[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§ 39. Amendments to Bills Extending Existing Law or Authority Under Existing Law]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 8993-9043]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
            E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW
 
Sec. 39. Amendments to Bills Extending Existing Law or Authority Under 
    Existing Law

    To a bill extending an existing law, an amendment modifying the law 
may be germane.(20) It has been held, for example, that, to 
a bill extending an existing law in modified form, an amendment 
proposing further modification of the law is germane.(1) Of 
course, an amendment must be germane not only to the act sought to be 
extended but also to the bill providing for such extension, where the 
bill extends only a portion of an existing law and does not open up 
other unrelated portions of that law to amendment.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. Sec. 39.14, 39.28, infra.
 1. See Sec. 39.19, infra.
 2. See Sec. 39.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While a bill ``extending existing law'' may open up the law being 
extended to germane amendments, a proposition which extends, not the 
law, but an official's authority under that law, does not open up the 
basic law to amendment.(3) Therefore it is held that, to a 
bill temporarily extending an official's authority under existing law, 
an amendment permanently amending that law is not 
germane.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 39.27, infra.
 4. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, where a bill has for its sole purpose merely the 
extension of the time when a certain authority under a law shall become 
or continue to be effective, or cease to be effective, no amendments 
which affect other authorities under other provisions of that 
substantive law are in order.(5) Thus, to a bill extending 
the provisions of a section of an existing law for an additional period 
of time, an amendment proposing to add a new section to such law has 
been held not to be germane.(6) Where a bill merely 
authorizes appropriations to an agency for a certain period but does 
not amend the organic law by extending the existence of that agency, 
the bill does not necessarily open up the law to permanent 
amendments,(7) and where a bill only authorizes 
appropriations for an existing program for one year, an amendment to 
extend the authorization for additional years is not 
germane.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 35.44, supra.
 6. See Sec. 39.23, infra.
 7. See Sec. Sec. 39.33, 39.35, 41.14, infra.
 8. See Sec. 39.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, to a bill continuing and expanding a law, an amendment 
may be ruled out as not germane even where the provisions contained in 
the amendment had formerly been an unrelated part of the law in 
question.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 39.11, infra.

[[Page 8994]]

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

Price Control Act

Sec. 39.1 To a bill extending acts that were concerned with the 
    stabilization of prices and wages, an amendment relating to 
    contracts and agreements covering aspects of employee and employer 
    relationships beyond the scope of the bill and the acts sought to 
    be amended was held to be not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the bill 
(10) for extension of the Price Control Act of 1942, the 
following amendment was offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 4941 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
11. 90 Cong. Rec. 5650, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 9, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Cravens: Title I of the Emergency 
    Price Control Act of 1942 as amended, is hereby amended by adding 
    the following at the end of section 1 of said title.

            Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, order, or 
        regulation, the National War Labor Board, in the exercise of 
        its authority, may prescribe the terms and conditions of 
        employment (customarily included in collective bargaining 
        agreements) which the parties shall observe, but the Board 
        shall make no order requiring any person--
            (1) to sign any contract or agreement to which such person 
        does not voluntarily agree . . .
            (3) to agree to submit any dispute to arbitration . . .
            (5) to make any indirect wage or salary increase of any 
        kind whatsoever except under regulations promulgated by the 
        President and in strict conformity therewith. . . .

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

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    goes very much further than any of the provisions of the bill we 
    are considering. It not only includes wages but it includes working 
    conditions, the relationship of employer to employee and the 
    settlement of labor disputes, none of which are involved in this 
    bill and none of which, it seems to me, are germane or in the 
    contemplated purposes of any provision of the pending bill.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Fadjo Cravens, of 
Arkansas, stated: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 5650, 5651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, may I direct the attention of the Chair to the 
    fact that H.R. 4941, section 1, now under consideration, refers to 
    section 1 of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 
    which in turn refers specifically to the National War Labor Board. 
    I am proceeding on the theory that the express reference to the 
    National War Labor Board would make germane any matter which might 
    control the action or conduct or jurisdiction of that Board.

    The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 5651, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 9, 1944.

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

[[Page 8995]]

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that in the Emergency 
    Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, reference is made to 
    stabilization of prices and wages. This act and the Emergency 
    Stabilization Act are amended by provisions of the pending bill.
        The Chair also invites attention to the fact that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cravens) seeks to 
    include provisions relating to contracts and agreements with 
    respect to employee and employer relationships which are beyond the 
    scope of the pending bill or the appropriate provisions of the acts 
    sought to be amended by the pending bill.
        The Chair [also invites] attention to the fact that during 
    discussion of the rule which was adopted for the consideration of 
    the pending bill it was pointed out that a waiver of points of 
    order would be necessary in order to make certain amendments in 
    order, one of which doubtlessly is the amendment here presented by 
    the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Cravens]. The rule adopted by the 
    House did not contain such a waiver.
        The Chair is therefore constrained to rule that the amendment 
    offered is not germane and sustains the point of order.

Sec. 39.2 To a bill extending the Price Control Act and containing 
    provisions relating to subsidies on meat and other commodities, an 
    amendment offered to such provisions in order to eliminate the 
    subsidies was held germane.

    In the 79th Congress, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the Emergency Price Control Act,(15) which 
stated in part as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 6042 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 3872, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 17, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Be it enacted, etc., That section 1 (b) of the Emergency 
        Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, is amended by striking 
        out ``June 30, 1946'' and substituting ``June 30, 1947.''
            Sec. 2. Section 6 of the Stabilization Act of 1942, is 
        amended by striking out ``June 30, 1946'' and substituting 
        ``June 30, 1947.''
            Sec. 3. Title I of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 
        as amended, is amended by inserting after section 1 thereof a 
        new section as follows:

                      ``removal of price and wage controls

            ``Sec. 1A. (a) It is hereby declared to be the policy of 
        the Congress that the general control of prices and wages, and 
        the use of the subsidy powers conferred by section 2(e) of this 
        act, shall be terminated, without further extension, not later 
        than June 30, 1947, and that on that date the Office of Price 
        Administration shall be abolished. . . .
            Sec. 5. Subsection (e) of section 2 of the Emergency Price 
        Control Act of 1942, as amended by the Stabilization Extension 
        Act of 1944, is amended, effective as of July 1, 1946, by 
        inserting ``(1)'' after ``(e)'' at the beginning of such 
        subsection, and by striking out the last paragraph of such 
        subsection (e) and inserting in lieu thereof the following 
        paragraphs:
            ``(2) Subsidy operations, as hereinafter defined, for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, shall be limited as follows, 
        subject to the provisions of paragraph (3):

[[Page 8996]]

            ``(A) With respect to funds of the Commodity Credit 
        Corporation--
            (i) for the dairy production payment program, $515,000,000: 
        Provided, That in carrying out the dairy production payment 
        program the rate of payment per pound of butterfat delivered 
        shall not be less than 25 percent of the national weighted 
        average rate of payment per hundred pounds of whole milk 
        delivered;
            ``(ii) for other noncrop programs, $50,000,000; and
            ``(iii) for the 1946 crop-program operations, $160,000,000:
        ``Provided, That not to exceed 10 percent of each amount 
        specified in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of this subparagraph 
        (A) shall be available interchangeably for the operations 
        described in such clauses but in no case shall the total 
        subsidy operations under any one of such clauses be increased 
        by more than 10 percent. . . .

    The following amendment was offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 3904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Flannagan: . . .
        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 heretofore or 
    hereafter appropriated to, borrowed under congressional 
    authorization by, or in custody or control of any governmental 
    agency . . . 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. . . .''

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

        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. [John W.] Flannagan [Jr., of Virginia]: The only purpose 
    this amendment would accomplish would be to eliminate entirely meat 
    subsidies.
        The Chairman: (18) . . . The section relates to the 
    question of subsidies. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Flannagan] likewise relates to the question of 
    subsidies. The Chair believes the amendment is germane and 
    overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 39.3 To a bill to extend the Price Control Act, an amendment 
    providing that notwithstanding any provisions of the act no 
    regulation, order, directive, or allocation shall be issued, made, 
    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,(19) an amendment was offered (20) as 
described

[[Page 8997]]

above. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 6042 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 3909, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 17, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York offers an amendment which has been 
    reported, and the gentleman from Michigan has made a point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane and that 
    it goes beyond the scope of the pending bill. 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.

Sec. 39.4 To a bill to extend the effective period of the Emergency 
    Price Control Act of 1942 and the Stabilization Act of 1942, an 
    amendment authorizing the diversion of supplies of food from 
    military channels in order to meet critical civilian needs was held 
    germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
extending the Price Control and Stabilization Acts. An amendment 
previously agreed to (3) stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.J. Res. 101 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 6570, 6578, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., June 22, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas A.] Jenkins [of Ohio]: 
        Page 1, after section 2, insert the following section:
            ``Sec. 3. All powers of the Price Administrator or the 
        Director of Economic Stabilization, with respect to food, 
        granted by or exercised pursuant to a delegation of authority 
        under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, the 
        Stabilization Act of 1942, or title III of the Second War 
        Powers Act, as such acts were originally enacted or as they 
        have been amended, except rationing, are hereby transferred to 
        the Secretary of Agriculture; and in any case where, under 
        authority of any such provision of law, powers with respect to 
        food are hereafter delegated, such powers, except rationing, 
        shall be delegated only to the Secretary of Agriculture.''

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 91 Cong. Rec. 6597, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., June 23, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: 
    Insert a new section after section 2 to read as follows:

            The Secretary of Agriculture shall confer with the 
        Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy from time to 
        time on the supplies of meat, sugar, poultry, dairy and 
        vegetable products available in continental United States for 
        military and civilian needs and said Secretary of Agriculture 
        is authorized and directed to

[[Page 8998]]

        borrow or divert from military channels for critical civilian 
        needs such stocks or supplies as he finds can be spared by the 
        military and in such amounts as he can certify to the Secretary 
        of War or the Secretary of the Navy can and will be restored by 
        the time they are needed.

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

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill; that 
    it includes matters not contemplated by the bill, and it goes far 
    beyond the scope of the bill.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 6598, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., June 23, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         . . . The amendment confers certain discretionary authority on 
    the Secretary of Agriculture to make certain findings and to 
    receive certain information from the Secretary of War and the 
    Secretary of the Navy. The pending bill, especially since the 
    adoption of the amendment on yesterday which was offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jenkins], not only confers certain 
    discretionary authority upon the Secretary of Agriculture but 
    imposes certain definite duties and responsibilities upon the 
    Secretary of Agriculture to make certain findings. Therefore the 
    Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is in order especially 
    in view of the present form of the pending bill at this stage. The 
    Chair overrules the point of order.

--Amendment Waiving Other Laws

Sec. 39.5 To a bill to extend the Price Control Act and the 
    Stabilization Act of 1942, an amendment relating not only to these 
    acts but also to ``any other act or acts'' was held to be not 
    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. 3885, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 17, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Page 
    1, line 5, after section 1, insert a new section, as follows:

            Sec. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of this act, the 
        Stabilization Act of 1942, or any other act or acts, no maximum 
        price shall be established or maintained for any commodity 
        below [a certain price] . . .

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

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to the bill. It refers not only to this act but ``or any other act 
    or acts,'' which is far beyond the purview of the bill and is not 
    germane.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated:

[[Page 8999]]

        Mr. Chairman, the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and the 
    Stabilization Act of 1942 are being amended by the bill pending 
    before the committee. Any other act which might have a bearing or 
    might be incidental to the provisions of [these acts] are, of 
    course, clearly within the purview of the subject matter of the 
    extension acts.
        This amendment would apply only, of course, to such act as 
    would be affected by the amendment, acts which in turn, as I have 
    said, might be incidental to the Emergency Price Control Act and 
    the Stabilization Act. . . .

