act of 1949 is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: 
    ``Such rules and regulations may include provisions authorizing 
    payment to individuals and families of fixed amounts (not to exceed 
    $100 in any case) in lieu of their respective reasonable and 
    necessary moving expenses.''

    An amendment offered to such amendment stated as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 6629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Barratt] O'Hara of Illinois to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Talle: Amend section 302 to read as 
    follows:

            Sec. 302. Section 106(f)(2) of the Housing Act of 1949 is 
        amended (1) by striking out $2,000 and inserting in lieu 
        thereof $3,000; and (2) by adding at the end thereof the 
        following sentence: Such rules and regulations may include 
        provisions authorizing the payment to individuals, families, 
        and business concerns of fixed amounts not to exceed $100 in 
        the case of an individual or family, or $3,000 in the case of 
        any business concern in lieu of the respective reasonable and 
        necessary moving expenses.

    The purpose of the amendment was explained as follows:

        Mr. O'Hara [of Illinois]: . . . It happens that in the district 
    that I represent we have in the operation of the urban-renewal 
    program the displacement of many long-established merchants. . . . 
    It is not right that these small-business tenants should be forced 
    to assume this burden when their moving is not for their own profit 
    or convenience, but to the contrary. . . . The present law calls 
    for moving expenses up to $2,000. In some cases

[[Page 8910]]

    that is ruinously inadequate. We are asking that the amount be 
    increased to $3,000 to be paid only in cases where the 
    circumstances warrant. . . .

    The following point of order was raised by Mr. Henry O. Talle, of 
Iowa, against the amendment:

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    O'Hara] is not germane to my amendment. As I understand his 
    amendment . . . it refers to basic law. His amendment, in order to 
    be germane, would have to be germane to my amendment which is under 
    consideration.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Section 302 is an amendment of existing law contained in 
    section 106(f)(2) of the Housing Act of 1949. That language 
    presumably is germane to section 106(f)(2). That being the case, 
    the amendment opens the entire section of the basic law, section 
    106(f)(2), to amendment, which is the purpose, in part, of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'Hara].
        Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is germane. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. For a similar ruling during proceedings relating to H.R. 6659, see 
        Sec. 35.71, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.71 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute, proposing, in 
    part, modification of a section of the Housing Act of 1949 relating 
    to payments for certain expenses occasioned by urban renewal 
    projects, a proposition to further amend such section by limiting 
    specified construction to that needed for relocation of families 
    displaced by urban renewal projects was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during proceedings relating to a bill 
(8) to extend and amend laws concerned with the improvement 
of housing, an amendment in the nature of a substitute was under 
consideration which contained the following provision: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 6659 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 9. 103 Cong. Rec. 6703, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., May 9, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 302. Section 106(f)(2) of the Housing Act of 1949 is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: 
    ``Such rules and regulations may include provisions authorizing 
    payment to individuals and families of fixed amounts (not to exceed 
    $100 in any case) in lieu of their respective reasonable and 
    necessary moving expenses.''

    The following amendment was offered to such amendment: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 6706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [O. Clark] Fisher [of Texas] to the 
    substitute offered by Mr. [Edmond A.]

[[Page 8911]]

    Edmondson [of Oklahoma]: Page 11, in line 12 insert ``(a)'' after 
    ``sec. 302.'' and after line 18 insert the following:

            (b) Section 106 of such act is further amended by adding at 
        the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(g) No new contract . . . or other arrangement regarding 
        low-rent housing provided for under section 305 of the Housing 
        Act of 1949 shall be entered into . . . except with respect to 
        low-rent housing projects to be undertaken in a community in 
        which the local governing body certifies that such low-rent 
        housing project is needed for the relocation of families to be 
        displaced as a result of Federal, State, or local governmental 
        action in such community: And provided further, That no such 
        new contracts . . . or other arrangements shall be entered into 
        . . . for additional dwelling units in excess of the total 
        number of such units which the Housing and Home Finance 
        Administrator determines to be needed for the relocation of 
        families to be displaced as a result of Federal, State, or 
        local governmental action in the communities where such units 
        are to be located.''

    A point of order was raised against the Fisher amendment, as 
follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 6706, 6707.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment, that it is not germane to the 
    amendment before the House or the bill before the House or any part 
    of the bill or the pending amendment. . . .
        The amendment deals with public housing. There is no public 
    housing in any part of this bill or in any part of the amendment to 
    the bill.

    The Chairman (12) overruled the point of order, citing 
the principle that, ``an amendment to a particular section may perhaps 
make in order another amendment to the section.'' (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
13. 103 Cong. Rec. 6707, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., May 9, 1957. For a 
        similar ruling during proceedings relating to H.R. 6659, see 
        Sec. 35.70, supra. It should be noted that in both rulings the 
        text being amended was a comprehensive amendment of one or more 
        sections of existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Jurisdiction as Test Where Amendments to Law Are Within 
    Jurisdiction of Different Committees

Sec. 35.72 Committee jurisdiction is a relevant test of germaneness 
    where the pending portion of the bill amends a law entirely within 
    one committee's jurisdiction and the proposed amendment amends a 
    law within another committee's jurisdiction; thus, to a title of an 
    omnibus housing bill amending a law within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs to reauthorize 
    rural housing loan and grant programs, an amendment to another law 
    within the jurisdiction of the

[[Page 8912]]

    Committee on Agriculture authorizing the pooling of federally 
    guaranteed rural housing loans was held not germane as amending a 
    law not amended by the pending title and within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee.

    The proceedings of July 31, 1990, relating to H.R. 1180, the 
Housing and Community Development Act, are discussed in Sec. 4.58, 
supra.

Amendment Modifying Same Section of National Housing Act in Unrelated 
    Respects

Sec. 35.73 To that part of a bill amending a section of the National 
    Housing Act by adding a paragraph relating to the power of the 
    administrator to dispose of securities held by him, an amendment 
    proposing to modify such section of the act in other respects was 
    held not germane.

    In the 74th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration to amend a title of the National Housing Act. The bill 
stated in part: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 11689 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
15. See 80 Cong. Rec. 4439, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 26, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That title I of the National Housing Act, 
    as amended, be further amended as follows:

            Section 1 of title I is amended by adding at the end of 
        said section the following paragraph:
            ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        Administrator shall have the power, under and subject to 
        regulations prescribed by him and approved by the Secretary of 
        the Treasury, to assign or sell at public or private sale, or 
        otherwise dispose of, any evidence of debt, contract claim, 
        property, or security assigned to or held by him, and to 
        collect or compromise all obligations assigned to or held by 
        him and all legal or equitable rights accruing to him in 
        connection with the payment of insurance under section 2 of 
        this title, until such time as such obligations may be referred 
        to the Attorney General for suit or collection.''

    The following amendment was offered: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 4444.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Page 1, 
    after line 4, strike out after the word ``compensation'', in the 
    second sentence of section 1 of title I, the rest of the sentence 
    and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``said officers and 
    employees to be appointed in accordance with the civil-service laws 
    and rules thereunder and their compensation fixed as provided in 
    the Classification Act of 1923, as amended''. . . .

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

        Mr. [T. Alan] Goldsborough [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment that it is not germane. . . 
    .
        Mr. Chairman, the matter desired to be inserted by the 
    gentleman from

[[Page 8913]]

    Michigan does not refer in any way to the subject matter of the 
    legislation. It has no possible reference to the subject matter of 
    the legislation.

    The Chairman (17) stated, ``section 1 of this bill deals 
with the sale and handling of securities.'' Mr. Mapes responded that, 
``[S]ection 1 of the law relates to appointment of employees and the 
fixing of their compensation, which is the section I am trying to 
amend.'' The Chairman then cited a prior ruling by Speaker Frederick H. 
Gillett, of Massachusetts, that, ``to a bill amendatory of an act in 
several particulars an amendment proposing to modify the act, but not 
relating to the bill (is not) germane,'' and held as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It seems very clear to the Chair that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan does attempt to modify a section of the 
    existing law, but it is not germane to this particular section of 
    the bill. The point of order, therefore, is sustained.

Bill Amending National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities Act--
    Amendment To Establish Office of Poet Laureate

Sec. 35.74 To a bill amending several sections of the National 
    Foundation for the Arts and Humanities Act to extend the 
    authorization for appropriations and redefine certain powers of the 
    Foundation, an amendment proposing to further amend the act to 
    establish an office of Poet Laureate of the United States was held 
    to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(18) amending the National Foundation for the Arts and 
Humanities Act of 1965, the following amendment was offered: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 11308 (Committee on Education and Labor).
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 4348, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: . . 
    .
        Sec. 7. The National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities 
    Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
    new section:

                       Poet Laureate of the United States

            Sec. 15. (a) There is hereby established the Office of Poet 
        Laureate of the United States. . . .
            (b) The Poet Laureate . . . who shall be appointed by the 
        President after consideration of the recommendations of the 
        National Council on the Arts, shall be a poet whose works 
        reflect those qualities . . . associated with the historical 
        heritage, present achievement, and future potential of these 
        United States.

    Mr. Frank Thompson, Jr., of New Jersey, made the point of

[[Page 8914]]

order that the amendment was not germane to the bill. The 
Chairman,(20) without elaboration, sustained the point of 
order.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John A. Young (Tex.).
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 4349, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Amend Federal Aid Road Act--Amendment To Create Corporation 
    With Authority Affecting Road Construction

Sec. 35.75 To a bill to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, 
    an amendment proposing the creation of a corporation with authority 
    to issue bonds to finance road construction was held not germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, the following 
amendment was offered: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 7474 (Committee on Public Works).
 3. 101 Cong. Rec. 11709, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: 
    Page 8, after line 6 insert:

            Sec. 2 (G) (a) There is hereby created, subject to the 
        direction and supervision of the President, a body corporate to 
        be known as the Interstate and Defense Highway Finance 
        Corporation. . . .
            (c) It shall be the duty of the Corporation (a) to receive 
        and borrow funds, (b) to provide and make available to the 
        Secretary such sums as are necessary to permit him to make the 
        payments or advances to the States, through the established 
        channels of the Bureau of Public Roads of the Federal share of 
        the cost of construction of projects on the Interstate System, 
        and such other costs or expenses as are permitted or required 
        to be paid or advanced by him in connection with the Interstate 
        System under the terms of this act, and (c) to perform such 
        other duties as may be required in the performance of its 
        functions and the exercise of its powers under this act. . . .

    Mr. Robert E. Jones, Jr., of Alabama, made the point of order 
against the amendment that it was not germane to the bill. The 
Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 11710, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is . . . the opinion of the Chair that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Indiana, seeking as it does to create an 
    entirely different body, a body corporate, is not germane to the 
    provisions of the pending bill.

--Amendment To Prohibit Funds for States Where Segregation is Practiced

Sec. 35.76 To a bill to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, 
    an amendment providing that no funds col

[[Page 8915]]

    lected under the act may be available to any state or locality in 
    which segregation is practiced in restaurants, restrooms, or in 
    road construction was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (6) 
to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, an amendment was 
offered as described above.(7) Mr. Robert E. Jones, Jr., of 
Alabama, made the point of order against the amendment that it was not 
germane. In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Earl Wilson, of 
Indiana, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 7474 (Committee on Public Works).
 7. See 101 Cong. Rec. 11710, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Court has ruled against segregation. 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. . . .
        . . . 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,(8) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that since the amendment refers 
    to and touches upon the funds collected under this act, limiting 
    their use, the amendment is germane, therefore, the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

Funds for Alaska and Hawaii Under Federal Airport Act--Funds for Puerto 
    Rico and Virgin Islands

Sec. 35.77 To a bill amending one section of the Federal Airport Act to 
    provide that the new States Alaska and Hawaii be eligible for 
    certain funds under the act, an amendment to make Puerto Rico and 
    the Virgin Islands similarly eligible and to amend other provisions 
    of the Act was held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
to provide that Alaska and Hawaii be eligible for participation in the 
distribution of discretionary funds under a particular section of the 
Federal Airport Act. An amendment was offered by Mr. John B. Bennett, 
of Michigan. The bill with a committee amendment,

[[Page 8916]]

and Mr. Bennett's amendment in the form of a substitute for the 
committee amendment, were as follows: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. S. 2208 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 18840, 18841, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 9, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        paragraph (2) of section 6(b) of the Federal Airport Act (69 
        Stat. 442, 49 U.S.C. 1105) is amended to read as follows:

            ``(2) Such discretionary fund shall be available for such 
        approved projects in the several States, Alaska, and Hawaii as 
        the Administrator may deem most appropriate. . . .''

        With the following committee amendment:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: ``That 
        paragraph (2) of section 6(b) of the Federal Airport Act (49 
        U.S.C. sec. 1105(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:

            `` `(2) Such discretionary fund shall be available for such 
        approved projects in the several States, Alaska, and Hawaii as 
        the Administrator may deem most appropriate for carrying out 
        the national airport plan, regardless of the location of such 
        projects. The Administrator shall give consideration, in 
        determining the projects for which such fund is to be so used, 
        to the existing airport facilities in the several States, 
        Alaska, and Hawaii, and to the need for or lack of development 
        of airport facilities in the several States, Alaska, and 
        Hawaii.' ''

        Mr. Bennett of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute 
    amendment, which is at the Clerk's desk.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bennett of Michigan as a 
        substitute for the committee amendment: Page 2, strike out 
        lines 6 through 18, inclusive, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: ``That section 2(a) of the Federal Airport Act, as 
        amended (49 U.S.C., sec. 1101(a)), is amended as follows:

            ``(1) In paragraph (7), strike out `Alaska, Hawaii, or 
        Puerto Rico and' and insert in lieu thereof `Puerto Rico, or'. 
        . . .

            ``Sec. 3. Section 5 of such Act, as amended (49 U.S.C., 
        sec. 1104), is amended as follows: . . .

            ``(2) In subsection (b), insert `(1)' immediately after 
        `(b)'. . . .

            ``(5) At the end of such subsection (b), add the following 
        new paragraph:

            `` `(2) For the purpose of carrying out this Act with 
        respect to projects in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, 
        there are hereby authorized to be obligated by the execution of 
        grant agreements pursuant to section 12 the sum of $900,000 for 
        each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1960, and June 30, 
        1961. Each such authorized amount shall become available for 
        obligation beginning July 1 of the fiscal year for which it is 
        authorized and shall continue to be so available until so 
        obligated. Of the sum of $900,000 authorized by this paragraph 
        for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1960, and June 30, 
        1961, the sum of $600,000 shall be available for projects in 
        Puerto Rico and the sum of $300,000 shall be available for 
        projects in the Virgin Islands.' ''

    A point of order against the amendment having been raised by Mr. 
Oren Harris, of Arkansas, the following ruling was made by Chairman 
John A. Blatnik, of Minnesota:

[[Page 8917]]

        The bill before the House deals with paragraph 2 of section 
    6(b). The substitute deals with other portions of the act and also 
    deals with Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which are not in the 
    present act. The point of order is well taken, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Diverse Amendments to Airport and Airway Development Act--Amendment 
    Adding New Title to Bill

Sec. 35.78 A bill comprehensively amending several sections of existing 
    law may be sufficiently broad in scope to admit as germane an 
    amendment which is germane to another section of that law not 
    amended by the bill; thus, to a bill containing several titles 
    amending the Airport and Airway Development Act in diverse 
    respects, including provisions relating to aircraft noise reduction 
    grants, regulation and funding, general airport development 
    projects, and general research, development and demonstration 
    grants, an amendment adding a new title amending the Act to extend 
    the authorization for State Airport Demonstration Grants was held 
    germane.

    On Sept. 14, 1978,(11) during consideration of H.R. 8729 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Gerry E. 
Studds, of Massachusetts, overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 29487, 29488, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. The Aircraft Noise Reduction Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harsha: At the end of the bill, 
        add the following new title:

                                    title vi

            Sec. 601. Paragraph (4) of section 28(c) of the Airport and 
        Airway Development Act of 1970 is amended by striking out 
        ``September 30, 1978'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``September 30, 1980''. . . .

