[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§ 42. Amendment Changing or Citing Existing Law to Bill Not Citing That Law]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9085-9184]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
            E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW
 
Sec. 42. Amendment Changing or Citing Existing Law to Bill Not Citing 
    That Law

    A point of order may lie against an amendment if it amends, either 
directly or by implication, a law which is not contemplated in the bill 
under consideration and which is not before the 
House.                          -------------------

Bill Amending Fair Labor Standards Act--Amendment To Change Tariff Act

Sec. 42.1 To a bill reported from the Committee on Education and Labor 
    and amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, an amendment proposing 
    to modify the Tariff Act of 1930, which was a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, was held not 
    germane.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 27214, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 28, 1967. See 
        Sec. 42.2, infra, for further discussion of this ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 42.2 To a bill amending two sections of the Fair Labor Standards 
    Act and concerned with certain effects of imports on the domestic 
    labor market, an amendment pro

[[Page 9086]]

    posing changes in the Tariff Act of 1930 and concerned with the 
    importation of merchandise from Communist nations, was held to be 
    not germane.

    On Sept. 28, 1967, the Fair Labor Standards Foreign Trade Act of 
1967 (1) was under consideration. The bill stated in part: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 478 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 2. See 113 Cong. Rec. 27212, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Congressional Finding and Declaration of Policy

        Sec. 2. (a) Subsection (a) of section 2 of the Fair Labor 
    Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. sec. 202), is amended 
    to read as follows:

            (a) The Congress finds that the existence in industries 
        engaged in commerce . . . of labor conditions detrimental to 
        the maintenance of (a) minimum standard of living . . . and the 
        unregulated importation of goods produced by industries in 
        foreign nations under such conditions . . . interferes with the 
        orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. . . .

        Sec. 3. Subsection (e) of section 4 of the Fair Labor Standards 
    Act of 1938, as amended, is amended to read as follows:

            (e)(1) Upon the request of the President, or upon 
        resolution of either House of Congress . . . or upon 
        application of any interested party . . . the Secretary of 
        Labor shall promptly make an investigation . . . to determine 
        whether any product is being imported into the United States 
        under such circumstances, due in whole or in part to the fact 
        that such foreign goods were produced under conditions such as 
        those referred to in subsection (a) of section 2 of this Act 
        which are causing or substantially contributing serious 
        impairment or threat of impairment to the health, efficiency, 
        and general well-being of any group of workers in the United 
        States or to the economic welfare of the community in which any 
        such group of workers are employed. . . .
            (4) Upon receipt of the report of the Secretary containing 
        a finding that an imported product is or likely will be sold in 
        competition with like or competitive goods produced in the 
        United States under such circumstances, the President may take 
        such action as he deems appropriate to remove such impairment 
        or threat of impairment, in addition to any other customs 
        treatment provided by law. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 27214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: On page 
    4, immediately after line 18, insert the following:

            Sec. 4. (a) Section 313(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
        U.S.C. 1313(h)) is amended by inserting before the period at 
        the end thereof the following:'', except that, if the imported 
        merchandise is imported directly or indirectly from a country 
        or area which is dominated or controlled by Communism, no 
        drawback shall be allowed under subsection (a) or (b).'' . . .

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

[[Page 9087]]

        Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is an amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
        This legislation represents an amendment to the Fair Labor 
    Standards Act. The amendment, in my opinion, is not germane, since 
    the provisions of the Tariff Act come under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means and not under the jurisdiction of the 
    committee or the subcommittee which it is my honor to chair. . . .

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill before the committee amends two sections of the Fair 
    Labor Standards Act of 1938. The amendment to section 2 adds 
    further policy declarations to that act. The amendment to section 4 
    modifies the provision in current law which provides for 
    investigations by the Secretary of Labor to determine the effect of 
    imports in the domestic labor market.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois goes to 
    another law--the Tariff Act of 1930--a matter not touched on in the 
    bill now under consideration. The Chair has examined a ruling made 
    by Chairman Smith of Virginia, in the 81st Congress, where a 
    similar situation was presented. There the committee had under 
    consideration a bill amending the Defense Production Act of 1950, 
    establishing a system of priorities and allocations for materials 
    and facilities. An amendment proposing to amend the Housing and 
    Rent Act of 1947, relating to rent controls, was ruled out as not 
    germane--81st Congress, second session, August 3, 1950, Record, 
    page 11751.
        The Chair holds that the amendment is on a subject not before 
    the Committee at this time and sustains the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane.

Defense Production Act--Amendment Affecting Application of Child Labor 
    Laws

Sec. 42.3 Where a bill sought to amend and extend the Defense 
    Production Act, which provided in part for the allocation of 
    certain materials, for financial assistance in expanding 
    production, and for price and wage stabilization, an amendment was 
    held to be not germane which sought to make child labor provisions 
    of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 inapplicable in certain 
    instances.

    On June 25, 1952, during consideration of the Defense Production 
Act Amendments of 1952,(5) the following amendment was 
offered to the bill: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 8210 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 6. 98 Cong. Rec. 8058, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Walter E.) Rogers of Texas: On page 
    6, line 11, add a new subsection to be numbered 105(f) to read as 
    follows:

[[Page 9088]]

            The provisions of section 12 of the Fair Labor Standards 
        Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S. Code, sec. 212), relating to 
        child labor shall not apply with respect to any employee 
        employed in agriculture while not legally required to attend 
        school.

    Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York, having raised a point of order 
against the amendment, Mr. Rogers responded as follows:

        . . . I presume that the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from New York is based on the proposition that this is an attempt 
    to amend another law in the Defense Production Act. My position is 
    that this is emergency legislation, and that it does not amend 
    another law, but merely creates an exemption during the effective 
    period of this act, and has nothing in the world to do with 
    amending or repealing any section of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

    Mr. Multer stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the point is that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas will amend the Fair Labor Standards Act, which 
    is not a part of this act and, therefore, is not germane to the 
    bill now before us.

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is not germane 
    to the bill before the Committee since it proposes in effect an 
    amendment to another law with reference to which the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency would have no jurisdiction. Therefore, the 
    point of order is sustained.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 42.6, infra, in which an amendment having a similar 
        purpose but not referring specifically to the Fair Labor 
        Standards Act of 1938 was held to be germane, despite its lack 
        of textual reference as merely an exemption from wage control 
        provisions in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment To Change Housing and Rent Act

Sec. 42.4 To the Defense Production Act of 1950, establishing in part a 
    system of priorities and allocations for materials and facilities, 
    an amendment proposing to amend the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 
    was held not germane.

    On Aug. 3, 1950, during consideration of the Defense Production Act 
of 1950,(9) the following amendment was offered: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 9176 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 11751, 11752, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara of Illinois: On page 39, after 
    line 14, insert the following new title:

                            Title VII--Rent Control

            Sec. 501. Section 4(c) of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, 
        as amended, is amended by striking out ``June 30, 1951'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof, ``June 30, 1952, or at such earlier 
        time as the Congress by concurrent resolution or the President 
        by proclamation may designate''. . . .
            Sec. 508. Section 204(i) of the Housing and Rent Act of 
        1947, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) Whenever a local advisory board in any defense-rental 
        area in

[[Page 9089]]

        which maximum rents were never regulated under the Emergency 
        Price Control Act of 1942 . . . after having determined, with 
        respect to the area over which it has jurisdiction . . . either 
        that (A) a scarcity of rental housing has developed as a result 
        of national defense activity . . . or (C) rents have increased 
        or are about to increase unreasonably, recommends that such 
        action is necessary or appropriate in order to effectuate the 
        purposes of this title, or to promote national defense, the 
        Housing Expediter . . . shall . . . establish such maximum rent 
        . . . for any housing accommodations in such area . . . as in 
        his judgment will be fair and equitable.''. . .

    The following exchange (11) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 11752.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    subject matter of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Barratt] O'Hara [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, this is a 
    bill of controls. Certainly nothing could be more germane to such a 
    bill than control over the prices that people can charge for 
    housing. I may say that the amendment I have offered strikes at the 
    very heart and soul of control. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair has considered the 
    amendment rather briefly. It seems to relate to a subject that is 
    nowhere touched on in this present bill before the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is constrained to rule . . . that the amendment is 
    not germane to the pending substitute. . . .

--Amendment Affecting Internal Revenue Code

Sec. 42.5 To a bill to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950, a 
    committee amendment citing and indirectly amending the Internal 
    Revenue Code, a matter within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee, was held to be not germane.