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

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the pending bill 
    seeks to extend for a definite period of time two acts, the 
    Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, and the Stabilization Act of 
    1942. The Chair also invites attention to the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Wolcott) 
    seeks to deal not only with the two acts to which attention has 
    been invited, but also includes this language: ``or any other act 
    or acts'' which, in the opinion of the Chair, makes it too broad.
        It is conceivable that many acts might thus be affected that 
    would not even come under the jurisdiction of the committee having 
    charge of the bill now under consideration. The Chair is of the 
    opinion that the amendment as offered is not germane and, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.

Sec. 39.6 To a bill to extend the Emergency Price Control Act and the 
    Stabilization Act of 1942, an amendment referring to ``this or any 
    other law'' was held to go beyond the scope of the pending bill and 
    therefore was not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of the Emergency Price 
Control Act,(10) the following amendment was offered: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 6042 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 3931, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 17, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: On 
    page 1, after section 2, insert the following new section:

            Sec. 3. Subsection (e) of section 3 of the Emergency Price 
        Control Act of 1942, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(e) Notwithstanding any provision of this act or any 
        other law, no regulation, order . . . or allocation shall be 
        made or issued, or any other action taken . . . with respect to 
        any agricultural commodity . . . by the Administrator or by any 
        agency of the Government or the head thereof, without the prior 
        written and voluntary approval of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
        . . .''

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

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the bill. 
    The amendment provides for allocations under the Sec

[[Page 9000]]

    ond War Powers Act, and therefore, is not germane to the pending 
    bill.

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chairman invites attention to the fact that the 
    pending bill seeks to extend for a limited or definite time two 
    existing acts, the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and the 
    Stabilization Act of 1942. The Chair invites attention to the fact 
    that the gentleman's amendment relates to any other law which is 
    much broader than the pending bill and might affect many agencies 
    not at all affected by the pending bill. Therefore, the Chair is of 
    the opinion that the amendment is not germane. . . . 

--Amendment Affecting Issu- ance of Tokens as Authorized Under Another 
    Act

Sec. 39.7 To a bill extending the Emergency Price Control Act, an 
    amendment to prohibit the Office of Price Administration from 
    issuing any ration tokens of less than a certain diameter and to 
    require destruction of smaller tokens previously issued was held to 
    be germane, even though such prior issuance of tokens had occurred 
    under powers granted by the War Powers Act rather than the 
    Emergency Price Control Act.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration extending the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 4941 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 5816, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 12, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Page 
    13, after line 2, insert a new section:

            The Office of Price Administration shall not issue any 
        token or authorize the issuance of any token having a diameter 
        of less than 0.900 inch, and shall forthwith cause to be 
        withdrawn from circulation and destroyed any tokens of a lesser 
        diameter that may have been issued or authorized to be issued 
        heretofore.

    A point of order against the amendment was raised by Mr. Jesse P. 
Wolcott, of Michigan, who contended that the amendment was not germane 
to the bill.(15) The following exchange then occurred: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 5816, 5817.
16. Id. at p. 5817.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) May the Chair inquire of the 
    gentleman, has the Office of Price Administration issued tokens up 
    to this time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: They have under the powers which they receive 
    under the War Powers Act but not under the powers they received 
    under this act.
        The Chairman: But the Administration does issue tokens?

[[Page 9001]]

        Mr. Wolcott: Yes.
        The Chairman: This would be a restriction of that, in the 
    opinion of the Chair; therefore the Chair is constrained to 
    overrule the point of order.

Authority Respecting Price and Distribution of Sugar--Amendment 
    Affecting Other Commodities

Sec. 39.8 To a proposition extending the powers and authorities under 
    certain statutes with respect to the distribution and pricing of 
    sugar, an amendment adding a new section to one of those statutes 
    and relating to the sale of commodities other than sugar was held 
    not germane.

    The following proceedings took place in the 80th Congress: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 2408, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 21, 1947. Under 
        consideration was H.J. Res. 146 (Committee on Banking and 
        Currency), extending powers and authorities under certain 
        statutes with respect to the distribution and pricing of sugar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) There being no further requests 
    for time, under the rule the Clerk will read the committee 
    amendment which will be considered as an original bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. W. Sterling Cole (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            That (a) notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
        Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (56 Stat. 23); the 
        Stabilization Act, 1942 (56 Stat. 765); title III of the Second 
        War Powers Act, 1942 (56 Stat. 177), and the amendment to 
        existing law made thereby; title XIV of the Second War Powers 
        Act, 1942 (56 Stat. 177); and section 6 of the act of July 2, 
        1940 (54 Stat. 714), all as amended and extended, shall 
        continue in effect with respect to sugar to and including 
        October 31, 1947. . . . 

    Subsequently, the following amendment was offered: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 2415, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 21, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dirksen: After line 7, on page 11, add 
    a new section reading as follows:
        Sec. 6. A new section is added to the Emergency Price Control 
        Act of 1942, as amended, to read as follows:

            ``Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this act, no 
        action shall be instituted or maintained under section 205(a) 
        or 205(e) by the Administrator, or on behalf of the United 
        States by any other officer or agency of the Government, if the 
        violation arose out of the sale of a commodity other than sugar 
        or rice or the payment or receipt of rent for defense area 
        housing accommodations.''

    The following exchange (1) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at pp. 2415, 2416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [A.S. Mike] Monroney [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to 
    the bill under consideration. . . . 
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    with re

[[Page 9002]]

    spect to the point of order it did occur to me that because of the 
    general policy set out in the bill, and in view of the fact that it 
    relates to the whole OPA act, the Stabilization Act and the Second 
    War Powers Act, that it might be germane to the bill, 
    notwithstanding the fact that it deals broadly with OPA, whereas 
    the bill in question relates only to one commodity. . . . 
        Mr. Monroney: Mr. Chairman, since this bill deals exclusively 
    with sugar, and since the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois specifically exempts sugar from any consideration in the 
    amendment, I renew my point of order against the gentleman's 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: . . . As indicated by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma, the resolution before the Committee, both in its title 
    and in the provisions contained in the body of the bill, relates 
    solely and exclusively to the commodity of sugar.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois seeks to 
    amend the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 by adding a new 
    section. The effect of that amendment is to cover commodities of 
    all sorts, types, and descriptions, remedies, penalties, and 
    procedures covered by the Price Control Act of 1942, with the 
    exception of sugar; therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, it is 
    not germane to the resolution before the Committee of the Whole, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order. . . .

Emergency Powers Continuation Act--Amendment Requesting President To 
    Invoke Emergency Powers Under Another Act

Sec. 39.9 To a joint resolution proposing to continue certain statutory 
    provisions in effect for a specified time, an amendment requesting 
    the President to invoke certain emergency provisions of a permanent 
    law not extended in the bill and within another committee's 
    jurisdiction was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a joint resolution (2) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The Emergency Powers Continuation Act, H.J. Res. 477 (Committee on 
        the Judiciary).
 3. 98 Cong. Rec. 7067, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved [That]--

            (a) The following statutory provisions . . . in addition to 
        coming into full force and effect in time of war or otherwise 
        where their terms so provide, shall remain in full force and 
        effect until 6 months after the termination of the national 
        emergency proclaimed by the President on December 16, 1950 
        (Proc. 2914, 3 CFR, 1950 Supp., p. 71), or until such earlier 
        date or dates as may be provided by the Congress by concurrent 
        resolution either generally or for a particular statutory 
        provision or by the President either generally by proclamation 
        or for a particular statutory provision, but in no event beyond 
        June 30, 1953 . . . :
            (1) Act of December 17, 1942 (ch. 739, sec. 1, 56 Stat. 
        1053), as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 1201). . . .
            (2) Act of March 27, 1942 (ch. 199, secs. 1301-1304, 56 
        Stat. 185-186; 50 U.S.C. App. 643, 643a, 643b, 643c). . . .

[[Page 9003]]

    An amendment was offered, as follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 7069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Georgia: Page 14, after line 
    2, insert the following:

            Sec. 8. The Congress hereby finds that, by reason of the 
        work stoppage now existing in the steel industry, the national 
        safety is imperiled, and therefore the Congress requests the 
        President to immediately invoke the national emergency 
        provisions (secs. 206 to 210, inclusive) of the Labor 
        Management Relations Act, 1947, for the purpose of terminating 
        such work stoppage.

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

        Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order that the amendment is entirely new legislation and 
    not germane or relevant to the resolution under discussion, or any 
    of the 48 statutes included therein.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. James C. Davis, of 
Georgia, stated:

        The immediate need of this country is not to initiate new 
    legislation which must be . . . brought to the floor of the House 
    through the various stages of parliamentary procedure involved in 
    the progress of every bill. The immediate need of the country is 
    for the production of steel to be resumed. The President on 
    yesterday emphasized that need. He told us that there are two 
    principal methods open to achieve that goal: Namely, first, 
    Government operation of the steel mills; and, second, the use of 
    the Taft-Hartley law. He specially asked Congress to make a choice 
    between these two methods. . . . 
        In my opinion, the use of the Taft-Hartley law in this present 
    emergency is the quickest method by which steel production can be 
    resumed.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
 6. 98 Cong. Rec. 7070, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Georgia offers an amendment to House Joint 
    Resolution 477. . . . The Chair finds that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Georgia pertains to the invoking of permanent law 
    under certain circumstances, whereas the joint resolution under 
    consideration refers to the extension of certain specified 
    temporary powers. The subject matter contained in the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Georgia is, under the rules of the 
    House, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and 
    Labor and not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary which reported the pending resolution. The Chair finds 
    therefore that the amendment is not germane to the pending joint 
    resolution.

Defense Production Act--Amendment Empowering President To Seize Plants 
    Threatened by Work Stoppages

Sec. 39.10 To a bill extending and amending a law containing

[[Page 9004]]

    provisions for settlement of labor disputes by reliance upon 
    negotiation by the parties to the disputes, an amendment empowering 
    the President to take possession of and operate certain plants 
    closed by or threatened with work stoppages was held to be not 
    germane as constituting a change of labor law.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Defense Production 
Act Amendments of 1952,(7) the following amendment was 
offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 8210 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 8. 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 of the United States 
        . . . 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 empowered and authorized to take possession of and 
        to operate such plants, mines, or facilities. . . . 
            ``(b) During the period in which the United States is in 
        possession of any plant under this section, the duly designated 
        representatives of the employees and the management of the 
        plant shall be obliged to continue collective bargaining for 
        the purpose of settling the issues in dispute. . . . 
            ``(d)(1) When possession of any plant has been taken by the 
        United States . . . a compensation board of five members shall 
        be established. . . . The compensation board shall determine 
        (i) the amount to be paid as just compensation to the owner of 
        any plant of which possession is taken and (ii) fair terms and 
        conditions of employment of the employees in any such plant for 
        the period of operation by the United States, other than 
        changes relating to union shop, maintenance of membership, and 
        similar arrangements between employers and employees. . . .''

    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 jurisdiction 
    covered by the language of this act.

    Subsequently, Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, stated: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 7655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, a point of order. . . . 
        Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that the amendment is not 
    germane to the pending bill, it involves labor legislation 
    exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education 
    and Labor.

[[Page 9005]]

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

        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, as 
    the Chair understands the amendment, the mere requisition of 
    property and, as the Chair has stated, 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 made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Fulton].

Economic Opportunity Act--Amendment Reactivating Program That Had 
    Expired

Sec. 39.11 To a bill expanding the war on poverty by amending and 
    increasing the authorizations contained in the Economic Opportunity 
    Act of 1964, an amendment reactivating a program, which had been 
    contained in the original act as a nongermane provision but had 
    expired, providing for certain indemnity payments to dairy farmers, 
    was held to be not germane.