        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I just heard 
    about this amendment a few minutes ago. While I support what they 
    want to do in this, it is a different program that comes out of 
    different legislation. It is an innovative program that we started 
    last year for demonstration projects for, I believe it was, four 
    States to handle the State money themselves rather than going 
    through FAA with a direct funding to the States. They make all the 
    decisions. They set all the criteria. It is a program that is not 
    dealt with in this bill in any way, shape, or form, and in my 
    opinion is not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. Harsha: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is germane to the issue. 
    It is a

[[Page 8918]]

    section that is in the Airport and Airway Development Act. We 
    already have other titles in this bill dealing with the Airport and 
    Airway Development Act, the so-called AADA. This deals with that 
    part of the program and I think it is germane to the title of the 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The bill before us amends the Airport and Airway Development 
    Act in several respects and with some depth and breadth. It deals 
    not only with noise control, but planning, grants and research, and 
    in other ways.
        Therefore, the Chair feels the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Harsha) is germane to the bill as a whole and the point 
    of order is overruled.

Tax Consequences of Sale of Property by Air Carriers--Determination of 
    Subsidies for Air Carriers

Sec. 35.79 To a bill amending the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 in part 
    to exclude from specified tax computations those gains from the 
    sale of property of an air carrier that are subsequently reinvested 
    in similar property, an amendment was held to be not germane which 
    sought to relate such accounting procedures to the determination of 
    certain subsidies for air carriers.

    In the 84th Congress, the following proposition (13) was 
under consideration: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Committee amendment to H.R. 8902 (Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce).
14. See 102 Cong. Rec. 14868, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 26, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . That section 406(b) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 
    as amended (49 U.S.C. 486), is amended by inserting ``(1)'' after 
    ``(b)'' and by adding at the end thereof the following:

            (2) In determining ``all other revenue'' of an air carrier 
        for the purposes of paragraph (1), the Board--
            (A) shall not take into account any loss on the sale or 
        other disposition of property, and
            (B) shall not take into account any gain on the sale or 
        other disposition of property, if the net gain (after 
        applicable taxes) is (within a reasonable time to be fixed and 
        determined by the Board) reinvested in other property similar 
        or related in service or use.
            For the purposes of this paragraph, the term ``property'' 
        means depreciable property used or useful in the carrier's 
        normal operations. . . .

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John W.] Heselton [of Massachusetts]: 
    Page 2, line 11, strike out all of lines 11 through 22, inclusive, 
    and insert in place thereof the following: . . .

            (3) Hereafter in determining that portion of the carrier's 
        mail rate which is payable by the Board (which portion is 
        hereinafter referred to as ``subsidy'') the Board shall com

[[Page 8919]]

        pute such carrier's depreciation expense and return on 
        investment after first deducting the net gains not taken into 
        account in determining all other revenue of such carrier from 
        the original cost to such carrier of the flight equipment in 
        which such net gains have been reinvested. . . .

    Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, in making a point of order against 
the amendment, stated, ``The amendment . . . goes far beyond the scope 
of this bill.'' In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Heselton 
stated:

        . . . I would like to refer . . . to a ruling . . . found in 
    Cannon's Precedents, section 2993. . . . It is as follows:

            An amendment to a section which is relevant to the subject 
        matter and which may be said to be properly and logically 
        suggested in the perfecting of the section and the carrying out 
        of the intent of the bill would be germane to the bill and thus 
        is in order.

    The Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    extends beyond the scope of the language contained in section 
    406(a) at lines 13 and 14 of the committee amendment.
        The language therein contained is very narrow in its scope and 
    applies to one specific phase of the operation.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    extends beyond loss on the sale of property, the matter contained 
    in the amendment; therefore, the entire amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts is not germane and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order. . . .

Federal Funding of Railroads--Amendment Affecting Freight Rate 
    Regulations

Sec. 35.80 A proposal which may amend existing law in several respects 
    but which is confined to the issue of federal financial assistance 
    does not necessarily permit, as germane, amendments to other 
    sections of that law which involve federal regulations governing 
    the entities being financed by the bill; thus, to a proposition 
    amending existing laws in several respects but limited in scope to 
    the issue of federal funding of railroads, an amendment to one of 
    those laws to require any railroad to maintain certain freight rate 
    practices and waiving provisions of antitrust laws to permit 
    enforcement of those rate practices was held not germane as 
    addressing regulatory authorities in law and not confined to the 
    issue of federal financial assistance.

    During consideration of H.R. 12161 (16) in the Committee 
of the

[[Page 8920]]

Whole on Oct. 14, 1978,(17) the Chair sustained a point of 
order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The ConRail Authorization Act.
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 38671, 38672, 38677, 38678, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fred B.] Rooney [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Rooney: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
    That this Act may be cited as the ``United States Railway 
    Association Amendments Act of 1978''.

            Sec. 2. (a) Section 216(a) of the Regional Rail 
        Reorganization Act of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 726(a)) is amended by 
        striking out ``$1,100,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``$2,300,000,000''.
            (b) Section 216(b)(2) of such Act (45 U.S.C. 716(b)(2)) is 
        amended by striking out ``$1,100,000,000'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``$2,300,000,000''.
            (c) Section 216(f) of such Act (45 U.S.C. 726(f)) is 
        amended by striking out ``$2,100,000,000'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``$3,300,000,000''.
            Sec. 3. Section 216 of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act 
        of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 726) is further amended by redesignating 
        subsection (f) thereof as subsection (g) and by inserting 
        immediately after subsection (e) thereof a new subsection as 
        follows:

            ``(g)(1) The Association shall not invest the final 
        $345,000,000 of the additional investment in the Corporation 
        authorized by the Regional Rail Reorganization Act Amendments 
        of 1978 unless and until (A) the Corporation has in effect an 
        employee stock ownership plan which satisfies the requirements 
        of paragraphs (2) and (3), and (B) the requirements of the 
        other paragraphs of this subsection have been satisfied. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York: Page 2, after 
        line 6 insert the following and renumber the remaining 
        paragraphs as appropriate.
            ``Sec. II. Section 3 of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 
        U.S.C. 3) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
        new paragraph:
            ``(6)(a) It shall be the duty of any Class I of common 
        carrier by railroad which handles or controls more than 75 per 
        centum of the rail freight traffic to and from a port to 
        establish and maintain equal rates, charges, tariffs, and 
        classifications to and from all points served by rail within 
        such port, and to establish and maintain equal joint routes, 
        rates, charges, tariffs, and classifications for all types of 
        rail freight traffic with all connecting rail carriers to and 
        from all points served by rail within the port. It shall be the 
        duty of each such Class I common carrier by railroad 
        establishing through routes to provide reasonable facilities 
        for operating such routes and to make reasonable rules and 
        regulations with respect to their operation and providing for 
        reasonable compensation to those entitled thereto, and, in case 
        of joint rates, charges, or tariffs, to establish just, 
        reasonable, and equitable divisions thereof, which shall not 
        unduly prefer or prejudice any participating carrier. . . .

[[Page 8921]]

        Ms. [Barbara A.] Mikulski [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the bill on the grounds that the amendment 
    is not germane because the amendment amends the Interstate Commerce 
    Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    basically an authorization; it authorizes USRA to purchase ConRail 
    securities. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Murphy) not only amends these two statutes, but also makes new 
    policy concerning intraport equalization. The bill is not a policy 
    oriented bill dealing with the Interstate Commerce Act, but is 
    rather essentially an authorization bill, by far, and I think it is 
    not germane. . . .
        Mr. Murphy [of New York:] Mr. Chairman, this amendment was 
    adopted by this House, passed into law, and incorporated in the 4R 
    Act of 1976.
        What this amendment does is just restate the fact of the matter 
    because the Interstate Commerce Commission and, of course, ConRail 
    itself have failed to implement the law.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment certainly is germane. It has 
    already been part of this act, and it is a restatement of the 
    original amendment of 3 years ago. . . .
        Mr. Robert E. Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I point out 
    that the substitute amendment to which the amendment is proposed 
    amends the Regional Rail Reorganization Act. The amendment itself, 
    however, amends the Interstate Commerce Act, an entirely different 
    statute; and as has been pointed out by the gentlewoman from 
    Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], the Clayton Act, which is not, I 
    understand, under the jurisdiction of this committee, but under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, which is a test of 
    germaneness.
        Mr. Chairman, the entire thrust of the gentleman's amendment 
    deals with the establishment and maintenance of rates, charges, and 
    tariffs and their classifications and divisions, whereas the bill 
    itself deals with nothing like that, but, rather, with the funding, 
    debentures, and stocks and other related matters dealing with 
    ConRail. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlewoman from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] makes a point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Murphy) is not germane to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute in that the Rooney amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute amends the Regional Rail Transportation Act and provides 
    for financial assistance to railroads in the ConRail system, while 
    the amendment offered thereto amends the Interstate Commerce Act 
    and also provides changes in the Clayton Act which deal with the 
    issue of antitrust matters and railroad rates applicable not only 
    to ConRail but to other rail systems.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Bill Amending Several Sections of Law--Amendment Affecting Sections Not 
    Mentioned in Bill

Sec. 35.81 A bill amending several sections of an existing law

[[Page 8922]]

    may be sufficiently comprehensive to permit amendments which are 
    germane to other sections of that law; thus, to a bill amending 
    several sections of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, 
    an amendment to a section of that Act not mentioned in the bill, 
    relating to congressional disapproval of reorganization plans, and 
    germane to that section, was held germane to the bill (where the 
    argument was not made that the amendment changed the rules of the 
    House).

    During consideration of a bill to amend H.R. 2051 on Feb. 19, 
1975,(19) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 3596, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 7 after line 24 
        insert a new section 5 (and number the succeeding Sections 
        accordingly).
            Sec. 5. (a) Section 208(a) of the Regional Rail 
        Reorganization Act of 1973. The sentence ``The final system 
        plan shall be deemed approved at the end of the first period of 
        60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after such 
        date of transmittal unless either the House of Representatives 
        or the Senate passes a resolution during such period stating 
        that it does not favor the final system.'' is amended by 
        deleting the language after ``shall' and inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``be voted by each House of Congress within the period 
        of 60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after 
        such date of transmittal.''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order on two bases. . . .
        The second point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that the amendment 
    goes beyond the scope of the legislation before us. It deals with 
    sections of the statute not currently before the House, and as such 
    it seeks to go to matters on which Members of this body could not, 
    in the exercise of reasonable prudence and care, have been 
    forewarned as to the existence of the pendency of this particular 
    amendment, and that therefore the amendment is violative of the 
    rule of germaneness and is not properly before the body at this 
    time. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . [I]t is very clear that the entire matter 
    is before us. We are talking about the bill as it now stands, 
    referring to a prospective date of 60 days, when the plan would go 
    into operation. All my amendment does is to change that, to make it 
    affirmative action rather than negative action of the House that is 
    required. I think it is consistent with the precedents and the 
    point of order should be overruled.

        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As to the second point made by the gentleman from Michigan, the 
    Chair has examined the amendment as well as the ``Ramseyer'' in the 
    report on the

[[Page 8923]]

    bill under consideration and, in the opinion of the Chair, the bill 
    under consideration amends several sections of the act, and is so 
    comprehensive an amendment as to permit germane amendments to any 
    portion of the law. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio is germane to the section 208 of the act which provides for 
    review by Congress. Therefore the Chair overrules the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Michigan.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had the argument been made that the 
Ashbrook amendment constituted a change in House and Senate rules by 
requiring a vote in each House within a certain time period, the Chair 
would have been advised to sustain the germaneness point of order.

Urban Mass Transportation Act--``Buy American'' Provisions

Sec. 35.82 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    comprehensively amending the Urban Mass Transportation Act and 
    authorizing the appropriation of funds to carry out that Act, an 
    amendment further amending the Act to prohibit the obligation of 
    funds authorized to be appropriated thereunder for certain 
    contracts unless American-made goods be used, in pursuance of such 
    contracts, to the extent specified in the amendment, was held 
    germane as a restriction on the broad authorities granted in the 
    bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 6417 (1) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Dec. 4, 1980,(2) it was held that, 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 were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The Surface Transportation Act of 1980.
 2. 126 Cong. Rec. 32169, 32170, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                  buy america

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

[[Page 8924]]

        United States, and only such manufactured articles, materials, 
        and supplies as have been manufactured in the United States at 
        least 50 per centum from articles, materials, and supplies 
        mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the 
        United States, will be used in such project contract. . . .
            (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall not apply to 
        project contracts entered into on or before the date of 
        enactment of this Act or options exercised pursuant to such 
        contracts. Section 401 of the Surface Transportation Assistance 
        Act of 1978 shall not apply to any project contract entered 
        into after the date of enactment of this Act for a project to 
        which section 12(h) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 
        1964 applies. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). This proposed amendment violates rule 
    XVI, clause 7. . . .
        Hinds' volume V, section 5825, states that while a committee 
    may report a bill embracing different subjects, it is not in order 
    during consideration in the House to introduce a new subject by way 
    of amendment.
        Cannon's, chapter 8, section 2995, states that the burden of 
    proof is on the proponent of an amendment to establish germaneness, 
    and where an amendment is equally susceptible to more than one 
    interpretation, one of which renders it not germane, the Chair will 
    rule it out of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the Oberstar amendment seeks to introduce a new 
    subject which is part neither of this bill nor of the statute which 
    this bill seeks to amend. The Oberstar amendment would introduce a 
    Buy America requirement, through which funds will be limited, into 
    the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964, where none now exists, and in 
    so doing, it repeals the similar provision that currently exists in 
    the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978. It is an attempt 
    to amend the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 by 
    adding to the statute which this bill amends and repealing it where 
    it currently exists.
        It may be argued that the amendments made by this bill are 
    sufficiently broad to open the entire 1964 act for amendment. But 
    the 1964 act contains no such domestic content provision.
        The Oberstar amendment introduces a new subject, and couching 
    it in language that tacks the provision on at the end of the 
    existing section of the 1964 act is not enough to make it germane.
        The Oberstar amendment really amends the Surface Transportation 
    Act of 1978, an act which itself amended the 1964 act.
        I submit that regardless of whether H.R. 6417 is broad enough 
    to open the entire 1964 act for amendment, it is not broad enough 
    to open other acts . . . for amendments as well, and neither is it 
    broad enough to render germane any new subject. . . .
        Mr. [James L.] Oberstar [of Minnesota]: . . . I rise in 
    opposition to the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering is to the Howard 
    substitute, which is substantially broad enough to admit an 
    amendment dealing with the Buy America Act, which is a part of the 
    original Urban Mass Transit Act. There was a Buy America

[[Page 8925]]

    provision in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, 
    which provided that a final manufactured article should be 
    substantially all-American produced and established the 10-percent 
    price differential between foreign and domestic bids.
        My amendment would broaden that language, which is existing law 
    somewhat, and is perfectly in order because it is an amendment to 
    the Howard substitute and is restricted entirely to the language of 
    the Urban Mass Transportation Act and does not, as the gentleman 
    from Minnesota suggested, go beyond the provisions of the Urban 
    Mass Transportation Act. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has heard the arguments of both the maker of the 
    point of order and the opponent of it, and the Chair is constrained 
    to agree with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the 
    amendment amends only the Urban Mass Transportation Act. That law 
    in 1978 was in effect amended by the Buy America title contained in 
    the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and the pending 
    amendment only alters the effect of the 1978 law as it relates to 
    authorities under UMTA. On two previous occasions, Buy America 
    amendments have been held germane when offered to bills, 
    comprehensively amending existing laws and drafted as restrictions 
    on authorities contained in those laws.
        The first was on May 7, 1959, when Chairman Bass held germane 
    to a bill permitting the Tennessee Valley Authority to raise 
    capital by issuance of bonds, an amendment prohibiting use of such 
    funds to purchase foreign-made equipment. On another occasion 
    perhaps the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) will recall, 
    when he made a similar point of order to the Outer Continental 
    Shelf Lands Act amendments; and the chairman of the committee at 
    that time, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher), on July 21, 
    1976, held the amendment to be in order. These precedents are 
    contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, sections 4.27 and 
    23.7.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order and 
    recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) in support 
    of his amendment for 5 minutes.