    The following proceedings,(13) which took place during 
consideration of a bill (14) to amend the Defense Production 
Act of 1950, relate to a committee amendment and objections interposed 
thereto:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 97 Cong. Rec. 7978-80, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 11, 1951.
14. H.R. 3871 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) The Clerk will report the next 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:
        Committee amendment: Page 12, line 7, insert:

            (e) Title III of the Defense Production Act of 1950 is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

        ``Sec. 305. (a) No construction or expansion of plants . . . or 
    other facilities shall be (1) undertaken, or assisted by means of 
    loans . . . by the United States under this or any other act, or 
    (2) certified under section 124A of the Internal Revenue Code 
    (relating to amortization for tax purposes), and

[[Page 9090]]

    no equipment, facilities, or processes owned by the Government 
    shall be installed under the authority of this or any other act in 
    any plant . . . or other industrial facility which is privately 
    owned, unless the President shall have determined that the proposed 
    location of such construction . . . or installation is consistent . 
    . . with a sound policy of (1) utilizing fully the human and 
    material resources of the Nation wherever located . . . and (3) 
    minimizing the necessity for further concentrations of population 
    in areas in which available housing and community facilities are 
    presently overburdened.'' . . .
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the subject matter of the bill. It has to do with an 
    amendment to the Internal Revenue Code, in respect to the 
    acceleration of appreciation for tax purposes. . . .
        Mr. [Foster] Furcolo [of Massachusetts]: . . . There is nothing 
    in the Defense Production Act of 1950 relating to amortization for 
    taxation purposes.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, of 
    course a committee amendment occupies no different status than an 
    amendment offered by a Member from the floor. This amendment 
    undertakes to add to this bill a provision which has no relation at 
    all to the Defense Production Act of 1950. . . .
        Mr. [Albert] Rains [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    in this particular act has reference to defense plants or to plants 
    engaged in the defense effort. It is true that in this particular 
    amendment reference is made to the Internal Revenue Act and to tax 
    amortization certificates. After the Chair rules--I say this in 
    order that Members may get their speeches ready--if the Chair rules 
    it out on a point of order I have an amendment which I shall offer 
    at this particular place that eliminates the specific reference to 
    any other act. . . . (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Mr. Rains subsequently offered an amendment which eliminated 
        reference to any other acts, including the Internal Revenue 
        Code. The amendment was held to be germane, the Chair ruling on 
        a point of order raised by Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott (Mich.). See 97 
        Cong. Rec. 7982, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 11, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: . . . The Chair calls attention to the rule on 
    germaneness and desires to read one paragraph from Cannon's 
    Procedure in the House of Representatives:

            While the Committee may report a bill embracing different 
        subjects, it is not in order during consideration of the bill 
        to introduce a new subject and the rule applies to amendments 
        offered by the Committee as well as to amendments offered from 
        the floor.

        The amendment offered by the committee goes beyond the purview 
    of the bill, House bill 3871, and beyond the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Banking and Currency in attempting to amend other 
    statutes in connection with this bill.
        The amendment refers not only to the bill under consideration 
    but to other acts. It also refers to section 124(a) of the Internal 
    Revenue Code,

[[Page 9091]]

    invading the jurisdiction of another standing committee of the 
    House.
        The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

--Exemption of Agricultural Workers From Definition of Child Labor

Sec. 42.6 Where a bill sought to amend and extend the Defense 
    Production Act, which provided in part for the allocation of 
    certain materials, for financial assistance in expanding 
    production, and for price and wage stabilization, an amendment was 
    held to be germane which provided that employment of any employee 
    in agriculture while such employee is not required to attend school 
    be deemed not to constitute oppressive child labor, the amendment 
    being construed merely as an exemption from the wage control 
    provisions of the bill.

    On June 25, 1952, during consideration of the Defense Production 
Act Amendments of 1952,(17) an amendment was offered to that 
portion of the bill relating, in part, to exemptions from wage control 
provisions of the bill. The bill stated: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 8210 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
18. See 98 Cong. Rec. 7720, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 20, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 105 . . .
            (d) Subsection (e) of section 402 of the Defense Production 
        Act of 1950, as amended, is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new paragraph:
            ``(e) Wages, salaries, or other compensation of persons 
        employed in small-business enterprises as defined in this 
        paragraph: Provided however, That the President may from time 
        to time exclude from this exemption such enterprises on the 
        basis of industries, types of business, occupations, or areas, 
        if their exemption would be unstabilizing with respect to 
        wages, salaries, or other compensation, prices, or manpower, or 
        would otherwise be contrary to the purposes of this act. A 
        small-business enterprise, for the purpose of this paragraph, 
        is any enterprise in which a total of eight or less persons are 
        employed in all its establishments, branches, units, or 
        affiliates.

    The amendment was as follows: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 98 Cong. Rec. 8058, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Walter E.] Rogers [of Texas]: On page 
    6, after line 11, add a new subsection to be numbered 105(f) to 
    read as follows:

            Employment of any employee in agriculture, while such 
        employee is not legally required to attend school shall be 
        deemed to not constitute oppressive child labor.

        Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York, having raised the point of 
    order that the amendment was not germane, the following ruling was 
    made:

[[Page 9092]]

        The Chairman: (20) . . . The Chair is of the opinion 
    that the amendment in its present form is germane in that the 
    gentleman from Texas proposes a further exemption from the wage 
    control provisions of the existing bill. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York. 
    (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 1. See Sec. 42.3, supra, in which an amendment having a similar 
        purpose was held not to be germane, inasmuch as it proposed 
        specific changes in the application of an act not under 
        consideration. The purport of the amendment solely as an 
        exemption from the wage control provision of the pending bill 
        does not appear to have been clearly demonstrated. The 
        proponent of the amendment should have been required to show 
        that the amendment did not affect other law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of ``Agriculture'' in Fair Labor Standards Act--Point of 
    Order That Amendment Affected Other Acts

Sec. 42.7 To a substitute amendment modifying the definition of 
    ``agriculture'' in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to include 
    the processing of tobacco and containing diverse other amendments 
    to that Act, an amendment adding to such definition the processing 
    of fruit and vegetables was held to be germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, discussion for a time 
focused on the following amendment, which had been offered 
(3) by Mr. William H. Ayres, of Ohio:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 3935 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 3. See 107 Cong. Rec. 4797, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Strike out all after the enacting clauses and insert the 
    following:

            That this Act may be cited as the ``Fair Labor Standards 
        Amendments of 1961.''

                                  Definitions

            Sec. 2. (a) Paragraph (f) of section 3 of the Fair Labor 
        Standards Act of 1938 is amended by inserting after 
        ``Agricultural Marketing Act, as amended,'' the following: 
        ``the processing of shade-grown tobacco for use as cigar 
        wrapper tobacco by agricultural employees employed in the 
        growing and harvesting of such tobacco. . . .''

    To such amendment, the following amendment was offered: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 4806.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Page 2, line 5, strike out the period and add the 
        following: ``and in the case of fruits and vegetables includes 
        (1) transportation and preparation for transportation, whether 
        or not performed by the farmer, of the commodity from the farm 
        to a place of first processing or first marketing

[[Page 9093]]

        within the same State, (2) transportation, whether or not 
        performed by the farmer, between the farm and any point within 
        the same State of persons employed or to be employed in the 
        harvesting of the commodity.''

    Mr. Roman C. Pucinski, of Illinois, raised a point of order against 
the amendment, stating that the amendment was not germane. Mr. James G. 
O'Hara, of Michigan, elaborated upon the point of order as follows:

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida attempts to 
    amend not the act before us, but Public Law 78, under which migrant 
    labor is brought into the country, and the other act of Congress 
    under which the U.S. Employment Service is established.
        An exemption already exists under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
    exempting agricultural labor from the application of the Fair Labor 
    Standards Act, and this is an attempt to amend not the Fair Labor 
    Standards Act, but other acts passed by various Congresses.
        The Chairman, (5) however, ruled that the amendment 
    was germane; he stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Omnibus Agricultural Bill--Amendment Changing Act Not Otherwise Amended 
    in Bill

Sec. 42.8 To an omnibus agricultural bill, amending several laws 
    relating to agriculture, an amendment proposing changes in the 
    Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, which was not 
    otherwise amended in the bill, was held to be not germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of the Food and 
Agricultural Bill of 1962,(6) an amendment was offered 
(7) whose purpose was explained by the proponent, as 
follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. The ``second agriculture bill'' of 1962, H.R. 12391 (Committee on 
        Agriculture).
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 14191, 14192, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 1962.
 8. Id. at p. 14192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: . . . This amendment 
    provides for legalizing the compensatory payments feature of the 
    Milk Marketing Act, which was invalidated on the 4th of June by the 
    Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

    ``Compensatory payments'' referred to certain amounts paid into a 
fund for the benefit of designated milk producers, as a condition of 
marketing milk in given areas. A point of order was raised

[[Page 9094]]

against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York. The gentleman's amendment amends the Agricultural 
    Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The legislation which is before us 
    does not amend that act in any way in any section. This particular 
    amendment amending the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 
    is not germane to this bill.

    The Chairman (9) ruled as follows on the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York contains a 
    matter which is in no wise related to the subject matter of the 
    several sections under consideration. The point of order is 
    therefore sustained.