    On July 22, 1965,(11) during consideration of the 
Economic Opportunity Act of 1965,(12) Mr. Carlton R. 
Sickles, of Maryland, offered an amendment relating to certain 
indemnity payments to dairy farmers. In describing the purposes of the 
amendment, he stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 17949, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 8283 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, section 331 of the Economic Opportunity Act, 
    unless extended, will terminate on June 30, 1965. This section 
    authorizes indemnity payments to be made to dairy farmers who, 
    through no fault of their own, have had their milk barred from 
    commercial markets because the milk contained minute residues of 
    pesticides that were approved for use by the Federal Government at 
    the time of their use. It is imperative that the Congress not let 
    this pesticide indemnity law die on June 30 but act immediately to 
    extend it to June 30, 1967. . . .

    Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, having made the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane, the following exchange 
ensued: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 17950, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: I would like to point out 
    that this language is currently in the present law and is part of 
    the poverty program as now in existence. This is section 331(c)(1) 
    of the present Eco

[[Page 9006]]

    nomic Opportunity Act. It has been carried in the law for the last 
    12 months. It is a part of the poverty program as we know the 
    poverty program now. . . .
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, this law expired on June 30. It is 
    not part of the law now.
        Mr. Sickles: The whole law expired.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman offers an amendment at page 7 after line 16 with 
    regard to the continuation of indemnity payments to dairy farmers. 
    . . . It would appear to the Chair that this bill does not have 
    anything to do with this particular subject with regard to 
    indemnity payments to dairy farmers. Therefore, the Chair is 
    constrained to rule that the amendment is subject to the 
    gentleman's point of order and the point of order is sustained.

Provisions Affecting Specific Agricultural Commodity Broadened by More 
    General Amendment

Sec. 39.12 To a bill extending those provisions that excluded ``boiled 
    peanuts'' from the definition of ``peanuts'' under the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act of 1938, an amendment proposing to exclude from the 
    Act's provisions ``all peanuts produced'' was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a bill (15) was under 
consideration to extend for two years the definition of ``peanuts'' in 
effect under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which was an act 
to establish acreage allotments and marketing quotas. An amendment was 
offered (16) as described above, and the following point of 
order was made: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 101 (Committee on Agriculture).
16. See 109 Cong. Rec. 12777, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1963.
17. Id. at pp. 12777, 12778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Watkins M.] Abbitt [of Virginia]: . . . I make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane. The bill simply deals 
    with a class of peanuts. The amendment deals with an entirely 
    different class, and is not in order, as it would change the entire 
    concept of the legislation, as well as wipe out the peanut program. 
    . . .

    The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John James Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 12778, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As a general rule, one individual proposition may not be 
    amended by any other individual proposition, even though the two 
    may belong to the same class.

    Also citing to an instance in which, ``To a bill amendatory of one 
section of an existing law an amendment proposing further

[[Page 9007]]

modification of the law was held not to be germane,'' the Chair 
sustained the point of order.

Sec. 39.13 To a bill extending those provisions that excluded ``boiled 
    peanuts'' from the definition of ``peanuts'' under the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act of 1938, an amendment proposing to enlarge the 
    excluded class to ``any agricultural commodity, which prior to 
    being marketed as a foodstuff is boiled and dried,'' was held to be 
    not germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a bill (20) was under 
consideration to extend for two years the definition of ``peanuts'' in 
effect under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which was an act 
to establish acreage allotments and marketing quotas. An amendment was 
offered, as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 101 (Committee on Agriculture).
 1. 109 Cong. Rec. 12778, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: On page 
    1, line 8, strike the period and insert the following: ``and the 
    first paragraph of such Act is amended by striking the period at 
    the end thereof and by adding the following: `Provided, That 
    notwithstanding any other provision of law, the exemption from 
    acreage allotments and marketing quotas as provided for herein for 
    boiled peanuts shall also apply to any agricultural commodity, 
    which prior to being marketed as a foodstuff is boiled and dried.' 
    ''

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

        Mr. [Watkins M.] Abbitt [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment is not germane and it is 
    apparent on its face. This amendment deals not only with peanuts 
    but with all commodities, therefore, it is not in order.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John James Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas would extend 
    the legislation to other commodities than those covered by the 
    pending legislation. While the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Kansas would amend the general law, the Chair rules that the 
    amendment is not germane to the pending bill and, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

Mexican Farm Labor Program

Sec. 39.14 To a bill continuing for one year the Mexican farm labor 
    program, an amendment modifying the program by requiring the 
    Secretary of Labor to determine that reasonable efforts have been 
    made to hire domestic work

[[Page 9008]]

    ers under working conditions comparable in specified instances to 
    those provided to foreign workers was held to be germane.

    In the 88th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
extending the Mexican farm labor program, an amendment was offered 
(4) as described above, specifying the areas respecting 
which the Secretary's determination would be made. The areas included 
workmen's compensation, housing, and transportation. A point of order 
was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 8195 (Committee on Agriculture).
 4. 100 Cong. Rec. 20728, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 31, 1963. For 
        discussion of another amendment held to be germane to the same 
        bill, even though such amendment modified terms of the program 
        being extended, see Sec. 29.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Watkins M.] Abbitt [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment for two reasons.
        Mr. Chairman, first, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment to section 503 of Public Law 78 is not germane to H.R. 
    8195, on the basis that the amendment being offered to section 503 
    deals not with a proposition providing for Mexican farm labor, but 
    rather with a proposition providing for domestic migratory labor, 
    and is within the purview of the precedents set forth in sections 
    2953, 2954, and 2955 of volume 8, Cannon's Precedents.
        Section 2953 states:

            To a proposition providing for a class, a proposition 
        providing for another related class is not germane. . . .

        Section 503 of the act deals with the conditions under which 
    the Mexican laborer will be allowed to work. This requires that the 
    imported labor not be allowed to work until the conditions of this 
    section are met.
        The proposed amendment should be considered in a separate bill 
    covering working conditions of American workers, and should be 
    considered by the Education and Labor Committee. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I also make the point of order that the amendment 
    to section 503 of the act is not germane to the bill, H.R. 8195.
        The bill simply extends a program which deals with a class of 
    farmworkers, in this case Mexican nationals. The amendment deals 
    with an entirely different class of workers--U.S. citizens who are 
    migratory farm laborers. . . .

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 20729, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 31, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule of germaneness, an act continuing and reenacting 
    an existing law is subject to amendment modifying the provisions of 
    the law carried in the act.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is germane, and the point of 
    order is overruled.

[[Page 9009]]

Sec. 39.15 To a bill extending that part of the Agricultural Act of 
    1949, as amended, authorizing the Secretary of Labor to assist in 
    supplying agricultural workers from Mexico, an amendment requiring 
    the Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation with the 
    Interstate Commerce Commission, to prescribe employer regulations 
    for the adequate safety, health and welfare of workers being 
    transported, was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (7) 
extending provisions of the Agricultural Act of 1949, the following 
amendment was offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 3822 (Committee on Agriculture).
 8. 101 Cong. Rec. 10019, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 6, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Colorado to the committee 
    amendment: Page 2, after line 18, insert the following:

            Sec. 4. Title V of such act, as amended, is further amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 10. The Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation 
        with the Interstate Commerce Commission, shall prescribe such 
        regulations as may be necessary to require employers to provide 
        adequately for the safety, health, and welfare of workers while 
        they are being transported from reception centers to the places 
        of their employment and returned from such places to reception 
        centers after termination of employment. Any person who 
        violates any such regulation shall, for each violation, be 
        fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 6 months 
        or both.''

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

        Mr. [Ezekiel C.] Gathings [of Arkansas]: The amendment is not 
    germane inasmuch as it calls for consultation by the Secretary of 
    Agriculture with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the 
    Interstate Commerce Commission is not in anywise affected by this 
    legislation. Furthermore, the Secretary of Agriculture does not 
    administer this program; the program is administered by the 
    Secretary of Labor. I think therefore the amendment clearly is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I think it is 
    very evident that the amendment itself only directs that the 
    Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with the Interstate 
    Commerce Commission shall prescribe such regulations as may be 
    necessary. The fact is that this legislation is given to the 
    Secretary of Agriculture for administration, and we leave it with 
    him for that purpose with consultation merely a factor so that he 
    may be assisted in proper regulations as far as they may be 
    enforced by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Therefore the 
    amendment is germane.
        The Chairman: (9) . . . From a reading of the 
    amendment it is apparent

[[Page 9010]]

    that all the actions are required of the Secretary of Agriculture; 
    no specific action is required of the Interstate Commerce 
    Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jamie L. Whitten (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment attempts to change the provisions of the bill 
    having to do with employee safety, health, and welfare; and it is 
    quite clearly, in the opinion of the Chair, germane to the bill.
        The point of order is overruled. . . .

Agricultural Price Support Program

Sec. 39.16 To a bill extending the agriculture price support program, 
    an amendment proposing to change the method of computing the parity 
    price of a commodity was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration whose basic purpose was to provide for continuation of 
agricultural price support programs. The bill stated in part: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 6248 (Committee on Agriculture).
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 7904, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Be it enacted, etc., That, notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized 
        and directed through any instrumentality or agency within or 
        under the direction of the Department of Agriculture, by loans, 
        purchases, or other operations--
            (a) to support prices received by producers of cotton, 
        wheat, corn, tobacco, rice, and peanuts harvested before 
        December 31, 1949, if producers have not disapproved marketing 
        quotas for such commodity for the marketing year beginning in 
        the calendar year in which the crop is harvested. The price 
        support authorized by this subsection shall be made available 
        as follows:
            (1) To cooperators (except cooperators outside the 
        commercial corn-producing area, in the case of corn) at the 
        rate of 90 percent of the parity price for the commodity as of 
        the beginning of the marketing year; . . .
            (3) To noncooperators (except noncooperators outside the 
        commercial corn-producing area, in the case of corn) at the 
        rate of 60 percent of the rate specified in (1) above and only 
        on so much of the commodity as would be subject to penalty if 
        marketed.
            All provisions of law applicable with respect to loans 
        under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, 
        shall, insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of 
        this section, be applicable with respect to loans or other 
        price-support operations authorized under this subsection.
            (b) To support until December 31, 1949, a price to 
        producers of commodities with respect to which the Secretary of 
        Agriculture by public announcement pursuant to the provisions 
        of the act of July 1, 1941, as amended, requested an expansion 
        of production of not less than 60 percent of the parity or 
        comparable price therefor nor more than the level at which any 
        such commodity was supported in 1948. The comparable price for 
        any such commodity shall be determined and used by the 
        Secretary for the purposes of this subsection if the production 
        or consumption of such commodity has so changed in extent or 
        character since the base period as to result in a price out of 
        line with parity prices for the commodities referred to in (a) 
        hereof.

[[Page 9011]]

            (c) Sections 1 and 3 of the act approved August 5, 1947 
        (Public Law 360, 80th Cong.), are amended by striking out in 
        each section the date ``1948'' wherever it appears and 
        inserting in lieu thereof the date ``1949.''
            (d) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress 
        that the lending and purchase operations of the Department of 
        Agriculture (other than those referred to in subsections (a), 
        (b), and (c) hereof) shall be carried out so as to bring the 
        price and income of the producers of other agricultural 
        commodities not covered by subsections (a), (b), and (c) to a 
        fair parity relationship with the commodities included under 
        subsections (a), (b), and (c), to the extent that funds for 
        such operations are available after taking into account the 
        operations with respect to the commodities covered by 
        subsections (a), (b), and (c), and the ability of producers to 
        bring supplies into line with demand.

