[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§ 41. Amendment Changing Existing Law to Bill Citing or Making Minor Revisions in That Law]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9043-9085]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
            E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW
 
Sec. 41. Amendment Changing Existing Law to Bill Citing or Making Minor 
    Revisions in That Law

    It has been noted above (16) that where a bill amends 
existing law,

[[Page 9044]]

the germaneness of an amendment that further amends such law may depend 
on the extent of the change in law contemplated by the bill. If a bill 
seeks only to modify the law in a limited respect, an amendment will 
not be germane if it seeks to broaden the scope or alter the 
applicability of such law.(17) A bill narrowly amending a 
law in one respect does not necessarily allow as germane other 
amendments to that law which are not related to the subject of the 
bill; (18) and a bill narrowly amending one subsection of 
existing law for a single purpose does not necessarily open the entire 
section of the law to amendment.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For more general discussion of the principles governing the 
        germaneness of amendments to bills which amend existing law, 
        see the introduction to Sec. 35, supra.
17. See Sec. 41.12, infra.
18. See Sec. 41.5, 41.23, infra.
19. See Sec. 41.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a bill proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment making 
other permanent changes in that law is not germane, (20) and 
a bill extending or increasing an authorization for an agency but not 
substantively amending the permanent law does not necessarily open up 
that law to amendments which are not directly related to a subject 
contained in the bill.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 41.15, infra.
 1. See Sec. 41.14, infra. See also Sec. 41.16, infra, in which an 
        amendment to limit the use of authorized funds was ruled out as 
        beyond the scope of an organizational bill transferring 
        existing programs to a new department in that the amendment 
        sought to affect substantively the laws governing 
        administration of the programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a bill citing but not amending a law on another subject, an 
amendment incorporating that law by reference to broaden its 
application to the subject of the bill is not germane.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 41.21, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right To Enter into Union Shop Agreements--Amendment To Make Agreements 
    Inapplicable to Members of Certain Religious Organizations

Sec. 41.1 To a bill repealing a part of the National Labor Relations 
    Act and making conforming changes in two related sections of labor 
    law, but having as its sole purpose the enunciation of the right of 
    employers and labor unions to enter into union shop agreements 
    under certain conditions, an amendment was held to be not germane 
    which sought to make any such agreement inapplicable to members of 
    certain religious organizations.

[[Page 9045]]

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
which stated: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor). See also 
        Sec. Sec. 37.1, 37.2, supra, for further discussion of 
        amendments offered to this bill.
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 18631, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    H.R. 77

            A bill to repeal section 14(b) of the National Labor 
        Relations Act, as amended, and section 705(b) of the Labor-
        Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 and to amend 
        the first proviso of section 8(a)(3)) of the National Labor 
        Relations Act, as amended
            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
        subsection (b) of section 14 of the National Labor Relations 
        Act, as amended, is hereby repealed.

        (b) The first proviso of paragraph 3 of subsection (a) of 
    section 8 of such Act is amended to read as follows: Provided, That 
    nothing in this Act, or in any other statute of the United States 
    or in any constitution or law of any State or political subdivision 
    thereof, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a 
    labor organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any 
    action defined in section 8(a) of this Act as an unfair labor 
    practice) to require as a condition of employment membership 
    therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of 
    such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever 
    is the later, (i) if such labor organization is the representative 
    of the employees as provided in section 9(a), in the appropriate 
    collective-bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made, and 
    (ii) unless following an election held as provided in section 9(e) 
    within one year preceding the effective date of such agreement, the 
    Board shall have certified that at least a majority of the 
    employees eligible to vote in such election have voted to rescind 
    the authority of such labor organization to make such an agreement:

            (c) Subsection (b) of section 705 of the Labor-Management 
        Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 is hereby repealed.

    To such bill, the following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Page 2 on 
    line 16 after the word ``agreement'' insert the following:

            . . . except that no agreement under this subsection 
        requiring membership in a labor organization will be applicable 
        to any employee who (i) is a bona fide member of a religious 
        sect . . . the established . . . teachings of which oppose a 
        requirement that a member of such sect . . . join or 
        financially support any labor organization.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 18631, 18632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: [The amendment] is not 
    germane and it has language . . . that is not embodied in the bill 
    before us. . . .

    Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, asked to be heard on the

[[Page 9046]]

point of order, and, arguing on the basis of a number of precedents 
which he cited, he stated in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 18632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, it seems quite clear to me . . . that the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. Green] is 
    clearly an exception to, or a limitation upon, the provisions 
    contained in the bill before us. . . .
        . . . ``[T]o a provision delegating certain powers, a proposal 
    to limit such powers is germane.''
        Mr. Chairman, it seems obvious that the present bill would 
    delegate certain powers to employers and the amendment would limit 
    those powers. Therefore, in harmony with that principle, it would 
    appear to be germane.
        . . . ``[T]o a proposal to grant certain authority, an 
    amendment proposing to limit such authority is germane.''
        Mr. Chairman, the bill now before us grants certain authority 
    and the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon limits 
    that authority. . . .
        ``To a section dealing with a designated class, an amendment 
    exempting from the provisions of the section a certain portion of 
    that class may be germane.''
        Obviously, Mr. Chairman, the bill deals with a designated 
    class; namely, those workers engaged under a common employment by a 
    common employer.

        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon exempts 
    from the provision of the section one portion of that class; to 
    wit, those belonging to certain religious organizations and holding 
    certain religious convictions. . . .
        . . . [I]t is stated in Cannon's Precedents that provisions 
    restricting authority may be modified by amendments providing 
    exceptions. The bill before us today restricts authority, and the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. Green] 
    provides certain exceptions. . . .
        ``To a proposition extending certain benefits to a class, a 
    proposal to establish qualifications limiting the number of 
    individuals in that class . . . is germane.''. . .
        On the question of an amendment which acts as a limitation upon 
    the provisions of the section to which it is attached, or one which 
    excepts or exempts from those provisions a certain group or number 
    or specific portion of the general class, the precedents seem 
    clear.

    Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, arguing that the amendment was 
not germane, responded: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at pp. 18632, 18633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, the bill, H.R. 77, deals with only one subject, 
    it has only one purpose, it deals with only one particular of the 
    law, and that is so-called right-to-work laws.
        . . . The bill repeals section 14(b) which deals only with 
    State right-to-work laws and makes only such other changes as are 
    required to effectuate that single purpose.
        Mr. Chairman, it is elementary that the fundamental purpose of 
    an amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill 
    to which it is offered. . . .

[[Page 9047]]

        The fundamental purpose of the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Oregon has to do with a question of religious 
    conscience and not with State right-to-work laws in any sense. . . 
    .
        When a bill amends an existing law as to one particular, an 
    amendment relating to the terms of the law rather than to those of 
    the bill is not germane. . . .
        Nor does the fact that the amendment is in the nature of a 
    limitation free it from the requirements of the rule of 
    germaneness. While a nongermane limitation upon an appropriation 
    may sometimes be permitted, this is a legislative bill and 
    amendments in the nature of limitations are subject to the same 
    germaneness requirements as any other amendment. . . .

    The Chairman,(8) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 18633, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair anticipated that questions might arise with respect 
    to the germaneness of various amendments which were discussed 
    during the consideration of the rule and under general debate on 
    this bill and has reviewed the bill, the rules, and the precedents 
    appertaining to the question of germaneness. Language in the bill 
    and the provisions of existing law to which the bill refers have 
    been examined with great care. The Chair thinks that the matter 
    contained in the pending bill is very narrow in its scope.
        The bill refers solely to the establishment of a uniform 
    Federal rule governing union security agreements--the so-called 
    right-to-work issue; and although the pending bill repeals section 
    14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act and section 705(b) of the 
    Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and 
    affirmatively amends section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations 
    Act, it is but a single subject that is affected by the 
    aforementioned sections--the right-to-work issue.
        It seems to the Chair that the pending bill deals only with one 
    particular aspect of existing law and that an amendment relating to 
    the terms of either law, including section references not within 
    the pending bill or touching other aspects of section 14(b), 8(a), 
    or 705(b) not relating to the question of the right to work, would 
    be nongermane.
        The Chair desires to call the attention of the Committee to a 
    ruling made by Chairman McCormack on April 21, 1939. The then 
    pending bill amended the Gold Reserve Act in two specific 
    instances. He held that an amendment seeking to amend the act in a 
    third particular instance which was not related to the pending bill 
    was not germane.
        Again, on April 11, 1940, Chairman Jones, of Texas, was 
    presiding over the Committee during consideration of a bill 
    proposing to amend an act in several particulars. He held that an 
    amendment proposing to modify the act but not the bill was not 
    germane.
        The Chair would also like to direct the attention of the 
    Committee to volume VIII of ``Cannon's Precedents'' of the House; 
    sections 2946, 2947, and 2948.
        In section 2946 the Chair held: ``To a bill amending the 
    Federal Reserve Act

[[Page 9048]]

    in a number of particulars an amendment relating to the Federal 
    Reserve Act but to no portion provided for in the pending bill'' 
    was not germane.
        In section 2947 the ruling was:

            To a bill amendatory of an act in several particulars an 
        amendment proposing to modify the act but not related to the 
        bill was held not to be germane.

        In section 2948 there was a similar ruling:

            To a bill amendatory of one section of an existing law an 
        amendment proposing further modification of the law was held 
        not to be germane.

        The Chair might also call to the attention of the Committee an 
    even older precedent which goes back to the turn of the century. In 
    volume V of ``Hinds'' Precedents,'' section 5806, it was held that 
    ``to a bill amendatory of an existing law as to one specific 
    particular, an amendment relating to the terms of the law rather 
    than to those of the bill'' was not germane. Sections 5807 and 5808 
    are to similar effect.
        The Chair believes that the cases cited clearly demonstrate the 
    rule of germaneness stated in clause 7 of rule XVI. That rule 
    provides that no motion or proposition on a subject different from 
    that under consideration shall be admitted under color of 
    amendment.
        For the reasons heretofore stated the Chair holds the amendment 
    not germane and sustains the point of order.

--Amendment Relating to Union Elections

Sec. 41.2 To a bill repealing a part of the National Labor Relations 
    Act and making conforming changes in related laws in order to 
    permit employers and labor unions to enter into union shop 
    agreements under some conditions, an amendment affecting another 
    part of the act and pertaining to union elections and bargaining 
    representation was held to be not germane to the bill.