Diverse Authorities of Secretary of Agriculture--Amendment to Act Not 
    Amended by Title

Sec. 42.9 Although an amendment which changes a law not cited in a 
    pending bill is ordinarily not germane, a title of a bill which 
    amends several laws to address a variety of authorities of an 
    executive department may be broad enough to admit as germane an 
    amendment changing another existing law to add another authority of 
    that department within the same general class; thus, to a title of 
    an omnibus agricultural bill respecting a number of unrelated 
    authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture as to crop set-asides, 
    loans and sales, export sales, price supports, importation and 
    allotment studies, an amendment amending the Agricultural Marketing 
    Act of 1946 (not amended by the title) to require the Secretary to 
    adopt a minimum standard for the contents of ice cream, and 
    allowing only such ice cream as meets those standards to bear a 
    USDA stamp of approval, was held germane since restricted to 
    authority of the Department of Agriculture.

    On July 22, 1977,(10) during consideration of H.R. 7171 
(the Agricultural Act of 1977) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
overruled a point of order against the amendment described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 24558, 24559, 24569-71, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 9095]]

                  TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS COMMODITY PROVISIONS

                        set-aside on summer fallow farms

            Sec. 901. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
        the 1971 through 1981 crops of wheat, feed grains, and cotton 
        if in any year at least 55 per centum of cropland acreage in an 
        established summer fallow farm is diverted to a summer fallow 
        use no further acreage shall be required to be set aside under 
        the wheat, feed grains, and cotton programs for such year.

         loan extension and sales provisions for wheat and feed grains

            Sec. 902. The Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is 
        amended by adding the following new section: . . .

                          farm storage facility loans

            Sec. 905. Section 4(h) of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
        Charter Act (62 Stat. 1070, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 714b(h)) is 
        amended by inserting immediately before the period at the end 
        of the second sentence the following: ``; . . .

                             soybean price support

            Sec. 906. The Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is 
        further amended by adding a new section 304, as follows:
            ``Sec. 304. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this 
        Act, the Secretary shall make available to producers loans and 
        purchases on each crop of soybeans at such level as he 
        determines appropriate in relation to competing commodities and 
        taking into consideration domestic and foreign supply and 
        demand factors.''. . .

             report on recommendations for revised allotment system

            Sec. 909. The Secretary shall collect and analyze currently 
        available information pertaining to the use of bushels of wheat 
        and feed grains and pounds of rice as the basis for assigning 
        allotments to producers of such commodities. . . .

        Mr. [Charles] Rose [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rose: On page 52, line 5, insert 
        the following:

                              standard of quality

            Sec. 910. Sec. 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
        1946 is amended by inserting immediately before the period at 
        the end thereof the following semicolon: ``; Provided That 
        within 30 days of enactment of the Agricultural Act of 1977, 
        the Secretary of Agriculture shall by regulation adopt a 
        Standard of Quality for ice cream which shall provide that ice 
        cream shall contain at least 1.6 pounds of total solids to the 
        gallon, and weighs not less than 4.5 pounds to the gallon . . . 
        In no case shall the content of milk solids not fat be less 
        than 6%. . . . Only those products which meet the standard 
        issued by the Secretary shall be able to bear a symbol thereon 
        indicating that they meet the USDA standard for ``ice cream.''. 
        . .

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: . . . I make the point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Rose) on the ground that it is not germane to the 
    bill under consideration and thus is in violation of rule XVI, 
    clause 7.
        The gentleman's amendment is aimed at the Food and Drug Adminis

[[Page 9096]]

    tration's proposed regulations which would change that agency's 
    standard of identity for ``ice cream'' under the authority of 
    section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. . . .
        Knowing full well that any direct attempts to amend the 
    proposed standard of identity would be nongermane, the gentleman 
    now seeks instead to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act to 
    provide that only products that meet statutory standards, as set 
    forth in his amendment, could bear a symbol indicating that they 
    meet a USDA standard for ice cream.
        Now, I would base the point of order on three grounds.
        First, it amends an act--the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
    1946--not otherwise amended by the bill, and thus is in violation 
    of rule 16, clause 7. Three precedents support this ground. I cite 
    the Chair's ruling on June 23, 1960, in which, to a bill amending 
    the Agriculture Adjustment Acts of 1938 and 1949 to provide, in 
    part, for market adjustment and price support programs for wheat 
    and feed grains, an amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
    1933 concerning the importation of agricultural products was ruled 
    out as not germane.
        On the same day, an amendment to the 1933 act to direct the 
    President under certain conditions to consider an investigation 
    into imports of specified agricultural products was likewise ruled 
    not germane. These rulings are noted in Deschler's Procedure [3rd 
    ed., 95th Cong.], chapter 28, section 33.5 and 33.7.
        In addition, the point that I think is most important, on July 
    19, 1962, a point of order was raised to an amendment to an omnibus 
    agricultural bill, just as this bill, a specific precedent from the 
    same committee on the same type of legislation, seven particular 
    laws amended in the particular section to which the amendment was 
    offered--seven changes, there are only about three or four here--
    seven changes in those laws. The amendment which had been offered 
    proposed changes in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 
    1937, which was not otherwise amended in the bill, just as this 
    would be, exactly on point. The amendment was ruled not to be 
    germane. (Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 33.6.) I do not 
    know of any point of order so much on point that I have ever read, 
    even from the committee, even of the type in the bill.
        Second, I would like to say, the proposed amendment does not 
    relate to the title of the bill to which it is offered, nor to the 
    bill as a whole. . . .
        The provisions of title IX of H.R. 7171 pertain to set-asides 
    under the wheat, feed grains, and cotton programs; loan extensions 
    and sales provisions for wheat and feed grains; a special grazing 
    and hay program for wheat acreage; export sales of wheat, corn, 
    grain sorghum, soybeans, oats, rye, barley, rice, flaxseed and 
    cotton, farm storage facility loans, soybean price supports; 
    reporting of export sales; restrictions on the importation of 
    filberts, and a report by the Secretary of Agriculture on the use 
    of bushels of wheat and feed grains and pounds of rice as the basis 
    for assigning allotments to producers of such commodities. In no 
    such instance, either directly or by inference, is the Secretary of 
    Agriculture's authority to adopt standards of quality for 
    agricultural

[[Page 9097]]

    products under 7 U.S.C. 1621 addressed by title IX or by the bill 
    as a whole. . . .
        Mr. Rose: . . . What this amendment attempts to do is direct, 
    under its existing authority, the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    develop, not a standard of identity, but a standard of quality for 
    ice cream; a standard of quality that shall contain a certain 
    percentage of nonfat milk solids. . . .
        My distinguished friend, the chairman of the subcommittee that 
    has direct jurisdiction over the Food and Drug Administration, has 
    cited Deschler's Procedure, 33.5. I believe that this headnote is 
    misleading, because I believe that if one were to carefully read 
    that entire procedure, one would discover that this is not the 
    actual, in fact, ruling in that case. But, I would base my main 
    argument on section 28.51 of Deschler's Procedure [3rd ed., 95th 
    Cong.], which states:

            To a portion of a bill amending several miscellaneous laws 
        on a general subject--

        And this is such a section--
        an amendment to another law relating to that subject is 
        germane. (120 Congressional Record 8508, 8509, 93rd Congress, 
        2nd Session, March 27, 1974.). . .

        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Florida makes a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina on the 
    grounds that it is not germane to the bill or to the pending 
    portion thereof.
        The amendment would add to title IX of the bill, which contains 
    miscellaneous commodity provisions, a new section requiring the 
    Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate a Department of Agriculture 
    standard for ice cream based on its contents, and to allow ice 
    cream meeting that standard to bear a USDA symbol. The amendment 
    would accomplish that purpose by amending the Agricultural 
    Marketing Act of 1946, which is not amended by the bill but which 
    authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate food 
    standards.
        The gentleman from Florida has first argued that the amendment 
    is not germane under the precedents because it amends a law not 
    amended by the bill under consideration. The precedents do not bear 
    out the assertion that an amendment is necessarily out of order if 
    amending a law not mentioned in the bill. As indicated by 
    ``Deschler's Procedure,'' chapter 28, section 28.51, a title of a 
    bill amending miscellaneous laws on a general subject may be broad 
    enough to admit the offering of an amendment changing another law 
    on that subject. The first two precedents cited by the gentleman 
    dealt with amendments, offered to agricultural price support bills, 
    dealing with the importation of agricultural products, a subject 
    not relevant to the bill under consideration and not entirely 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. The third 
    precedent cited by the gentleman involved an amendment to the 
    Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937, not amended by the omnibus 
    agriculture bill under consideration, requiring certain 
    compensatory payments by food handlers to producers.
        The basis of the Chair's ruling on that occasion, which is not 
    reflected in