Energy Research and Development Programs--Amendment to Define 
    ``Research and Development''

Sec. 35.83 To a bill not only containing authorizations for one fiscal 
    year but also amending permanent laws in several respects, an 
    amendment further amending one of those laws in a related way may 
    be germane; thus, to a bill, open to amendment at any point, which 
    not only authorized civilian research and development programs for 
    the Department of Energy for a fiscal year but also amended in 
    diverse ways several permanent laws relating to energy research and

[[Page 8926]]

    development programs, an amendment adding a new title to further 
    amend one of those laws to define the term ``research and 
    development'' for purposes of laws authorizing energy research and 
    development was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 12163 in the Committee of the Whole on 
July 14 (4) and July 17,(5) 1978, the Chair 
overruled a point of order in the circumstances described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec.20994, 20995, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Id. at pp. 21194-96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS . . .

            Sec. 504. (a) Section 111 of the Energy Reorganization Act 
        of 1974 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
        new subsection:
            ``(j)(1) Beginning with fiscal year 1980 with respect to 
        Department of Energy civilian research and development 
        programs, for purposes of the President's annual budget 
        submission and of related reports submitted by the Secretary of 
        Energy to the House Committee on Science and Technology and to 
        the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources each plant 
        and capital equipment construction project shall be assigned or 
        reassigned to one of the following categories. . . .

        Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fuqua: At the end of the bill, add 
        the following new title:

               TITLE VII--DEFINITION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

            Sec. 701. Section 304 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 
        1974 (42 U.S.C. 5874) is amended by inserting ``(a)'' after 
        ``Sec. 304.'', and by adding at the end thereof the following 
        new subsection:
            ``(b)(1) For purposes of this Act and the Atomic Energy Act 
        of 1954, the Federal Non-nuclear Energy Research and 
        Development Act of 1974, and the Department of Energy 
        Organization Act, the term ``research and development'' means--
            ``(A) basic and applied research . . .
            ``(D) concept and demonstration development; and
            ``(E) operational systems development.
            ``(2) As used in paragraph (1)--
            ``(A) the term ``basic research'' means systematic and 
        intensive study directed toward greater knowledge or 
        understanding of a specific subject, and toward the expansion 
        of man's fundamental knowledge of nature (with or without 
        immediate relevance to specific technology programs). . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Madam Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill which 
    lies before us.
        I would point out, first of all, that the burden is upon the 
    offeror of the amendment to establish the germaneness thereof.
        Furthermore, Madam Chairman, under the traditions and practices 
    of the House as well as under the rules of

[[Page 8927]]

    the House, it is well settled that the Energy Reorganization Act of 
    1974 referred to is a statute relating to the reorganization of 
    government and does not lie under the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Science and Technology.
        I would point out that the amendment clearly seeks to amend a 
    statute lying under the jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
        I would point out that the amendment here offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida seeks to change permanent law, as opposed to 
    simply laying forth for the House the basis upon which 
    appropriations may be made, which is the basic purpose on which 
    this particular legislation is before the House. The amendment 
    affects the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
        I point out again that this amendment, which is offered to a 1-
    year authorization, is permanent legislation, defining a rather 
    sweeping responsibility of the Department of Energy of which I am 
    not able to advise the Chair of all the consequences, nor is the 
    author.
        In reiteration, I point out that this is an authorization bill, 
    and it includes limitations and procedural changes. Of course, 
    adoption of this amendment does not affect jurisdiction of any 
    committee or affect the rules of the House. Other permanent 
    provisions of the amendment go much beyond the provisions of an 
    annual authorization, and deal with what is essentially permanent 
    and lasting legislation, not only of the Atomic Energy Act, but 
    also again, I reiterate, another statute not under the jurisdiction 
    of this committee at all, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 
    which was referred to the Committee on Government Operations. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I would 
    only point out to the Chair that in the bill the gentleman from 
    Michigan is going to bring to the floor immediately upon the 
    conclusion of the bill we are now considering, he amends the 
    Department of Energy Act in many places, and I would be hard 
    pressed to understand how he is going to defend that action when he 
    is contending that doing this is a violation of the rules of the 
    House. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) raises a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Fuqua) on the basis that the amendment is not germane to the 
    legislation. The Chair would state to the gentleman from Michigan 
    that this amendment does not amend the rules of the House. Under 
    the rule which provides for consideration of this legislation a 
    substitute was made in order as an original bill, the substitute 
    which was an amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua) 
    printed in the Record on the 23d of June.
        In the substitute which was made in order as an original bill, 
    the energy Reorganization Act is substantively amended in a 
    permanent way. The gentleman from Florida now seeks to add a new 
    title following the ``general provisions'' portion of the bill to 
    provide a definition of research and development under the aegis of 
    the Energy Reorganization Act. That is clearly ger

[[Page 8928]]

    mane because of the provisions of this bill and under the the 
    precedents that have been established in interpreting and applying 
    the rules of the House related to the question of germaneness.
        The amendment obviously relates to the question of energy 
    research and development, the subject of the pending bill. 
    Consequently the Chair overrules the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Michigan.

Rationing Under Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act--User Charges for 
    Allocations

Sec. 35.84 To a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    which amended section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act 
    of 1973 to authorize the President to establish priorities, 
    including rationing of gasoline, among users of petroleum products, 
    an amendment providing that any rationing proposal for individual 
    users of gasoline should include payment of a user charge to 
    qualify for additional allocations was held to constitute a tax 
    which was not within the category of rationing authority in the 
    substitute and was ruled out as not germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (H.R. 11450) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 14, 1973,(7) the Chair 
ruled that an amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 119 Cong. Rec. 41750, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 103. Amendments to the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 
    1973.

        (a) Section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 
    is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsections:
        ``(h)(1) If the President finds that, without such action, the 
    objectives of subsection (b) cannot be attained, he may promulgate 
    a rule which shall be deemed a part of the regulation under 
    subsection (a) and which shall provide, consistent with the 
    objectives of subsection (b), an ordering of priorities among users 
    of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any refined petroleum product, 
    and for the assignment to such users of rights entitling them to 
    obtain any such oil or product in precedence to other users not 
    similarly entitled. A top priority in such ordering shall be the 
    maintenance of vital services (including, but not limited to new 
    housing construction, education, health care, hospitals, public 
    safety, energy production, agriculture, and transportation 
    services, which are necessary to the preservation of health, 
    safety, and the public welfare). . . .
        ``(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `allocation' 
    shall not be construed to exclude the end-use allocation of 
    gasoline to individual consumers.
        Mr. [James G.] Martin [of North Carolina:] Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an

[[Page 8929]]

    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Mr. Martin of North Carolina to the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Staggers: On page 6, at line 6, strike the period, and add: ``; 
        Provided, however, That any proposal by the President for the 
        rationing of fuel for personal automobiles and recreational 
        vehicles should, in addition to the basic non-discriminatory 
        ration, include provisions under which the individual consumer 
        may qualify for additional allocations of fuel upon payment of 
        a free or user charge on a per unit basis to the Federal Energy 
        Administration.''

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    is not germane. . . .
        I make the point of order on the amendment on the ground that 
    it authorizes a user's fee in the nature of a tax and that is not 
    supposed to come within the jurisdiction of our committee. That 
    authority is delegated to the Ways and Means Committee.
        Mr. Martin of [North Carolina:] Mr. Chairman, I believe that 
    the amendment is germane and pertinent to the section dealing with 
    gasoline rationing. . . .
        This amendment does not propose a tax as such and so does not 
    run afoul of the prerogatives of the honorable Committee on Ways 
    and Means. Instead it proposes an administrative fee to be charged, 
    much as fees are charged by the National Park Service under the 
    Golden Eagle plan for use of our park resources. This fee as I 
    propose it would be charged for preferential use of any extra 
    limited fuel resources.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order on the ground that this amendment in 
    effect would result in a tax not directly related to the rationing 
    authority conferred by the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provisions Modifying Standards Imposed by Clean Air Act--Amendment 
    Suspending Authority of Administrator To Control Automobile 
    Emissions

Sec. 35.85 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    comprehensively amending several sections of the Clean Air Act with 
    respect to the impact of the shortage of energy resources upon 
    standards imposed under that Act, an amendment to another section 
    of that Act suspending for a temporary period the authority of the 
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to control 
    automobile emissions was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 11450 (9) on Dec. 14, 
1973,(10) the

[[Page 8930]]

Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Emergency Energy Act.
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 41688, 41689, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wyman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: On page 59, 
        after line 23, insert the following:
            (1) Section 202(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857) is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(6)(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        authority of the Administrator to require emissions controls on 
        automobiles is hereby suspended except for automobiles 
        registered to residents of those areas of the United States as 
        specified by subsection (b) of this section, until January 1, 
        1977, or the day on which the President declares that shortage 
        of petroleum is at an end, whichever occurs later.
            (b) Within 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
        paragraph, and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall 
        designate, subject to the limitations set forth herein, 
        geographic areas of the United States in which there is 
        significant auto emissions related air pollution. The 
        Administrator shall not designate as such area any part of the 
        United States outside the following Air Quality Control Regions 
        as defined by the Administrator as of the date of enactment of 
        this paragraph without justification to and prior approval of 
        the Congress. . . .
            (3) Section 203(a)(3) of such Act is amended to read as 
        follows:
            ``(3) for any person to register, on or after 60 days after 
        the date of enactment of this paragraph, a motor vehicle or 
        motor vehicle engine for which the regulations prescribed under 
        section 202(a)(1) do not apply under section 202(a)(3) if such 
        person resides in a geographic area designated by the 
        Administrator to be a geographic area in which there is 
        significant air pollution; or''. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . The second ground on 
    which I make a point of order is that at no point in the bill 
    before us appears an amendment to section 203 of the Clean Air Act. 
    In fact, the gentleman's amendment deals with section 203 and not 
    with the sections which are before us.
        As the Chair will observe from the reading of the Clean Air 
    Act, section 203 is the penalty section and relates to 
    certifications. Section 202(b) mandates the EPA to establish 
    emission limitations for automobiles, and it is to section 202(b) 
    which the bill itself now does apply. The amendment goes much 
    further than that and it restricts the authority of automobile 
    owners to register automobiles in States, and this matter is not 
    spoken to otherwise or elsewhere in the legislation before us.
        It is, therefore, my strong view, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    amendment before us is not germane to the legislation in dealing 
    with subjects not in the bill and not presently before the House.
        Obviously the germaneness rules are here to protect Members 
    from being surprised by amendments which relate to matters 
    different than those before us. Obviously the amendment relates to 
    sections of the Clean Air Act and to matters that are not before 
    us. For that reason the point of order against the amendment should 
    be sustained. . . .

[[Page 8931]]

        Mr. Wyman: . . . [The amendment] simply suspends . . . the 
    authority of the Administrator to impose [requirements for emission 
    controls] for a definite period during the energy crisis.
        This is so plainly in order that I submit the Chair should 
    overrule the point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The second aspect of the point of order is the question of 
    nongermaneness in connection with the Clean Air Act. The Chair has 
    simply looked at the Ramseyer on the bill before us and it is very 
    clear that the Clean Air Act is comprehensively amended by the bill 
    and by the pending amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order of the gentleman 
    from Michigan.

Regulations Affecting Rationing of Petroleum Products--Amending Rules 
    To Establish Congressional Disapproval Procedure

Sec. 35.86 While an amendment amending the rules of the House to 
    establish a special disapproval procedure would not ordinarily be 
    germane to a proposition which granted certain authority to the 
    executive but did not contain a provision affecting congressional 
    procedure, such an amendment is in order where the section of law 
    being amended by that proposition contains a comparable provision.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(12) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a section of an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute which amended section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum 
Allocation Act of 1973 to authorize the president to establish 
priorities, including rationing procedures, among users of petroleum 
products. An amendment was offered which conditioned the effectiveness 
of those regulations upon subsequent congressional disapproval 
(amending the rules of both Houses to provide for the privileged 
consideration of disapproval resolutions). The amendment was held 
germane, where the section of law being amended already contained a 
provision permitting either House to disapprove regulations exempting 
certain petroleum products from allocations under that section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 119 Cong. Rec. 41716-18, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (proceedings 
        relating to H.R. 11450, the Energy Emergency Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. [H. John] Heinz [III, of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the

[[Page 8932]]

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Heinz to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers. Page 8, after 
        line 18, insert the following new subsection: (e) Section 4 of 
        the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 is amended by 
        inserting at the end thereof the following new subsections:
            ``(l)(1) The President shall transmit any rule (other than 
        any technical or clerical amendments) which amends the 
        regulation (promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) of this 
        section) with respect to end-use allocation authorized under 
        subsection (h) of this section.
            ``(2) Any such rule with respect to end-use allocation 
        shall, for purposes of subsections (m) and (n) of this section, 
        be treated as an energy action and shall take effect only if 
        such actions are not disapproved by either House of Congress as 
        provided in subsections (m) and (n) of this section.
            ``(m) Disapproval of Congress. . . .
            ``(3) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (4) of this 
        subsection, an energy action shall take effect at the end of 
        the first period of 15 calendar days of continuous session of 
        Congress after the date on which the plan is transmitted to it 
        unless, between the date of transmittal and the end of the 15-
        day period, either House passes a resolution stating in 
        substance that that House not favor the energy action. . . .
            ``(n) Disapproval Procedure.--
            ``(1) This subsection is enacted by Congress--
            ``(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
        and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such 
        they are deemed a part of the rules of each House, 
        respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure 
        to be followed in that House in the case of resolutions 
        described by paragraph (2) of this subsection; and they 
        supersede other rules only to the extent that they are 
        inconsistent therewith; and
            ``(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
        either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
        procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner and to 
        the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House. 
        . . .
            ``(4)(A) If the committee to which a resolution with 
        respect to an energy action has been referred has not reported 
        it at the end of 5 calendar days after its introduction, it is 
        in order to move either to discharge the committee from further 
        consideration of the resolution or to discharge the committee 
        from further consideration of any other resolution with respect 
        to the energy action which has been referred to the committee.
            ``(B) A motion to discharge may be made only by an 
        individual favoring the resolution, is highly privileged 
        (except that it may not be made after the committee has 
        reported a resolution with respect to the same energy action), 
        and debate thereon shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to 
        be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing 
        the resolution. An amendment to the motion is not in order, and 
        it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the 
        motion is agreed to or disagreed to. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, my point of order 
    is that the amendment is not germane to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute. Further, the amendment is not germane to the 
    material of the bill. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, what the amendment purports to do is create 
    additional ma

[[Page 8933]]

    chinery with respect to the allocation section of the bill which is 
    covered in section 103 of that bill so as to provide that the 
    powers which are to be exercised in allocation, including end use 
    allocation, shall be subject to presentation to the Congress during 
    a 15-day period in which, if they are not vetoed by one or the 
    other House, such provisions may be canceled by having been denied 
    by the two Houses.
        There is nothing in the original bill or in the amendment that 
    provides for any procedure by which the matter shall be resubmitted 
    to the Congress. There is nothing in the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute that has any such procedure in it.
        The amendment offered here provides an extensive amendment of 
    the procedures of both the House and Senate with respect to the 
    manner in which this is accomplished.
        I should like to point out to the Chair that this is not a 
    small change in policy or in law but an extremely large one. What 
    it purports to do, in effect, is to change the role of the 
    Presidency and that of the Congress and to afford a special 
    procedure by which this bill reserves to the Congress the 
    administrative position, a position in which as a condition 
    subsequent to the passage of this bill this bill may require a 
    second look at the entire question and a determination on the 
    question of policy by the Congress.
        The major thrust of my point of order does not go to any 
    question of constitutionality.
        It indicates too the fact that the matter contained herein so 
    sweepingly alters the procedures of the House, and the work to 
    accommodate itself to this peculiar and unusual problem, that it is 
    far beyond the scope of any provision in the bill. It does not in a 
    minor manner change the bill, but it changes it in an extremely 
    substantial manner because it calls upon the House to make a deep 
    and complete policy determination with respect to the question of 
    allocation at a time subsequent to the passage of the bill, and 
    give that policy determination the effect of law as a condition 
    subsequent to its particular enactment. . . .
        Mr. Heinz: . . . Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas 
    contends on the one hand that my amendment is not constitutional, 
    and on the other that it is not germane to the bill.
        On the first point I would like to indicate, Mr. Chairman, that 
    there are already on the statute books two laws, the War Powers 
    Act, and the Procedure for Approving Executive Reorganizations. 
    They use the same procedure for the two items I mentioned. 
    Therefore I do not feel that the point of constitutionality can 
    stand the test.
        Second, the gentleman from Texas argues that my amendment and 
    the disapproval portion thereof is not germane to the bill. Were 
    this the case it would seem to me inconsistent, Mr. Chairman, 
    because we would not have had, as we did 2 days ago, a vote on the 
    Broyhill amendment which included the exact same procedures as 
    exist in my amendment.