    An amendment was offered (12) stating that, ``For the 
purpose of computing the parity price of Maryland tobacco, the base 
period shall be the period August 1936 to July 1941 in lieu of the 
period August 1919 to July 1929.'' The following exchange concerned a 
point of order raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 94 Cong. Rec. 8013, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 12, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this bill, and the section to which the amendment 
    is offered, merely extends the price-support program. It does not 
    in any way deal with the parity formula or with the base period 
    upon which parity may be computed. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland deals with one subject only, and that is, 
    it sets up a new base period upon which to compute parity for 
    Maryland tobacco. It clearly does not have any place in this bill 
    which does not in any way deal with the subject of parity or the 
    parity formula.
        Mr. [Lansdale G.] Sasscer [of Maryland]: As I understand, the 
    bill relates to parity, and in order to get loans you have to have 
    a base to get the parity. This relates to the base, and my 
    contention is that the two are interlocked; that you cannot have 
    parity without a base. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) . . . The gentleman from Maryland 
    offers an amendment which has, as its principal purpose, a change 
    in computing the parity price for Maryland tobacco. The Chair feels 
    . . . that this is beyond the scope of the bill presently under 
    consideration and therefore sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John Z. Anderson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act--Amendment Providing 
    Food Stamp Program

Sec. 39.17 An amendment providing a new and comprehensive food stamp 
    plan for the distribution of surplus products was held to be 
    germane to a bill amending

[[Page 9012]]

    and extending the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
    of 1954, where the 1954 act had authorized the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation to make surplus agricultural products available for 
    needy persons in the United States.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) amending the Agricultural Trade Development and 
Assistance Act of 1954, the following amendment was offered: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 8609 (Committee on Agriculture).
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 16567, 16568, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 20, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: 
    On page 8, after line 23, 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 
        in carrying out price support operations or diverted from the 
        normal channels of trade and commmerce under section 32 of the 
        Act of August 24, 1935, as amended, the Secretary of 
        Agriculture . . . is hereby authorized to promulgate and 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: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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 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.
        This is an amendment which is entirely foreign to the 
    legislation now under discussion and as presented is not germane to 
    the bill.

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

        . . . H.R. 8609 is a bill to amend the Agricultural Trade 
    Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, extending 
    certain authorities provided for in that law, and for other 
    purposes. The Agricultural Trade Development

[[Page 9013]]

    and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, known as Public Law 480, 
    contains provisions not only for the foreign sale, barter and 
    donation of surplus food but it also contains the relevant 
    provisions of law 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 titles 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.

        Mr. Chairman, we are enacting Public Law 480 programs. This 
    amendment is germane in that it would modify the terms of Public 
    Law 480 dealing with the distribution of surplus food to our own 
    needy, establishing an additional and effective means of 
    distributing such food to our needy.
        The Chairman,(17) in holding the amendment to be 
    germane and overruling the point of order, stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard W. Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill presently before the Committee provides in two 
    sections for amendments to title III, the general provisions title 
    of Public Law 480. . . .
        The language cited by the gentlewoman from Missouri of section 
    302 of the basic law, Public Law 480, is very much to the point, 
    and the Chair will repeat it for the purpose of the Record:
        Sec. 302. Section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 is 
    amended to read as follows:

            Sec. 416. In order to prevent the waste of commodities 
        acquired through price-support operations . . . the Commodity 
        Credit Corporation is authorized, on such terms and under such 
        regulations as the Secretary may deem in the public interest . 
        . . to donate such commodities . . . to such State, Federal, or 
        private agency or agencies as may be designated by the proper 
        State or Federal authority . . . [for] the assistance of needy 
        persons. . . .

School Milk Program

Sec. 39.18 To a bill extending the school milk program and establishing 
    a school breakfast program, and making ``preschool programs 
    operated as part of the school system'' eligible for benefits under 
    the programs, an amendment further extending such benefits to 
    programs operated by nonprofit institutions in depressed areas, was 
    held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 1, 1966,(18) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Child Nutrition Act of 1966,(19) 
which stated in part: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 21652, 21656, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. H.R. 13361 (Committee on Agriculture).
20. 112 Cong. Rec. 21652, 21653, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 9014]]

            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 ``Child Nutrition Act of 1966.''

                             declaration of purpose

            Sec. 2. In recognition of the demonstrated relationship 
        between food and good nutrition and the capacity of children to 
        develop and learn . . . it is hereby declared to be the policy 
        of Congress that these efforts shall be extended, expanded, and 
        strengthened under the authority of the Secretary of 
        Agriculture as a measure to safeguard the health and well-being 
        of the Nation's children. . . .

                       special milk program authorization

            3. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, not to exceed $110,000,000; 
        for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, not to exceed 
        $115,000,000; and for each of the two succeeding fiscal years 
        not to exceed $120,000,000, to enable the Secretary of 
        Agriculture, under such rules and regulations as he may deem in 
        the public interest, to encourage consumption of fluid milk by 
        children in the United States in (1) nonprofit schools of high 
        school grade and under, and (2) nonprofit nursery schools, 
        child-care centers, settlement houses, summer camps, and 
        similar nonprofit institutions devoted to the care and training 
        of children. . . .

                               preschool programs

            13. The Secretary may extend the benefits of all school 
        feeding programs conducted and supervised by the Department of 
        Agriculture to include preschool programs operated as part of 
        the school system. . . .

    An amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 21656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: 
        On page 39, line 22, insert after ``system'' the following: ``, 
        or operated by nonprofit institutions or organizations and draw 
        attendance from areas in which poor economic conditions 
        exist''. . . .

        Mr. [Harlan F.] Hagen of California: . . . I make the point of 
    order that this amendment is not germane to the section sought to 
    be amended.
        Mr. Chairman, the entire thrust of this bill deals with 
    programs administered by the public schools of the United States.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York offers an amendment, 
    which if adopted, would extend these programs en masse into 
    operations by nonprofit institutions or organizations.
        Mr. Chairman, it has nothing to do with the substance of this 
    bill, which is to implement programs administered by the public 
    schools. . . .
        Mr. Ryan: . . . [T]he amendment . . . is quite relevant to 
    section 13 which it would amend.
        Mr. Chairman, section 13 provides that the Secretary may extend 
    the benefits of all school feeding programs conducted and 
    supervised by the Department of Agriculture to include preschool 
    programs operated as part of the school system.
        My amendment would extend that to include preschool programs 
    operated by nonprofit institutions or organizations which draw 
    attendance from areas in which poor economic conditions exist.

[[Page 9015]]

        In other words, Mr. Chairman, this would deal with those 
    children enrolled in those Headstart programs which are not a part 
    of the local school system. . . .
        I might also point out that other sections of the bill do cover 
    nonprofit institutions. . . . This bill is clearly not restricted 
    to school systems. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) In the opinion of the Chair, 
    section 13 on page 39 is confined to school feeding programs 
    including preschool programs as part of these school systems. 
    Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Arnold Olsen (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Amendment To Restrict School 
    Busing

Sec. 39.19 To a bill amending and extending the Elementary and 
    Secondary Education Act, an amendment proposing further 
    modification of that act to provide that no funds appropriated 
    pursuant to the act be used for the transportation of students or 
    teachers ``in order to meet . . . provisions of'' the Civil Rights 
    Act of 1964 was held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
extending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, an amendment was 
offered whose purpose was explained in these terms by the proponent: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 514 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 10067, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 23, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Collins [of Texas]: . . . [This amendment] 
    relates to neighborhood schools. It simply boils down to the fact 
    that there will be no Federal funds available for busing of 
    students. . . .

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

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, it appears 
    to me that this is an amendment to title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
    and its effect would be to amend title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 
    Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it would not be germane to the bill under 
    present consideration.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment and the Chair finds that 
    they appear to be amendments to the bill under consideration and do 
    not appear to be specific amendments to the Civil Rights Act. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Foreign Trade Agreements--Amendment Affecting Period Prior to Extension

Sec. 39.20 To an amendment modifying a bill extending the period during 
    which the

[[Page 9016]]

    President is authorized to enter into foreign trade agreements 
    under certain provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, a substitute 
    amendment which did not modify those provisions of the Tariff Act 
    but which provided for suspension of trade agreement tariff 
    concessions where imports injure domestic producers was held to be 
    not germane, having retroactive application and not confined to the 
    extension of the law.

    On Feb. 7, 1951, during consideration of the Trade Agreements 
Extension Act of 1951,(6) the following proposition was 
being debated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 1612 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 7. See 97 Cong. Rec. 1070, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl T.] Curtis of Nebraska: Page 1, 
    after line 9, insert the following:

            Sec. 3. The act entitled ``An act to amend the Tariff Act 
        of 1930,'' approved June 12, 1934, is hereby amended by adding 
        after section 4 the following new subsection:
            ``Sec. 5. (a) If as the result of unforeseen developments 
        and of the effect of any obligation (including any tariff 
        concession) incurred by the United States under a foreign trade 
        agreement entered into under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 
        1930 any article is imported into the United States in such 
        relatively increased quantities and under such conditions as to 
        cause or threaten serious injury to the domestic industry in 
        the United States of like or directly competitive products, the 
        President shall suspend the obligation in whole or in part or 
        withdraw or modify the concession. . . .''

    An amendment was offered as follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 1073.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a substitute amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Bailey as a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Add a new section to 
    be known as section 3, as follows:

            Sec. 3. (a) If in the course of a trade agreement entered 
        into by the United States under the provisions of section 350 
        of the Tariff Act of 1930 . . . any product on which a 
        concession has been granted is being imported into the 
        territory of one of the contracting parties . . . under such 
        conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic 
        producers in that territory of like or directly competitive 
        products, the contracting parties shall be free, in respect of 
        such product . . . to suspend . . . or modify the concession. . 
        . .
            (b) Upon the request of the President, upon its own motion, 
        or upon application of any interested party the United States 
        Tariff Commission shall make an investigation to determine 
        whether [an] article . . . is being imported . . . under such 
        conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to a domestic 
        industry. . . .
            Should the Tariff Commission find . . . that serious injury 
        is being

[[Page 9017]]

        caused or threatened through the importation of the article in 
        question, it shall recommend to the President the witdrawal or 
        modification of the concession. . . .

        In arriving at a determination in the foregoing procedure the 
    Tariff Commission shall deem a downward trend of production, 
    employment, and wages in the domestic industry concerned, or a 
    decline in sales and a higher or growing inventory attributable in 
    part to import competition, to be evidence of serious injury or a 
    threat thereof.

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

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill before the House, H.R. 1612. The amendment is 
    retroactive in its effect as well as prospective. The bill before 
    the House has to do with an extension of the President's authority 
    to enter into trade agreement negotiations for a period in the 
    future.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
10. 97 Cong. Rec. 1074, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 7, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Of course, the distinction between the substitute amendment and 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Curtis] 
    is that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska is to 
    section 350 of the Tariff Act. The substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia is in effect an amendment to the bill 
    before us now, H.R. 1612. The Chair would like to point out to the 
    gentleman that casual examination of his amendment discloses that 
    the effect is, among other things, retroactive, and the point of 
    order is sustained.

Sec. 39.21 To a bill providing merely that the period during which the 
    President is authorized to enter into foreign trade agreements 
    under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is extended for a 
    further period of three years, an amendment directing the President 
    to prevent the application of reduced tariffs or other concessions 
    heretofore or hereafter entered to imports from Communist nations 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (11) was under consideration 
which provided that the period during which the President was 
authorized to enter into foreign trade agreements under the Tariff Act 
of 1930 be extended for a further period of three years. The following 
amendment was offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 1612 (Committee on Ways and Means).
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 1037, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 7, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: After line 9, 
    insert a new section, as follows:

[[Page 9018]]

            Sec. 3. As soon as practicable, but not more than 90 days 
        after enactment of this act, the President shall take such 
        action as is necessary to withdraw or prevent the application 
        of reduced tariffs or other concessions . . . contained in any 
        trade agreement heretofore or hereafter entered into under 
        authority of section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930 . . . to 
        imports from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to 
        imports from any nation or area thereof which the President 
        deems to be dominated . . . by the foreign government or 
        foreign organization controlling the world Communist movement.

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

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . . The purpose of the bill 
    before us, and the sole purpose, is to extend the authority of the 
    President to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements. The gentleman's 
    amendment goes far beyond that purpose. . . .