[[Page 9098]]

    the headnote in ``Deschler's Procedure,'' chapter 28 . . . section 
    33.6, was that the amendment was not germane to the title of the 
    bill to which it was offered; and the Chair was not called upon to 
    rule that the amendment was not relevant to the bill as a whole. On 
    that occasion, the title of the bill under consideration contained 
    commodity programs dealing with conventional authorities of the 
    Secretary as to price supports and payments through the Commodity 
    Credit Corporation, diverted acreage, acreage allotments, and 
    marketing quotas and levels. The amendment, however, was intended 
    to restore competition to the dairy market by requiring not the 
    Secretary but handlers of dairy products to make compensatory 
    payments to producers of milk, a regulatory authority not related 
    to the provisions of the title under discussion.
        The gentleman from Florida also argues that the amendment is 
    germane neither to the subject matter nor to the fundamental 
    purpose of title IX to which it is offered. The title does not 
    appear to the Chair to have any single purpose or subject matter, 
    dealing as it does with the authorities of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture as to set-asides, loans and sales, grazing, export 
    sales, price supports, importation and an allotment study for 
    various food commodities. Therefore, the addition of a new 
    authority of the Secretary relative to the production or quality of 
    food or the protection of agricultural producers is relevant to the 
    broad question of the Secretary's authority contained in the title. 
    . . .
        . . . The Chair would note that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina does not regulate the labeling or 
    marketing of ice cream but only adds a specific emphasis to be 
    followed by the Secretary in carrying out the discretionary 
    authority he already has under law to promulgate quality standards 
    for food products. The subject matter of the amendment being 
    germane to the title under consideration, the Chair finds that 
    couching the authority contained therein as an amendment to another 
    law dealing with general authorities of the Secretary of 
    Agriculture does not on that basis render it subject to a point of 
    order.

        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Payments for Acreage Reserves--Amendment Affecting 
    Other Agriculture Laws

Sec. 42.10 To a bill authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to make 
    payments for acreage reserves, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which provided that no individual be eligible under any 
    other Act for price support loans or price support purchases from 
    Commodity Credit Corporation funds in excess of a specified amount.

    On May 3, 1956, during consideration of the Soil Bank Act of 
1956,(12) the following amendment was offered: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 10875 (Committee on Agriculture).
13. 102 Cong. Rec. 7442, 7443, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 9099]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: On page 51, after 
    line 17, add a new subsection (e).

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the total 
        amount of price support made available under this or any other 
        act to any person for any year . . . shall not exceed $25,000. 
        The term ``person'' shall mean any individual, partnership, 
        firm (and the like). . . .

    The following exchange (14) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 7443.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank E.] Smith [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill in that it amends a law which is not considered 
    in this bill and which is not before the House. . . .
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me 
    this is a point which affects all agricultural legislation. We are 
    dealing here with a basic act of agriculture which is tied in as a 
    full and complete subject. . . .
        Mr. Smith [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point 
    out that this is not a price-support bill, and there are no 
    amendments to the price-support law in the pending legislation. . . 
    .
        Mr. Chairman, the rule of germaneness specifically declares 
    that an amendment to be germane has to involve an amendment or a 
    change in the law that is being considered in the bill before us. 
    The bill before us involves the soil-bank matter and is entirely 
    new as was brought out by the Secretary of Agriculture.

    The Chairman,(15) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. J. Percy Priest (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio, it appears to 
    the Chair, goes far beyond the scope of the bill under 
    consideration. The Chair desires to read just a portion of the 
    first sentence of the amendment, which is as follows:

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the total 
        amount of price support made available under this or any other 
        act to any person--

        Therefore, because the amendment goes far beyond the scope of 
    the pending bill, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Agricultural Price Support Programs--Amendment to Different Act 
    Concerning Agricultural Imports

Sec. 42.11 To a bill amending the Agricultural Adjustment Acts of 1938 
    and 1949 to provide, in part, for market adjustment and price 
    support programs for wheat and feed grains, an amendment to the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 concerning the importation of 
    agricultural products was held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (16) was under 
consideration which

[[Page 9100]]

amended the Agricultural Acts of 1938 and 1949. The following amendment 
was offered to the bill: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 12261 (Committee on Agriculture).
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 14060, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Kyl: At the end of title II add the 
    following new section:

            The first sentence of section 22(a) of the Agricultural 
        Adjustment Act (of 1933) as reenacted by the Agricultural 
        Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended by inserting before 
        the period at the end thereof the following: ``; and the 
        President shall also cause . . . an investigation to be made 
        [with respect to imports] in the case of wheat, corn, barley, 
        oats, rye, soybeans, flax, and grain sorghums, when a surplus 
        exists (as defined in section 106 of Public Law 480, Eighty-
        third Congress)''.

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

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment on the ground that the 
    author seeks to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, 
    which is not before us at this time.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent, Mr. John H. Kyl, of 
Iowa, stated as follows:

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns the importation of 
    agricultural products and directs the President to investigate 
    imports under certain conditions. . . .
        It is necessary for a very obvious reason. For instance, we 
    have not produced the quantity of oats, barley or rye that we can 
    consume in the United States. Yet the surplus of those commodities 
    has mounted, and the market price has fallen because of imports. . 
    . .
        Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the amendment is germane because 
    it concerns the specific feed grains which are contained in this 
    bill.

    The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment and is of the opinion that 
    it deals with an act which is not under consideration here today.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Price Support Program for Domestic Dairy Products--Findings Relating to 
    Dairy Imports

Sec. 42.12 To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture providing a price support program for domestic dairy 
    products, an amendment citing applicable provisions of existing law 
    regarding the effect of dairy imports on domestic dairy products 
    and containing Congressional findings that tariff restrictions 
    should be imposed on dairy imports was held to raise issues 
    primarily within the jurisdic

[[Page 9101]]

    tion of the Committee on Ways and Means and was ruled out as not 
    germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 14, 1981, relating to H.R. 3603, the Food 
and Agriculture Act of 1981, are discussed in Sec. 4.71, supra.

Sale of Surplus Dry Milk by Commodity Credit Corporation--Amendment 
    Affecting Labeling Under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

Sec. 42.13 To an amendment directing the Commodity Credit Corporation 
    to sell surplus stocks of dry milk to domestic companies for the 
    manufacture of casein (a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Agriculture), an amendment to that amendment deeming 
    as misbranded for purposes of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 
    Act any food substitutes labeled as ``cheese'' (a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce), was ruled 
    out of order as nongermane.

    During consideration of The Food Security Act (H.R. 2100) in the 
Committee of the Whole on Sept. 26, 1985,(19) the Chair 
sustained a point of order against an amendment to the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 131 Cong. Rec. 25023-25, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sherwood L.] Boehlert [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert: Page 37, after line 9, 
        insert the following:

                            domestic casein industry

            Sec. 215. (a) The Commodity Credit Corporation shall 
        provide surplus stocks of nonfat dry milk of not less than one 
        million pounds annually to individuals or entities on a bid 
        basis.
            (b) The Commodity Credit Corporation may accept bids at 
        lower than the resale price otherwise required by law in order 
        to promote the strengthening of the comestic casein industry.
            (c) The Commodity Credit Corporation shall take appropriate 
        action to assure that the nonfat dry milk sold by the 
        Corporation under this section shall be used only for the 
        manufacture of casein.
            Redesignate succeeding sections in the subtitle 
        accordingly. . . .

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Boehlert: At the end of section 211, after the word 
        ``date'', insert the following new section:
        sec. 243. misbranded food substitutes for cheese.

[[Page 9102]]

            For purposes of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
        (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.), any food which is an imitation of 
        cheese and which does not comply with any standard of identity 
        in effect under section 401 of such Act for any cheese shall be 
        deemed to be misbranded if its label contains the word 
        ``cheese''. . . .

        Mr. [E] de la Garza [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment addresses the Food and Drug Act, which is under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and it 
    therefore would not be germane to this legislation. We have no item 
    in the bill that this amendment would be germane to. . . .

        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond by saying 
    it is difficult for me to see how anything that talks about cheese 
    could not be relevant to the dairy provisions of the farm bill.

        I recognize that there may be some others with concurrent 
    jurisdiction, but certainly the protection of the cheese industry 
    and the ability of our dairy farmers to ensure that imitation 
    products are not sold under the guise of cheese certainly ought to 
    be within the province of this committee. . . .

        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. David E. Bonior (Mich.).

        The Chair will rule that No. 1, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] is to the Boehlert amendment 
    and not to the farm bill in general, and the Boehlert amendment 
    deals with Commodity Credit Corporation subsidies for dry milk; and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    so it is not germane to that amendment.

        Second, the point of order raised by the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. de la Garza] is correct in regards to the committee 
    jurisdiction argument.

        So the Chair will rule that the amendment is not germane to the 
    Boehlert amendment.

Waiving Law Within Jurisdiction of Another Committee: Bill Relating to 
    Registration of Pesticides--Amendment Barring Award of Attorneys' 
    Fees Notwithstanding Any Other Law

Sec. 42.14 To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture amending an existing law relating to registration of 
    pesticides, an amendment providing that notwithstanding any other 
    law, no attorneys' fees shall be awarded in certain civil actions 
    brought under the law being amended was held not germane, as 
    indirectly amending another law within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee governing fees in federal civil actions generally, where 
    nothing in the pending title amended laws on that subject.