        Admittedly, section 105 is not section 103 but, nonetheless, 
    both amendments were offered to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, H.R. 11882. I do not believe, therefore, Mr. Chairman, 
    that the point of order has merit.

[[Page 8934]]

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to urge one other 
    point aside from the germaneness question, and that is that the 
    amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend the Rules of 
    the House.
        Mr. Heinz: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, I just do 
    not think that the gentleman from Texas is correct. What is in this 
    amendment is simply no different from writing into the bill, which 
    we could do at any time, for any section, a provision which might 
    say ``notwithstanding anything in Section 103 or any other section, 
    the Executive Branch has to come back to the Congress for enactment 
    or approval or determination, or anything.''
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) makes a very 
    interesting and strong argument. The Chair in its ruling is 
    persuaded that the question is a narrow question. The Chair does 
    not rule on the constitutional questions raised in this argument; 
    but there are two aspects of the matter that the Chair takes into 
    consideration in its decision. One, which the Chair believes to be 
    the lesser one, is the fact that in the original bill there is a 
    similar provision which in turn was offered as an amendment to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. But the Chair relies 
    primarily on the fact that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Heinz) is in fact an amendment to section 4 
    of Public Law 93-159, the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act which, 
    in a different manner, does provide for a procedure whereby the 
    President shall make submissions to the Congress. And whereby 
    either House may disapprove of such submissions.
        Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.

Indirectly Superseding Other Law

Sec. 35.87 To a section of a bill amending the Defense Production Act 
    providing financial assistance for synthetic fuel development to 
    meet national defense needs, an amendment providing expedited 
    review and approval of certain designated priority projects to be 
    financed by the bill, thereby indirectly affecting time periods for 
    procedural review specified in other laws, but not specifically 
    waiving provisions of substantive law which might prohibit 
    completion of such projects, was held germane as not directly 
    amending substantive environmental or energy laws within the 
    jurisdiction of other committees.

    On June 26, 1979,(14) during consideration of H.R. 3930 
(15) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Gerry E. 
Studds, of

[[Page 8935]]

Massachusetts, overruled a point of order and held the following 
amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681-83, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new subsection and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly:
        (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and criteria 
    provided in this section. . . .
        (h)(1) Any person planning or proposing a synthetic fuel or 
    feedstock facility may apply to the Secretary of Energy for an 
    order designating such facility as a priority synthetic project. . 
    . .
        (i) Not later than forty-five days after receipt of an 
    application authorized under the previous section, the Secretary 
    shall determine whether the proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock 
    facility is of sufficient national interest to be designated a 
    priority synthetic project. Upon reaching a determination the 
    Secretary shall publish his decision in the Federal Register and 
    shall notify the applicant and the agencies identified in 
    subsection (h)(3). In making such a determination the Secretary 
    shall consider--
        (1) the extent to which the facility would reduce the Nation's 
    dependence upon imported oil;
        (2) the magnitude of any adverse environmental impacts 
    associated with the facility and the existence of alternatives that 
    would have fewer adverse impacts; . . .
        (7) the extent to which the applicant is prepared to complete 
    or has already completed the significant actions which the 
    applicant in consultation with the Deputy Secretary anticipate will 
    be identified under subsection (1) as required from the applicant; 
    and
        (8) the public comments received concerning such facility. . . 
    .
        (l) Not later than thirty days after notice appears in the 
    Federal Register of an order designating a proposed synthetic fuel 
    or feedstock facility as a priority synthetic project, any Federal 
    agency with authority to grant or deny any approval or to perform 
    any action necessary to the completion of such project or any part 
    thereof, shall transmit to the Secretary of Energy and to the 
    priority energy project--
        (1) a compilation of all significant actions required by such 
    agency before a final decision or any necessary approval(s) can be 
    rendered;
        (2) a compilation of all significant actions and information 
    required of the applicant before a final decision by such agency 
    can be made;
        (3) a tentative schedule for completing actions and obtaining 
    the information listed in subsections (1) and (2) of this 
    subsection;
        (4) all necessary application forms that must be completed by 
    the priority energy project before such approval can be granted; 
    and
        (5) the amounts of funds and personnel available to such agency 
    to conduct such actions and the impact of such schedule on other 
    applications pending before such agency.
        (m)(1) Not later than sixty days after notice appears in the 
    Federal Register of an order designating a synthetic fuel or 
    feedstock facility as a priority synthetic project, the Secretary, 
    in con

[[Page 8936]]

    sultation with the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies 
    shall publish in the Federal Register a Project Decision Schedule 
    containing deadlines for all Federal actions relating to such 
    project. . . .
        (3) All deadlines in the Project Decision Schedule shall be 
    consistent with the statutory obligations of Federal agencies 
    governed by such Schedule.
        (4) Except as provided in subparagraph (3) above and in 
    subsection (p) no deadline established under this section or 
    extension granted under subparagraph (5) of the section may result 
    in the total time for agency action exceeding nine months beginning 
    from the date on which notice appears in the Federal Register of an 
    order designating the proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility 
    as a priority synthetic project.
        (5) Notwithstanding any deadline or other provision of Federal 
    law, the deadlines imposed by the Project Decision Schedule shall 
    constitute the lawful decisionmaking deadlines for reviewing 
    applications filed by the priority synthetic project. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment offered by my good friend from 
    Arizona is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, it is well settled the amendment must be germane 
    not only to the section but also to the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the bill relates to the Defense Production Act.
        Mr. Chairman, under the amendment, a lengthy process is 
    established whereunder the Secretary of Energy, who is not 
    mentioned elsewhere in the bill, is authorized to designate 
    synthetic fuel or feedstocks facilities as priority synthetic 
    projects, pursuant to lengthy criteria which are set forth at the 
    first and second pages and following.
        So, Mr. Chairman, there is a whole range of broad new 
    responsibilities imposed on the Secretary of Energy not found 
    elsewhere, either in the Defense Production Act or in the bill 
    before us, which are quite complex, very obvious, and which involve 
    a lengthy amount of work and which involve amendment either 
    directly or indirectly of a large number of Federal, State, and 
    local statutes dealing with the project and permitting the project.
        There is also an extensive procedural responsibility on both 
    the Secretary and one which is imposed on the Governor of the State 
    in which the action would occur.
        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, a Member of this body could not 
    very well anticipate as would be required by the rules of 
    germaneness that an amendment of this sweep and breadth could be 
    visited upon us. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    point of order. . . .
        I make a point of order against the amendment for the following 
    reasons: The bill before us, H.R. 3930, amends the Defense 
    Production Act of 1950 and it does so by extending the authority of 
    the act and also providing for the purchase of synthetic fuels and 
    synthetic chemical feed stock and for other purposes. An 
    examination of the other purposes reveals nothing akin to the 
    amendment before us. The amendment before us in effect seeks to 
    apply the National Environmental and Policy Act

[[Page 8937]]

    of 1969, specifically on page 5 in subparagraph (d) to the 
    facilities that would contract with the Government.
        It appears to me that by attempting to do this, this is beyond 
    the scope of the jurisdiction of this committee. It is within the 
    scope of other committees' jurisdictions and certainly beyond the 
    scope of the bill, which simply deals with contracts and purchases 
    and not the environmental qualities or activities of the people who 
    seek to contract with the Government.
        Therefore, the amendment is not germane and beyond the scope of 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The pending bill 
    creates authority to finance directly and indirectly synthetic fuel 
    and chemical feed stocks, feedstock projects. . . .
        What my amendment does is not to change any of the existing 
    laws. It does not change any environmental protection laws or 
    anything else, but it says we are going to have decisions. Within 
    nine months after this is put on the fast track, we are going to 
    get a yes or no decision on it. . . .
        This amendment simply supplements the existing statutory 
    procedures to achieve expedited approval or disapproval of various 
    authorities necessary for the completion of synfuel projects 
    created under the authority of the legislation; so the subject 
    matter of the amendment is germane to the subject of the pending 
    legislation. The point of order ought to be rejected, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.

        The bill before the committee bestows authority for loan 
    guarantees to finance synthetic fuel or feedstock facility 
    construction. The amendment of the gentleman from Arizona 
    establishes a complex mechanism for expediting procedures for 
    projects financed by loan guarantees under the bill.
        The Chair is unable in response to the gentleman from Maryland 
    to find any respect in which the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Arizona would amend the National Environmental Protection Act, but 
    merely provides that determinations made as to priority of 
    synthetic projects eligible for expeditious review shall not be 
    considered major Federal actions under that law.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the totality of the Udall 
    amendment constitutes essentially an expediting of procedures under 
    authorities provided for in the bill and is, therefore, germane.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Specific Project Deemed To Satisfy Requirements of Law Being Amended

Sec. 35.88 To a bill amending an existing law (the Endangered Species 
    Act) which had been interpreted to prohibit completion of certain 
    federally funded construction projects where species of wildlife 
    would be adversely affected, an amendment providing that a specific 
    federal project permit be deemed to satisfy the requirements of 
    that law was held germane as not spe

[[Page 8938]]

    cifically broadening authorities of federal agencies not 
    administering that law.

    On Oct. 14, 1978,(16) during consideration of H.R. 14014 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 38143, 38144, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roncalio: On page 32, after line 
        21, add new section (No. 12) as follows:
            ``The Department of the Army Permit to Basin Electric Power 
        Cooperative for the Missouri Basin Power Project, issued on 
        March 23, 1978, as amended October 10, 1978, is hereby deemed 
        to satisfy the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (16 
        U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). . . .

        Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. The amendment is not germane 
    to the section of the bill to which it is offered, and in addition 
    it imposes duties upon the Secretary of Commerce that are nowhere 
    else mentioned in the bill.
        Mr. [Mark] Andrews of North Dakota: . . . If a project of this 
    type is stopped because of an interpretation of an act of the 
    Congress, how then can the rules of the Congress prohibit the same 
    Congress from amending the action so that it does not affect a 
    certain type of project? This is basically what the argument is all 
    about. And to tie up projects which would prevent the homeowners 
    from getting their electricity at a sensible cost because of the 
    interpretation of the law--if it cannot be fixed in this body where 
    can it be fixed? . . .
        Mr. [Frank E.] Evans of Colorado: . . . I think the amendment 
    now pending offered by the gentleman from Wyoming is clearly in 
    order. The simple thing this amendment does is declare a 
    legislative funding of fact relative to the Endangered Species Act. 
    Thus it is clearly germane.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule. This 
    occupant of the Chair had, as indicated, to make a rather rapid 
    analysis of the previous amendment, not having been aware of the 
    questions at issue. The present amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Wyoming would appear, based on the information that the Chair 
    has available and on the precedents available to him including the 
    precedent cited by the gentleman from Wyoming, to be germane and 
    completely in the proper form, and therefore overrules the point of 
    order in connection with the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Procedures: Content of Committee Reports--Amendment To Require 
    Statements as to Effect of Appropriations on Existing Law

Sec. 35.89 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute amending Rules 
    X and XI and making conforming and miscellaneous changes in other 
    rules to reorganize House committees, and including requirements as 
    to content and filing of com

[[Page 8939]]

    mittee reports, an amendment to Rule XXI (which relates to 
    appropriation bills and reports) to require the committee report 
    accompanying any bill containing an appropriation to state the 
    direct or indirect changes in law made by the bill and to prohibit 
    such report from containing any directive or limitation affecting 
    the appropriation that was not also contained in the bill was held 
    germane, since the issue of the content of committee reports was 
    within the purview of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    The proceedings of Oct. 8, 1974, relating to House Resolution 988, 
to reform the structure, jurisdiction and procedures of House 
committees, are discussed in Sec. 3.37, supra.

House Procedures: Committee Stage of Legislative Process--Amendment 
    Relating to Voting Procedures in Committee of Whole

Sec. 35.90 To a proposition reorganizing House committees and dealing 
    with the committee stage of the legislative process, amended to 
    delete reference to consideration of legislation in Committee of 
    the Whole, an amendment relating to voting procedures in the 
    Committee of the Whole was held to be not germane.

    On Oct. 8, 1974,(18) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration House Resolution 988, to reform the structure, 
jurisdiction and procedures of House committees. Pending was an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute amending Rules X and XI and 
making conforming changes in other rules to reform the structure, 
jurisdiction and procedures of committees, and containing miscellaneous 
provisions reorganizing certain institutional facilities of the House. 
The amendment had been perfected by amendment to eliminate a revision 
of Rule XVI which had proposed changes in Committee of the Whole 
procedure. Pursuant to a point of order, the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute was held not to be sufficiently broad in scope to admit as 
germane an amendment to Rule VIII to permit pairs on recorded votes in 
Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 34415, 34416, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[[Page 8940]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bingham to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington: On 
        page 53, after line 2, insert the following:

                       ``pairs in committee of the whole

            ``Sec. 209. The first sentence of clause 2 of rule VIII of 
        the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
        inserting `by the House or Committee of the Whole' immediately 
        before the first comma.''. . .

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment for the reason that it is an amendment to 
    rule VIII, whereas the principal resolution under consideration 
    here, House Resolution 988, attempts to amend rules X and XI only. 
    Therefore, the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Bingham: . . . This would amend title II of the resolution, 
    which is headed, ``Miscellaneous and Conforming Provisions.'' That 
    title of the resolution is not limited to changes in rules X and 
    XI. It affects other rules, section 207, for example, amendment to 
    rule XVI, and under the heading of ``Miscellaneous and Conforming 
    Provisions,'' it would seem to me that a simple amendment to rule 
    VIII would clearly be in order.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On hearing the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) and the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham), the Chair is of the opinion 
    that there is nothing in the Hansen amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as perfected, relating to voting procedures in the 
    Committee of the Whole. The miscellaneous provisions in the Hansen 
    amendment, as perfected by the Waggonner amendment, do not broaden 
    the Hansen amendment to the extent suggested by the gentleman from 
    New York.
        Therefore, the point of order must be sustained, and the point 
    of order is sustained.

Proposal To Amend House Rules With Regard to Open Hearings--Amendment 
    Affecting Investigative Funds for Minority Staff

Sec. 35.91 To a proposition amending existing law in several 
    particulars but only with regard to a single subject affected 
    thereby, an amendment proposing to modify the law in a manner not 
    related to the subject of the pending proposition is not germane; 
    this principle was applied during consideration of a resolution 
    amending clauses 26 and 27 of Rule XI to require House committee 
    and subcommittee meetings and hearings to be open to the public 
    except where the committee determined by open rollcall vote that 
    the remainder of that meeting or hearing be closed, where an 
    amendment to clause 32(c) of that rule to

[[Page 8941]]

    provide that one-third of each standing committee's investigative 
    funds be available for minority staff was held to be not germane.