    In the 89th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(10) relating to union shop agreements, the following 
amendment was offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor). See also Sec. 41.1, 
        supra, for further discussion of the bill. And see 
        Sec. Sec. 37.1, 37.2, supra, for further discussion of 
        amendments offered to this bill.
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 18633, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 2, between lines 16 
    and 17, insert a new subsection (c) as follows:

            (c) That subsection (a) of section 9 of the National Labor 
        Relations Act, as amended, is amended as follows:
            By adding after the phrase ``conditions of employment:'' 
        the following: ``Provided, such bargaining representatives 
        shall have been certified by the Board as the result of an 
        election conducted in accordance with section 9(c) hereof. . . 
        .'' And further that subsection (c) of section 10 of the Labor 
        Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, is amended as 
        follows:

[[Page 9049]]

            By adding after the phrase ``The same regulations and rules 
        of decision shall apply irrespective of whether or not the 
        labor organization affected is affiliated with a labor 
        organization national or international in scope.'' the 
        following:
            ``Provided further, the Board shall not issue an order to 
        bargain in any case in which the bargaining representative 
        shall not have been certified as a result of an election 
        conducted in accordance with section 9(c) hereof. . . .''

    Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane. Speaking in response, Mr. John M. 
Ashbrook, of Ohio, stated: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 18633, 18634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The purpose of H.R. 77 is to prohibit a State government from 
    outlawing a union shop agreement under certain conditions. It would 
    therefore seem that any measure which is directed toward 
    prescribing the conditions which must exist as a prerequisite to 
    the prohibition of State action would be germane.
        By providing that the labor organization must be the 
    representative of the employees--I refer to page 2, lines 8 and 9--
    ``as provided in section 9(a)'' it says that H.R. 77 has 
    incorporated at least by reference the first clause of this key 
    section. Accordingly, it should be as much in order to offer 
    amendments to section 9(a) of the act as it would be if H.R. 77 had 
    repeated in full the language of the section. . . .
        . . . [T]he fundamental purpose of the amendment is germane and 
    pertinent to the fundamental purpose of the bill itself.

    The Chairman,(13) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 18634, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair will say that precedents recited by the Chair 
    in connection with the point of order raised against the amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (15) are 
    persuasive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the discussion of the Green amendment in Sec. 41.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons heretofore stated the Chair holds the amendment 
    not germane and sustains the point of order.

--Amendment To Require Secret Ballot in Selection of Bargaining Unit

Sec. 41.3 To a bill repealing parts of the National Labor Relations Act 
    and the Labor Management and Disclosure Act and amending a part of 
    the National Labor Relations Act for the purpose of establishing a 
    uniform federal rule governing union security agreements, an 
    amendment modifying one of the sections of law in question to 
    require that the selection of a labor organization bargaining unit 
    be by secret ballot was held to be not germane.

[[Page 9050]]

    The ruling of the Chair in this instance,(16) made in 
response to a point of order raised by Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New 
York, was based on a prior ruling made with respect to an amendment 
that had been offered by Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, to the same 
bill.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See 111 Cong. Rec. 18645, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965. The 
        Chairman was Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
17. See Sec. 41.1, supra, for further discussion of the bill under 
        consideration, H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor), and 
        the basis of the Chair's ruling with respect to the Green 
        amendment. See also Sec. Sec. 37.1, 37.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment as Beyond Scope of Bill Although Modifying Same Sections of 
    Law

Sec. 41.4 To a bill repealing a part of one law and making conforming 
    changes in related laws for purposes of permitting employers and 
    labor unions to enter into union shop agreements under some 
    conditions, an amendment in the nature of a substitute proposing to 
    modify the same portions of existing law in respects beyond the 
    scope of the bill was held to be not germane.

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration which sought to repeal or modify portions of existing law 
and which had as its objective to remove the power of states to 
prohibit closed shop agreements.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor).
19. For further discussion of the bill and amendments thereto, see 
        Sec. 37.1, 37.2, and 41.1-41.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered to the bill 
by Mr. Robert P. Griffin, of Michigan.(20) Such amendment, 
while having the same general objective as the bill, provided further 
that any closed shop agreement would be illegal if the union involved 
had engaged in any of several specified ``unfair labor practices.'' 
Such practices included restricting memberhsip or privileges on racial 
or religious grounds; using dues for political purposes; ousting 
members for exercising civil rights; and requiring membership of 
persons having religious convictions against joining labor 
organizations. That portion of the National Labor Relations Act setting 
forth the law as to unfair labor practices was not within the purview 
of the bill. Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, made a point of 
order against the amendment,(1)

[[Page 9051]]

stating that it was not germane and noting the fact that the amendment 
embodied language (2) that had already been held not to be 
germane. Responding to the point of order, Mr. Griffin stated: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 18634, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
 1. Id. at p. 18635.
 2. See the Green amendment discussed in Sec. 41.1, supra.
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 18634, 18636, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The purpose of this bill H.R. 77, as indicated in the report, 
    is to establish a uniform Federal rule governing union security 
    agreements. I point out that my substitute bill would repeal 
    section 14(b), as the committee bill does, although my bill 
    attaches certain conditions and limitations. My substitute, like 
    H.R. 77, would provide for a uniform Federal rule governing union 
    security agreements.
        The report goes on to point out that the provisions of the 
    Committee bill be controlling as to the validity of union security 
    provisions. My provisions of my substitute bill go to the validity 
    of union security provisions. My substitute bill would not restrict 
    labor organizations generally. It would apply only to those labor 
    organizations which enter into union shop agreements.
        Mr. Chairman, if the House through the bill before us can pass 
    on the complete, outright repeal of section 14(b), we ought to be 
    able to do something less. . . .
        The Chairman (4) sustained the point of 
    order,(5) observing that the amendment included a 
    proposition previously held not to be germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 18636, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Deposit Insurance Act--Amendment Affecting Amount of Deposit 
    Insurance Not Germane to Proposition Concerning Interest Rates

Sec. 41.5 To a substitute amendment proposing to modify several banking 
    acts with respect to interest rates, and to amend in a limited way 
    a part of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, an amendment proposing 
    further amendment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act on the 
    subject of amount of deposit insurance was held to be not germane 
    to the issue of interest rates.

    The following ruling, during consideration of a bill (6) 
relating to temporary interest rate controls, was made on Sept. 8, 
1966: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 14026 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 22043, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) . . . The amendment offered to the 
    substitute by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hanna) proposes to 
    amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the National Housing 
    Act to increase the

[[Page 9052]]

    amount of insurance on bank deposits and savings and loan accounts 
    from $10,000 to $20,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The substitute amendment before the Committee, proposed by the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Stephens), narrowly amends one of the 
    laws--the Federal Deposit Insurance Act--touched by the amendment. 
    The substitute amends section 18(g) of that act to permit the Board 
    of Directors of the FDIC some flexibility in the regulation of 
    interest rates on time and savings deposits. . . .
        The Chair feels that the amendment is not germane. It deals 
    with a different subject than that covered by the substitute. It 
    falls within the general rule that where it is proposed to amend 
    existing law in one particular, an amendment to further amend the 
    law in another respect not covered by the bill is not germane. 
    (Cannon's Precedents (VIII, sec. 2937).)
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Salaries of Government Employees--Amendment Relating to Salaries of 
    Other Classes of Employees

Sec. 41.6 To a bill establishing a commission to regulate salaries of 
    certain government employees, an amendment repealing existing law 
    and seeking to abolish a commission regulating salaries of other 
    classes of employees was held not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
which sought to establish a Federal Employee Salary Commission for 
purposes of achieving comparability of salary between government 
employees and employees in private industry. The bill sought to raise 
the salaries of certain groups of employees covered by the bill and by 
the Federal Salary Act of 1967. An amendment, offered as a new section 
to the bill,(10) sought to repeal certain portions of the 
Federal Salary Act of 1967, so as to abolish the Federal Commission on 
Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries. Mr. Morris K. Udall, of 
Arizona, raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane 
to the bill, stating that the pending bill did not seek to affect the 
Salary Act of 1967. The proponent of the amendment, Mr. Edward J. 
Derwinski, of Illinois, responding to the point of order, cited the 
rule that an amendment offered as a separate section to a bill need be 
germane only to the subject matter of the bill as a whole rather than 
to any particular section of the bill.(11) The Chairman 
(12) ruled that the

[[Page 9053]]

amendment was not germane, stating: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 13000 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
10. 15 Cong. Rec. 29972, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 14, 1969.
11. Id. at p. 29972.
12. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 29973, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 14, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will point out . . . that the purposes of the bill 
    under consideration are to set up a permanent method of adjusting 
    the pay of Federal employees who are paid under one of the . . . 
    statutory pay schedules--general schedule, postal field service 
    schedules, foreign service schedules, and the schedules relating to 
    physicians, dentists, and nurses in the Department of Medicine and 
    Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, and the elimination of the 
    long-standing inequity in relation to the pay schedule of postal 
    employees.
        The amendment . . . repeals section 225 of the Federal Pay 
    Schedule Act relating to the (commission charged with regulating 
    salaries of) Senators, Members of the House, cabinet officers, 
    Justices, and judges. This particular bill deals with the setting 
    up of a commission that has to do with the regulation of salaries 
    for employees, and does not relate to the commission established by 
    section 225. . . .

Bill Amending Agriculture Laws--Amendment Relating to Section Amended 
    by Bill

Sec. 41.7 To bills amending several laws concerning the general subject 
    of agriculture, including one section of the Soil Conservation and 
    Domestic Allotment Act, amendments further relating to that section 
    of the act was held to be germane.