[[Page 9103]]

    On Sept. 19, 1986,(1) during consideration of H.R. 2482 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the amendment described above, demonstrating 
that an amendment must be germane to the pending title of the bill to 
which it is offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 132 Cong. Rec. 24728-30, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act amendments of 
        1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                           TITLE I--REGISTRATION

        Sec. 101. Preregistration access to data.
        Sec. 102. Criminal penalties for disclosure of information.
        Sec. 103. Conditional registration.
        Sec. 104. Definition of outstanding data requirement.
        Sec. 105. Reregistration of registered pesticides.
        Sec. 106. Administrator's authority to require data on inert 
    ingredients.
        Sec. 107. Definition of ingredient statement.
        Sec. 108. Disclosure of inert ingredients.
        Sec. 109. Compensation for data on inert ingredients. . . .
        Mr. [Ron] Marlenee [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Marlenee: Page 43, line 7, insert 
        after ``section 16(b),'' the following new sentence:
            ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no attorneys 
        fees or expenses shall be awarded for any civil action brought 
        under this section for failure to meet deadlines.'' . . .

        Mr. [Howard L.] Berman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Montana is in violation of clause 7 of House rule XVI which 
    prohibits the consideration of amendments on a subject different 
    from that under consideration. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Montana carves out an exemption from the 
    Equal Access to Justice Act, which authorizes the awarding of legal 
    fees in certain cases brought against the Federal Government. The 
    bill before us, H.R. 2482, amends the Federal Insecticide, 
    Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act which concerns itself solely with 
    the regulation of pesticides. Neither FIFRA nor this bill address 
    the issue of the awarding of legal fees. Indeed, the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman says that ``Notwithstanding any other 
    provision of law,'' indicating clearly that he intends to reach 
    outside the scope of this bill and the law which it amends. The 
    amendment goes to a totally different and nongermane matter to the 
    business before the committee, and on this basis I ask that the 
    point of order be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Marlenee: . . . Mr. Chairman, my amendment, I submit, is 
    germane for the following reasons:
        First, the title of the bill it is for ``other purposes'' than 
    amending FIFRA.

[[Page 9104]]

        Second, other examples of enactments amended by this bill or by 
    the underlying FIFRA Act are: The Federal Hazardous Substances Act; 
    the Poison Prevention Packaging Act; the Federal Food Drug and 
    Cosmetics Act, and title 5 of the United States Code.
        Third, the section and the bill reauthorize programs and 
    funding for the pesticide programs. It also adds a new program 
    (reregistration--section 3 A of FIFRA) that is amended by my 
    amendment. Both the section and the bill relate to fees and funding 
    for the reregistration program. Some of that funding for the 
    reregistration program will come from fees assessed against 
    registrants (see page 42 of the bill) and some will come from 
    appropriated funds (section 816 of the bill).
        My amendment would state how some of those funds could not be 
    utilized and I submit does not violate the rules of the House on 
    germaneness.
        Fourth, my amendment is narrowly drawn and applies only to 
    ``fees or expenses shall be awarded for any civil action brought 
    under this section for failure to meet deadlines.'' . . .
        Fifth, this bill, other than the section I am amending, 
    contains provisions relating to the actions against the United 
    States for just compensation. . . .
        The bill also contains provisions relating to the false 
    statement statute (18 U.S.C. 1001) and prosecutions thereunder.
        Sixth, section 9 of the FIFRA Act gives the EPA Administrator 
    authority to obtain and execute warrants and section 12 authorizes 
    the Administrator to make certain certification to the U.S. 
    Attorney General. Section 701 of the act discusses patent term 
    extension for registrations of pesticides. . . .
        Seventh, I understand, although I have not seen the basis of 
    Mr. Berman's point of order, that it asserts the nongermaneness of 
    my amendment based on the fact that it amends the Equal Access to 
    Justice Act.
        However, section 2412 (b) and (d) of title 28 (Equal Access to 
    Justice Act) specifically provide with respect to fees and expenses 
    of attorneys that those subsections only apply ``Unless expressly 
    prohibited by statute,'' (subsection (b)) and ``Except as otherwise 
    specifically provided by statute,'' (subsection (d)).
        It is submitted that this bill which reauthorizes the FIFRA 
    programs and funding can be utilized to effect the exception 
    provided for in the Equal Access to Justice Act. It is therefore 
    submitted that my amendment is germane to this bill.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Marlenee] is 
    not germane to the text of title I of H.R. 5440. The amendment 
    waives all provisions of law which would otherwise permit the 
    awarding of attorneys fees in FIFRA related court cases.
        The Chair would first note that the gentleman's argument 
    reaches into and relates to titles of the bill which have not yet 
    been reached in the amendment process.
        The law being waived, moreover, is not the FIFRA law, but is 
    the Equal Access to Justice Act, a law within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee and a

[[Page 9105]]

    law not amended or referenced in the pending title of the bill. 
    Nothing in title I amends existing law pertaining to judicial 
    review and procedures.
        The gentleman from Montana has made the point correctly that 
    the Equal Access of Justice Act says that there can be exceptions 
    specified by other statutes.
        However, that does not remove jurisdiction from the Judiciary 
    Committee or necessarily change the test of germaneness of 
    amendments to other laws. And therefore, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the amendment addresses an issue within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee and is not germane to the pending title.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Amendment To Prohibit Assistance Under ``Any Other Act''

Sec. 42.15 To a bill amending an existing law, an amendment prohibiting 
    assistance under that Act or under any other Act for a particular 
    purpose was held too general in scope, affecting laws not being 
    amended by the bill and was held to be not germane.

    The proceedings of May 11, 1976, relating to H.R. 12835, the 
Vocational Education Act amendments, are discussed in Sec. 35.62, 
supra.

Amendment Waiving Other Law: Bill Establishing Emergency Price Supports 
    for Agricultural Commodities--Amendment Relating to Export of 
    Agricultural Commodities

Sec. 42.16 To a bill reported from the Committee on Agriculture 
    establishing emergency price supports for certain agricultural 
    commodities, an amendment restricting the authority of the 
    Secretary of Commerce under the Export Administration Act over the 
    export of all agricultural commodities (a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations and 
    covering a more general range of commodities) was held to be not 
    germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 4296 (a bill concerning the emergency 
price support program for certain 1975 crops) in the Committee of the 
Whole on Mar. 20, 1975,(4) the Chair sustained a point of 
order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 7651, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 9106]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: Page 2, line 19, after the 
        words ``such crops'', insert the following: ``Notwithstanding 
        any other provision of law, neither the Secretary of 
        Agriculture nor the Secretary of Commerce shall require or 
        provide for the prior approval of or establish other conditions 
        for the export sales of feed grains, wheat, soybeans, or other 
        agricultural commodities.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment as not germane to the bill. 
    The amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho affects the 
    implementation of the Export Administration Act. This bill deals 
    with amendments to the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1949, as 
    amended. The amendment deals with restrictions on exports and is 
    not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, which 
    has brought this bill to the floor.
        The well established precedent of the House is that the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment must be in consonance with the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill. It is not in this case. The 
    jurisdiction of the subject matter lies within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on International Relations of the House. I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane and is in 
    violation of rule XVI, clause 4. . . .
        Mr. Symms: . . . I would just say that the reason that we have 
    had the difficulties both in the soybean market and the wheat 
    market, which has caused the stimulation of the need for this 
    legislation, is because of the haphazard misuse of export controls, 
    which so much interferes with the foreign markets. Therefore, since 
    the Secretary of Commerce has to be included, this is an 
    appropriate amendment for the House to speak its will on this 
    issue. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from Washington 
    makes the point of order that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Idaho is not germane to the bill. The Chair is 
    prepared to rule on this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The subject of export controls administered by the Secretary of 
    Commerce under the Export Administration Act is within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations, and the 
    issue of exportation of all agricultural commodities is beyond the 
    purview of the pending bill. For these reasons, the Chair feels 
    that the amendment is not germane to the bill and sustains the 
    point of order.