    On Mar. 7, 1973,(20) during consideration of a 
resolution amending several clauses of a rule of the House but confined 
in its scope to the issue of access to committee meetings and hearings, 
an amendment to another clause of that rule relating to committee 
staffing was held to be not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 6714, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of Illinois: On page 2, 
        line 24, add a new section 4, to read as follows:
            Clause 32(c) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended to read as follows:
            ``(c) The minority party on any such standing committee is 
        entitled, upon request of a majority of such minority, to up to 
        one-third of the funds provided for the appointment of 
        committee staff pursuant to each primary or additional expense 
        resolution. The committee shall appoint any persons so selected 
        whose character and qualifications are acceptable to a majority 
        of the committee. If the committee determines that the 
        character and qualifications of any person so selected are 
        unacceptable to the committee, a majority of the minority party 
        members may select other persons for appointment by the 
        committee to the staff until such appointment is made. Each 
        staff member appointed under this subparagraph shall be 
        assigned to such committee business as the minority party 
        members of the committee consider advisable.''. . .

        Mr. [John J.] McFall [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the matter that we are considering. The matter that we 
    are considering has to do with access to committee meetings, and 
    the amendment has to do with staff make-ups, and they are entirely 
    two different subject matters. . . .
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, House Resolution 259, 
    the resolution we are considering today amends two clauses in rule 
    XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. I am proposing 
    another amendment to rule XI namely the provision dealing with 
    minority staffing of committees.
        I contend this amendment is germane and in order. Having only 
    Cannon's Procedure of the 87th Congress available to me, I quote 
    from page 201 of that volume dealing with germaneness:

            But where the bill proposes to amend existing law in 
        several particulars, no arbitrary rule can be laid down either 
        admitting or excluding further amendments to the law not 
        proposed in the pending bill, but the question of the 
        germaneness of such additional amendments must be determined in 
        each instance on the merits of the case presented (VIII, 2938).

        This ruling was made by Chairman Sydney Anderson of Minnesota 
    on June 10, 1921. I quote from volume VIII of the Precedents:

[[Page 8942]]

            The Chair does not think that the general rule can be laid 
        down that where several portions of a law are amended by a bill 
        reported by a committee, it is not in any case in order to 
        amend another section of the bill not included in the bill 
        reported by the committee, nor does the Chair think that the 
        opposite rule can be laid down and rigidly applied in every 
        instance. The Chair thinks that a question of this kind must be 
        determined in every instance in the light of the facts which 
        are presented in the case. In the particular case under 
        consideration it appears that the committee has reported a bill 
        which amends several sections of Title IV of the bill in 
        various particulars. The Chair does not feel that he can hold 
        that no amendment to a section not dealt with by the committee 
        is not in order.

        Mr. Chairman, I feel my amendment would clearly be in order.
        Mr. Chairman, the substitute rule would not make it possible 
    for any other amendments to be made to rule XI.
        It seems to me this further argues in favor of the germaneness 
    of this particular amendment. I ask that the point of order be 
    overruled.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Joe D. Waggoner, Jr. (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        House Resolution 259, while it technically amends two different 
    clauses of rule XI, relates solely to the single subject of public 
    access to House committee meetings and hearings. Thus, amendments 
    to other portions of rule XI pertaining to committee jurisdiction 
    such as staffing, and procedures other than access to hearings and 
    meetings would not be germane.
        Under the precedents, the fact that a bill amends several 
    sections of a law does not necessarily open the whole law to 
    amendment. The purpose and scope of the bill must be considered. In 
    the 89th Congress, the Committee of the Whole had under 
    consideration a bill amending the National Labor Relations Act to 
    repeal section 14(b) of that law. On that occasion, in several 
    rulings by Chairman O'Brien of New York, the principal was 
    reiterated that where a bill is amendatory of existing law in 
    several particulars, but relates to a single subject affected 
    thereby, amendments proposing to modify the law but not related to 
    the bill are not germane (July 28, 1965, Rec. p. 18631-18645).
        For this reason, the Chair holds that the amendment is not 
    germane and sustains the point of order.

Law Amended in Two Respects--Amendment To Add Postal Service Property 
    to Definition of Federal Property in Assessing ``Impact''

Sec. 35.92 To a title of a bill amending an existing law in two diverse 
    respects, an amendment further amending one section of the law 
    being amended by the bill may be germane; thus, an amendment 
    expanding the definition of federal property to include United 
    States Postal Service property under an educational assistance 
    program subsidizing school districts where there is a federal 
    ``impact'', was

[[Page 8943]]

    held germane (but was ruled out as in violation of Rule XXI, clause 
    5, since permitting a new use of funds already appropriated).

    During consideration of H.R. 12835 (2) in the Committee 
of the Whole on May 11, 1976,(3) the Chair sustained a point 
of order against an amendment, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The Vocational Education Act amendments.
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 13409-11, 13417, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

             TITLE III--TECHNICAL AID AND MISCELLANEOUS EDUCATION 
             AMENDMENTS; REPEALERS, EXTENSIONS, AND EFFECTIVE DATES

                              Technical Amendments

            Sec. 301. (a) The Education Amendments of 1974 is amended
        . . .
            (n) Section 403(17) of the Act of September 30, 1950 
        (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), is amended by striking 
        out ``(but not including'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``; 
        but at the option of a local educational agency, such term need 
        not include''; and such section is further amended by striking 
        out ``residing in nonproject areas)'' and inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``residing in noproject areas''. . . .
            (e)(1) Section 5(c)(1) of the Act of September 30, 1950 
        (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), as amended by the 
        Education Amendments of 1974, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) He shall first allocate to each local educational 
        agency which is entitled to a payment under section 2 an amount 
        equal to 100 per centum of the amount to which it is entitled 
        as computed under that section for such fiscal year and he 
        shall further allocate to each local educational agency which 
        is entitled to a payment under section 3 an amount equal to 25 
        per centum of the amount to which it is entitled as computed 
        under section 3(d) for such fiscal year.''.
            (2) Section 5(c)(2) of such Act, as so amended, is amended 
        (A) by striking out ``; and'' at the end of clause (F) and 
        substituting a period, and (B) by striking out clause (G). . . 
        .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan: Page 190, 
        immediately after line 3, insert the following:
            (g) The fourth sentence of section 403(1) (20 U.S.C. 
        244(1)) of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st 
        Congress), is amended by inserting immediately before the 
        period at the end thereof the following: ``, except that such 
        term shall include all real property owned by the United States 
        Postal Service which is not subject to any State or local real 
        property tax'' used for the support of education. . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Ford) on the grounds that it is not germane to the 
    bill under consideration.
        The gentleman's amendment seeks to amend the definitions title 
    of impact aid, Public Law 874 of the 81st Congress. The bill before 
    us contains only two technical amendments to impact aid. The 
    amendment offered by the

[[Page 8944]]

    gentleman from Michigan seeks to make a major change in the impact 
    aid law by substantially increasing payments under the program. The 
    gentleman seeks to include his amendment in title III, which 
    relates to technical and miscellaneous amendments. Clearly, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman is not technical and is 
    substantial in nature.
        It is my view that the amendment is in violation of clause 7 of 
    rule XVI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. I cite as 
    precedent for my position the ruling of the Chair on November 29, 
    1971, when the Chair ruled that an amendment to regulate a broad 
    scope of activities is not germane to a proposition imposing 
    restrictions within a limited area of activities.
        I would also cite as a precedent the ruling of the Chair on 
    April 28, 1971, to the effect that an amendment proposing changes 
    in another section of a law is not germane to a bill amending one 
    section of existing law to accomplish a particular purpose. . . .
        The amendment is also in violation of clause 5 of rule XXI, 
    relating to appropriations since the amendment is effective 
    immediately and thereby affects already appropriated funds. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In connection with the point of order the gentleman from 
    Minnesota makes regarding the question of germaneness, the Chair 
    has examined the amendment and the legislation to which the 
    amendment is offered. Upon an examination of title III, which is a 
    very diverse title and is open to amendment at any point, that 
    title actually amends Public Law 81-874 in two diverse respects, as 
    indicated on pages 214 to 217 of the Ramseyer rule in the committee 
    report, section 403 of that act is amended in the bill on page 186. 
    This amendment would make a further change in that section of the 
    law.
        Therefore, on the basis of germaneness, it is the opinion of 
    the Chair that the amendment is germane; however, with respect to 
    the point of order that the amendment violates clause 5, rule XXI, 
    it appears to the Chair, recalling the debate on the rule of 
    yesterday where points of order were waived against the committee 
    amendment, that there are in existence appropriated funds for 
    impact aid purposes which this amendment would permit to be used 
    for a new category of recipients. Since the amendment permits a new 
    use of funds already appropriated, the Chair would have to hold 
    that that amendment is a violation of clause 5, rule XXI and, 
    therefore, would sustain that portion of the point of order.
        Now, the Chair would state, of course, that we are dealing here 
    with a point of order dealing exclusively with the reuse of funds 
    already appropriated.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order in connection 
    with clause 5 of rule XXI.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the bill was primarily a vocational 
Education Act amendment and extension, title III amended miscellaneous 
education laws, including diverse laws on elementary and secondary 
education, and thus greatly broadened the scope of the bill.

[[Page 8945]]

Postal Reorganization Act Amended in Diverse Respects--Amendment to 
    Another Subsection of Act

Sec. 35.93 A proposition amending the Postal Reorganization Act in 
    several diverse respects, considered as read and open to amendment 
    at any point by unanimous consent, was considered sufficiently 
    comprehensive in scope to admit as germane an amendment to another 
    subsection of that Act to render the entire Postal Service 
    operation subject to the annual appropriation process, although the 
    section of the proposition to which offered contained an annual 
    authorization only for a limited (public service) aspect of the 
    Postal Service operation.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(5) it was demonstrated that the test 
of the germaneness of an amendment is its relationship to the pending 
portion of a bill to which offered, and where a bill is by unanimous 
consent considered as read and open to amendment at any point, the 
germaneness of an amendment thereto is determined by its relationship 
to the entire bill rather than to the particular section to which 
offered. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 30761, 30764, 30767, 30768, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk 
    will now read the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    printed in the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Postal Reorganization Act Amendments 
        of 1975''.
            Sec. 2. Section 2401(b) of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``(b)(1) There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, and 
        for each of the fiscal years ending September 30, 1977, 1978, 
        and 1979, an amount equal to $35 multiplied by the number of 
        delivery addresses estimated by the Postal Service to be served 
        during the fiscal year involved. There is authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Postal Service for the period commencing 
        July 1, 1976, and ending September 30, 1976, an amount equal to 
        one-fourth the amount authorized under this subsection for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1976. . . .

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute be considered as read, printed in the 
    Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?

[[Page 8946]]

        There was no objection. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Page 12, strike out 
        line 20 and all that follows through page 13, line 6, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 2. (a)(1) Section 2401(a) of title 39, United States 
        Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(a)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, such 
        sums as may be necessary to enable the Postal Service to carry 
        out the purposes, functions, and powers authorized by this 
        title. . . .
            (b) Section 2401(b) of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``(b)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service such sums as may be necessary as reimbursement 
        to the Postal Service for public service costs incurred by it 
        in providing a maximum degree of effective and regular postal 
        service nationwide, in communities where post offices may not 
        be deemed self-sustaining, as elsewhere.''. . .

        Mr. Hanley: Mr. Chairman, I raise [a] point of order on the 
    grounds that the matter contained in the amendment is in violation 
    of clause 7, rule XVI of the rules of the House, which provides in 
    part that--

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

        The bill under consideration, H.R. 8603, is narrow in scope 
    since it relates only to the following specific subject matters.
        First, it provides authorization for increased public service 
    appropriations by changing the statutory formula currently in 
    existence.
        Second, it would limit the amount of the next temporary rate 
    increase and would establish new procedures and limitations for the 
    implementation of other future temporary postal rates.
        Third, it would amend the law with respect to the Postal Rate 
    Commission by changing its procedures to expedite rate and 
    classification cases; by subjecting the Commissioners to Senate 
    confirmation; and by expanding the powers of the Chairman in 
    administering the Commission. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) has made a point of 
    order to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander) to section 2 of the bill. The gentleman's point of order 
    relates, in the Chair's judgment, primarily to the germaneness 
    based upon the scope of the gentleman's amendment and as it relates 
    to the scope of the bill, which bill is open to amendment at any 
    point.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander) actually amends section 2(a) of the bill, although 
    section 2(a) of the Postal Act is not amended in the bill before 
    the Committee here this afternoon.
        The Chair notes, however, as conceded by the chairman of the 
    subcommittee, there are several enumerated purposes which touch 
    upon many different ramifications and aspects of the postal law. 
    These purposes are diverse in nature.
        Since all of the bill is before the Committee at this point, 
    the Chair re

[[Page 8947]]

    luctantly comes to the conclusion that the position of the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) in his point of order is not 
    well founded and, therefore, the Chair must overrule the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from New York.

Bill Affecting Salaries and Number of Grades in Postal Field Service--
    Amendment Relating to Annual and Sick Leave

Sec. 35.94 To a bill relating to the number of grades and positions in 
    the postal field service and providing salary increases for 
    personnel in such service, an amendment relating to annual and sick 
    leave of such personnel was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
which sought to amend the act of July 6, 1945, as amended, so as to 
reduce the number of grades for the various positions under such act. 
The following amendment was offered to the bill: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 244 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 8. 97 Cong. Rec. 11773, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 20, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Victor L.] Anfuso [of New York]:
        Page 10, after line 10, insert the following:

            Sec. 4. (a) So much of section 6 of the act entitled 'An 
        act to reclassify the salaries of postmasters, officers, and 
        employees of the postal service . . . '' approved July 6, 1945, 
        as amended, as precedes the second paragraph thereof is hereby 
        amended to read as follows:

                            ``Annual and Sick Leave

            ``Sec. 6. Postmasters, officers, and employees shall be 
        granted 26 days' leave of absence with pay . . . each fiscal 
        year and sick leave with pay at the rate of 15 days a year. . . 
        .''

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

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York is not germane to the pending bill. It does not pertain to any 
    provision of the bill now under consideration which relates only to 
    salary and to reassignment of the first three grades of Public Law 
    134.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Clinton D. McKinnon (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the Chair stated before, this bill provides for the number 
    of grades and positions in the postal field service and also 
    provides salary increases for personnel in such service.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York deals 
    neither with the number of grades or positions in the postal 
    service nor with salary increases as such. It concerns an entirely 
    different matter, namely, annual and sick leave.

[[Page 8948]]

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Rights of Executive Branch Employees--Amendment Affecting Legislative 
    Branch Employees

Sec. 35.95 Unless a bill so extensively amends existing law as to open 
    up the entire law to amendment, the germaneness of an amendment to 
    the bill depends upon its relationship to the subject of the bill 
    and not to the entire law being amended; thus, to a bill amending a 
    section of title 5, United States Code, granting certain rights to 
    employees of executive agencies of the federal government, an 
    amendment extending those rights to legislative branch employees, 
    as defined in a different section of that title, was held to be 
    beyond the scope of the bill and was ruled out as not germane.

    On Oct. 28, 1975,(10) during consideration of a bill 
(11) dealing with the right to representation for federal 
executive employees during questioning, the Chair, in ruling that the 
amendment described above was not germane to that bill, reiterated the 
principle that one individual proposition is not germane to another 
individual proposition, even though the two belong to the same class:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 34031, 34036, 34037, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 6227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
        chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
        at the end thereof the following new subchapter:

                       ``SUBCHAPTER III--EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
        ``Sec. 7171. Right to representation during questioning

            ``(a) Any employee of an Executive agency under 
        investigation for misconduct which could lead to suspension, 
        removal, or reduction in rank or pay of such employee shall not 
        be required to answer questions relating to the misconduct 
        under investigation unless--
            ``(1) the employee is advised in writing of--
            ``(A) the fact that such employee is under investigation 
        for misconduct,
            ``(B) the specific nature of such alleged misconduct, and
            ``(C) the rights such employee has under paragraph (2) of 
        this subsection, and
            ``(2) the employee has been provided reasonable time, not 
        to exceed 5 working days, to obtain a representative of his 
        choice, and is allowed to have such representative present 
        during such questioning, if he so elects. . . .