    On July 27, 1961, a bill (14) was under consideration 
(15) which, in part, sought to amend the Soil Conservation 
and Domestic Allotment Act by, first, adding a new feed grains program, 
and, second, amending the Great Plains conservation program. An 
amendment offered by Mr. Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin,(16) 
sought by further amending such Act to prohibit drainage of wet lands 
upon a finding being made and reported by the Secretary of the Interior 
to the effect that wildlife preservation would be materially harmed by 
the proposed drainage. The nature of the bill and the proposed 
amendment are revealed in the following discussion, which concerned a 
point of order raised against the amendment by Mr. H. Carl Andersen, of 
Minnesota:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 8230 (Committee on Agriculture), the Agricultural Act of 1961.
15. See portions of the bill at 107 Cong. Rec. 13765, 13766, 87th Cong. 
        1st Sess.
16. Id. at p. 13770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to 
    the bill itself.
        Title II deals with the extension and amendment of Public Law 
    480 of the 83d Congress. Title II deals with the

[[Page 9054]]

    consolidation and simplification of the agricultural credit laws 
    administered by the Farmers Home Administration. In title IV, we 
    have the extension of the Great Plains conservation program, the 
    extension of the special milk programs for children, the Armed 
    Forces and veterans' dairy program, and the expansion of the food 
    donations to certain State penal institutions.
        Nowhere, Mr. Chairman, do we have anything in this bill to do 
    with the ACP payments or the manner in which they shall be paid. 
    The gentleman's amendment is clearly out of order and is not 
    germane to the subject under discussion. . . .
        Mr. Reuss: . . . Mr. Chairman, I submit the amendment is 
    germane to H.R. 8230, and to the page and line on which it is 
    offered.
        H.R. 8230 is an omnibus farm bill, known as the Agricultural 
    Act of 1961. Among the purposes listed in its declaration of policy 
    is ``to reduce the cost of farm programs by preventing the 
    accumulation of surpluses.''
        H.R. 8230 purports to amend section 16 of the Soil Conservation 
    and Domestic Allotment Act of 1938, as amended, in two particulars: 
    by setting up a special feed grains agricultural conservation 
    program for 1962--section 132--and by amending the Great Plains 
    conservation program--section 401. The Soil Conservation and 
    Domestic Allotment Act of 1938 is the basic legislation setting up 
    Federal cost-sharing for farm practices. Section 16, as amended, is 
    a catchall provision: subsection (a) limits the obligations that 
    may be incurred in any one calendar year, subsection (b) sets up 
    the Great Plains conservation program, and subsection (c) sets up a 
    special agricultural conservation program for the year 1961.
        The Reuss amendment would prevent misuse of the Soil 
    Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act by denying its benefits 
    where a proposed drainage of farm wet lands would materially harm 
    wildlife preservation.
        The Reuss amendment would amend not only the Soil Conservation 
    and Domestic Allotment Act of 1938 in general, but in the very 
    part--section 16--in which it is sought to be amended by two 
    provisions of H.R. 8230, pages 17 and 59.
        The precedents are clear that the proposed amendment is 
    germane. In 8 Cannon's Precedents, section 2942, it is stated:

            To a bill amending a law in several particulars, an 
        amendment proposing modification in another particular was held 
        to be germane. . . .

    The Chairman (17) overruled the point of order, stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would point out that the bill pending at this time 
    amends the Soil Conservation Act in several instances. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Reuss] 
    places a further restriction on the Soil Conservation Act. It is 
    therefore germane.

    A substantially similar amendment was offered to the Food and 
Agricultural Act of 1962 (18) in the second session of the 
87th Con

[[Page 9055]]

gress. The proceedings on June 20, 1962, were as follows: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 11222 (Committee on Agriculture).
19. 19. 108 Cong. Rec. 11211, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Reuss: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Reuss: Page 2, line 13, after line 12, 
    strike out lines 13, 14, and 15 and insert the following:

            (4) by adding the following new subsections at the end of 
        section 16 of said Act:
            ``(e) The Secretary of Agriculture shall not enter into an 
        agreement in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
        Minnesota to provide financial or technical assistance for 
        wetland drainage on a farm under authority of this Act, if the 
        Secretary of the Interior has made a finding that wildlife 
        preservation will be materially harmed on that farm by such 
        drainage. . . .''

        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: May I ask the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin if this is not the same amendment that has already been 
    passed on by the House and is now lying over in the Senate in the 
    form of a separate bill?
        Mr. Reuss: The language of this amendment is identical.
        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that this particular amendment has already cleared the House 
    and is awaiting action in the other body which does not care to act 
    upon the matter. It has no place in the bill.
        Mr. Reuss: A point of order against the amendment on July 23, 
    1961, was overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The question raised by the gentleman from Minnesota was raised 
    when the same question came up last year. The Chairman at that time 
    overruled the point of order holding that it was germane.
        The point of order is overruled.

Foreign Assistance Act--Amendment to Act Referred to in Foreign 
    Assistance Act

Sec. 41.8 Where a bill sought to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961, and such act had provided for amendment of, and authorized 
    use of funds generated under the Agricultural Trade Development and 
    Assistance Act of 1954, an amendment proposing to amend the latter 
    act was held to be germane.

    During consideration of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
1962,(1) an amendment was offered (2) which 
sought to amend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
of 1954 and which related to the power of the President to negotiate 
agreements with

[[Page 9056]]

foreign nations for sale of surplus commodities in exchange for foreign 
currencies. Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New York, the proponent, explained 
the purposes of the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 11921 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 2. See 108 Cong. Rec. 13431, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 12, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I am proposing is intended to 
    assure that our surplus farm commodities are sold on best possible 
    terms--specifically, at rates of exchange not less favorable than 
    the highest rates legally obtainable from the governments, or 
    government agencies, of the purchasing countries. . . .
        A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment here is to Public Law 480, which is the Agricultural Act, 
    and the particular section to which it is addressed is section 
    101(f) of Public Law 480. That is not now before the House. The 
    gentleman's amendment is not germane to any section of the bill. I 
    therefore insist on the point of order.

    The Chairman,(3) speaking with reference to an exchange 
between Mr. Barry and himself, stated that, ``The burden of proof is 
always on the person who proposes an amendment.'' The Chairman then 
overruled the point of order. He stated: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 13432, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 12, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Bill Citing Neutrality Act--Amendment Affecting Provisions of 
    Neutrality Act

Sec. 41.9 To a proposition that, ``Nothing in this act . . . be 
    construed'' to authorize movements of American vessels in violation 
    of the Neutrality Act of 1939, an amendment offered as a substitute 
    which in effect amended the Neutrality Act by imposing certain 
    obligations upon the President was held to be not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during proceedings related to a bill 
(5) promote the defense of the United

[[Page 9057]]

States, the following proposition came under consideration: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 1776 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 6. 87 Cong. Rec. 753, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 7, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (e) Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or 
    permit the authorization of the entry of any American vessel into a 
    combat area in violation of section 3 of the Neutrality Act of 
    1939.

    Subsequently, a substitute for the above proposition was offered. 
Such substitute stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Nothing in this act shall be construed to repeal or suspend any 
    of the provisions of section 2 or 3 of the Neutrality Act approved 
    November 4, 1939. . . . Neither the President nor any governmental 
    agency under authority of this act or otherwise shall send or cause 
    to be sent any American merchant ship to any belligerent nation or 
    into or through any combat area, unless the President by 
    proclamation shall have declared that such nation has in fact 
    ceased to be a belligerent or that such area has in fact ceased to 
    be a combat area.

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

        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is an amendment changing the 
    Neutrality Act and is not germane to this section.

    The following exchange ensued with respect to the point of order: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 758.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Luther A. Johnson [of Texas]: . . . (The objection) is that 
    the amendment . . . seeks to change the neutrality law. That is the 
    ground upon which the objection is made . . . that it does not 
    simply adhere to the neutrality law but goes beyond the neutrality 
    law and changes it. In other words, the gentleman seeks to change 
    another act of Congress by this amendment.
        Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: By what language? . . .
        Mr. Luther A. Johnson: By this language. The amendment 
    arbitrarily states that certain things shall and shall not be done, 
    whereas the Neutrality Act leaves the question of danger zones to 
    the executive discretion of the President. . . .
        Mr. Mott: . . . There are in this language things that limit 
    the authority proposed to be granted under H.R. 1776, but, 
    certainly, nothing that changes the provisions of the Neutrality 
    Act; on the contrary, all of this language strengthens the 
    provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Neutrality Act.

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

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom] has offered an 
    amendment to the pending bill. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Mott] 
    has offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom]. . . . 
    [T]he amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom] 
    does not seek to amend or alter or change the existing law known as 
    the Neutrality Act. . . .

[[Page 9058]]

        . . . [T]he effect of the amendment is to make reference to and 
    recognize the Neutrality Act, whereas the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oregon, after providing certain language in the 
    first part of the amendment . . . goes further and imposes certain 
    restrictions or obligations upon the President that would be a 
    change of the so-called existing Neutrality Act. Therefore . . . 
    the scope of the substitute amendment is much broader than the 
    scope of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York and 
    would embrace sufficient additional provisions as to make the 
    substitute amendment not germane to the pending amendment. 
    Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Rescission of Appropriations and Contract Authorizations--Amendment To 
    Enact Provisions Affecting Demobilization

Sec. 41.10 To a bill providing for the rescission of certain 
    appropriations and contract authorizations, containing a provision 
    generally that the officer and enlisted personnel of the armed 
    services shall be demobilized at a rate not less than would be 
    necessary to keep within the amounts available for their pay, 
    unless the President otherwise shall direct, an amendment seeking 
    to enact into substantive law a proviso requiring the release of 
    such personnel under certain conditions therein set out, was held 
    not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 4407 (Committee on Appropriations).
11. See 91 Cong. Rec. 9846, 9868, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the appropriations and contractual 
    authorizations of the departments . . . available in the fiscal 
    year 1946, and prior year unreverted appropriations, are hereby 
    reduced in the sums hereinafter set forth. . . .
        The officer and enlisted personnel strengths of the Army, Navy, 
    Marine Corps, and Coast Guard shall be demobilized at a rate not 
    less than would be necessary to keep within the amounts available 
    for their pay in consequence of the provisions of this act, unless 
    the President otherwise shall direct. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rankin: On page 36, line 7, after the 
    word ``direct'', strike out the period, insert a colon and the 
    following:

            Provided, That (a) there shall be discharged from . . . 
        active duty . . . without delay, any person who requests such 
        discharge . . . and who--
            (1) has served on active duty 18 months or more since 
        September 16, 1940; or
            (2) has, at the time of making such request, a wife or a 
        child . . . or

[[Page 9059]]

            (3) has . . . a mother or father dependent upon him for 
        chief support; or
            (4) desires to resume his education or training by 
        enrolling in an educational or training institution. . . .