--Amendment Affecting Price Support for Additional Commodity

Sec. 42.17 To a bill temporarily amending for one year an existing law 
    establishing price supports for several agricultural commodities, 
    an amendment waiving the provisions of another law relating to 
    price supports for another agricultural commodity was construed to 
    directly change a law not amended by the pending bill and thus to 
    include a com

[[Page 9107]]

    modity outside the class of those covered by the bill, and was held 
    to be not germane.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(6) during consideration of the 
emergency price supports bill for 1975 crops (7) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the following amendment was ruled out as not 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 7666, 7667, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 4296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 16, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there 
        shall be no price support for rice effective with the 1975 crop 
        of such commodity.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . The Findley 
    amendment to H.R. 4296 amends section 103, section 105, and section 
    107 of the Agricultural Act of 1949.
        The amendment of the gentleman from New York is broader than 
    that, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, strikes out 
    any applicable provision for price supports for rice. The rice 
    program was originally enacted in the Agricultural Adjustment Act 
    of 1938. . . .
        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: . . . It seems to me there 
    is nothing out of order dealing with price supports certainly, and 
    certainly nothing out of order dealing with rice. It is a 
    commodity, and it is one that the Department of Agriculture and the 
    legislation relates to. It seems to me perfectly in order.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration amends only certain sections of 
    the Agricultural Act of 1949 and no other provision of law. The 
    Chair feels that the amendment of the gentleman from New York 
    waives, in the language of his amendment, ``notwithstanding any 
    other provision of law,'' waives a provision of law not within the 
    scope of the bill under consideration. The Chair, therefore, rules 
    the gentleman's amendment not germane and sustains the point of 
    order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should be noted that the Peyser 
amendment contained the language ``notwithstanding any other provision 
of law'', which had the effect of amending a statute not amended by the 
bill. In the absence of the reference to other law, an amendment merely 
adding rice to the category of commodities covered by the 1949 
Agricultural Act for the same crop year covered by the bill would have 
been germane.

Amendment Authorizing President To Waive Other Laws

Sec. 42.18 For an amendment establishing procedures for designating 
    priority projects within a federally financed synthetic fuels 
    program and expediting procedural deci

[[Page 9108]]

    sion-making deadlines, but not waiving substantive laws that might 
    affect completion of those projects, a substitute amendment 
    authorizing the President to waive any provision of law (if not 
    disapproved by Congress) inconsistent with the approval, 
    construction and operation of synthetic fuel projects was held not 
    germane as a prospective temporary repeal of those substantive laws 
    within the jurisdiction of other committees and beyond the narrow 
    class of procedural waivers in the original amendment.

    On June 26, 1979,(9) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration an amendment to the Defense Production Act 
Amendments of 1979 (H.R. 3930) when the following substitute for the 
amendment was offered and, a point of order having been raised, was 
ruled out as not being germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 125 Cong. Rec. 16683-86, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio as a substitute for 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13, 
        insert the following new subsection:
            ``(g)(1) Each Federal officer and agency having authority 
        to issue any permit for, or to otherwise approve or authorize, 
        the construction or operation of any facility which is to 
        produce any synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical feedstock for 
        which the President has contracted (or entered into a 
        commitment to contract) under this section shall, to the 
        maximum extent practicable--
            ``(A) expedite all actions necessary for the issuance of 
        such permit, approval, or authorization, and
            ``(B) take final action thereon not later than 12 months 
        after the date application for such permit, approval, or 
        authorization is made.
        After taking final action on any such permit, approval, or 
        authorization, such officer or agency shall publish 
        notification thereof in the Federal Register.

            ``(2)(A) Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
        this section, and from time-to-time thereafter, the President 
        shall--
            ``(i) identify those provisions of Federal law or 
        regulations (including any law or regulation affecting the 
        environment or land leasing policy) which the President 
        determines should be waived in whole or in part to facilitate 
        the construction and operation of any facility which is to 
        produce any synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical feedstock for 
        which the President has contracted (or entered into a 
        commitment to contract) under this section; and
            ``(ii) submit any such proposed waiver to both Houses of 
        the Congress.
            ``(B) The provisions of law so identified shall be waived 
        with respect to the construction and operation of such facility 
        to the extent provided for in such proposed waiver if 60 days 
        of continuous session of Congress have expired after the date

[[Page 9109]]

        such notice was transmitted and neither House of the Congress 
        has adopted during that period of continuous session a 
        resolution stating in substance that such House disapproves of 
        that waiver. The term `continuous session of Congress' shall 
        have the same meaning as given it in section 301 of this Act.''
            Redesignate the following provisions accordingly. . . .

        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Oregon 
    (Mr. Weaver) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Weaver: Mr. Chairman, the amendment says the President 
    shall identify provisions of Federal law or regulations. They are 
    unidentified law or regulations, other than to say they deal with 
    the environment and land use policy.
        If these provisions of law so identified are submitted to the 
    Congress, they will be waived. In other words, it affects law 
    outside the bill we have before us. It amends unidentified law. . . 
    .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
    the point of order raised against my amendment.
        My amendment is clearly germane not only to the bill before us 
    but also to the Defense Production Act which the bill amends. On 
    page 5 of this very bill, lines 17 through 21, language similar to 
    that contained in my amendment can be found, and I quote:

            (c) Purchases, commitments to purchase, and resales under 
        subsection (b) may be made without regard to the limitations of 
        existing law, for such quantities, and on such terms and 
        conditions, including advance payments, and for such periods as 
        the President deems necessary . . .

        And then it goes on, and the quotation is ended.
        That relates to what I offer in my amendment with reference to 
    the President and his opportunity to waive existing law.
        Similar language to that in my amendment providing for waiver 
    of existing laws can be found in title 3 of the Defense Production 
    Act which section 3 of H.R. 3930 would amend.
        Mr. Chairman, the Defense Production Act is a very broad bill 
    inasmuch as it deals with our national defense. Title 50, United 
    States Code, section 2091, says, and I quote:

            Without regard to the provisions of law relating to the 
        making, performance, amendment, or modification of contracts.

        My amendment is a broad waiver provision, but it is no broader 
    than those waiver provisions found in the Defense Production Act 
    and in section 3 of H.R. 3930, which again is designed to amend the 
    Defense Production Act.

        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would argue to the Chair that my 
    amendment is germane. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The waivers of existing law found both in the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) and in the bill and 
    statute itself are, in the judgment of the Chair, waivers with 
    respect to a very narrow class of

[[Page 9110]]

    existing law. The statute itself makes reference to provisions of 
    law relating to the ``making, performance, amendment, or 
    modification of contracts,'' a specific reference to a narrow phase 
    of law.
        The Chair would cite Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    33:

            To a bill temporarily amending for one year an existing law 
        establishing price supports for several agricultural 
        commodities, an amendment waiving the provisions of another law 
        relating to price supports for another agricultural commodity 
        was construed to directly change a law not amended by the 
        pending bill and thus to include a commodity outside the class 
        of those covered by the bill and was ruled not germane.

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) 
    does not purport to waive all inconsistent Federal statutes. The 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) would 
    permit waiver of all provisions of law within the jurisdiction of 
    other committees and is, in the opinion of the Chair, therefore, in 
    effect a temporary prospective repeal of any other laws which 
    otherwise would interfere with the construction of any facility 
    financed by this bill, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Temporary Waiver of Law

Sec. 42.19 To a bill authorizing appropriations for a Department for 
    one fiscal year and containing diverse limitations and directions 
    to that agency for that year, an amendment further directing that 
    agency to obtain information during that year from the private 
    sector and rendering that information public during that period 
    notwithstanding another provision of law is germane.

    On Oct. 18, 1979,(11) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (12) authorizing appropriations 
for the Department of Energy for one fiscal year. An amendment was 
offered requiring the Department, during the fiscal year covered by the 
authorization, to obtain petroleum supply information from each oil 
supply company and to publish such information notwithstanding the 
Freedom of Information Act. The amendment was held germane since 
confined to the activities of the Department for the fiscal year 
covered by the bill and not constituting permanent law. The amendment 
stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 28815-17, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 3000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser: Page 79, after line 25, 
        insert the following new title:

                            petroleum supply reports

            Sec. 901. During the period covered by this Authorization 
        Energy Information Administration shall obtain them from each 
        oil company not later than the third day (excluding Saturdays, 
        Sundays, and legal public

[[Page 9111]]

        holidays as specified in section 6103 of title 5, United States 
        Code) of each calendar month beginning after the date of the 
        enactment of this title a report specifying--
            (1) the total refining capacity of such company on the last 
        day of the last previous calendar month . . .
            (7) the inventory of refined petroleum products of such 
        company, by category of products, and the location of such 
        products, on the last day of the last previous calendar month; 
        and
            (8) the estimated inventory of refined petroleum products 
        of such company, by category of products and the estimated 
        location of such products, during the calendar month during 
        which the report is submitted.

                      publishing and making public reports

            Sec. 902. Notwithstanding section 552 of title 5, United 
        States Code (known as the Freedom of Information Act), the 
        Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall 
        publish, and make available to the public, each report 
        submitted pursuant to section 901 not later than the sixth day 
        . . . of each calendar month during which such report is 
        submitted. . . .