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

        Mr. [John W.] Byrnes [of Wisconsin]: . . . One of the purposes 
    of the bill before us certainly, and its major purpose is to extend 
    the authority of the President under the Trade Agreements Act. 
    However, in keeping with that purpose and objective, the Congress 
    has the authority and right to either limit or extend the trade 
    agreements authority of the President. This amendment is directed 
    to that objective. . .  I think it is certainly germane to either 
    restrict or extend the authority of the President under the act. 
    This amendment goes to the scope of the authority granted to the 
    President.

    Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, also speaking with 
reference to the point of order, stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 1038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The question here today is the extension of the 
    Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Congress in extending that 
    authority is well within its own rights to adopt restrictions in 
    its grants. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment is in order. If 
    Congress wants to bar Communist countries from special privileges 
    given to our friendly neighbors it should have that right. We must 
    not forget that to Congress was given the authority to regulate 
    tariffs and it should of course be able to restrict that grant if 
    it so desires.

    The Chairman,(14) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin seeks to 
    add language to the bill providing, among other things, ``that as 
    soon as practicable, but not more than 90 days after the enactment 
    of this act, the President shall take such action as is necessary 
    to withdraw or prevent the application of reduced tariffs, or other 
    concessions contained in any trade agreement heretofore or 
    hereafter entered into under the authority,'' and so on.

[[Page 9019]]

        The bill before the committee at this time provides merely that 
    the period during which the President is authorized to enter into 
    foreign trade agreements under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 
    1930, as amended and extended, is hereby extended for a further 
    period of 3 years, from June 12, 1951.
        The Chair rules that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin is not germane to the bill under consideration and 
    therefore sustains the point of order.

Transportation of Petroleum Products--Amendment Repealing Other Law

Sec. 39.22 To a bill extending certain provisions of law relating to 
    the transportation of petroleum products in the United States, an 
    amendment proposing to repeal all tariffs on crude oil and its 
    products in order to conserve domestic oil deposits by promoting 
    importation on oil and oil products was held to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (15) was under 
consideration extending certain provisions of that act entitled, ``An 
act to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in petroleum and its 
products by prohibiting the shipment in such commerce of petroleum and 
its products produced in violation of State law. . . '' (16) 
The following amendment was offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 5366 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
16. See 81 Cong. Rec. 5329, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 3, 1937.
17. Id. at p. 5330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment by Mr. [Frederick E.] Biermann [of Iowa]: After 
    section 12 of Public, No. 14, Seventy-fourth Congress, insert the 
    following new section:

            Sec. 13. In order to further conserve deposits of crude oil 
        situated in the United States, all tariffs on crude oil and all 
        of its products are hereby repealed.

    Mr. William P. Cole, Jr., of Maryland, made a point of order 
against the amendment. The Chairman (18) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment . . . seeks to deal with matters not only not 
    germane to this bill but over which this Committee has no 
    jurisdiction.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

--Amendment Adding New Section to Law and Broadening Application

Sec. 39.23 To a bill extending certain provisions of law relating to 
    the transportation of petroleum products in the United States, 
    amending only one section of such law, an amendment was held to be 
    not germane which sought to add a new section to such

[[Page 9020]]

    law and to prohibit marketing crude oil products if engaged in 
    production, refining, or transportation of oil.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (19) was under 
consideration extending certain provisions of that act entitled, `An 
act to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in petroleum and its 
products by prohibiting the shipment in such commerce of petroleum and 
its products produced in violation of State law. . . .'' 
(20) The following amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 5366 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
20. See 81 Cong. Rec. 5329, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 3, 1937.
 1. Id. at p. 5330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Biermann: At the end of the bill 
    insert a new section as follows:

            Sec. 14. It shall be unlawful for any person or corporation 
        or affiliate thereof to engage, directly or indirectly in 
        interstate commerce, in marketing crude oil or any of the 
        products thereof if he is engaged in production, refining, and 
        transportation of oil or in any of these activities.

    Mr. William P. Cole, Jr., of Maryland, having made a point of order 
against the amendment, Mr. Frederick E. Biermann, of Iowa, responded:

        . . . The bill in its present form, dealing with the 
    production, refining, and distribution of oil, makes me believe 
    that an amendment dealing with the last operation, marketing, is 
    germane also.
        The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration amends only one section of 
    existing law in one particular. The amendment of the gentleman adds 
    a new section to existing law, and is, therefore, clearly not 
    germane.

Mutual Security Act--Modification of Statement of Policy in Act Being 
    Extended

Sec. 39.24 To a bill reenacting and amending the Mutual Security Act of 
    1954, an amendment was held to be germane which sought to modify a 
    statement of congressional policy contained in the act by further 
    stating it to be the sense of Congress that the President should 
    seek modification of certain agreements to enable the United States 
    to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over American military personnel 
    stationed within the boundaries of nations party to the agreements.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954,

[[Page 9021]]

the following amendment was offered: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. 2130 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 4. 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:

            ``(d) It is the sense of the Congress that . . . the 
        President should forthwith address to the North Atlantic 
        Council . . . a request for revision of article VII of such 
        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. . . .''

        Mr. [Albert S.J.] Carnahan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment, that it is not germane to 
    the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I shall reserve the point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The point of order has been 
    reserved and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Burleson] is recognized 
    on his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, the following remarks were made in support of the 
point of order: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 12008, 12009, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Carnahan: . . . This legislation does not provide for the 
    conduct, management, or regulation of American forces abroad.
        Consequently, the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Vorys: 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. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to amend the purpose 
    clause of the mutual security law, which is a part of the bill 
    which is not amended by the amendments contained in the bill, S. 
    2130, which is now before the House. In addition, this amendment 
    purports to deal with treaties which under the Constitution, are 
    the responsibility of the President and the Senate and with which 
    the House does not deal. . . . In addition, the amendment, if 
    carried out, 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. . . .

    The Chairman, in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 12010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. . . .
        After analysis of the pending amendment and the bill and the 
    reference

[[Page 9022]]

    made to the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, the 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.

Loan of Aircraft Carrier to France--Limitation on Extension of 
    Authority

Sec. 39.25 To a bill extending existing authority for the loan of a 
    small aircraft carrier to France, an amendment requiring in part 
    that such carrier be immediately returned to the United States if 
    used for the transportation of troops or supplies to or from any 
    French colony was held to be germane as a limitation on the 
    extension of authority.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (8) as described above was 
being considered under Consent Calendar procedures. An amendment was 
offered (9) which provided that, ``such carrier shall be 
immediately returned to the Government of the United States if it is 
used at any time for the transportation of troops, supplies, or 
material to or from any French colony, or if it is used at any time in 
support of any of the activities of the French Armed Forces in any 
French colony.'' Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, having made 
the point of order that the amendment was not germane to the bill, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. S. 1139 (Committee on Armed Services).
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 10729, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair must say that the Chair thinks that is a proper 
    limitation to put upon the bill and therefore overrules the point 
    of order.

Veterans' Loans--Tax Treatment of Veterans' Loans

Sec. 39.26 To a bill continuing for one year the provisions of a law 
    authorizing home and farmhouse loans to veterans, an amendment 
    providing that interest on certain guaranteed veterans' loans 
    should, for income tax purposes, be excluded from income was held 
    not germane.

    In the 83d Congress, during consideration of the Veterans' Home and 
Farmhouse Loan Extension,(10) the following amendment was 
offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 8152 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
11. 100 Cong. Rec. 3799, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 24, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Multer: On page 2, after line 8, 
    insert a new

[[Page 9023]]

    section appropriately numbered to read:

            Interest on veterans' loans: Interest upon any loan which 
        bears interest at a rate of not exceeding 3\1/2\ percent per 
        annum, and any part of which is guaranteed under title III of 
        the Servicemen's Retirement Act of 1944 as amended, shall not 
        be included in gross income for income tax purposes and shall 
        be exempted therefrom.

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

        Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order that the gentleman's amendment cannot be considered on a 
    bill involving direct home and farmhouse loan authority, that the 
    amendment would have to be considered by the appropriate committee 
    of the House. It is not germane to this bill.

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

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the bill 
    now being considered is entitled ``to extend to June 30, 1955, the 
    direct home and farmhouse loan authority of the Administrator of 
    Veterans' Affairs under title III of the Servicemen's Readjustment 
    Act of 1944, as amended, to make additional funds available 
    therefor, and for other purposes.''
        . . . [My amendment] will make more funds available to the 
    program, it will extend the program to more veterans who can then 
    acquire the benefits thereof by the simple expedient of making this 
    low interest rate tax exempt.

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Antoni N. Sadlak (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is too 
    broad. It deals with a problem which comes within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means and goes entirely outside of the 
    purposes of this bill. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs does not 
    have jurisdiction over gross income for income tax purposes. For 
    the reasons stated, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point 
    of order.

Authority of Administrator of Veterans' Affairs

Sec. 39.27 To a bill extending the authority of the Administrator of 
    Veterans' Affairs to establish a maximum interest rate for insured 
    loans to veterans, an amendment materially altering provisions of 
    existing law and modifying the authority of the Administrator with 
    respect to management of the loan program was held to be not 
    germane.

    On Sept. 29, 1969, a bill (13) extending the authority 
of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to set 
interest.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 13369 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
14. See 115 Cong. Rec. 27341, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Strike out all that follows the enacting clause and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:

[[Page 9024]]

            That notwithstanding the provisions of section 1803(c)(1) 
        of title 38, United States Code, the Administrator of Veterans' 
        Affairs is authorized, until October 1, 1971, to establish a 
        maximum interest rate for guaranteed or insured loans to 
        veterans under chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code, not 
        in excess of such rate as he may from time to time find the 
        loan market demands.

    Thereafter, the following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 27342, 27343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Patman to the committee amendment: On 
    page 2, line 9, immediately after the period, insert the following:

            . . . (C)hapter 37 is further amended by adding at the end 
        of subchapter III thereof the following new section:
            ``1828. Investment of funds of the national service life 
        insurance fund in first mortgage loans guaranteed under section 
        1810 of this chapter.
            ``(a) When issuing a commitment to guarantee a proposed 
        home mortgage loan under section 1810 of this chapter, the 
        Administrator is authorized and is hereby directed to issue, if 
        such is requested by the lender-mortgagee, a non-assignable 
        commitment to purchase the completed loan from such lender-
        mortgagee. . . .
            ``(b) There is hereby established in the Treasury of the 
        United States a revolving fund to be known as the National 
        Service Life Insurance Investment Fund. . . . The . . . Fund 
        shall be available to the Administrator for all operations 
        under this section. . . . To provide the Administrator with the 
        funds necessary to purchase loans as the consequence of 
        commitments issued . . . pursuant to subsection (a) of this 
        section, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer such 
        funds from the National Service Life Insurance 
        Fund . . . to the Investment Fund. . . .''

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

        Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: . . . The amendment offered 
    by the gentleman is a whole new scheme to take funds from the 
    national service life insurance trust fund and make them available 
    for housing loans. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is a subject 
    alien to the central purpose of H.R. 13369, and I insist upon my 
    point of order that the amendment of the gentleman is not germane 
    to the bill.

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

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: 
    . . . Mr. Chairman, the plainly expressed legal purpose and effect 
    of the committee amendment is to extend and enlarge the authority 
    of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to carry on programs of 
    guaranteed and insured loans to veterans under chapter 37 of title 
    38 of the United States Code. The committee amendment expressly 
    refers to chapter 37, and directly affects the powers of the 
    Administrator under that chapter. It enlarges those powers by 
    giving the Administrator authority over interest rates--authority 
    he would not otherwise possess under chapter 37. My amendment 
    relates directly to this interest rate authority by giving the 
    Administrator further power to control or influence the rates on 
    chapter 37 loans. . . .

    The Chairman,(16) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).