    Mr. Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 9869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following exchange then occurred: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 9869, 9870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: . . . As the Chairman 
    knows, the question of germaneness is one of procedure. . . . It is 
    whether or not the amendment proposed injects new or extraneous 
    matter into the bill or the provision to which it is offered. . . .
        Suppose I had added some other provision there for additional 
    money, or to take away a part of the appropriation, you would have 
    said it was germane. In other words, it would be germane for me to 
    cut off the soldier's supply of food, according to the argument of 
    the opposition but not germane for me to ask for his discharge. . . 
    .
        Mr. O'Neal: . . . If you will read the gentleman's amendment 
    offered to this paragraph, you will find that he goes into the 
    question of defining the various classes of men in the Army, and 
    writes a ticket going way beyond anything in the bill. This is a 
    rescission bill cutting off money from all the departments of the 
    Government, the Army included. The amendment attempts to define how 
    demobilization shall take place, how people shall be judged, 
    according to their families and how many children they have, and 
    whether the children are going to school or not. This is writing a 
    legislative bill in here. It is so far beyond anything in this 
    bill. . . .

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 9870, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi is 
    clearly a general legislative expression and proposes substantive 
    law, whereas the provision in the bill to which the amendment is 
    offered is merely the expression of a hope that within the amounts 
    available for their pay and in consequence of the provisions of 
    this act demobilization will be carried on as rapidly as possible.
        In the opinion of the Chair, clearly, under the limitations of 
    the general provision on page 36, this amendment, being a general 
    legislative provision with reference to demobilization and having 
    the effect of substantive law, and not being restrictive is not 
    germane. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

    Mr. Rankin appealed from the ruling of the Chair, whereupon Mr. 
O'Neal moved to lay the appeal on the table. The Chairman having stated 
that, ``The motion to lay on the table is not in order in the 
Committee,'' the issue of the appeal was debated under the five-minute 
rule. The Chairman left the chair to permit Mr. Jere

[[Page 9060]]

Cooper, of Tennessee, to preside and to put the question: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 9870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is: Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as the judgment of the Committee of the Whole?
        The question was taken: and the Chair announced that the 
    ``ayes'' had it.
        So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the 
    Committee of the Whole.

Civil Rights--Amendment To Prohibit Discrimination in Membership of 
    Professional Organizations

Sec. 41.11 To a bill amending several laws relating to civil rights, 
    including one title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an amendment 
    further modifying such act was held to be germane.

    On Aug. 9, 1966, the Civil Rights Act of 1966,(17) a 
comprehensive civil rights bill prohibiting discrimination in the 
conduct of a number of public and private activities, was under 
consideration. The bill amended several laws in the civil rights field, 
including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which dealt in part with fair 
employment practices. An amendment was offered to the bill which 
proposed to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit 
discrimination in the membership of professional organizations and 
societies.(18) Explaining the purpose of the amendment, the 
proponent, Mr. Joseph Y. Resnick, of New York, stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 14765 (Committee on the Judiciary).
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 18728, 18729, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Id. at p. 18729.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bring professional societies 
    and associations--as defined in the amendment--under the broad 
    umbrella of employment rights in title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
    of 1964, the equal employment opportunity title. This would mean 
    that in addition to the numerous persons and groups listed in title 
    VII, professional associations would also be prohibited from 
    discriminating because of race, color, religion, sex, or national 
    origin.
        Specifically, the amendment would make it an unlawful 
    employment practice for a professional group to exclude or expel 
    from its membership or otherwise discriminate against any 
    individual because of his race, as is the current practice. . . .

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

        Mr. [Jack] Edwards [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane, that it seeks to inject 
    private organizations into the bill, the title of

[[Page 9061]]

    which makes it clear that public organizations only are involved. I 
    insist upon my point of order.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at pp. 18729, 18730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Resnick: . . . Mr. Chairman, this bill is an omnibus civil 
    rights bill. It covers a wide variety of activities in the civil 
    rights and human rights field. In addition, the bill in many places 
    would amend titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It does not do 
    it in 1 place; it does not do it in 2 places; it does it in 17 
    places. The amendment, very simply, would amend it in still another 
    place. Therefore, I believe my amendment is germane and is not 
    subject to a point of order.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 18730, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 9, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Resnick] offers an amendment 
    which proposes the addition of a new title VIII to the pending 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. The gentleman's proposal 
    would further extend the writ of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an 
    act which is elsewhere amended in the proposal before the 
    Committee, to prevent discrimination in the membership of certain 
    professional societies and organizations. The Chair has examined 
    the amendment and the provisions of existing law it amends. In view 
    of the fact that the pending bill amends several laws dealing with 
    the subject of civil rights, including the Civil Rights Act of 
    1964, and is comprehensive in its scope, touching on various 
    aspects of civil rights, the Chair feels the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York is germane. He therefore overrules the 
    point of order.

--Amendment Enlarging Scope of Law To Include Interference With Rights 
    by Actions of United Nations Not Germane to Bill Increasing 
    Penalties for Interference With Rights Under Existing Law

Sec. 41.12 To a bill proscribing interference with certain civil rights 
    and amending existing law to increase the penalty for depriving, 
    under color of law, an individual of constitutional rights, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which sought to enlarge the 
    scope of existing law to include protection of individuals against 
    such deprivation of their rights as might result from actions of 
    the United Nations.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
prescribing penalties for interference

[[Page 9062]]

with certain civil rights. The bill stated in part: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 2516 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 22691, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 15, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
        chapter 13, Civil Rights, title 18, United States Code, is 
        amended by inserting immediately at the end thereof the 
        following new sections, to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 245. Interference with civil rights

            ``Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by 
        force or threat of force, knowingly--
            ``(a) injures, intimidates, or interferes with, or attempts 
        to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of 
        his race, color, religion, or national origin, while he is 
        lawfully engaging or seeking to engage in--
            ``(1) voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or 
        campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying 
        or acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized election 
        official, in any primary, special, or general election; . . .
            ``(3) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, 
        privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or 
        administered by the United States or by any State or 
        subdivision thereof; . . .
            ``(7) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any 
        program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or
            ``(8) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 
        advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or 
        other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests 
        or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda 
        fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which 
        is principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the 
        premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture 
        house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any 
        other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the 
        public, or of any other establishment which serves the public 
        and which is located within the premises of any of the 
        aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is 
        physically located any of the aforesaid establishments; or
            ``(b) injures, intimidates, or interferes with, or attempts 
        to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person (1) to 
        discourage such person or any other person or any class of 
        persons from lawfully participating or seeking to participate 
        in any such benefits or activities without discrimination on 
        account of race, color, religion, or national origin, or (2) 
        because he has so participated or sought to so participate, or 
        urged or aided others to so participate, or engaged in speech 
        or peaceful assembly opposing any denial of the opportunity to 
        so participate . . . shall be fined not more than $1,000 or 
        imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily 
        injury results shall be fined not more than $10,000 or 
        imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death 
        results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years 
        or for life.''
            ``(b) Title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding to 
        the analysis of chapter 13 at the end thereof the following:
        ``Sec. 245. Interference with civil rights.''

            Sec. 12. (a) Section 241 of title 18, United States Code, 
        is amended by striking out the final paragraph thereof and 
        substituting the following:
            ``They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned 
        not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they 
        shall be subject to impris

[[Page 9063]]

        onment for any term of years or for life.''
            (b) Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
        by striking out the period at the end thereof and adding the 
        following: ``; and if death results shall be subject to 
        imprisonment for any term of years or for life.''

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 22768, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 16, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rarick: On page 9, line 19, after (b), 
    strike out lines 19, 20, 21, and 22, and insert:

            (b) Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
        to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

            ``Whoever, under color, of any law . . . regulation, or 
        custom [including measures related to giving effect to United 
        Nations decisions] willfully subjects any inhabitant of any 
        State . . . or possession of the United States to the 
        deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or 
        protected by the Constitution or laws . . . shall be fined . . 
        . or imprisoned. . . .

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane in that in the bill before us all we do with reference to 
    section 242 is to amend the penalties.
        But in the amendment as offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
    the entire section and substance of section 242 of title 18 of the 
    United States Code is added to the bill. . . .

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

        Mr. [John R.] Rarick [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, the bill 
    before us today in subsection (b) does provide for amendment by 
    additional penalties under section 242 of title 18, United States 
    Code.
        In substance the amendment that I have offered only provides 
    that in addition to the penalties against States and State 
    officials acting under color of law, an American citizen may also 
    have his constitutional rights denied him by treaties and orders, 
    et cetera, emanating from the United Nations and from other 
    sources.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I certainly feel that the amendment is 
    germane. . . .

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [The amendment] goes well beyond the proposition before 
    the House and adds additional penalties to title 18, section 242, 
    which are not germane to the bill. . . .

Assistance to Localities in Control of Crime--Amendment To Make 
    Employment Benefits Applicable to ``Public Safety Officers''

Sec. 41.13 To a bill relating to assistance for localities in con

[[Page 9064]]

    trolling crime, which proposed to amend the Omnibus Crime Control 
    and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and to effect administrative changes 
    through amendment of the appropriate title of the United States 
    Code, an amendment was held to be not germane which proposed 
    through modification of another part of that title to extend 
    certain benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to 
    ``public safety officers'' and their survivors.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
which sought to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968. The following amendment was offered to the bill: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 17825 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 21870, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 29, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Jacobs: On page 15, line 18 after 
    ``Sec. 9'' insert ``(a)''

    On page 15, after line 20, add the following new subsections:

            (b) Section 8191 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
        to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 8191. Determination of eligibility

            The benefits of this subchapter are available . . . to 
        eligible public safety officers . . . and their survivors. For 
        the purposes of this Act, an eligible officer is any person who 
        is determined by the Secretary of Labor in his discretion to 
        have been on any given occasion--
            ``(1) employed as a law enforcement officer or fireman by a 
        State or a political subdivision. . . .''
            (c) The heading at the beginning of subchapter III of 
        chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, and the item 
        relating to such subchapter in the table of sections at the 
        beginning of such chapter are amended by striking out 'Law 
        Enforcement' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Public Safety''. . 
        . .