        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is 
    not germane. The amendment imposes new comprehensive mandatory 
    information reporting requirements on oil companies, not the 
    Department of Energy.
        The bill which we are considering would merely authorize 
    appropriations for the Department of Energy. The bill does not 
    institute any new requirements directly on individuals.
        Number two, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is also nongermane 
    because it permanently changes the purpose, coverage, and extent of 
    the Freedom of Information Act by making the Freedom of Information 
    Act inapplicable to information gathered in reporting pursuant to 
    proposed new comprehensive programs.
        For these two reasons, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not 
    germane and should be ruled out of order. . . .
        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I think the 
    gentleman does not know that the amendment does not bring about any 
    new requirement. I believe what he has read is the old amendment, 
    which is the reason we had the amendment read now. It no longer 
    says that it requires the oil companies to report. It simply says 
    that the Energy Information Agency shall obtain the information 
    from the oil companies, which is a perfectly legitimate and germane 
    action to take.
        On the question of violation of the Information Act, Mr. 
    Chairman, I think that is something that the Congress is going to 
    have to decide, whether this is appropriate or not, because what 
    this amendment is doing is saying that the information from now on 
    will be obtained by the Department of Energy from the oil companies 
    so the Department of Energy is the source of the information to the 
    Congress and not the American Petroleum Institute. So it would seem 
    to me that this is a totally germane amendment as long as we no 
    longer have the oil companies involved in the opening of this 
    amendment to report, and the Information Act is something that the 
    Members here have to vote on. It certainly is not a question of 
    germaneness, and for that reason I believe the amendment should 
    stand, Mr. Chairman. . . .

[[Page 9112]]

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order is still appropriate because of the direction of the 
    amendment to the Freedom of Information Act and the modification of 
    that act, which is not a subject of this authorization.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The first point made by the gentleman from Texas is mooted by 
    the change in wording, as noted by the gentleman from New York and 
    the gentleman from Ohio, since the amendment addresses conduct of 
    the Department and does not directly regulate the activities of 
    others.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Parliamentarian's Note: The original draft of the amendment 
        required the oil companies to report to the Department. That 
        approach, embodied in an amendment to an authorization bill, 
        would not have been germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment is prefaced by the words ``During the period 
    covered by this authorization . . .''
        In the opinion of the Chair, it covers activities of the 
    Department during the fiscal year in question and does not 
    constitute a permanent change in law.
        The reference to the Freedom of Information Act does constitute 
    an indirect waiver of its provisions, but it does not constitute a 
    permanent change in that act. It refers only to public access to 
    information obtained pursuant to section 901, which is a 1-year 
    requirement.
        The Chair, therefore, feels that the amendment is germane and 
    overrules the point of order.

Affecting Other Laws

Sec. 42.20 To an amendment to an authorization bill authorizing the use 
    of funds therein for a specific study, an amendment authorizing the 
    availability of funds in that or any other Act for an unrelated 
    purpose is not germane; thus, to an amendment to the Department of 
    Defense authorization bill, authorizing funds for the Departments 
    of Defense and Energy to conduct research on ``nuclear winter'' and 
    to contract therefor with the National Academy of Sciences, an 
    amendment designating by the names of specific Senators any science 
    and mathematics scholarship or fellowship programs established 
    during the 99th Congress under the bill or any other Act was held 
    not germane, as affecting programs in other Acts not covered by the 
    primary amendment.

    On Aug. 15, 1986,(15) during consideration of H.R. 4428, 
the Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 1987, in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against

[[Page 9113]]

the amendment described above. The section, and the amendment which was 
offered to it, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 132 Cong. Rec. 22073, 22075, 22076, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 3302. Nuclear Winter Study and Report.
        (a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a 
    comprehensive study on the atmospheric, climatic, biological, 
    health, and environmental consequences of nuclear explosions and 
    nuclear exchanges and the implications that such consequences have 
    for the nuclear weapons, arms control, and civil defense policies 
    of the United States.
        (b) Report.--Not later than November 1, 1987, the Secretary 
    shall submit to the President and the Congress an unclassified 
    report suitable for release to the public, with classified addenda 
    if necessary, on the study conducted under subsection (a). . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Foley to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Wirth, as modified as amended: At the end of the 
        amendment, add the following:
            At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

        sec. 4005. name of new scholarship and excellence in education 
                                    program.

            Any program established by this Act or any other Act during 
        the 99th Congress to establish a foundation in the executive 
        branch of the Government to award scholarships and fellowships 
        for study in the fields of science and mathematics in order to 
        further scholarship and excellence in education shall be named 
        for Barry Goldwater, Senator from the State of Arizona, and 
        Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson, late a Senator from the State of 
        Washington. . . .

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: . . . [D]oing my 
    utmost to understand the relevance, this gentleman cannot 
    understand the germaneness of the proposed perfecting amendment to 
    the amendment.
        I would insist on my point of order that it is not germane. . . 
    .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas J. Downey (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without reading further in the amendment, the Chair notes on 
    line 3, ``Any program established by this Act or any other 
    Act,''the Chair believes goes beyond the subject matter of the 
    pending amendment.
        For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Dickinson].

Bill Establishing Federal Energy Administration--Amendment Repealing 
    Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act

Sec. 42.21 An amendment repealing existing law is not germane to a bill 
    not amending that law; thus, to a bill reported from the Committee 
    on Government Operations establishing a Federal Energy 
    Administration but not amending existing laws relating to energy 
    conservation policy, an amendment repealing the Emergency Day

[[Page 9114]]

    light Saving Time Energy Conservation Act (reported from the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce) was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 11793 (17) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order in the circumstances 
described above. The proceedings of Mar. 7, 1974,(18) were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The Federal Energy Administration Act.
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 5653, 5654, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gunter: Page 38, line 21, add the 
        following new section:
            Sec. 22. (a) The Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy 
        Conservation Act of 1973, P.L. 93-182; (87 Stat. 707) is hereby 
        repealed.
            (b) This section shall take effect at 2 o'clock 
        antemeridian on the first Sunday which occurs after the 
        enactment of this Act.

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment amends existing law, which is not 
    the subject matter of this bill and is therefore nongermane. I urge 
    that the Chair rule that the amendment is out of order. . . .
        Mr. Gunter: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would say and call the 
    attention of the Members of the House to the language of the 
    declaration of purpose in section 2(a) on page 14 of the committee 
    bill which declares that among the purposes of this act is to 
    require positive and effective action in order to promote the 
    general welfare and the common defense and security.
        I submit, Mr. Chairman, under this broad language and for the 
    stated purposes of this act that the general welfare declaration 
    permits an interpretation and a finding by the Congress that the 
    enumerated and authorized activities established by the Federal 
    Energy Administration, if executed within the framework of the 
    year-round daylight saving time provisions, would not serve the 
    general welfare. . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Chairman, the language 
    would amend the Uniform Time Act of 1930, the act to which the 
    amendments creating a new daylight saving time limitation were 
    directed. That act has been under the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Interstate and Foreign Commerce from the very beginning when it 
    was originally introduced in this body in 1930. Each amendment to 
    that act has been referred to and considered exclusively by the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. That act is not 
    transferred nor is any portion of it contained in the authority 
    conferred upon the Administrator under the provisions of this 
    reorganization act.
        For that reason it is my opinion that it is not germane and 
    that the point of order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gunter) offered an amendment 
    the ef

[[Page 9115]]

    fect of which is to repeal an existing law which is not otherwise 
    referred to in the bill under consideration.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has made a point of 
    order against the bill that it is not germane to the bill and that 
    it attempts to repeal a separate act which is not previously 
    mentioned in the bill under consideration.
        The Chair in ruling on points of order does not rule on the 
    merits of any amendment that has been offered.
        The Chair in this case is constrained in his ruling to relate 
    to the germaneness of the amendment to the bill under 
    consideration.
        For the reasons stated in the argument of the gentleman from 
    New York the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Prescribing Functions of New Federal Energy Administration--
    Amendment Imposing Ceiling Prices on Petroleum Products

Sec. 42.22 To a bill consolidating specified existing governmental 
    functions under a new agency, amended to limit the policy-making 
    authority of that agency to that contained in existing law, an 
    amendment prescribing new policy by amending a law not amended by 
    the bill is not germane; thus, to a section of a bill reported from 
    the Committee on Government Operations prescribing the functions of 
    a new Federal Energy Administration in meeting the energy needs of 
    the nation, amended to limit exercise of those functions ``to the 
    extent expressly authorized by other sections of the bill or any 
    other provisions of law,'' an amendment to the Emergency Petroleum 
    Allocation Act (an Act reported from the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce and not otherwise amended by the bill) 
    establishing specific ceiling prices for petroleum products was 
    held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 11793 (20) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Mar. 5, 1974,(1) the Chair, in sustaining a 
point of order against the following amendment, stated, in part, that 
in determining the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair examines its 
relationship to the bill as it has been modified by prior amendment and 
is not bound solely by the test of committee jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. The Federal Energy Administration Act.
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 5306-09, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.