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

[[Page 9025]]

        The proposition before the Committee has a narrow purpose: To 
    grant the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs authority, for a 2-
    year period, to establish a maximum interest rate for guaranteed or 
    insured veterans loans. . . .
        . . . [T]he precedents indicate that where a bill is drafted to 
    achieve a purpose by one method, an amendment to accomplish a 
    similar purpose by an unrelated method, not contemplated by the 
    bill, is not germane. . . .
        The committee amendment under consideration extends only the 
    authority of the Administrator. It does not ``extend existing law'' 
    in the sense that it reenacts it and could possibly open up the 
    basic law to modification. The Chair therefore holds that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] which 
    materially alters the provisions of chapter 37 of title 38, United 
    States Code, is not germane to the limited proposition under 
    consideration. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

    In response to points raised by Mr. Patman, the Chairman also 
stated:

        . . . [T]he provisions of this piece of legislation only relate 
    to the interest rates and not to title 38, United States Code, 
    chapter 37, as a whole.

Bill Extending Federal Energy Administration--Amendment Abolishing 
    Agency and Transferring Functions

Sec. 39.28 A bill continuing and reenacting an existing law may be 
    amended by a proposition modifying in a germane manner the 
    provisions of the law being extended; thus, to a bill reenacting a 
    law to extend the existence of the Federal Energy Administration 
    (which agency under that law would otherwise terminate with a 
    consequent transfer of its functions to other agencies), an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute abolishing the agency and 
    some of its functions and transferring other functions to existing 
    agencies was held germane as another reorganization proposal 
    closely related to that contained in the law being amended.

    On June 1, 1976,(17) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (H.R. 12169) reenacting a law, to extend the 
existence of the Federal Energy Administration. That law provided, in 
the absence of such extension, for termination of the agency and a 
consequent transfer of its functions to other agencies. An amendment in 
the nature of a substitute was offered which itself provided for 
termination of the agency and the transfer of certain of its functions 
to other agencies--

[[Page 9026]]

matters deemed to be within the jurisdiction of committees other than 
that which reported the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 16021-25, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. 
        Schroeder:
            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That the Federal Energy Administration is abolished.

                             abolition of functions

            Sec. 2. The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be abolished: the functions 
        of the Office of Management and Administration (other than the 
        Office of Private Grievances and Redress); the functions of the 
        Office of Intergovernmental, Regional, and Special Programs; 
        the functions of the Office of Congressional Affairs. . .
            Sec. 3. (a) The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be transferred to other 
        agencies as directed in this section:
            The functions of the Offices of Energy Policy and Analysis, 
        Energy Conservation and Environment, and International Energy 
        Affairs shall be transferred to the Energy Research and 
        Development Administration.
            (2) The functions of the Office of Energy Resource 
        Development (including the Office of Strategic Petroleum 
        Reserve) shall be transferred to the Department of the 
        Interior.
            (3) The functions of the Office Regulatory Programs 
        (including the Office of Private Grievances and Redress) shall 
        be transferred to the Federal Power Commission. . . .

    Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, made a point of order against the 
amendment:

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House require that 
    the amendment be germane to the bill which is before the House both 
    as to the place in the bill to which the germaneness question 
    arises and the amendment is offered, and also as to the bill as a 
    whole.
        The first grounds for the point of order are that the amendment 
    goes beyond the requirements of the place in the bill to which the 
    amendment is offered; the second is that it fails to meet the test 
    of germaneness in several particulars. First, that it is a matter 
    which would have been referred to a diversity of committees other 
    than the committee which presently has the responsibility therefor. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there are several tests of 
    germaneness, the first being the test of committee jurisdiction. 
    Obviously, none of the matters referred to in the amendment are 
    properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce.
        The second test is that they must be pertinent to the matters 
    before the House. It is clearly obvious that such broad transfer of 
    responsibilities to diverse agencies and also the imposition of 
    responsibilities on the director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget, are far beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and that the responsibility for 
    the establishing of a savings clause with respect to litigation is 
    not within the jurisdiction of that committee.
        Another test of germaneness is the fact that the amendment 
    should give notice to the Members as to what they could reasonably 
    anticipate in the

[[Page 9027]]

    sense of amendments which might be presented to them. . . .
        Lastly, to meet the test of germaneness, it is required that 
    the subject matter relate to the subject matter of the bill, and 
    the amendment which is before us clearly seeks to transfer these 
    responsibilities broadly throughout the Federal Government; the 
    establishment of savings clauses and the oversight responsibilities 
    which are imposed go far beyond the requirements of the rules of 
    the House. So that for all of these reasons I respectfully insist 
    upon my point of order. . . .
        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: . . . Committee 
    jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment and the original bill 
    is not the exclusive test of germaneness--August 2, 1973.
        The bill H.R. 12169 incorporates by reference the entire 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, a bill which was 
    reported by the House Government Operations Committee. It does so 
    by, in essence, reenacting the entire act.
        Amendments to the entire act are in order and therefore the 
    substitute, which, if outside of Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    Committee jurisdiction, strays no farther than into Government 
    Operations Committee jurisdiction, is undeniably germane. And the 
    germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a substitute is its 
    relationship to the bill as a whole, and is not necessarily 
    determined by the content of an incidental portion of the amendment 
    which, if considered separately might be within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee--August 2, 1973. Furthermore, to a bill 
    continuing and reenacting an existing law an amendment germane to 
    the existing act sought to be continued was held to be germane to 
    the pending bill--VIII, 2940, 2941, 2950, 3028; October 31, 1963. 
    To a bill extending an existing law in modified form, an amendment 
    proposing further modifications of that law may be germane--April 
    23, 1969; February 19, 1975.
        The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill--VIII, 2911--the purposes of both 
    H.R. 12169 and the substitute are to continue the functions of the 
    Federal Energy Administration. The differences are simply: First, 
    to what extent the functions will be continued; and second, what 
    bodies of Government will be responsible for continuing the 
    functions.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the rules of the 
    House under rule X(i)(3) give the Committee on Government 
    Operations jurisdiction over the reorganizations in the executive 
    branch of the Government. The bill we have before us is an 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce bill. Therefore, the Schroeder 
    amendment is nongermane because it involves matter not before the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        The title of the bill before us both as it was originally drawn 
    and as it is amended, does only two things, and as amended, it 
    reads:

            To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to 
        authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1977 to carry out the 
        functions of the Federal Agency Administration, and for other 
        purposes.

        The other purposes are not accomplished in the legislation or 
    the language of the bill. Therefore, the bill be

[[Page 9028]]

    fore the House is a bill to authorize funds for and extend the life 
    of the Federal Energy Administration. As such it merely extends 
    with some modification the authorities of the FEA.
        The Schroeder amendment on the other hand would completely 
    terminate those functions, and transfer them to many other 
    Government agencies, a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Government Operations Committee and not a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the bill. Therefore, it necessarily involves 
    reorganization of the executive branch functions and as such is 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations. 
    . . .
        Again in 28, section 6.2 of Deschler's Precedents, it says:

            To a bill drafted to achieve a purpose by one method, an 
        amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated 
        method, not contemplated by the bill, is not germane.

        In other words, the effort to abolish and reorganize would not 
    be germane to a bill to merely authorize and modify certain 
    functions within the jurisdiction of the committee dealing with the 
    bill on the floor. . . .
        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: . . . The main point, Mr. 
    Chairman, is this: Are we or are we not in the Schroeder substitute 
    attempting to arrive at the disposition of this matter by carrying 
    out the functions of FEA in this authorization to appropriate and 
    carry out these functions by other means? Now, clearly, this is 
    brought out in rule XVI, section 789b, page 514 of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives:

            . . . Thus to a proposition to accomplish a result through 
        regulation by a governmental agency, an amendment to accomplish 
        the same fundamental purpose through regulation by another 
        governmental agency [was held germane].

        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Several days ago the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Schroeder) 
    placed her amendment in the Record. The attention of the Chair was 
    called to the amendment at that time.
        Generally speaking, as far as germaneness is concerned, since 
    the committee proposal before the Committee at this time extends 
    the term of the original act, amendments that would be considered 
    as germane to the original act being reenacted would be considered 
    as germane at this time.
        This principle, in part, was the basis of the decision in 
    Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 2941, that a bill 
    continuing and reenacting the present law is subject to an 
    amendment modifying the provisions of the law carried in that bill.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Schroeder) is not germane to the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 12169.
        The committee amendment extends the term of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act until September 30, 1979, and provides specific 
    authorizations for appropriations for that agency through fiscal 
    year 1977.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish the 
    Federal

[[Page 9029]]

    Energy Administration and some of its functions, and would transfer 
    other functions currently performed by the agency to other 
    Departments and agencies in the executive branch, and would 
    authorize appropriations for the next fiscal year for the 
    performance of those functions transferred by the amendment.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the committee bill, 
    the law--public law 93-275--being continued and reenacted by the 
    bill, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute against which 
    the point of order has been raised. While it is true that the basic 
    law which created the Federal Energy Administration was reported as 
    a reorganization proposal from the Committee on Government 
    Operations in the last Congress, and while it is also true that a 
    bill containing the substance of the amendment has been jointly 
    referred to that committee and to the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce in this Congress, the Chair would point out that 
    committee jurisdiction is not the sole or exclusive test of 
    germaneness.
        The Chair would call the attention of the Committee to 
    extensive precedent contained in Cannon's volume VIII, section 
    2941, which the Chair has already cited, where an amendment germane 
    to an existing law was held germane to a bill proposing its 
    reenactment. The Chair feels that this precedent is especially 
    pertinent in the limited context where, as here, the pending bill 
    proposes to extend the existence of an organizational entity which 
    would otherwise be terminated by failure to reenact the law.
        In such a situation, the proper test of germaneness is the 
    relationship between the basic law being reenacted and the 
    amendment, and not merely the relationship between the pending bill 
    and the amendment.
        It is important to note that the law being extended was itself 
    an extensive reorganization of various executive branch energy-
    related functions. Not only did Public Law 93-275 transfer several 
    functions from the Interior Department and the Cost of Living 
    Council to the FEA, but that law also authorized the Administrator 
    of FEA to perform all functions subsequently delegated to him by 
    Congress or by the President pursuant to other law. Section 28 of 
    that law provides that upon its termination, which would result if 
    the pending bill is not enacted, all functions exercised by FEA 
    would revert to the department or agency from which they were 
    originally transferred.
        It appears to the Chair, from an examination of the committee 
    report, that all of the functions which the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute proposes to abolish or to transfer are being 
    extended and authorized by the committee bill.
        Since the basic law which created the FEA is before the 
    committee for germane modification, since changes in that law 
    relating to the delegation of authority to perform functions from 
    or to the FEA are germane to that law, and since the pending 
    committee bill authorizes the FEA to perform all of the functions 
    which the amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish or 
    transfer, the Chair holds that the amendment is germane to the 
    committee proposal and overrules the point of order.

[[Page 9030]]

--Amendment Providing Reorganization Plan Offered as Substitute for 
    Amendment Establishing Termination Date for Agency

Sec. 39.29 For an amendment establishing a termination date for the 
    Federal Energy Administration, a substitute not dealing with the 
    date of termination but providing instead a reorganization plan for 
    that agency was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 12169 in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 1, 1976,(19) the Chair sustained a point of order 
against a substitute for the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 16051-56, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fithian: Page 10, line 4, strike 
        out ``September 30, 1979'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``December 31, 1977''. . . .