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane. It refers to compensation and to personal liability and it 
    has no relation whatsoever to the bill under consideration, which 
    concerns law-enforcement assistance.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 21870, 21871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    the amendment that is proposed would simply extend to any policeman 
    or fireman in the United States who is killed or totally disabled 
    in line of duty benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation 
    Act.
        The amendment is offered as an amendment to section 9 of the 
    pending legislation. Section 9 of the pending legislation deals 
    with title V of the

[[Page 9065]]

    United States Code, which contains the Employment Compensation Act. 
    . . .
        Under the rule . . . that the amendment must be ``clearly and 
    distinctly connected logically with the general scope and intent of 
    the bill,'' the policeman and fireman amendment would be germane in 
    the sense that it is offered as an amendment ultimately to the 
    Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
        This amendment, to provide survivor benefits to families of 
    police and firemen killed in the line of duty, would provide 
    essentially a form of additional compensation. Section 301, 
    subsection (b) of the Safe Streets Act allows that up to one-third 
    of any grant made under this section may be expended for 
    compensation of personnel, which shows a germaneness. . . .

    The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 21871, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 29, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
    Streets Act of 1968 to assist States and local government to 
    control crime and violence. It authorizes appropriations for 3 
    additional years; changes management from the 3-member board to a 
    single administrator; sets up a new matching grant program relating 
    to correctional facilities; and provides for matching grants for 
    enforcement assistance and education.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana proposes upon a 
    determination by the Secretary of Labor to make State and local 
    policemen, as well as firemen, or their survivors, eligible for 
    benefits under the Federal employee compensation for work injuries 
    statutes.
        The Chair does not believe that the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Indiana is germane to the bill and therefore sustains the 
    point of order.

Bill Increasing Authorization for Commission on Marihuana and Drug 
    Abuse--Amendment To Increase Regulation of Amphetamines

Sec. 41.14 A bill extending or increasing an authorization for an 
    agency but not substantively amending the permanent law does not 
    necessarily open up that law to amendments which are not directly 
    related to a subject contained in the bill; thus, to a bill 
    amending one section of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act 
    to increase the authorization of appropriations for the Commission 
    on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, an amendment proposing to modify 
    another section of that law for purposes of facilitating increased 
    regulation of amphetamines was held to be not germane.

[[Page 9066]]

    In the 92d Congress, a bill (12) was under consideration 
to amend the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 
1970 to increase the appropriation authorization for the Commission on 
Marihuana and Drug Abuse. An amendment (13) offered by Mr. 
Glenn M. Anderson, of California, sought to transfer amphetamines from 
``schedule III'' to ``schedule II'' of the act, the effect of which was 
explained by Mr. Anderson as follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 5674 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
13. See 117 Cong. Rec. 12318, 12319, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 28, 
        1971.
14. Id. at p. 12319.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Under current law, amphetamines are under schedule III. 
    Under this schedule, all that a manufacturer, distributor, or 
    dispenser of amphetamines must do, is notify the Justice Department 
    that they are dealing in amphetamines. In order to obtain 
    amphetamines from a manufacturer, a dispenser has no order forms. 
    He simply writes a letter on his own stationery. In addition, there 
    is no limit on the production of amphetamines and, in order to 
    import or export amphetamines, a dispenser simply is required to 
    notify the Justice Department.
        Under schedule II, first, a manufacturer, distributor, or 
    dispenser of amphetamines would be required to register with the 
    Department of Justice and prove that he has a legitimate operation 
    and need for amphetamines. Second, in order to dispense 
    amphetamines, a physician would be required to order them with 
    Justice Department order forms. Thus, the Attorney General would be 
    aware of who ordered how much. Third, the Department of Justice 
    would give the manufacturer a production quota to coincide with the 
    medical needs of the United States. Fourth, in order to import or 
    export amphetamines, a dealer must obtain an authorization from the 
    Department of Justice.
        Thus, Mr. Chairman, under schedule III, we can readily see that 
    amphetamine production and distribution is very loosely controlled. 
    Whereas under schedule II, amphetamines would be limited to the 
    legitimate needs of the medical community, and its use would be 
    severely restricted. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 12320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: . . . I believe 
    the amendment is not germane to the bill. This amendment deals with 
    the existing law and this bill is simply for the authorization of 
    additional expenditures. Therefore it is not germane.

    Mr. Anderson responded to the point of order by citing the 
principle that an amendment offered as a separate section need not be 
germane to any particular section of the bill to which offered but 
merely should be germane to the subject matter of the bill as a whole, 
and pointing out that both

[[Page 9067]]

the bill and his amendment sought to amend the Drug Abuse Prevention 
and Control Act. The Chairman,(16) in ruling on the point of 
order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William S. Moorehead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration amends section 601 of the 
    Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 1970 to increase the 
    authorization for the Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse from 1 
    to 4 million. No other section of the basic act is amended by the 
    bill.
        The amendment, which is the text of H.R. 6825, proposes to 
    amend section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act to move 
    amphetamines and certain other stimulant substances from schedule 
    III to schedule II of the act.
        Where a bill proposes to amend a law in one particular, it is 
    well established that amendments relating to the terms of the law 
    rather than to the bill are not germane. This bill contains only 
    one section.
        The Chair believes that the amendment goes to a subject not 
    under consideration in the pending bill and sustains the point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See also Sec. 39.33, supra, for a similar 
ruling wherein the bill merely extended an authorization of 
appropriations, and an amendment permanently changing the law was held 
to be not germane.

Temporary Increase in Debt Ceiling--Amendment Proposing Permanent 
    Changes in Liberty Bond Act

Sec. 41.15 To a bill proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment 
    making other permanent changes in that law is not germane.

    On Nov. 7, 1973,(17) during consideration of a bill 
reported from the Committee on Ways and Means providing for a temporary 
increase in the public debt ceiling for the current fiscal year, but 
not directly amending the Second Liberty Bond Act, an amendment was 
offered proposing permanent changes in that Act and also affecting 
budget and appropriations procedures (matters within the jurisdiction 
of other House committees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 36240, 36241, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
        section 101 of the Act of October 27, 1972, providing for a 
        temporary increase in the public debt limit for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1973 (Public Law 92-599), as amended by the 
        first section of Public Law 93-53, is hereby repealed.

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page 2, line 3, after 
        the period,

[[Page 9068]]

        insert the following: Provided further, that the expenditures 
        of the Government during each fiscal year, including reduction 
        of the public debt in accordance with the provisions of section 
        3, shall not exceed its revenues for such year except--
            (1) in time of war declared by the Congress . . .
            Sec. 3. Section 21 of the Second Liberty Bond Act, as 
        amended (31 U.S.C. 757b), is amended by inserting ``(a)'' after 
        ``Sec. 21.'' and by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(b) The public debt limit set forth in subsection (a) is 
        hereby reduced as follows:
            ``(1) Effective on July 1, 1974, by an amendment equal to 2 
        percent of the net revenue of the United States for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1973;
            ``(2) Effective on July 1, 1975, by an amount equal to 3 
        percent of the net revenue of the United States for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1974;
            ``(3) Effective on July 1, 1976, by an amount equal to 4 
        percent of the net revenue of the United States for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1975;
            ``(4) Effective on July 1, 1977, and July 1 of each year 
        thereafter, by an amount equal to 5 percent of the net revenue 
        of the United States for the fiscal year ending on June 30, of 
        the preceding year.''
            Sec. 4. (a) The Budget submitted annually by the President 
        pursuant to section 201 of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, 
        as amended, shall be prepared, on the basis of the best 
        estimates then available, in such a manner as to insure 
        compliance with the first section of this Act.
            (b) Notwithstanding any obligational authority granted or 
        appropriations made except such with respect to the legislative 
        and judicial branches of the Government, the President shall 
        from time to time during each fiscal year take such action as 
        may be necessary (by placing funds in reserve, by apportionment 
        of funds, or otherwise) to insure compliance with the first 
        section of this Act.
            Sec. 5. The Congress shall not pass appropriations measures 
        which will result in expenditures by the Government during any 
        fiscal year in excess of its estimated revenues for such year 
        (as revenues have been estimated in the budget submitted by the 
        President), except--
            (1) to the extent of any additional revenues of the 
        Government for such fiscal year resulting from tax legislation 
        enacted after the submission of the budget for such fiscal 
        year; or
            (2) in time of war declared by the Congress; or
            (3) during a period of grave national emergency declared in 
        accordance with the first section of this Act; but, subject to 
        paragraph (1) of this section, appropriations measures which 
        will so result in expenditures in excess of estimated revenues 
        may be passed by the Congress only during such a period of 
        grave national emergency.
            Sec. 6. This Act shall apply only in respect of fiscal 
        years beginning after June 30, 1974.

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us provides for a 
    temporary change in the debt ceiling in conformity with the Second 
    Liberty Bond Act. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
    makes a permanent change in the Second Liberty Bond Act, and 
    therefore is not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. Gross: . . . Mr. Chairman, the entire thrust of the bill 
    before us is the

[[Page 9069]]

    national debt and the ceiling of that debt. The main thrust of this 
    amendment is to control the Federal debt and reduce the ceiling.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The bill presently before the House provides for a temporary 
    change in the debt limit for this fiscal year, and the amendment 
    constitutes a permanent change in the law.
        In addition, the amendment also goes to the preparation of the 
    budget under the Budget and Accounting Act which is under the 
    jurisdiction of another committee. Volume 8 of the precedents of 
    the House provides under section 2914 the following:

            To a section proposing legislation for the current year, an 
        amendment rendering such legislation permanent was held to be 
        not germane.

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Administration of Existing Programs Transferred to New Department of 
    Education--Amendment To Prohibit Use of Authorized Funds for School 
    Busing

Sec. 41.16 Although it is ordinarily germane by way of amendment to 
    limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations carried 
    in a bill may be applied, that principle normally applies to annual 
    authorization bills reported by the committees having legislative 
    and oversight jurisdiction over the statutes for which the funds 
    are authorized; but where the Committee on Government Operations 
    has reported an organizational bill to create a new department in 
    the executive branch, which transfers the administration of 
    existing statutes and programs to that department without modifying 
    such statutes and programs, and which contains a general 
    authorization of appropriations for the department to carry out its 
    functions under the Act, such a bill is not necessarily open to 
    amendments which change the substantive laws to be administered.