        Mr. [Robin L.] Beard of Tennessee: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Beard of Tennessee: on page 1, 
        line 8 insert

[[Page 8949]]

        immediately following the word ``agency'' the following: ``, or 
        any employee as defined under section 2107 of this Title.''.

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Madam Chairman, I have a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Madam Chairman, under rule XVI, clause 7, of the Rules of the 
    House, any amendment to a bill concerning a subject different from 
    those contained in the bill is not germane and is subject to a 
    point of order. The instant amendment proposes to make the bill 
    applicable to a completely new class of employees other than what 
    is covered under the bill, namely, congressional employees. 
    However, the reported bill applies only to employees of executive 
    agencies as defined under section 105.
        In my opinion, the subject of the amendment is not similar to 
    any of the subject matters involved in H.R. 6227 which I have just 
    outlined and is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Beard of Tennessee: . . . Madam Chairman, I feel the 
    amendment is germane to this particular bill inasmuch as the people 
    we are including in this bill are Federal employees and those 
    concerning whom we are legislating today are Federal employees. . . 
    .
        Madam Chairman, if I may be heard further on the point of 
    order, all this does is to remove an exemption rather than add a 
    group of employees. It is just removing an exemption, and I believe 
    that is the fair thing to do.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill before us is very explicit as to its scope. It 
    includes any employee of an executive agency. The bill itself, by 
    its own terms, affects the class of civil servants known as 
    executive agency employees.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
    Beard) would seek to amend the bill by adding a totally different 
    individual class of employees to the bill beyond the scope of the 
    bill, namely, congressional employees as defined in section 2107.
        The rule of germaneness, in terms of amendments of this kind, 
    states as follows: One individual proposition may not be amended by 
    another individual proposition, even though the two belong to the 
    same class.
        In light of that principle and in light of the scope of this 
    bill, the Chair rules that this amendment is not germane and is, 
    therefore, out of order. . . .
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Madam Chairman, 
    respecting the chairperson's ruling, in regard to title V to which 
    this bill addresses itself, an amendment to title V includes all 
    employees, including the President, Members of Congress, and 
    members of the uniformed services, even though this bill has 
    application, as the gentlewoman has said, only to Federal 
    employees. Therefore, this title V does apply to all Federal 
    employees. . . .
        The Chairman: To the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) 
    the Chair would only state that the germaneness of the amendment 
    must be weighed against the content and scope of the bill and not 
    title V of the United States Code, as the gentleman would interpret 
    it.

[[Page 8950]]

Census and Apportionment: Amendment To Modify Law in Manner Not Related 
    to Bill

Sec. 35.96 To a bill proposing to amend an act in several particulars 
    an amendment proposing to modify the act but not related to the 
    bill is not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration proposing to amend an act relating to the decennial 
census and the apportionment of Representatives in Congress. The 
following proceedings took place on Apr. 11, 1940: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. S. 2505 (Committee on the Census).
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 4382, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) . . . The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            That an act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent 
        decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of 
        Representatives in Congress, approved June 18, 1929, is hereby 
        amended in the first sentence of section 22(a) by striking out 
        the words ``second regular session of the Seventy-first 
        Congress'' and substituting the following words: ``first 
        regular session of the Seventy-seventh Congress'', and by 
        striking out ``fifteenth'' and inserting ``sixteenth.''

        Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            The said act is further amended in the first sentence of 
        section 22(a) by striking out the words, ``the then existing 
        number of Representatives'' and substituting the following 
        words, ``300 Representatives.''

        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order against the amendment that it is not 
    germane. . . .

    In ruling on the point of order, the Chairman, stated: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 4383, 4384, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is no question that the amendment would have been germane 
    to the act of 1929. The precedents, however, seem to be very 
    definite on the proposition that when a bill proposes to amend an 
    act in several particulars an amendment proposing to modify the act 
    but not related to the bill is not germane. . . .
        The pending section of the bill does not in any way affect the 
    total number of Members of the House but only proposes to change 
    the time when the statement of the President must be transmitted to 
    Congress. The Chair is of the opinion therefore that the amendment 
    is not germane and sustains the point of order.

District of Columbia: Bill Conferring Broad Powers on New Community 
    Development and Finance Corporation--Amendment Limiting Authority 
    of District of Columbia Council Over Parking

Sec. 35.97 To a bill conferring broad powers on a new Com

[[Page 8951]]

    munity Development and Finance Corporation for the District of 
    Columbia and narrowly affecting the powers of the District of 
    Columbia Council to the extent that it would only be preempted from 
    interfering with congressional approval authority over projects 
    proposed by the Corporation, an amendment limiting the authority of 
    the Council (and not the Corporation) over all parking in the 
    District of Columbia and not confined to the Corporation's 
    authority over parking and the Council's relation thereto was held 
    to go beyond the scope of the bill and was held to be not germane.

    On Oct. 10, 1974,(17) during consideration of H.R. 15888 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order in 
the circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 35216-19, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman:(18) The Clerk will report the 
    committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sidney R. Yates (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments: On page 2, in the table of contents, 
        insert ``Sec. 309. Audits.'' immediately following ``Sec. 308. 
        Annual report.''. . .

                            ``powers of the council

            ``Sec. 313. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, or 
        any rule of law, nothing in this Act shall be construed as 
        limiting the authority of the District of Columbia Council to 
        enact any act, resolution, or regulation, after January 2, 
        1975, pursuant to the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
        Governmental Reorganization Act with respect to any matter 
        covered by this Act.''

        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendments.
        The committee amendments were agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Walter E.] Fauntroy [Delegate from the District of 
    Columbia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a series of amendments and ask 
    unanimous consent that they may be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the Delegate 
    from the District of Columbia?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Fauntroy: Page 33, after line 21, 
        insert the following:

                     reservation of congressional authority

            Sec. 303. (a) The corporation shall not undertake any 
        project unless such project, including a cost estimate, has 
        been submitted by the corporation to, and has been approved by, 
        the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
        Representatives and the Senate.
            (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as amending or 
        modifying the financing, appropriation, or budget process of 
        the government of the District of Columbia, as established in 
        parts D and E of title IV,

[[Page 8952]]

        and section 603 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
        Governmental Reorganization Act.
            Page 41, immediately after line 26, insert the following:
            (b) Notwithstanding any provision of the District of 
        Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, 
        the District of Columbia Council shall have no authority to 
        modify or amend the provisions of section 303 of this Act. . . 
        .

        The amendments were agreed to.
        Mr. [Stanford E.] Parris [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments and ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Virginia?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Parris: Page 41, at the end of 
        section 313, insert the following:
            ``(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
        District of Columbia Council (established under Reorganization 
        Plan Numbered 3 of 1967) and, after January 2, 1975, the 
        Council of the District of Columbia established under the 
        District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
        Reorganization Act, shall have no authority to adopt any rule 
        or regulation with respect to the utilization of parking 
        facilities (including on-street and off-street parking) within 
        the District of Columbia which is more restrictive upon 
        nonresidents of the District of Columbia than residents of the 
        District of Columbia. Notwithstanding any provision of the 
        District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
        Reorganization Act, the Council of the District of Columbia 
        shall have no authority to modify or amend the provisions of 
        this subsection.''

        Mr. [Charles C.] Diggs [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    nongermane. The purpose of H.R. 15888 is to accomplish several 
    specific goals, including the development of low- and moderate-
    income housing, increase employment opportunities for District 
    residents, and the development of substandard and blighted 
    residential, commercial, and industrial areas in our National 
    Capital in time for our Nation's Bicentennial. Clearly, the powers 
    conferred on the proposed Corporation are specifically subject to 
    the limited and circumscribed purpose in the provisions of the 
    bill. Accordingly, we must read the powers of the bill contained in 
    section 201 in the context of the purposes and findings contained 
    in section 102. Nowhere do we find a statement that the Corporation 
    may engage in establishing parking facilities or the regulation 
    thereof. To argue that the powers are so broad as to allow an 
    amendment which purpose is to restrict the overall powers of the 
    Council is, in my view, outside of the purposes of H.R. 15888 and 
    therefore nongermane. . . .
        Any amendment which seeks to deal with Council authority over 
    parking in areas under the control of the United States or the 
    District of Columbia government, which would include the streets of 
    the District, clearly goes beyond the limited powers granted the 
    Corporation under this act. Accordingly, it would be nongermane. . 
    . .
        Mr. Parris: . . . Section 313 of H.R. 15888, as amended by my 
    colleague, Mr. Fauntroy, providing for a subsection b to section 
    313, directly and expressly limits and thereby amends the District 
    of Columbia Self-Govern

[[Page 8953]]

    ment and Governmental Reorganization Act, as it relates to 
    provisions of H.R. 15888.
        My amendment does no more and goes no further than does the 
    amendment submitted by Mr. Fauntroy.
        With respect to the developmental powers that may be exercised 
    by the District of Columbia Community Development and Finance 
    Corporation and according to the provisions of the act and as 
    stated in the report on page 7, that corporation which is an 
    instrumentality of the District government may:

            18. Construct, manage or operate public facilities for the 
        District government or any other public body, at its request.

        As I read this and as any responsible man would read this, the 
    District government, if it wishes, could by enactment or regulation 
    permit this instrumentality of the District of Columbia, the 
    District of Columbia Development and Finance Corporation, to manage 
    and operate parking facilities in the District of Columbia, be they 
    on public property such as those where meters now exist or other 
    public property in residential areas where a ban on nonresidential 
    parking could be imposed.
        Item 17 on page 7 of the report indicated that the corporation 
    may:

            Manage its own property, or to enter into agreement with 
        the District of Columbia government or a private entity for the 
        management of property.

        Here again, this would certainly permit this corporation to 
    engage in the management of on-street parking in the District of 
    Columbia in either commercial or residential areas at the direction 
    and discretion of the District of Columbia government and this 
    corporation which is its instrumentality. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I submit that title II of H.R. 15888 is so broad 
    and so general that it permits this corporation, which it 
    establishes, to perform nearly any function that the District of 
    Columbia government itself could perform, because by and large such 
    powers and authority could be delegated to it if, in fact, title II 
    of the bill does not directly and expressly give those powers to 
    that corporation. . . .

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia directly 
    limits the powers of the present District of Columbia Council, and 
    of the Council to be established under the Home Rule Act, to 
    regulate all parking facilities within the District of Columbia. 
    The bill H.R. 15888, which the gentleman's amendment seeks to 
    amend, establishes a Community Development and Finance Corporation 
    and gives such corporation certain powers. It does not appear to 
    the Chair that the scope of the bill extends to regulation, either 
    by the Corporation or by the City Council, of all parking within 
    the District of Columbia.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia does not 
    even mention the powers of the Corporation which is the primary 
    subject of H.R. 15888, but limits instead the powers of the City 
    Council. While a narrowly drawn amendment limiting the power of the 
    Corporation to institute parking

[[Page 8954]]

    regulations over lands within its jurisdiction might be germane, 
    the issue of the overall powers of the District of Columbia 
    Council, as to all areas of regulation, is not comprehended in the 
    bill.
        The gentleman from Virginia has argued that the amendment 
    already incorporated into the bill is similar to his amendment, and 
    that his amendment no more limits the powers of the Council or 
    amends the Home Rule Act than does the adopted amendment. The new 
    section 303, added by amendment of the gentleman from the District 
    of Columbia, only limits the powers of the Council as to the 
    requirement that projects which the Corporation is authorized to 
    undertake be submitted for approval to congressional committees. 
    The new section 303 directly relates to the financing of projects 
    authorized in the bill, and the section further states that the 
    Council may not change the requirement of submission for 
    congressional approval. It does not appear to the Chair that that 
    provision in any way amends the powers of the Council under the 
    Home Rule Act or that it touches on any subject not in the bill 
    H.R. 15888.
        Section 313, added by committee amendment to specify that the 
    bill does not preempt the legislative authority conferred on the 
    City Council under the Home Rule Act, does not bring the subject of 
    the general powers of the City Council under the Home Rule Act 
    within the purview of the bill, except to the extent that the 
    Council may or may not control the activities of the Corporation.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Restrictions on Funds for Legal Services Corporation--Amendment Making 
    Criminal and Civil Laws Applicable to Corporation

Sec. 35.98 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    subjecting funds for the Legal Services Corporation to a 
    comprehensive series of restrictions on its activities for that 
    fiscal year and reconstituting its board of directors, a proposed 
    amendment also applying to that corporation ``with respect to the 
    use of funds in the bill'' certain substantive provisions of 
    Federal criminal and civil law not otherwise applicable to it was 
    held not germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 26, 1989, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 2991, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990, are discussed 
in Sec. 34.37, supra.

Laws Governing Handguns Made Applicable to Rifles--Amendment Requiring 
    Firearm Registration

Sec. 35.99 To a bill which sought, as part of a comprehensive scheme 
    for the regulation of

[[Page 8955]]

    transfers of firearms, to extend the provisions of existing law 
    governing handguns to transactions involving rifles and shotguns 
    and to specify regulations for the identification of firearms by 
    importers and manufacturers, an amendment requiring registration of 
    firearms by the purchasers thereof was held to be an extension of 
    matter already carried in the bill and therefore germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the State Firearms 
Control Assistance Act of 1968,(19) an amendment was offered 
which stated in part: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 17735 (Committee on the Judiciary).
20. See 114 Cong. Rec. 22248, 22249, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 
        1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: . . . 
    On page 32, after line 11, insert the following:

                     Chapter 44a--Registration of Handguns
        Sec.
        931. Definitions
        932. Registration . . .

            Sec. 932. Registration.--(a) It is unlawful for a person 
        knowingly to possess a firearm not registered in accordance 
        with the provisions of this section. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 22249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the bill. 
    Here the amendment goes far beyond the purposes of the bill and 
    imposes a whole new series of responsibilities on the Secretary, 
    including registration of firearms. . . .
        I submit, in conclusion, the [amendment] offered by my friend 
    goes far beyond the matter before the House, compels entirely new 
    duties and responsibilities, adds entirely new classes of persons, 
    creates entirely new regulatory problems, and, indeed, advances and 
    enhances in enormous manner the scope of the bill, far beyond that 
    which was submitted to this body and far beyond that which was 
    contemplated by the committee.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 22249, 22250, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he bill which the Committee of the Whole is now 
    considering seeks to regulate the various transactions involving 
    rifles, shotguns, and handguns. It provides for the identification 
    of such firearms by manufacturers and importers and, as amended by 
    the Committee on the Judiciary and by this committee earlier this 
    afternoon, specifies that this identification shall include serial 
    numbers. Licensed importers, dealers, and manufacturers are 
    required to retain descriptions of the firearms with which they 
    deal.
        The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    McClory] is drafted as a further amendment to

[[Page 8956]]

    title 18, United States Code, the same portion of the Code amended 
    by the pending bill. It carries the concept of registration or 
    identification to the persons having handguns in their possession. 
    The system of registration established by the amendment would be 
    under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury, the same 
    officer designated for this purpose by the bill.
        The Chair notes that the bill makes at least three major 
    innovations in the existing law concerning gun control: it extends 
    that law with respect to transactions in rifles and shotguns; it 
    brings ammunition within the scheme of the law; and it modifies the 
    law regarding shipment and sale of destructive devices. Since 
    present law is modified in the foregoing ways, an additional change 
    in the law and the bill--a change that is an extension of a subject 
    already carried in the bill--is germane.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Disposal of Surplus Military Equipment--Amendment Prohibiting Transfer 
    of Surplus Guns

Sec. 35.100 To a bill authorizing appropriations for military 
    procurement and containing provisions modifying existing law with 
    respect to the disposal of surplus military equipment, an amendment 
    proposing a further modification of that law to prohibit the 
    transfer of surplus guns and ammunition to individuals, clubs or 
    organizations was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
relating to military procurement authorization for fiscal 1969. The 
bill stated in part as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. S. 3293 (Committee on Armed Services).
 5. See 114 Cong. Rec. 20761, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 11, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

        Sec. 201. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated during 
    the fiscal year 1969 for the use of the Armed Forces of the United 
    States for research, development, test, and evaluation, as 
    authorized by law in amounts as follows:
        For the Army, $1,641,900,000. . . .