        Mr. [Gary] Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Fithian). . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Fithian: On page 
        10, after line 4, add the following:
            Sec. 3. Section 28 of the Federal Energy Administration Act 
        of 1974 is amended by inserting the following, in lieu thereof,
            `` `Notwithstanding section 527 of the Energy Policy and 
        Conservation Act, upon termination of this Act, as provided for 
        in Section 30 of this Act, all functions of the Federal Energy 
        Administration shall be transferred to existing departments, 
        agencies or offices of the Federal Government, or their 
        successors. The President, through the Director of the Office 
        of Management and Budget, shall file, 12 months before the 
        termination of this Act, a plan and program with the Speaker of 
        the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, 
        to provide for the orderly transfer of the functions of the 
        Federal Energy Administration to such departments, agencies or 
        offices. Within 90 days after the submission of this plan and 
        program, either House of Congress may pass a resolution 
        disapproving such plan and program.' ''. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is in several parts: The first, Mr. Chairman, is that the 
    amendment must be germane to the Fithian amendment. I make the 
    point that it is not.
        Mr. Chairman, the Fithian amendment, if the Chair will note, 
    simply relates to the termination of the existence of the FEA as an 
    agency and sets a date for the expiration thereof.
        This amendment goes much further, and if the Chair will consult 
    the amendment, the Chair will find that it relates to the 
    compensation of executives, that it relates and fixes the levels at 
    which executives' salaries and compensation will be held. It deals

[[Page 9031]]

    with the administration being able to employ and fix the 
    compensation of officers and employees and it limits the number of 
    positions which may be at different GS levels.
        It goes much further. It deals with section 527 of the Energy 
    Policy and Conservation Act, which is not referred to in the 
    Fithian amendment and, indeed, which is not referred to elsewhere 
    in the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, it deals with the fixing of the compensation of 
    Federal employees. It deals with the powers of the President, the 
    duties and powers of the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget functioning through and under the President. It deals with 
    the filing of the plans for the termination of the act with the 
    Speaker of the House of Representatives and it provides a plan to 
    deal with the orderly transfer of functions to the Federal Energy 
    Administration to such Departments and so forth.
        It goes further and effectively amends the Reorganization Act 
    by providing that the plan may be approved or disapproved by either 
    House of Congress in a fashion in conformity with the requirements 
    of the Reorganization Act.
        This is a sweeping and very different amendment than that which 
    is before the House in the Fithian amendment.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a second ground on which the point 
    of order lies and that is that the amendment to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute is not even germane to the bill. It is 
    my strong suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that the quick way to dispose 
    of this matter is by disposal of the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the 
    subcommittee chairman did not mean to mislead the Chairman on the 
    point of order. The subcommittee chairman has read in toto all the 
    amendments I read this afternoon, including the GS and ES 
    schedules, which are not included in this amendment.
        This amendment simply deals with the termination of the FEA 
    after 15 months. The only difference between my amendment and the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Fithian) would be that 
    it does indicate that the President should through OMB present to 
    the Congress a plan, which the gentleman from Texas would not yield 
    sufficient time during the previous amendment for me to present 
    even the issues in this respect.
        Mr. Chairman, I present that as my case on the point of order, 
    that it simply amends the termination of the act.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
    Fithian) goes solely to the question of the date of termination of 
    the FEA. The substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, now before the Committee, goes beyond that issue to 
    the question of reorganization of that agency. Therefore, it is not 
    germane as a substitute. The point of order would have to be 
    sustained; but the gentleman's amendment might be in order 
    following the Fithian amendment as a separate amendment to the 
    Committee proposal.

[[Page 9032]]

--Amendment Limiting Discretionary Authority Conferred in Law

Sec. 39.30 A bill continuing and reenacting an existing law may be 
    amended by a proposition modifying in a germane manner the 
    provisions of the law being extended; thus, to a bill reenacting a 
    law to extend the existence of the Federal Energy Administration, 
    including the authority under a section of that law for the 
    Administrator to conduct energy programs delegated to him, an 
    amendment to that section of the law restricting the method of 
    submitting energy action proposals to Congress was held germane to 
    the law being extended as a limitation on discretionary authority 
    conferred in that law, and therefore germane to the bill.

    On June 1, 1976,(1) during consideration of H.R. 12169, 
it was held that to a bill extending the Federal Energy Administration 
Act, including the Administrator's authority under that Act to conduct 
energy programs delegated to him, an amendment seeking to restrict the 
manner in which the Administrator was to submit energy action proposals 
to Congress was germane to the law being extended as a limitation on 
discretionary authority conferred in that law, and therefore germane to 
the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 122 Cong. Rec. 16045, 16046, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

         limitation on discretion of the administrator with respect to 
                          submission of energy actions

            Sec. 3. Section 5 of the Federal Energy Administration Act 
        of 1974 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(c) The Administrator shall not exercise the discretion 
        delegated to him pursuant to section 5(b) of the Emergency 
        Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 to submit to the Congress as 
        one energy action any amendment under section 12 of the 
        Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 which exempts crude 
        oil or any refined petroleum product or refined product 
        category from both the allocation provisions and the pricing 
        provisions of the regulation under section 4 of such Act''. . . 
        .

    Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I think at least 
two, and perhaps more, basic principles of germaneness make the 
Eckhardt amendment nongermane. The first one is this:

            The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to 
        the fundamental purpose of the bill (Cannon's Precedents, page 
        199).

        Mr. Chairman, the Dingell bill's fundamental purpose is to 
    authorize ap

[[Page 9033]]

    propriations to the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974--
    section 1--and to extend the life of that Agency--section 2. These 
    are the only two sections of the bill and the only fundamental 
    purpose of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, a bill amending several sections of an act does 
    not necessarily bring the entire act under consideration so as to 
    permit amendment to any portion of the act sought to be amended by 
    the bill--Cannon's Precedents, page 201.
        The Dingell bill amends only two sections of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act, section 29, dealing with the authorization of 
    appropriations, and section 30, dealing with the termination date 
    of the act. The Eckhardt amendment does not apply to either one of 
    these sections.
        Mr. Chairman, I would also like to cite from Deschler's 
    Procedure 28, section 5.10 and section 5.11, as follows:

            An amendment repealing sections of existing law is not 
        germane to a bill citing but not amending another section of 
        that law, where the fundamental purposes of the bill and 
        amendment are not related.

        Then I cite section 5.11, Mr. Chairman, which says the 
    following:

            To a section of a committee amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute having as its fundamental purpose the funding of 
        urban highway transportation systems, an amendment broadening 
        that section to include rail transportation within its ambit is 
        not germane. . . .

        . . . [T]he amendment is, in effect, a modification of the 
    Energy Petroleum Allocation Act, as amended by the Federal Energy 
    Policy and Conservation Act, rather than an amendment of the 
    Federal Energy Administration Act, the only legislation touched by 
    H.R. 12169. . . .
        This is an amendment which directly modifies the provisions of 
    section 12 of EPAA--added by EPCA--which provides in subsection 
    (c)(1):

            Any such amendment which, with respect to a class of 
        persons or class of transactions (including transactions with 
        respect to any market level), exempts crude oil, residual fuel 
        oil, or any refined petroleum product or refined product 
        category from the provisions of the regulation under section 
        4(a) as such provisions pertain to either (A) the allocation of 
        amounts of any such oil or product, or (B) the specification of 
        price or the manner for determining the price of any such oil 
        or product, or both of the matters described in subparagraphs 
        (A) and (B), may take effect only pursuant to the provisions of 
        this subsection. . . .

        The effect of the Eckhardt amendment is to strike the words 
    ``or both'' from section 12(c)(1) of EPAA. As such it is, in 
    effect, an amendment to EPAA, not to the FEA Act under 
    consideration here, and is therefore, nongermane. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the 
    amendment is, as is stated, to limit the discretion of an 
    administrator with respect to submission of energy actions. The 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 provided that subject to 
    the provisions of the procedures set forth in this act, the 
    administrator shall be responsible for such actions as are taken by 
    this office that adequate provision is made to meet the energy 
    needs of the nation. To that end, they shall make such plans and 
    direct and conduct such programs related to the

[[Page 9034]]

    production, conservation, use, control, distribution, rationing and 
    allocation of all forms of energy as are appropriate in connection 
    with only those authorities or functions--and then it lists them.
        What the amendment does, it limits the discretionary authority 
    of the administrator. The act itself creates the agency and gives 
    general authority to the administrator. It is true, of course, that 
    there are other acts that call for certain processes but these 
    processes are conducted under the authority of the administration 
    as described in the energy act.
        The effect of this amendment is simply to require that the FEA 
    submit to Congress, separate from other matters, the question of 
    price decontrol. That is, it may not package in a single proposal 
    to Congress both price decontrol and allocation decontrol. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) on the ground that it is not germane to the bill.
        The amendment would amend section 5 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration act to restrict the discretion of the Administrator 
    in the method of submitting energy action proposals to Congress, a 
    function delegated to him by the President under the Petroleum 
    Allocation Act of 1973. Section 5 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act directs the Administrator to prepare for and 
    conduct programs for production, conservation, use, control, 
    distribution, rationing, and allocation of energy in connection 
    with authorities transferred to him by law or delegated to him by 
    the President.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Texas would place a 
    specific restriction on the exercise of that discretion to perform 
    functions under other laws.
        On March 6, 1974, when the original Federal Energy 
    Administration Act was being considered for amendment in the 
    Committee of the Whole, an amendment was offered to section 5 of 
    the bill, the section of the act presently in issue. The amendment 
    would have prohibited the Administrator from setting ceiling prices 
    on domestic crude oil above a certain level in the exercise of the 
    authority transferred to him in the bill, and Chairman Flynt ruled 
    that the amendment was germane as a limitation on the discretionary 
    authority conferred on the Administrator in that section and as a 
    limitation not directly amending another existing law.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair finds that the amendment is 
    germane to the bill under consideration and to the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act which it extends, and overrules the point of 
    order.

--Amendment Restricting Use of Funds

Sec. 39.31 To a bill extending the existence of the Federal Energy 
    Administration and authorizing appropriations for that agency, an 
    amendment requiring that agency to promulgate regulations to as

[[Page 9035]]

    sure that the agency hearings funded by the bill are conducted in 
    the areas to be affected by that agency's actions was held germane 
    as a restriction on the use of funds authorized by the bill.

    On June 1, 1976,(3) during consideration of H.R. 12169, 
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, overruled a point of order 
against an amendment to the bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 16057, 16058, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

            ``(III) if such hearing concerns a single State or the 
        residents thereof, be held within such State.''. . .

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

[[Page 9036]]

    be held within the jurisdictions affected. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Lagomarsino) is limited to hearings paid for by the funds 
    authorized in this bill. The amendment restricts the uses to which 
    such funds may be used and is germane. The Chair therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

--Amendment Changing Date of Termination Offered to Substitute 
    Abolishing Agency

Sec. 39.32 Where the Committee of the Whole had under consideration a 
    bill extending the Federal Energy Administration Act and an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute abolishing the Federal 
    Energy Administration on a date certain and transferring some of 
    its functions to other agencies, an amendment offered to such 
    substitute changing the date for termination of such agency was 
    held to be germane.

    On June 1, 1976,(4) during consideration of H.R. 12169 
in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, overruled a point of order against an amendment as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 16025, 16026, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fithian to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Schroeder: Strike out 
        ``That the Federal Energy Administration is abolished'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following section:
            ``Sec. 1. Section 30 of the Federal Energy Administration 
        Act of 1974 is amended by striking out `June 30, 1976' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof `September 30, 1977'.''
            On line 3 of section 2 insert after ``shall be abolished'' 
        the words ``effective September 30, 1977''.
            On line 4 of section 3 strike the colon and insert the 
        words ``effective September 30, 1977:''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment must be not only germane to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute and to the bill but it must be germane to the 
    particular part of the bill to which it is addressed.
        Mr. Chairman, if we will read the bill, we will observe there 
    are two parts. There is a section 1 and a section 2. Section 1 
    relates to authorizations for appropriations, and section 2 relates 
    to the extension of the life of the agency. The provisions relating 
    to the extension of the agency itself, we will observe, are in 
    section 2, which appears at page 10 of the bill, and while it might 
    be desirable to have the amendment that the gentleman offers set 
    forth as a policy from his point of view, the fact of the matter is 
    that the amendment should be offered to the later part of the bill, 
    section 2, printed at page 10, and not to the Schroeder amendment 
    as offered. . . .