    On June 19, 1979, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 2444, reported from the Committee on Government 
Operations, to establish a new Department of Education, and 
transferring to such Department the administration of federally funded 
programs within the jurisdiction of other committees. The bill 
contained an authorization of appropriations to carry out its 
provisions and to enable the Department to perform the func

[[Page 9070]]

tions transferred to it, subject to existing laws limiting 
appropriations applicable to any of those functions.(19) An 
amendment was offered (20) to prohibit the use of any funds 
appropriated under such authorization to provide for transportation of 
students or teachers for purposes of establishing racial or ethnic 
quotas in schools. The amendment was ruled out as not germane, on the 
grounds that the bill was merely organizational in nature and only 
transferred the administration of educational laws to the Department 
without modifying those laws; and because the amendment would impinge 
on the jurisdiction of other House committees having jurisdiction over 
those basic laws. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 14717, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1979.
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 15570, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      authorization of appropriations

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

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

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

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

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . . (T)he language of section 436 
    that says that this authorization is subject to any limitation 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    department, was added to the bill to negate any inference that this 
    section authorizes any funds for programs so transferred.
        Now, the section is designed to authorize only those additional 
    appropriations which are necessary to establish and operate the 
    department. Funds provided to public and private entities under the 
    programs of the department are not authorized by this section, but 
    by legislation subject to the jurisdiction of other committees and 
    not now before the house.
        An amendment to limit or constrain the use of those funds is, 
    therefore, not germane to this bill. . . .

[[Page 9071]]

        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    may be supporting the bill. I do not think this is a frivolous 
    amendment. I believe it is germane.
        So as not to waste the time of this body or of this committee, 
    I asked the parliamentarian last week to take an initial look at 
    this. He said that it might take some further study, but that it 
    looked germane at first view.
        What it attempts to do, if it appears slightly redundant, is to 
    make sure that the Department of Education is not crippled by the 
    burden of reverse discrimination dealing with quotas, busing or 
    teacher transfers. The teacher transfer problem is one to which my 
    own brother has been subjected after teaching in a Los Angeles 
    school system for 12 years.
        I will accept whatever ruling the Chair issues to this, since 
    they have already had a chance to look at it once.
        I just simply state that it is germane in more than one section 
    and not legislating in an appropriations bill, to point out areas 
    in which money cannot be spent and to allocate any personnel to 
    carry out someone else's school plan or to have a brand new 
    department of education suffering under the burden of coming up 
    with their own, I think would get the new department off to a bad 
    footing for this or what I expect to be a whole new administration 
    starting on January 20 of 1981. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes that amendments are ordinarily germane 
    which limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations or 
    an appropriation for an existing program may be put; however, the 
    Chair knows of no precedent applying that principle to a bill which 
    is only organizational in nature. Ordinarily, bills authorizing or 
    making appropriations to carry out existing statutes emerge from 
    the committees which have reported such statutes and which during 
    the authorization and appropriation process have exercised 
    oversight over the manner in which those programs are and should be 
    carried out; but the fundamental issue involved with the pending 
    bill is not whether those programs should be carried out as it is 
    with annual authorizations or appropriations, but who should 
    administer them. . . .
        To allow as germane the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
    from California would be to impinge upon the jurisdiction of the 
    committees responsible for overseeing and authorizing the 
    administration of the laws transferred by the pending legislation, 
    and would broaden its scope beyond an organizational bill to one 
    also modifying and limiting the programs proposed to be transferred 
    intact to the new department.
        The Chair believes that it is important to understand the 
    impact which section 436 has upon the bill.
        In this regard, the Chair will focus upon the first clause in 
    that section, which on its face renders the authorization for 
    appropriations subject to any limitations on appropriations 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    department or secretary. Since the basic purpose of this bill is to 
    create a new departmental entity to carry out existing educational 
    programs and policies, it is reasonable

[[Page 9072]]

    to infer that the thrust of section 436 is merely to assure under 
    the rules of the House that appropriations both for substantive 
    educational programs and for administrative expenses of the new 
    department as an organizational entity will continue to be 
    considered as authorized by and subject to provisions of existing 
    law.
        Thus, amendments to section 436 which attempt to restrict the 
    availability of funds authorized therein in ways which are not 
    addressed by existing law, such as the denial of funds to pay 
    salaries and expenses to persons who promulgate regulations 
    relating to some newly stated aspect of educational policy, are 
    beyond the scope of title IV. Title IV establishes an 
    administrative structure within the new department to carry out 
    presently enacted educational programs and policies. Such a title 
    should not, in an organizational bill, be open to amendments which 
    redirect the administration of educational programs in ways not 
    precisely contemplated by existing law.
        Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Annual Authorization--Amendment Changing Permanent Law Relating to 
    Organization of Agency

Sec. 41.17 An amendment making permanent changes in the 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,(2) during consideration of H.R. 2608 
(3) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 34083, 34089, 34090, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. 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 para

[[Page 9073]]

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

Temporary Authorization Bill Restricting Agency's Use of Funds--Senate 
    Amendment Affecting Policy Over Several Years

Sec. 41.18 To a temporary authorization bill affecting existing law 
    only to the extent of restricting an agency's use of funds 
    authorized therein, a Senate amendment contained in a conference 
    report, which was not limited to that agency's use of funds but 
    rather proposed a multi-year change in policy under the organic law 
    governing that agency's operations, was conceded to be not germane.

    On Dec. 2, 1982,(4) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 2330, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
authorization for 1982 and 1983, a point of order was made, pursuant to 
Rule XXVIII, clause 4, against a Senate amendment contained in the 
conference report. The Senate amendment as modified in the conference 
report stated in part as follows, and the point of order was made by 
Mr. Bill Frenzel, of Minnesota, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 128 Cong. Rec. 28537, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               uranium supply

        Sec. 23. (a)(1) Not later than 12 months after the date of 
    enactment of

[[Page 9074]]

    this section, the President shall prepare and submit to the 
    Congress a comprehensive review of the status of the domestic 
    uranium mining and milling industry. This review shall be made 
    available to the appropriate committees of the United States Senate 
    and the House of Representatives. . . .
        (b)(1) Chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended 
    by adding the following new section at the end thereof:
        ``Sec. 170B. Uranium Supply.
        ``a. The Secretary of Energy shall monitor and for the years 
    1983 to 1992 report annually to the Congress and to the President a 
    determination of the viability of the domestic uranium mining and 
    milling industry and shall establish by rule, after public notice 
    and in accordance with the requirements of section 181 of this Act, 
    within 9 months of enactment of this section, specific criteria 
    which shall be assessed in the annual reports on the domestic 
    uranium industry's viability. The Secretary of Energy is authorized 
    to issue regulations providing for the collection of such 
    information as the Secretary of Energy deems necessary to carry out 
    the monitoring and reporting requirements of this section. . . .
        ``e. (1) During the period 1982 to 1992, if the Secretary of 
    Energy determines that executed contracts or options for source 
    material or special nuclear material from foreign sources for use 
    in utilization facilities within or under the jurisdiction of the 
    United States represent greater than thirty-seven and one-half 
    percent of actual or projected domestic uranium requirements for 
    any two consecutive year period, then the Secretary shall 
    immediately revise criteria for services offered under paragraph 
    (A) of section 161 v. to enhance the use of source material of 
    domestic origin for use in utilization facilities licensed, or 
    required to be licensed, under section 103 or 104b. of this Act. . 
    . .
        ``f. In order to protect essential security interests of the 
    United States, upon the initiation of an investigation under 
    subsection e. to determine the effects on the national security of 
    imports of source material or special nuclear material pursuant to 
    section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it shall be 
    unlawful to execute a contract or option contract resulting in the 
    import of additional source material or special nuclear material 
    from foreign sources, which is intended to be used in domestic 
    utilization facilities licensed, or required to be licensed, under 
    section 103 or 104b. of this Act. This prohibition shall remain in 
    effect for a period of two years or until the President has taken 
    action to adjust the importation of source material and special 
    nuclear material so that such imports will not threaten to impair 
    the national security, whichever first occurs.''. . .
    Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order against section 
23 of the conference report substitute. . . .
    I make a point of order that the matter contained in section 23 of 
the conference report would not be germane to H.R. 2330 under clause 7 
of rule XVI if offered in the House and is, therefore, subject to a 
point of order under clause 4 of rule XXVIII.
    The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Does the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Udall) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).

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

[[Page 9075]]

    Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, we concede the 
substance of the point of order the gentleman is making.
    The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.
    Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of clause 4, 
rule XXVIII, I move that the House reject section 23 of the conference 
substitute recommended in the conference report.
    The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) 
is recognized for 20 minutes on his motion.

Authorization for Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Two Years--Senate 
    Amendment To Amend Atomic Energy Act

Sec. 41.19 To a House bill authorizing appropriations for two years for 
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission but not amending the Atomic 
    Energy Act with respect to nuclear energy policy, provisions in a 
    Senate amendment contained in a conference report amending several 
    sections of that Act making permanent changes in the law relating 
    to limitation on use of special nuclear material, disclosure of 
    Department of Energy information, and deadlines for promulgation of 
    environmental standards by EPA and NRC for uranium mill tailings 
    were conceded to be nongermane under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, 
    permitting a divisible motion to reject those portions of the 
    conference report.