                        Title IV--General Provisions

        Sec. 404. (a) Chapter 163 of title 10, United States Code, is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

            Sec. 2576. Obsolete and surplus military equipment: sale to 
        State, local law enforcement, and firefighting agencies
            (a) The Secretary of Defense . . . shall sell to State, 
        local law enforcement and firefighting agencies, at fair market 
        value, obsolete and surplus military equipment. . . .
            (b) Obsolete and surplus military equipment shall not be 
        sold under the provisions of this section to a State, local law 
        enforcement or fire

[[Page 8957]]

        fighting agency unless request therefor is made by such agency, 
        in such form and manner as the Secretary of Defense shall 
        prescribe. . . . Such equipment may not be sold, or otherwise 
        transferred, by such agency to any individual or public or 
        private organization or agency.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 20767.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: On 
    page 11, line 17, strike out the period and substitute a comma and 
    insert the following: ``Provided, however, That no surplus or 
    obsolete military guns or ammunition shall be sold or loaned or 
    otherwise transferred to any private individual, association, 
    board, club, or organization.''

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

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: . . . [T]he amendment is 
    out of order because this is an amendment pertaining to the 
    domestic distribution of firearms and firefighting equipment. It is 
    not consistent with the essence of the bill as prescribed under 
    section 2576 and the actions of the Secretary of Defense.

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The whole section . . . deals with obsolete and surplus 
    military equipment. This is a further limitation on that. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Penalties for Inciting Riot--Gun Control Amendment

Sec. 35.101 To a bill amending a title of the United States Code to 
    provide penalties for travel in or use of interstate facilities 
    with intent to incite a riot, an amendment which sought to control 
    and regulate the shipment of firearms in interstate commerce was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill (8) 
amending Title 18 of the United States Code and making it a crime to 
travel in or use interstate facilities with the intent to incite a 
riot, an amendment was offered which sought to add to Title 18 a 
comprehensive gun control law and to repeal the Federal Firearms Act, 
found in Title 15.(9) Mr. Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana, 
reserved a point of order against the amendment.(10) The 
following exchange ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 421 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 9. See the amendment at 113 Cong. Rec. 19408-12, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 19, 1967.
10. Id. at p. 19412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the grounds that the amendment is 
    not germane to the pending legislation.

[[Page 8958]]

        Mr. Willis: That is the reservation that I had in mind.
        Mr. Gross: I have no reservation, I am making the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Willis: All right.

    The proponent of the amendment, Mr. Richard D. McCarthy, of New 
York, stated in response to the point of order:

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is germane because the pattern of 
    these riots is clear. Guerrilla warfare in the streets with snipers 
    pouring deadly gunfire from roofs. . . . 

    After some further remarks, and in response to objections of Mr. 
Gross, the Chairman (11) made the request that Mr. McCarthy 
``confine his remarks to the point of order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaking in support of the point of order, Mr. Willis stated: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 19413, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill before the Committee is one which proscribes travel by 
    people across State lines in furtherance of rioting.
        The amendment would add a new chapter, chapter 102, to title 18 
    of the Code under the subject of ``Riots.'' The words ``Chapter 102 
    of the Code'' are not even mentioned in this strange and completely 
    disassociated amendment. . . . 

    The following exchange, directed to the point of order, concerned 
the meaning of the terms of the bill:

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: . . . If a rifle, which 
    is an integral part of effective and deadly riot, is shipped in 
    interstate commerce, it seems to me that it does relate to a 
    facility in interstate or foreign commerce, the shipment of which 
    is with the intent to incite a riot or other violent disturbance, 
    and that therefore the amendment . . . is germane. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . [T]he use of 
    ``facility'' in the bill before the committee is designed to mean a 
    facility of transportation or communication and not a facility such 
    as an instrument of firearms. . . . 

    The Chairman, in ruling on the point of order, stated:

        The committee has before it H.R. 421, a bill which adds a new 
    chapter entitled ``Riots'' to title 18, United States Code, and it 
    makes certain activities in interstate commerce unlawful, and 
    specific penalties are provided.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    McCarthy] makes unlawful certain actions and deals in sale and 
    transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of firearms or 
    ammunition. The amendment provides a comprehensive legislative 
    scheme for control for interstate shipment of firearms.
        The Chair feels that the amendment comes within the rule of 
    germaneness, wherein it is said that one individual proposition may 
    not be amended by another individual proposition even though the 
    two belong to the same class. . . .
        . . . [T]he Chair feels that while [the bill and the amendment] 
    are simi

[[Page 8959]]

    lar, there are differences . . . and the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.

Diverse Amendments to Laws Relating to Intelligence Community--
    Amendments Relating to Accountability for Intelligence Activities

Sec. 35.102 To a proposition dealing with a subject matter by diverse 
    changes in existing laws, an amendment relating to that same 
    general subject matter may be germane although including additional 
    changes in law not contained in the bill; thus, to a bill 
    authorizing funding for the intelligence community for one fiscal 
    year and making diverse changes in permanent laws relating to the 
    intelligence community (including laws concerning congressional 
    oversight of certain intelligence activities), an amendment 
    changing another permanent law to address accountability for 
    intelligence activities was held germane.

    On Oct. 17, 1990,(13) during consideration of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991 (14) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 136 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H.R. 5422.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The text of the bill is as follows: . . . 

                        TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
        Sec. 101. Authorization of Appropriations.

            Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
        year 1991 for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-
        related activities of the following elements of the United 
        States Government:
            (1) The Central Intelligence Agency.
            (2) The Department of Defense.
            (3) The Defense Intelligence Agency. . . . 

                     TITLE II--INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY STAFF
        Sec. 201. Authorization of Appropriations.

            There are authorized to be appropriated for the 
        Intelligence Community Staff for fiscal year 1991 $27,900,000.
        Sec. 202. Authorization of Personnel End Strength

             TITLE III--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND 
                    DISABILITY SYSTEM AND RELATED PROVISIONS
        Sec. 301 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

            There are authorized to be appropriated for the Central 
        Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund for fiscal 
        year 1991 $164,600,000. . . . 

[[Page 8960]]

                          TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
        Sec. 401. Increase in Employee Compensation and Benefits 
        Authorized By Law.

            Appropriations authorized by this Act for salary, pay, 
        retirement, and other benefits for federal employees may be 
        increased by such additional or supplemental amounts as may be 
        necessary for increases in such compensation or benefits 
        authorized by law. . . . 

             TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE PROVISIONS
        Sec. 501. Reimbursement Rate For Certain Airlift Service.

            (a) The Secretary of Defense is authorized to grant the use 
        of the Department of Defense reimbursement rate for military 
        airlift services provided by the Department of Defense to the 
        Central Intelligence Agency if the Secretary of Defense 
        determines that such services are provided in support of 
        authorized intelligence activities. . . .
        Sec. 502. Public Availability of Maps, Etc., Produced By 
        Defense Mapping Agency.

            (A) In General.--(1) Chapter 167 of title 10, United States 
        Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
        section:
        ``Sec. 2796. Maps, charts, and geodetic data: public 
        availability; exceptions

            ``(a) The Defense Mapping Agency shall offer for sale maps 
        and charts at scales of 1:500,000 and smaller, except those 
        withheld in accordance with subsection (b) or those 
        specifically authorized under criteria established by Executive 
        order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or 
        foreign policy and in fact properly classified pursuant to such 
        Executive order.
        Sec. 503. use of commercial activities as cover support for 
        intelligence collection activities of the department of 
        defense.

            (a) In General.--Chapter 21 of title 10, United States 
        Code, is amended . . . 
            (2) by adding at the end the following:

              ``SUBCHAPTER II--INTELLIGENCE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

            ``431. Authority to engage in commercial activities as 
        security for defense intelligence collection activities . . . 
        ``Sec. 437. Congressional oversight

            ``(a) Proposed Regulations.--Copies of regulations proposed 
        to be prescribed under section 436 of this title (including any 
        proposed revision to such regulations) shall be submitted to 
        the intelligence committees not less than 30 days before they 
        take effect. . . .
            ``(c) Annual Report.--Not later than January 15 of each 
        year, the Secretary shall submit to the intelligence committees 
        a report on all commercial activities authorized under this 
        subchapter that were undertaken during the previous fiscal 
        year. . . .
        Sec. 504. disclosure to members of congress of classified 
        defense intelligence agency report relating to military 
        personnel listed as prisoner, missing, or unaccounted for.

            The Secretary of Defense shall provide to any Member of 
        Congress, upon request, full and complete access to the 
        classified report of the Defense Intelligence Agency commonly 
        known as the Tighe Report, relating to efforts by the Special 
        Office for Prisoners of War/Missing in Action of the Defense 
        Intelligence Agency to fully account for United

[[Page 8961]]

        States military personnel listed as prisoner, missing, or 
        unaccounted for in military actions. . . .

        Mrs. [Barbara] Boxer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Boxer: Page 25, after line 18, 
        insert the following new title:

                 TITLE VI--OVERSIGHT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
        Sec. 601. congressional oversight.

            (a) In General.--Section 501 of the National Security Act 
        of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413) is amended to read as follows:

                           ``congressional oversight

            ``Sec. 501. (a) The President shall ensure that the Select 
        Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent 
        Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
        Representatives (hereinafter in this title referred to as the 
        ``intelligence committees'') are kept fully and currently 
        informed of the intelligence activities of the United States 
        including any significant anticipated intelligence activities, 
        as required by this title, except that--
            ``(1) nothing contained in this title shall be construed as 
        requiring the approval of the intelligence committees as a 
        condition precedent to the initiation of intelligence gathering 
        activities. . . .
            ``(b) The President, upon being made aware of any 
        allegations of illegal intelligence activity, shall immediately 
        report such allegations to the intelligence committees and keep 
        the intelligence committees informed of the ongoing 
        investigations into such activities, such reports to encompass 
        any measures taken to prevent a recurrence of such illegal 
        activity, including the reporting of such activity to the 
        Department of Justice for prosecution.
            ``(c) The President and the intelligence committees shall 
        each establish procedures as may be necessary to carry out the 
        provisions of this title, including procedures to ensure that 
        each is kept fully and currently informed of intelligence 
        activities.
            ``(d) The House of Representatives and the Senate, in 
        consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, shall 
        each establish, by rule or resolution of such House, procedures 
        to ensure that all members of the Congress are informed 
        regarding intelligence activities to the extent consistent with 
        the need to protect from unauthorized disclosure classified 
        information and information relating to intelligence sources 
        and methods furnished to the intelligence committees or to 
        Members of Congress under this title. In accordance with such 
        procedures, each of the intelligence committees shall promptly 
        call to the attention of its respective House, or to any 
        appropriate committee or committees of its respective House, 
        any matter relating to intelligence activities requiring the 
        attention of such House or such committee or committees.
            ``(e) As used in this section, the term ``intelligence 
        activities'' includes `covert actions', as defined in section 
        503(e).''
            (b) Information Required To Be Disclosed; Findings.--The 
        National Security Act of 1947 is amended--
            (1) by redesignating sections 502 and 503 as sections 505 
        and 506, respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after section 501 the following:

                      ``reporting intelligence activities

            ``Sec. 502. To the extent consistent with due regard for 
        the protection from unauthorized disclosure of clas

[[Page 8962]]

        sified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources 
        and methods, the President shall--
            ``(1) keep the intelligence committees fully and currently 
        informed of all intelligence activities which are the 
        responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or 
        on behalf of the United States Government, including any 
        significant anticipated intelligence activity and significant 
        failures; and
            ``(2) furnish the intelligence committees any information 
        or material concerning intelligence activities which is within 
        their custody or control and which is requested by either of 
        the intelligence committees in order to carry out its 
        authorized responsibilities. . . .
            ``Sec. 503. (a) In setting forth the procedures regulating 
        covert actions, this title shall not be construed as 
        authorizing the use of covert operations as a routine means of 
        conducting foreign policy or achieving foreign policy 
        objectives.
            ``(b) The President may not conduct covert actions without 
        prior approval by the intelligence committees, except as set 
        forth in subsection (c)(6).
            ``(c) Approval of a covert action by the intelligence 
        committees shall be predicated on the following: . . . 
            ``(6) The approval by the intelligence committees of each 
        covert action must be obtained in writing before the covert 
        action can commence, except that the President may under 
        extraordinary and emergency conditions, when time is of the 
        essence, initiate a covert action prior to receiving approval 
        from the intelligence committees, but such covert action shall 
        cease within 48 hours of initiation unless express written 
        approval of the covert action is given by the intelligence 
        committees pursuant to such procedures as the intelligence 
        committees may adopt to ensure a prompt response in such 
        circumstances.
            ``(d) The President shall--
            ``(1) keep the intelligence committees fully and currently 
        informed of the status of all covert actions which are carried 
        out for or on behalf of the United States Government, including 
        significant failures;
            ``(2) furnish to the intelligence committees any 
        information or material concerning covert actions which is in 
        the possession, custody, or control of the executive branch and 
        which is requested by either of the intelligence committees; . 
        . .
            ``Sec. 504. Any person who knowingly initiates or 
        participates in a covert action in violation of this title 
        shall be guilty of a felony punishable by up to 20 years in 
        Federal prison, a fine of $100,000, or both.''. . . 

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI. . . . 
    The proposed amendment is not germane to the bill because it deals 
    with matters beyond the scope of the bill's provisions and the 
    amendment includes matters within the jurisdiction of committees of 
    the House not reporting the bill under consideration.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane, and consequently 
    violates clause 7 of rule XVI in the following specific respects:
        First, the bill authorizes funds for a limited number of 
    executive departments or their subcomponents specified in section 
    101 of the bill and makes a few very modest changes in the 
    statutory authorities of only a few of those agencies.
        The amendment would enact a comprehensive scheme of oversight 
    and reporting requirements for all U.S. intelligence activities 
    which are engaged in by any U.S. Government agency, not

[[Page 8963]]

    just those covered by the bill, as well as by third parties outside 
    of the U.S. Government. (Amndt: p. 4, lines 6-12.)
        In this regard, I call attention to a ruling by the Chair on 
    September 27, 1967 (113 Cong. Rec. page 26957) cited in section 
    798f of the Rules and Practice of the House of Representatives. 
    That ruling states that, ``To a bill limited in its applicability 
    to certain departments and agencies of government, an amendment 
    applicable to all departments and agencies is not germane.''