[[Page 9037]]

        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I recognize 
    what the distinguished subcommittee chairman is speaking about, but 
    I would call to his attention the fact that the extension of the 
    life of the Federal Energy Administration affects both section 1 
    and section 2. Therefore, it seems to me that in the normal, 
    orderly process of the business of the House, we ought to offer 
    this amendment at the earlier time.
        We should note that the amendment that has been offered clearly 
    indicates that in section 1, section 30 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act of 1974 is amended by striking out ``June 30, 
    1976,'' which is in section 1, and extending it to another date 
    which is 15 months hence. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think what we 
    now have to decide is whether or not we can proceed to debate a 
    matter which we can alter and come out halfway between the 
    Schroeder position and the Dingell position. That, it seems to me, 
    is not altogether unreasonable, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. 
    Schroeder) is an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    entire bill and the Schroeder amendment is open to amendment at any 
    point. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
    Fithian) simply changes the date in the Schroeder amendment when 
    FEA is to be abolished. It simply provides for a change of date.
        The amendment is germane to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. 
    Schroeder). The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Authorization Bill--Amendment to Permanent Law

Sec. 39.33 A bill authorizing appropriations to an agency for one year 
    but not amending the organic law by extending the existence of that 
    agency does not necessarily open up that law to amendments which 
    are not directly related to a subject contained in the bill; 
    accordingly, to a bill providing an annual authorization for the 
    Energy Research and Development Administration, but not amending 
    the basic law which created that agency, an amendment to such law, 
    extending the existence of the Energy Resources Council (an entity 
    not referred to in the pending bill), was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 13350 in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 20, 1976,(5) the

[[Page 9038]]

Chair sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 14912, 14913, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also Sec. Sec. 39.35 and 41.14, infra, for similar 
        instances in which a bill extended only an authorization. 
        Compare Sec. Sec. 39.28, 39.30-39.32, supra, in which the bill 
        sought to extend the existence of an agency, and amendments to 
        the organic law creating that agency were held to be germane to 
        the bill if germane to the basic law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Goldwater: On page 32, between 
        lines 6 and 7, insert a new section to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 405. Section 108(d) of the Energy Reorganization Act 
        of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5818(d)) is amended by striking the words 
        `two years' and inserting therein `four years', and at the end 
        thereof adding the following:
            `` `Beginning February 1, 1977, the Council shall annually 
        provide to Congress a detailed report of the actions it has 
        taken or not taken in the preceding fiscal year to carry out 
        the duties and functions referred to in subsection (b) of this 
        section, together with such recommendations, including 
        legislative recommendations, the Council may have concerning 
        the development and implementation of energy policy and the 
        management of energy resources. The report shall include such 
        other information as may be helpful to the Congress and the 
        public.' ''. . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane to H.R. 13350.
        The bill authorizes appropriations for 1 year for the programs 
    administered by the Energy Research and Development Administration.
        The amendment would have the effect of making permanent the 
    Energy Resources Council, a body established within the Executive 
    Office of the President. Such an amendment is clearly beyond the 
    scope of a 1-year authorization bill and is, therefore, not 
    germane.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the point of order be sustained, 
    and I specifically refer to rule XVI, clause 7. . . .
        Mr. Goldwater: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment is directly 
    related to subject matter of the bill--ERDA's programs and how they 
    are carried out under the Energy Reorganization Act.
        The Reorganization Act created ERDA and its programs and also 
    the Energy Resources Council to insure the full and complete 
    coordination of those programs and all other energy agencies and 
    programs. ERDA's programs and the ERC go hand and glove in a 
    programmatic sense.

                        Fundamental Purpose as Test

        The fundamental purpose of the amendment is to continue our 
    only statutory mechanism for coordinating our energy programs to 
    insure they are effective and not duplicative.
        Last year, section 309 of the Authorization Act stated:

            The administrator shall coordinate nonnuclear programs of 
        the Administration with the heads of relevant Federal agencies 
        in order to minimize unnecessary duplication.

        My amendment addresses that same goal--avoiding duplication and 
    maximizing effectiveness.

                           Committee Jurisdiction

        The Science Committee and JAEC have sole jurisdiction over 
    energy R. & D. programs.

[[Page 9039]]

        Once the ERC was established, it came under the jurisdiction of 
    the energy committees who must have responsibility for legislating 
    effective energy programs. If we do not have it, no one does.
        The ERC does not have a separate staff. It uses agency 
    personnel on assignment in the agency's area of responsibility. So 
    ERDA personnel can and do staff ERC functions. This bill provides 
    the funds in program support for those employees. Therefore, this 
    bill actually will fund the extended activities of ERC in fiscal 
    year 1977 under my amendment.

                          General Versus Specific

        This is specific amendment to the general provisions. It is an 
    ERDA program-wide provision, that is to have a continued, statutory 
    mechanism for coordination of all energy programs.

                         Amendment to Existing Law

        The amendment merely extends the ERC for 2 years by a minimal 
    change in the Energy Reorganization Act. The thrust is basically 
    programmatic in nature, not a substantive change.
        The bill is under the Reorganization Act, and further the 
    Reorganization Act requires in section 305 that there be an annual 
    authorization for ``appropriations made under this act.''
        The Reorganization Act, the ERDA program and the ERC--under 
    section 108--of the act are all tied together.

                                 Key Point

        The amendment is germane, because this bill includes program 
    support for the salaries of ERDA employees who staff parts of the 
    Energy Resources Council.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment and has listened to the 
    argument in support of the point of order and to the argument 
    presented by the gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) very 
    carefully and it, indeed, is an argument which deserves the careful 
    attention of the Chair.
        The Chair would call attention to the fact that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) seeks to 
    amend the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 by extending the life 
    of the Energy Resources Council.
        The point of order is made that the amendment is not germane 
    and that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill before us.
        The bill before the committee at this time is an annual 
    authorization bill. It is a bill to authorize appropriations for 
    the Energy Research and Development Administration and does not 
    amend the basic organic statute which established ERDA.
        The Chair is constrained to state that, in his opinion, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) 
    goes beyond the scope of the bill which is pending before the 
    committee at this time in that that bill does not directly amend 
    the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 nor does it deal with the 
    Council as a separate entity.
        The Chair would refer to Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, 
    section 33, and the numerous precedents set out there concerning 
    amendments changing existing law to bills not citing that law.

[[Page 9040]]

        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Revenue-Sharing Program: Authorization for One Year--Amendment To 
    Extend Program for Three Years

Sec. 39.34 To a proposition to appropriate or to authorize 
    appropriations for only one year (and containing no provisions 
    extending beyond that year) an amendment to extend the 
    appropriation or authorization to another year is not germane; 
    thus, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute extending for 
    one year the entitlement authorization for revenue-sharing during 
    fiscal year 1981 and containing conforming changes in the law which 
    would not effectively extend beyond that year, an amendment 
    extending the revenue-sharing program for three years was held 
    broader in scope and not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 7112 (7) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Nov. 13, 1980,(8) it was demonstrated that 
the test of germaneness of a perfecting amendment to an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute for a bill is its relationship to said 
substitute, and not to the original bill. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act Amendments of 1980.
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 29523-28, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: 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. 
        Horton: Strike out everything after the enacting clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:

        Section 1. Short Title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act Amendments of 1980''.

        Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 105(c)(1) of 
        the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 is amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following: ``In addition, there 
        are authorized to be appropriated to the Trust Fund 
        $4,566,700,000 to pay the entitlements of units of local 
        government hereinafter provided for the entitlement period 
        beginning October 1, 1980, and ending September 30, 1981.''. . 
        .

    An amendment was offered:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wydler to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Horton: On page 1 of the 
        amendment of the gentleman from New York, strike out section 2 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following:

        Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations for Local Share.--
        Section 105(c)(1) of the State and Local Fiscal Assist

[[Page 9041]]

        ance Act of 1972 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following: ``In addition, there are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Trust Fund to pay the entitlements of units 
        of local government hereinafter provided $4,566,700,000 for 
        each of the entitlement periods beginning October 1 of 1980, 
        1981, and 1982.''. . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    not germane to the Horton substitute. It is in violation of rule 
    XVI against nongermane amendments. The Horton substitute is limited 
    to an extension of this legislation in 1981 only. The amendment, 
    however, seeks to add language dealing with fiscal years 1982 and 
    1983. This is a different subject from that of the Horton 
    substitute and does not conform to the rule. The Horton substitute 
    was very carefully drafted and restricted to units of local 
    government for the entitlement period beginning October 1, 1980, 
    and ending September 30, 1981.
        The proposed amendment is a different subject matter, dealing 
    with State governments for a different period of time.
        The rule is quite clear on this matter. To admit such an 
    amendment would cause great confusion in the legislative process of 
    the House. It should be ruled out of order, Mr. Chair-
    man. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    to the amendment that I have offered deals with exactly the same 
    subject matter as in the amendment that has been offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton). It does deal with a longer 
    time period, but it is the same time period exactly that is 
    contained in the legislation. It deals with other matters which are 
    contained in the general legislation, so I feel it is well within 
    the parameters of the bill it is trying to be substituted for.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the fundamental purpose of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton), in 
    the nature of a substitute, is to extend for 1 year the entitlement 
    authorization for revenue-sharing payments to local governments 
    during fiscal year 1981.
        Any amendment offered thereto must be germane to the Horton 
    amendment. It will not be sufficient that the amendment be germane 
    to the committee bill. Under the precedents, to a proposition to 
    appropriate for only 1 year, an amendment to extend the 
    appropriation to another year, is not germane; Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume 8, section 2913.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the Horton amendment and the 
    conforming changes therein have as their fundamental purpose the 
    extension of local entitlements for only 1 year and do not thereby 
    open up the amendment to permanent or multiyear changes in the 
    revenue-sharing law.
        For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act--Amendment Making 
    Permanent Changes in Organization

Sec. 39.35 An amendment making permanent changes in the

[[Page 9042]]

    law relating to the organization of an agency is not germane to a 
    title of a bill only authorizing annual appropriations for such 
    agency for one fiscal year.

    On Dec. 4, 1979,(10) during consideration of H.R. 2608 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Leon E. 
Panetta, of California, sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 34083, 34089, 34090, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title I reads as follows:

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

         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980

            Sec. 101. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated 
        to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with the 
        provisions of section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
        U.S.C. 2017), and section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act 
        of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5875), for the fiscal year 1980 the sum of 
        $374,785,000 to remain available until expended. Of the total 
        amount authorized to be appropriated: . . .

        Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lujan: On page 8, after line 11, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 107. Section 201 (a) of the Energy Reorganization Act 
        of 1974 as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841) is amended by adding 
        immediately after paragraph (5) of that section a new paragraph 
        to read as follows:
            (6) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1) 
        regarding decisions and actions of the Commission, the 
        Commission may delegate to an individual Commissioner, 
        including the Chairman, such authority concerning emergency 
        response management as the Commission deems appropriate. . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . [T]he amendment 
    amends section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act. Neither title 
    I we are now considering or the bill under consideration amends 
    that law. While the rule does waive germaneness with respect to 
    three amendments, nothing in that rule otherwise modifies the 
    germaneness requirement, and I urge the point of order be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Lujan: Mr. Chairman, let me point out that as to the 
    germaneness and the appropriateness of this amendment, the rule 
    makes out of order amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and not to 
    the Energy Reorganization Act. For that reason I believe that the 
    amendment is germane and in order.
        The Chairman: . . . [T]he Chair is prepared to rule.
        Title I of the bill before the Committee provides for a 1-year 
    authorization for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while this 
    amendment seeks to permanently amend the Energy Reorganization Act 
    of 1974. Title I does not in any way amend the Energy 
    Reorganization Act of 1974. Therefore, the

[[Page 9043]]

    Chair finds the amendment to be nongermane under general 
    germaneness rule, which is applicable to this bill, and the point 
    of order is sustained.