    On Dec. 2, 1982,(6) a point of order was made against 
portions of a conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 4, 
which permits such points of order against nongermane matter contained 
in conference reports. The conference report stated in part as follows, 
and the point of order was made by Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 128 Cong. Rec. 28544, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               LIMITATION ON USE OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL

        Sec. 14. Section 57 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
    2077) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsection:
        ``e. Special nuclear material, as defined in section 11, 
    produced in facilities licensed under section 103 or 104 may not be 
    transferred, reprocessed, used, or otherwise made available by any 
    instrumentality of the United States or any other person for 
    nuclear explosive purposes.''. . .
        18. (a) Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is 
    amended--
        (1) by striking in subsection a. ``one year after the date of 
    enactment of this section''
        (B) the Commission's requirements are modified to conform to 
    such standards.
        Such suspension shall terminate on the earlier of April 1, 1984 
    or the date

[[Page 9076]]

    on which the Commission amends the October 3 regulations to conform 
    to final standards promulgated by the Administrator under 
    subsection b. During the period of such suspension, the Commission 
    shall continue to regulate by product material (as defined in 
    section 11 e (2)) under this Act on a licensee-by-licensee basis as 
    the Commission deems necessary to protect public health, safety, 
    and the environment.
        ``(3) Not later than 6 months after the date on which the 
    Administrator promulgates final standards pursuant to subsection b. 
    of this section, the Commission shall, after notice and opportunity 
    for public comment, amend the October 3 regulations, and adopt such 
    modifications, as the Commission deems necessary to conform to such 
    final standards of the Administrator. . . .
        (b)(1) Section 108(a) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 
    Control Act of 1978 is amended by adding the following new 
    paragraph at the end thereof.
        ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 
    subsection, after October 31, 1982, if the Administrator has not 
    promulgated standards under section 275 a. of the Atomic Energy Act 
    of 1954 in final form by such date, remedial action taken by the 
    Secretary under this title shall comply with the standards proposed 
    by the Administrator under such section 275 a. until such time as 
    the Administrator promulgates the standards in final form.''.

        (2) The second sentence of section 108(a)(2) of the Uranium 
    Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 is repealed. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
    matter contained in sections 14, 17, and 18 of the substitute for 
    the Senate amendment in the conference report would not be germane 
    to H.R. 2330 if offered in the House and is, therefore, subject to 
    a point of order under the rules of the House.
        I make this point of order, Mr. Speaker, because sections 14, 
    17, and 18 would be permanent changes in law and this bill is a 2-
    year authorization bill; also, the three sections contain matters 
    that fall within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I concede the 
    point of order and wish to be heard in the regular order on the 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.

                       motion offered by mr. stratton

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Stratton moves that the House reject sections 14, 17, 
        and 18 of the substitute recommended in the conference report.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Arizona (Mr. Udall) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton).

[[Page 9077]]

    Mr. Stratton, in the ensuing debate, further addressed the issue of 
germaneness:

        Section 14 of the conference report . . . is nongermane as an 
    amendment to the House bill authorizing appropriations for the 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Section 14 was a Senate amendment 
    that deals with special nuclear material by amending the Atomic 
    Energy Act of 1954, but special nuclear material is material that 
    is used for the purpose of making nuclear weapons and is, 
    therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
    Services.
        The language of section 14, as adopted by the conferees, would 
    therefore have been nongermane had such an amendment been offered 
    in the House.
        Section 17, which was a Senate amendment to the House bill, is 
    also nongermane since it would revise permanent law through a 2-
    year authorization. This section would revise a statute dealing 
    with the release of information concerning security measures by the 
    Secretary of Energy, and other matters that involve the nuclear 
    weapons program of the Department of Energy.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to reject the nongermane 
portions of the conference report was substantively and grammatically 
divisible, so that a division of the question on any of the three 
sections could have been demanded by any Member prior to the Chair's 
putting the question on the motion to reject, in order to avoid a 
subsequent point of order against one of the sections just to obtain a 
separate subsequent vote on a motion to reject that one section.

Individual Proposition Not Germane to Another Individual Proposition--
    Amendment to Act Not Directly Amended by Bill

Sec. 41.20 To a portion of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    regulating the importation of liquefied natural gas, but not 
    directly amending the Natural Gas Act, an amendment to the Natural 
    Gas Act to prohibit the Federal Power Commission from regulating 
    the price of natural gas at the well-head was held to be not 
    germane.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(8) during consideration of H.R. 11450 
(9) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that 
an amendment changing existing law in order to achieve one individual 
purpose is not germane to a proposition which does not amend that law 
and which seeks to accomplish another individual purpose. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 41723-25, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. The Energy Emergency Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert D.] Price of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to

[[Page 9078]]

    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Texas to the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers:
            Page 37, line 5 is amended to read as follows:
        Sec. 118. Deregulation of the Price of Natural Gas and 
        Importation of Liquefied Natural Gas.

            Page 37, line 6, insert ``(a)'' before ``The Emergency''.
            Page 37, after line 18, insert the following new 
        subsection:
            (b)(1) Section 2(6) of the Natural Gas Act is amended by 
        inserting before the period at the end thereof the following: 
        ``, except that such term does not include a person engaged in 
        the production or gathering and sale of natural gas whether or 
        not such person is affiliated with any person engaged in the 
        transmission of natural gas to consumer markets or the 
        distribution of natural gas to the ultimate consumer''.
            (2) Section 4(a) is amended by inserting before the period 
        at the end thereof the following: ``: Provided, however, That 
        the Commission shall have no power to deny, in whole or in 
        part, that portion of the rates and charges made, demanded, or 
        received by any natural-gas company for or in connection with 
        the purchase of natural gas from a person exempt under section 
        2(6)''. . . .

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: The amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute does not contain provisions governing 
    price regulations of natural gas. The gentleman's amendment 
    proposes a direct amendment to provisions of the Natural Gas Act.
        It is, therefore, not germane and out of order, because this 
    pricing authority is assigned to the Federal Power Commission under 
    that act and we do not deal with it in any way in our bill.
        Mr. Price of Texas: Mr. Chairman, in the report on page 5, 
    section 106, coal conversion and allocation, it deals with the 
    provision that is a primary energy source. . . .

            . . . To the extent coal supplies are limited to less than 
        the aggregate amount of coal supplies which may be necessary to 
        satisfy the requirements of those installations which can be 
        expected to use coal (including installations to which orders 
        may apply under this subsection), the Administrator shall 
        prohibit the use of natural gas and petroleum products for 
        those installations where the use of coal will have the least 
        adverse environmental impact. . . .

        It is further mentioned in section 118, importation of 
    liquefied natural gas. Section 9 says:

            Sec. 9. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of the 
        Natural Gas Act (or any other provisions of law) the President 
        may by order, on a finding that such action would be consistent 
        to the public interest, authorize on a shipment-by-shipment 
        basis the importation of liquefied natural gas from a foreign 
        country. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    requirements of the rule of germaneness are that the amendment be 
    germane, first to the bill and second to the language of the 
    section to which it is offered.
        There is nothing in the bill dealing with deregulation of 
    natural gas. Therefore, the amendment fails with regard to that 
    point. Second, there is

[[Page 9079]]

    nothing in the section to which the amendment alludes which deals 
    with deregulation of natural gas.
        The amendment purports to amend section 118 and it changes the 
    title, deregulation of the price of natural gas and importation of 
    liquefied natural gas. The section to which it alludes, section 
    118, is a section relating to the importation of natural gas.
        By no distortion of the rules of the House or common logic or 
    the English language may it be construed that deregulation of 
    natural gas and importation are one and the same thing, or indeed 
    are even germane to each other.
        For those two reasons, Mr. Chairman, the amendment [violates] 
    the rule of germaneness. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Kemp [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the title of 
    the bill is as follows:

            To assure . . . that the essential energy needs of the 
        United States are met . . .

        I would suggest and submit that that certainly makes this 
    amendment in order, as well as the section the gentleman in the 
    well has alluded to in his remarks.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons essentially given by the gentleman from 
    Michigan, which the Chair will repeat at least in part, very 
    briefly, the amendment is not germane.
        Those reasons are that the amendment which the committee is 
    considering does not amend the Natural Gas Act. It should also be 
    noted that the section deals with a single subject, and under the 
    germaneness rule an individual proposition is not germane to 
    another individual proposition.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Citing But Not Amending Clayton Act--Amendment Making Provisions 
    of Clayton Act Applicable to Subject of Bill

Sec. 41.21 To a bill citing but not amending a law on another subject, 
    an amendment incorporating that law by reference to broaden its 
    application to the subject of the bill is not germane; thus, to a 
    title of a bill regulating financial institutions, referring to but 
    not amending the Clayton Act, an amendment providing that the 
    provisions of that title (relating to interlocking directorates) 
    are deemed to be provisions of the Clayton Act, and authorizing the 
    Attorney General to prosecute violations of such provisions in the 
    same manner, and with the same authority, as under the Clayton Act, 
    was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 13471 (11) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair sustained a

[[Page 9080]]

point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
of Oct. 5, 1978,(12) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The Financial Institutions Regulatory Act of 1978.
12. 24 Cong. Rec. 33814-18, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        TITLE II--INTERLOCKING DIRECTORS

            Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the ``Depository 
        Institution Management Interlocks Act''. . . .
            Sec. 206. A person whose service in a position as a 
        management official began prior to the date of enactment of 
        this title and was not immediately prior to the date of 
        enactment of this title in violation of section 8 of the 
        Clayton Act is not prohibited by section 203 or section 204 of 
        this title from continuing to serve in that position for a 
        period of ten years after the date of enactment of this title. 
        The appropriate Federal banking agency (as set forth in section 
        209) may provide a reasonable period of time for compliance 
        with this title, not exceeding fifteen months, after any change 
        in circumstances which makes such service prohibited by this 
        title. . . .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. St Germain: . . .

        Page 90, immediately after line 23, insert the following:

            Sec. 205. Service as a management official of a depository 
        institution or a depository holding company and as a management 
        official of any other company not affiliated therewith shall be 
        prohibited if such depository holding company and other company 
        not affiliated therewith are or shall have been theretofore, by 
        virtue of their business and location of operation, 
        competitors, so that the elimination of competition by 
        agreement between them would constitute a violation of any of 
        the provisions of any of the antitrust laws. . . . For purposes 
        of this section, the term ``antitrust laws,'' shall have the 
        definition assigned that term in the Act entitled ``An Act to 
        supplement existing laws against unlawful restraint and 
        monopolies, and for other purposes,'' approved October 15, 1914 
        (Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 732, as amended). Renumber succeeding 
        sections accordingly. . . .
            Page 93, strike out lines 6 through 9, and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            (6) the Attorney General with respect to any company. 
        Whenever this title is enforced by the Attorney General, the 
        provisions of this title shall be deemed provisions of the 
        Clayton Act and a violation of this title shall be deemed a 
        violation of the Clayton Act. All of the functions and powers 
        of the Attorney General under the Clayton Act are available to 
        the Attorney General to enforce compliance by any reason with 
        this title, irrespective of any jurisdiction tests in the 
        Clayton Act, including the power to enforce the provisions of 
        this title in the same manner as if the violation had been a 
        violation of the Clayton Act. All of the functions and powers 
        of the Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General in 
        charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice 
        are available to the Attorney General or to such Assistant 
        Attorney General to investigate possible violations of this 
        title in the same manner as if such possible violations were 
        possible violations of the Clayton Act. . . .