        Second, the only provision of the bill addressing congressional 
    oversight of intelligence is section 503. That provision is limited 
    to oversight related only to one specific and narrow class of 
    intelligence activities, and that is commercial cover activities to 
    provide security only for intelligence collection. Moreover, 
    section 503 of the bill applies only to elements of one executive 
    department, the Defense Department, and the provision expires at 
    the end of 5 years.
        The amendment goes far beyond that one new and specifically 
    limited oversight subject in the bill. The amendment provides for a 
    comprehensive oversight system for intelligence activities of the 
    U.S. Government in general, and in some cases the role of outside 
    third parties. The amendment is also not limited in duration, as is 
    section 503 of the bill, but is broader because it would enact a 
    permanent statutory change. In these regards, the amendment is not 
    germane because it is more general in nature than the only 
    provision of the bill which deals with one particular and narrow 
    class within the general subject of intelligence oversight 
    reporting.
        The amendment further requires, as part of its oversight 
    scheme, that the House and Senate establish certain procedures by 
    adopting internal rules or resolutions, matters not dealt with in 
    any form by the bill. (Amndt: page 3, lines 4-18.)
        Third, the amendment is not germane because its text consists 
    entirely of provisions repealing or amending sections of two 
    statutes not amended or addressed by the bill under consideration.
        The amendment extensively amends title V of the National 
    Security Act of 1947, codified in title 50 of the United States 
    Code, and repeals section 662 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961, codified in title 22 of the United States Code. The bill does 
    not amend either of those statutes, and indeed, does not amend any 
    part of title 22 of the United States Code.
        Section 799 of the Rules and Practice of the House of 
    Representatives cites a ruling by the Chair on May 11, 1976, that, 
    ``Generally to a bill amending one existing law, an amendment 
    changing the provisions of another law . . . is not germane.'' 
    Precedents cited in sections 33.1 and 33.3 of chapter 28 of 
    Procedures in the U.S. House of Representatives, 97th Congress, 4th 
    Edition (Deschler and Brown) support this principle with which the 
    proposed amendment is inconsistent.
        Furthermore, chapter 28, section 33.14 of Deschler and Brown's 
    Procedures in the U.S. House of Representatives, 97th Congress, 4th 
    Edition cites a precedent from a ruling of March 7, 1974 (120 Cong 
    Rec. 5653, 5654, 93rd Cong. 2nd Sess.) that, ``An amendment 
    repealing existing law has been held not germane to a bill not 
    amending that law.'' In proposing to repeal a sec

[[Page 8964]]

    tion of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, a statute not amended 
    by the bill, the proposed amendment is not germane. (Amndt: page 1, 
    lines 3-4.)
        Fourth, the amendment is not germane because it fails the test 
    of committee jurisdiction under section 798c of the Rules and 
    Practice of the House of Representatives by including matters 
    within the jurisdiction of committees not reporting the bill, the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs and Rules.
        The amendment would repeal section 662 of the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1961. That act is within the jurisdiction of the 
    Foreign Affairs Committee. (Amndt: page 1, lines 3-4.)
        The amendment also would require the House (and one of its 
    committees) to establish certain internal procedures by the 
    adoption of House rules or resolutions. Such matters are within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules. (Amndt: p. 3, lines 4-18.)
        Fifth, the amendment (at p. 8, lines 8-12) would create a penal 
    offense, whereas the pending bill does not deal with or create any 
    criminal offenses. In addition, the committees reporting the bill 
    do not have jurisdiction to consider such matters. In that regard, 
    I would call the attention of the Chair to a precedent of the 
    House, rulings by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Mr. 
    Forand on April 7, 1960. In those rulings, the Chair sustained 
    points of order against two amendments to a pending amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute to a bill relating to employment of 
    retired officers by Defense contractors reported from the Armed 
    Services Committee. Those points of order were sustained by the 
    Chair, which ruled that the substitutes dealt with the imposition 
    of criminal penalties, a matter not dealt with in the proposition 
    being amended. Further, the Chair ruled that the substitutes' 
    imposition of criminal penalties was a matter outside the 
    jurisdiction of the committee which had reported the pending bill 
    [Armed Services] and, if offered as a separate bill, would have to 
    be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        For all the reasons given and in light of the precedents cited, 
    the amendment is not germane, and therefore it violates clause 7 of 
    rule XVI. I insist upon my point of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mrs. Boxer: . . . We feel it is absolutely germane. We feel 
    that there are other provisions in the bill, for example on page 26 
    and page 33 that talk about permanent changes in law, and we would 
    say that this is absolutely germane.
        My goodness, we are talking about covert activities, and 
    certainly the Intelligence Committee, and it is hard for me to 
    believe that someone could say that a discussion of covert 
    activities in this particular amendment would not be germane to the 
    intelligence authorization bill. . . .
        Mr. [Anthony C.] Beilenson [of California]: . . . I recognize 
    the right of the gentleman, of course, to make this point of order 
    and, in fact, I do not know how the Chair will rule on the 
    precedents which the gentleman from Illinois has cited. I would 
    only ask that in its ruling the Chair consider the fact that there 
    are already provisions in the bill which do broaden its scope. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (15) . . . The Chair is prepared to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Bill Nelson (Fla.).

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

[[Page 8965]]

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) makes the point of order 
    that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California is 
    not germane to the bill. The amendment adds a new title and must be 
    germane to the bill as a whole, as amended.
        The bill authorizes funding for the intelligence community for 
    1 fiscal year and makes several, diverse changes in permanent law 
    relating to sundry authorities of the Central Intelligence Agency 
    and the Department of Defense. For example, the bill makes changes 
    in the CIA retirement and disability system; it authorizes the 
    Secretary of Defense to permit components of DOD to charge the CIA 
    the same rate for airlift services that they would charge another 
    component of DOD; and it authorizes the Secretary of Defense to 
    withhold certain geodetic products from disclosure under the 
    Freedom of Information Act. In addition, the bill, as perfected, 
    includes the amendment recommended by the Committee on Armed 
    Services directing the Secretary of Defense to provide Members of 
    Congress access to a classified report of the Defense Intelligence 
    Agency assessing efforts to account for military personnel listed 
    as prisoners of war or missing in action.
        The amendment at the desk does not repeal the Hughes-Ryan law, 
    but does amend title V of the National Security Act of 1947--
    relating to accountability for intelligence activities. Among other 
    things, it assigns to the President several responsibilities of the 
    type that the existing act assigns to lower officials, such as the 
    Director of Central Intelligence.
        Although the bill does not amend the National Security Act of 
    1947, neither does it confine itself to authorities and activities 
    of the intelligence community. In addition to the changes in 
    permanent law already noted, at section 503 the bill inserts new 
    provisions in title 10 of the United States Code--relating to the 
    Armed Forces--to ensure congressional oversight of activities of 
    the Department of Defense in commercial cover of intelligence 
    operations.
        Thus, the subject matter of the amendment--the relationship 
    between the executive branch and the Congress with respect to the 
    authorities and activities of the intelligence community--is one of 
    the diverse topics already addressed in the bill.
        Accordingly, the point of order is overruled.
        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question?
        Mr. Chairman, I did not hear that part, what the Chair read 
    about the criminal penalties that she inserts in the law, and my 
    point that that should go to the Committee on the Judiciary, that 
    it is certainly beyond the scope of our bill.
        I must have missed that. How did the Chair rule on that, sir?
        The Chairman: The Chair thinks that the bill, as presented and 
    amended contains provisions within several committee jurisdictions. 
    Therefore the amendment need not meet a strict jurisdictional test. 
    Accordingly, the Chair rules that the point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Hyde's point of order anticipated 
inclusion in the Boxer amendment of a provision repealing the so-called 
``Hughes-Ryan'' amendment

[[Page 8966]]

to the Foreign Assistance Act (22 U.S.C. 2422), a law not amended by 
the bill and within the partial jurisdiction of another committee 
(Foreign Affairs). The offered amendment did not include that proposed 
repeal but did include the criminal provision cited in the point of 
order. As indicated in the Chair's follow-up response, it was only 
because of the diverse nature of the bill that the criminal provision 
was held germane. (Compare Apr. 7, 1960, rulings in sections 4.39 and 
4.40, supra, cited by Mr. Hyde.) In those cases the points of order 
were sustained that the criminal sanction provisions contained in the 
amendments attempted to attain a result by a method unrelated to the 
narrow purpose of the bill. The pending proposition in those cases was 
not diverse and therefore not susceptible to the amendments ruled out.

Bill Amending 1937 Flood Control Act--Amendment To Amend 1936 Act

Sec. 35.103 To a bill proposing to amend the Flood Control Act of 1937, 
    an amendment proposing to amend the Flood Control Act of 1936 was 
    held to be not germane, the act of 1936 having been enacted for 
    purposes not related to the bill.

    The ruling described above was made on July 6, 1939.(16) 
Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 8715, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6634 (Committee on Flood Control).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 6634) amending previous flood-
    control acts and authorizing certain preliminary examinations and 
    surveys for flood control, and for other purposes.
        There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That section 2 of the Flood Control 
        Act of August 28, 1937, is hereby amended to read as follows:
            ``That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to allot 
        not to exceed $300,000 from any appropriations heretofore or 
        hereafter made for any one fiscal year for flood control, for 
        removing accumulated snags and other debris and clearing 
        channels in navigable streams and tributaries thereof when in 
        the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such work is advisable in 
        the interest of flood control: Provided, That not more than 
        $25,000 shall be allotted for this purpose for any single 
        tributary from the appropriations for any one fiscal year.''
            Sec. 2. Funds heretofore or hereafter appropriated for 
        construction and maintenance of flood-control works by the War 
        Department shall be available for expenditure by the War 
        Department in making examinations and surveys for flood control 
        heretofore or hereafter authorized, or in preparing reports in 
        review thereof as authorized by law, in addition to funds 
        heretofore authorized to be expended for such purposes by the 
        War Department.

            Sec. 3. That section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of June 
        20, 1938, is

[[Page 8967]]

        hereby made applicable to authorized works of flood control. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Louis L.] Ludlow [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ludlow: On page 2, after the word 
        ``department'' in line 12, insert a new section, as follows:
            ``Sec. 3. Section 3 of the act entitled `An act authorizing 
        the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 
        for flood control, and for other purposes', approved June 22, 
        1936, as amended, is amended by adding before the period at the 
        end thereof a colon and the following: `And provided further, 
        That if, after investigation, the President finds that any city 
        or town is, by reason of its financial condition, unable to 
        comply with the requirements of this section as to local 
        cooperation, he is hereby authorized to waive such requirements 
        on any individual levee or flood-wall project not to exceed 50 
        percent of the estimated costs of the lands, easements, and 
        rights-of-way.' ''
            ``The first paragraph of section 2 of the act entitled `An 
        act authorizing the construction of certain public works on 
        rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes, 
        approved June 28, 1938, is amended to read as follows:
            `` `That section 3 of the act of June 22, 1936 (Public, No. 
        738, 74th Cong.), as heretofore amended, as herein further 
        modified, and as amended after June 28, 1938, shall apply to 
        all flood-control projects, except as otherwise specifically 
        provided by law.' ''

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    make the point of order that, as I said, this amendment is not 
    germane to the bill. The bill undertakes to amend the Flood Control 
    Act of 1937 and the Flood Control Act of 1938. They are perfecting 
    amendments. The gentleman's amendment is an amendment to the act of 
    1936, that is in no way involved in this bill, as it relates to 
    local contributions for levees and flood walls.
        So I make the point of order that the amendment is not germane 
    to the bill under consideration or any section thereof.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Chair is 
    ready to rule.
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, the amendment 
    submitted by the gentleman from Indiana merely asks to relieve the 
    city from the payment of what is due under the law and is in no way 
    germane to the question before the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The bill before the House is a bill to amend the Flood Control 
    Act of 1937. That act had one purpose. The Flood Control Act of 
    1936 had another purpose. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ludlow) 
    offers an amendment as an amendment to the Flood Control Act of 
    1936. The amendment clearly is not germane to this bill, and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Endangered Species Act--Amendment Giving Responsibilities to Parties 
    Not Within Coverage of Bill

Sec. 35.104 To a bill amending the Endangered Species Act, an amendment 
    providing that a Corps of Engineers permit

[[Page 8968]]

    for a power project, and Rural Electrification loan guarantee 
    commitments and approvals be deemed to satisfy the requirements of 
    the Endangered Species Act and of other environmental acts, and 
    directing the Corps and the Administration, after the rendering of 
    an opinion by the Fish and Wildlife Service and in consultation 
    with the Secretary of the Interior, to require modifications in the 
    project to protect endangered species and their habitats, and a 
    similar amendment only omitting the references to other 
    environmental acts, were held not germane since broadening the 
    responsibilities and authorities of agencies not covered by the 
    bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 14014 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Oct. 14, 1978,(17) the Chair sustained a point of order in 
the circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 38134, 38140, 38141, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Endangered Species Act Amendments of 
        1978''.
            Sec. 2. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
        U.S.C. 1533) is amended--
            (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(1) the following 
        new sentence: ``At the time any such regulation is proposed, 
        the Secretary shall also by regulation, to the maximum extent 
        prudent, specify any habitat of such species which is then 
        considered to be critical habitat. The requirement of the 
        preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to any species 
        which was listed prior to enactment of the Endangered Species 
        Act Amendments of 1978.''. . .

        Mr. [Teno] Roncalio [of Wyoming]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roncalio: On page 32, after line 
        21, add new section (No. 12) as follows:
            ``The Department of the Army Permit to Basin Electric Power 
        Cooperative for the Missouri Basin Power Project, issued on 
        March 23, 1978, as amended October 10, 1978, is hereby ratified 
        and shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of the 
        Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) as amended, and 
        the Rural Electrification Administration loan guarantee 
        commitments and approvals associated therewith relating to the 
        Missouri Basin Power Project are deemed to satisfy the 
        requirements of the Endangered Species Act; Provided, That 
        following the rendering of a biological opinion by the United 
        States Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the effect, if any, 
        of the operation of the Missouri Basin Power Project on 
        endangered species or their critical habitat, the responsible 
        officers of the Rural Electrification Administration and of the 
        Army Corps of Engineers shall require such modifications in the 
        operation of the Project as they and the Sec

[[Page 8969]]

        retary of Interior may determine are required to insure that 
        actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them, relating to 
        the Missouri Basin Power Project do not jeopardize the 
        continued existence of such endangered species and threatened 
        species or result in the destruction or modification of habitat 
        of such species which is or has been determined to be critical, 
        by the Secretary of the Interior, after consultation as 
        appropriate with the affected States.''. . .

        Mr. Roncalio: Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine how a point of 
    order could be reserved on the amendment at this point.
        The precise objections to the last amendment (18) 
    were stricken from this amendment, and this amendment is left with 
    a citation of only one statute, and that is the Endangered Species 
    Act, which is precisely the statute before us at this time. I 
    cannot imagine an attack on the germaneness provision at this 
    point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 42.32, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I have stricken from my first amendment all reference to the 
    Army Corps of Engineers, all reference to the National 
    Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and all reference to the Federal 
    Water Pollution Control Act. There is only one act cited in the 
    amendment, and that is precisely the one before us. . . .
        Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the basis that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill. The differences between this 
    amendment and the amendment previously offered are that the 
    gentleman from Wyoming has stricken specific references in the 
    first portion of his amendment to the National Environmental Policy 
    Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Rural 
    Electrification Act, but the gentleman's amendment has not stricken 
    new responsibilities imposed upon the Rural Electrification 
    Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife 
    Service, and the Secretary of the Interior.
        The amendment would continue to require biological opinion by 
    the Fish and Wildlife Service, and require additional duties of 
    responsible officers of the REA, the Corps of Engineers; to require 
    modifications of the project.
        In addition, it requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
    consult with the appropriate affected states, which would also be a 
    new obligation not envisioned in the act imposed upon agencies of 
    Government. In addition to that, the amendment is not germane to 
    the section. It appears as a new section following section 32, a 
    section dealing with certain antique articles.
        So, I would renew my point of order as to germaneness both to 
    the bill and to the section.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Actually, the amendment adds a new section, let the Chair say 
    to the gentleman from Nebraska, which in the opinion of the Chair 
    would need only be germane to the bill as a whole.
        However, the earlier matter cited by the gentleman from 
    Nebraska in his point of order dealing with the expanded authority 
    and responsibilities and obligations of the Rural Electrification 
    Administration and Army

[[Page 8970]]

    Corps of Engineers is still a part of the amendment as the Chair 
    views it.
        Therefore, the Chair would have to sustain the point of order 
    on the basis that it would still expand authorities which are not 
    within the coverage of the bill.