        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my 
    point of order. . . .

[[Page 9081]]

        Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the Chair that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island goes far beyond the 
    scope of the present legislation. It attempts circuitously to amend 
    the Clayton Act. It is not germane and, therefore, should not be 
    part of this legislation and, furthermore, it is within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. . . .
        Mr. St Germain: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply 
    expands the provisions of title II. It does not raise issues 
    outside the scope of the title. Title II, as adopted by the 
    committee, deals with interlocking directorates among financial 
    institutions and the anticompetitive effect of such interlocks.
        This amendment simply extends anticompetitive tests to 
    interlocks between banks and other types of financial institutions 
    and is clearly germane.
        It does not amend the Clayton Act and is not subject to 
    challenge on this point.
        The amendment does refer to the Clayton Act--but so does the 
    title II adopted by the committee. The amendment does refer to the 
    authority of the Attorney General--but again so does the title 
    adopted by the committee. Clearly the reference to the Clayton Act 
    and the Attorney General cannot be ruled nongermane when the bill 
    itself already contains reference to both. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Brown) has made a point of order against the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St Germain) on the ground that 
    the amendment is not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Mike McCormack (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment seeks to prohibit certain interlocking 
    directorates or other related functions between the management 
    official of the depository institution and any other company. This 
    includes any other company which might be in competition with a 
    depository holding company.
        The amendment would bring into play functions and powers of the 
    Attorney General under the Clayton Act and give the Attorney 
    General all the power he would have under that Act to enforce 
    certain anticompetitive practices.
        Based on the argument made by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Brown) and the Chair's reading of the amendment, that it shall be 
    deemed to be part of the provisions of the Clayton Act and that 
    violations of the amendment would be deemed violations of the 
    Clayton Act, and because title II of the bill does not in fact 
    amend the Clayton Act but merely refers to that law in a manner 
    which does not change that law's application, the Chair holds the 
    amendment not germane to title II.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Relating to One Criminal Activity--Amendment Changing Effective 
    Date of Law Relating to Other Activities

Sec. 41.22 A bill narrowly amending one subsection of existing law for 
    a single purpose does not necessarily open the

[[Page 9082]]

    entire section of the law to amendment; thus, to a bill narrowly 
    amending one subsection of existing law relating to one specific 
    criminal activity, an amendment postponing the effective date of 
    the entire section, affecting other criminal provisions as well as 
    the one amended by the bill, and affecting other classes of 
    persons, was held not germane.

    During consideration of S. 869 (14) in the Committee of 
the Whole on May 16, 1979,(15) the Chair sustained a point 
of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. A bill relating to clarification of conflict of interest 
        restrictions on former government employees.
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 11466, 11467, 11470, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        subsection (b) of section 207 of title 18, United States Code, 
        as amended by the Act of October 26, 1978 (Public Law 95-521, 
        section 501(a); 92 Stat. 1864) is amended as follows: In clause 
        (ii), strike ``concerning'' and insert ``by personal presence 
        at''; and in subparagraph (3), before ``which was'' insert ``, 
        as to (i),'' and after ``responsibility, or'' insert ``, as to 
        (ii).'' . . .

        Mr. [Robert] McClory (of Illinois): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McClory: On page 2, following line 
        2, add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 2. Section 503 of Public Law 95-521 is amended by 
        striking ``July 1, 1979'' and inserting ``January 1, 1980'' in 
        lieu thereof.''. . .

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    make the point of order now.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would add a section 2 
    to amend section 503 of Public Law 95-521 by striking ``July 1, 
    1979'' and inserting ``July 1, 1980'' in lieu thereof. I 
    respectfully point out that the bill before us does not deal with 
    section 503 of the bill Public Law 95-521. It does not deal with 
    that section and, therefore, the gentleman's amendment would not be 
    germane to the bill before us. . . .
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I have offered 
    relates to Public Law 95-521, which is the law which is referred to 
    in the legislation which we have under consideration at the present 
    time. The amendment which I have offered would delay the effective 
    date of the entire legislation, including the section to which the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Danielson) has made reference, and 
    which is referred to specifically in the measure, and would keep 
    that part and the rest of the legislation from becoming effective 
    until January 1, 1979.
        It is, in my view, entirely germane. It is precisely relevant 
    to the subject about which we are giving consideration now. 
    sInstead of papering over something with a so-called technical 
    amendment, what we are doing is to delay the effective date of the 
    entire

[[Page 9083]]

    act in order that we can handle the subject not only technically 
    but substantively as well. I urge that the Chairman overrule the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (16) . . . This act applies to 
    subsection (b) of section 207 of title 18, and it is a very 
    narrowly drafted and defined bill as amended at this point. The 
    amendment which the gentleman has offered seeks to extend the time 
    for the entire act covering categories of persons other than those 
    under subsection (b) of section 207, and under the precedents that 
    the Chair has examined, the Chair will sustain the point of order 
    accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. E de la Garza (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency's Regulatory Authority Regarding Certain Toxic Wastes--Amendment 
    Addressing Compensation to Those Affected by Wastes

Sec. 41.23 A bill narrowly amending a law in one respect does not 
    necessarily allow as germane other amendments to that law which are 
    not related to the subject of the bill; thus, to a bill amending 
    the Solid Waste Disposal Act relating to an agency's regulatory 
    authority to prevent improper disposal of solid wastes, and 
    containing one section amending another law only with respect to 
    reimbursement to states from the fund provided therein, an 
    amendment proposing another unrelated amendment to that law, 
    providing for payments from that fund for a new category of 
    assistance for community relocation, was held not germane, since 
    the bill did not address in a comprehensive way compensation for 
    damages caused by previous toxic waste disposals.

    On Oct. 6, 1983,(17) during consideration of H.R. 2867 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order in the circumstances described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 129 Cong. Rec. 27690, 27692, 27693, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES OWNED BY STATES OR POLITICAL 
                                  SUBDIVISIONS

            Sec. 10. Section 104(c)(3) of the Comprehensive 
        Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
        is amended by--
            (1) striking out ``owned'' and substituting ``owned and 
        operated'' in subparagraph (C)(ii); and
            (2) adding the following at the end thereof: ``In the case 
        of any State which has paid, at any time after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, in excess of 10 per centum of the costs 
        of remedial action at a facility owned, but not operated by, 
        such State or by a political subdivision thereof, the President 
        shall use money in the Fund to provide reimbursement to such 
        State for the amount of such excess.'' . . .

[[Page 9084]]

        Mr. [Ike] Skelton (of Missouri): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Skelton: Page 30, line 25, insert:

                              community relocation

            Sec. 10A. (a) The second sentence of paragraph (23) of 
        section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
        Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-510) is 
        amended by inserting after ``not otherwise provided for,'' the 
        phrase ``costs of permanent relocation of residents where it is 
        determined that such permanent relocation is cost effective or 
        may be necessary to protect health or welfare,'' and by 
        striking out the semicolon at the end thereof and inserting in 
        lieu thereof a period and the following: ``In the case of a 
        business located in an area of evacuation or relocation, the 
        term may also include the payment of those installments of 
        principal and interest on business debt which accrue between 
        the date of evacuation or temporary relocation and thirty days 
        following the date that permanent relocation is actually 
        accomplished or, if permanent relocation is formally rejected 
        as the appropriate response, the date on which evacuation or 
        temporary relocation ceases. In the case of an individual 
        unemployed as a result of such evacuation or relocation, it may 
        also include the provisions of the assistance authorized by 
        sections 407, 408, and 409 of the Disaster Relief Act of 
        1974;'' . . .
            (b) Section 104(c)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
        Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Public Law 
        96-510) is amended by inserting before ``authorized by section 
        (b) of this section,'' the phrase ``for permanent relocation 
        or''.
            (c) Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be 
        construed to appropriate funds (or divert appropriated funds) 
        for any purpose for which such funds would not otherwise be 
        available. . . .

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    just say on my point of order that this amendment attempts to amend 
    a portion of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
    Compensation, and Liability act Superfund, which is not before this 
    committee and, accordingly, is not germane.
        On the merits of the proposal, I would just say that the 
    gentleman is attempting to expand the scope of Superfund. That may 
    very well be desirable, but it should be desirable at the 
    appropriate time when we are dealing with that. . . .
        Mr. Skelton: . . . The fact that section 10 deals with the 
    Superfund in and of itself opens the door.
        My colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, has indicated his 
    view that this money in the Superfund was intended for cleanup 
    alone and that my amendment takes it beyond that purpose or that we 
    should limit it to just that purpose.
        I would remind my colleague that the very title of the 
    Superfund law is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
    Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.
        Section 101, paragraph 23, which I seek to amend, clearly 
    provides for compensation as a result of actions taken by the 
    Administrator or the President to protect the health and welfare of 
    our citizens. That is the central purpose of the Superfund, to 
    protect people. . . .
        I would like to point out that this is not an entitlement, but 
    it is rather a useful tool which the Administrator can use if it is 
    appropriate.

[[Page 9085]]

        We do not direct him to take these actions, but merely make it 
    clear that they are there in case he needs them.
        Now, I also submit to the chairman that section 10 is far more 
    sweeping in its effect on the Superfund than my amendment is. The 
    previous section, section 10, changes the amount of the State's 
    contribution for State-owned sites from 50 percent to 10 percent, 
    because in some cases they cannot afford the expense.
        All my amendment would do is to clarify that the Administrator 
    can in his discretion in those rare instances where such action is 
    appropriate to take actions himself to help the residents of a 
    contaminated area.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Section 10 of this bill does amend subsection 104(c)(3) of the 
    Superfund law, Public Law 96-510, but only in a very narrow respect 
    regarding State contributions and reimbursements from the fund. The 
    bill does not so comprehensively amend the Superfund law as to 
    permit further amendments to the law which are unrelated to the 
    specific changes contained in the bill.
        The amendment from the gentleman from Missouri relates to 
    eligibility for certain community relocation assistance for the 
    Superfund and is not related to the issue contained in the bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.