[[Page 9116]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rosenthal: On page 18, line 11 
        change Sec. 5 to Sec. 5(a).
            On page 20, after the period on line 2, add the following 
        new subsection:
            ``(b) Section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act 
        of 1973, as amended by this title, is further amended to 
        prevent inequitable prices with respect to sales of crude oil, 
        residual fuel oil, and refined petroleum products, by adding at 
        the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(j)(1) The President shall exercise his authority under 
        this Act and the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, as 
        amended, so as to specify (or prescribe a manner for 
        determining) prices for all sales of domestic crude oil, 
        residual fuel oil, and refined petroleum products in accordance 
        with this subsection. . . .
            ``(3) Commencing 30 days after the date of enactment of 
        this subsection, and until any other ceiling price becomes 
        effective pursuant to the terms of paragraph (5) hereof, the 
        ceiling price for the first sale or exchange of a particular 
        grade of domestic crude oil in a particular field shall be the 
        sum of--
            ``(A) the highest posted price at 6:00 a.m., local time, 
        May 15, 1973, for that grade of crude oil at that field, or if 
        there are no posted prices in that field, the related price for 
        that grade of crude oil for which prices are posted; and

            ``(B) a maximum of $1.35 per barrel. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order against the amendment. My point of order is that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rosenthal) is 
    nongermane under rule XVI, clause 7. . . .
        I do not wish to imply a position for or against the amendment 
    by making this point of order, but I do feel constrained to block 
    it because of the importance of getting this bill through under 
    regular procedure. We must not allow this bill to be tied up in a 
    thousand controversies as have been other energy bills.
        The germaneness rule is one of the distinctive features of the 
    procedures of this House. It dates back to our very beginning. 
    There have been occasions where this House has acted as though this 
    rule was not applicable, and the legislation has been poorer as a 
    result. I think the rule of germaneness should be strictly applied 
    to H.R. 11793. It is a soundly conceived organization bill and we 
    should consider it as such.
        I realize there has been some question as to whether this bill 
    does, in fact, grant policy and program authority. I have 
    maintained from the beginning that this bill does not do so; and 
    for that reason I was willing to support the amendment, recently 
    adopted, which provides that nothing in the functions sections of 
    the bill shall be considered to set policy or grant program 
    authority. The acceptance of this amendment underscores the lack of 
    policy and program authority in the bill; and, of course, the Chair 
    will have to take into account the significance of the adoption of 
    this amendment because, to quote from Cannon, volume VIII, section 
    2910:

            (T)he Chair considers the relation of the amendment to the 
        bill as modified by the Committee of the Whole at the time at 
        which it is offered.

        Let me explain exactly what the bill does. As it states in the 
    ``declaration of purpose'' section:

[[Page 9117]]

            (I)t is necessary to reorganize certain agencies and 
        functions of the executive branch and to establish a Federal 
        Energy Administration.

        The bill then proceeds to establish the administration. Section 
    5 sets out the general areas of interest of the new Federal Energy 
    Administration. Section 6 transfers to the Agency authority from 
    other offices and departments in the executive branch. In no way 
    does this bill affect any of these substantive laws other than to 
    change the location of responsibility for their execution. My 
    committee did not amend the substance of these transferred laws, 
    because their substance is within the jurisdiction of other 
    committees. The remaining sections of the bill deal with typical 
    administrative authorities granted to departments and agencies and 
    the necessary arrangements for the transition to the new Agency.
        Clause 7, of course, holds that no propositions on a subject 
    different from that under consideration shall be admitted under 
    color of amendment:

            The mere fact that an amendment proposes to attain the same 
        end sought to be attained by the bill to which offered does not 
        render it germane. (Cannon, Vol. VIII, sec. 2912).

        Also, the whole of the amendment must be germane--Cannon, 
    volume VIII, section 2922, 2980. . . .
        I would like to point out that this amendment cannot be held 
    germane simply because it relates to laws being amended by this 
    bill. Let me again quote Cannon, volume VIII, section 2909;

            [T]he rule of germaneness applies to the relation between 
        the proposed amendment and the pending bill to which (it is) 
        offered, and not to the relation between such amendment and an 
        existing law of which the pending bill is amendatory.

        There are, of course, numerous other precedents along the same 
    lines, such as Cannon, volume VIII, section 3045, 2948, and 2946. 
    The reason for this is that the House needs a way to protect itself 
    from amendments which have not been properly considered. . . .
        H.R. 11793 is a reorganization bill; it is not a policy or 
    program bill. The House has long recognized the distinction between 
    policy bills and organizational bills. The very fact that we have 
    established a Government Operations Committee with responsibility 
    for, and I quote from rule XI, clause 8: ``Reorganizations in the 
    executive branch,'' is evidence of the long appreciation of this 
    House for the distinct legislative area of reorganization. If we 
    begin to allow policy and program authority to be added to 
    reorganization bills, an important barrier between the work of my 
    committee and the work of other legislative committees will have 
    been ruptured. . . .
        Mr. Rosenthal: . . . The subject matter of H.R. 11793 is the 
    establishment of a new Federal Energy Agency whose Administrator is 
    authorized to regulate energy prices and is admonished, in section 
    5, to ``promote stability in energy prices.'' The subject matter of 
    my amendment is the achievement of stability in energy prices, 
    clearly the same as the subject matter of a major portion of the 
    legislation itself.
        House interpretations of the germaneness rule hold that ``the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental pur

[[Page 9118]]

    pose of the bill'' and ``an amendment should be germane to the 
    particular paragraph or section to which it is offered,'' House 
    rule XVI, section 794.
        My amendment goes to a fundamental purpose of the bill--
    bringing about stability in energy prices--and it appears as a part 
    of the ``functions'' section which requires such stability.
        My price rollback amendment is germane for additional reasons:
        No House rule or precedent prohibits the Government Operations 
    Committee from granting new power or creating new policy in a bill 
    of this kind--so long as the power or policy is directly related to 
    the purpose for which the agency is being created. In fact numerous 
    provisions already in H.R. 11793 and in other Government 
    Operations' bills to reorganize and consolidate, create new powers 
    and set new policy.
        For example, the committee, in the Federal Energy Act, has 
    already expressly established new policies and created new powers 
    not elsewhere authorized by law:
        Section 4(j) amends and revises a Federal conflict of interest 
    statute--section 203 of title 18, United States Code--technically 
    within the jurisdiction of the Post Office and Civil Service 
    Committee. . . .
        The committee, in section 2 of the present bill--H.R. 11973--
    establishes as a purpose of the Federal Energy Administration the 
    establishment of ``fair and reasonable consumer prices'' for energy 
    supplies. Section 5, paragraph 5, establishes as a function of the 
    Administrator the promotion of ``stability in energy prices to 
    consumers.'' My amendment merely provides a mechanism by which this 
    purpose and function can be carried out. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rosenthal) has offered a 
    substantive and lengthy amendment which begins with the following 
    words:

            Subsection (b), Section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973 as amended by this title is further 
        amended to prevent inequitable prices with respect to sales of 
        crude oil, residual fuel oil and refined petroleum products by 
        adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has made a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill under consideration.
        The gentleman has made the further point of order that the 
    amendment covers a subject matter not within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Government Operations, but within the legislative 
    jurisdiction of another Committee of the House of Representatives.
        The gentleman from New York, in urging the Chair to overrule 
    the point of order, has cited many reasons. Part of the gentleman's 
    statement deals with another section of the bill which has not been 
    read at this time. Part of his remarks deal with the policy of the 
    amendment, not with the parliamentary situation.

        The Chair would not want to rule in this instance in such a 
    manner that every law of the United States dealing with the energy 
    question would be open to amendment in the pending bill.

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rosenthal) referred during his 
    argu

[[Page 9119]]

    ment to a bill in the 89th Congress creating a new Department of 
    Transportation and delineating the duties of its Secretary. The 
    Chair has examined the Congressional Record for the period when 
    that bill was under consideration. An amendment was offered on that 
    occasion directing the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a 
    study of ``labor laws as they relate to transportation,'' a matter 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee, and to recommend 
    procedures for settlement of labor disputes. A point of order was 
    made against that amendment, and the Chairman at that time (the 
    Honorable Mel Price of Illinois) ruled such an amendment out of 
    order as not being germane to the bill under consideration.

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

        But this amendment clearly seeks to amend another law, the 
    Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, which is not sought to 
    be amended in the bill under consideration.

        Therefore, the Chair refers to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker 
    Carlisle on March 17, 1880:

            When it is objected that a proposed amendment is not in 
        order because it is not germane, the meaning of the objection 
        is simply that the proposed amendment is a motion or 
        proposition upon a subject matter different from that under 
        consideration.

        The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, John J. 
    Fitzgerald of New York, on September 27, 1914, ruled that:

            For an amendment to be germane means that it must be akin 
        to or relevant to the subject matter of the bill. It must be an 
        amendment which would appropriately be considered in connection 
        with the bill. The object of the rule requiring amendments to 
        be germane . . . is in the interest of orderly legislation.

        In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair 
    considers the relation of the amendment to the bill as modified by 
    the Committee of the Whole at the time it is offered and not as 
    originally referred to the committee. And it has been held that an 
    amendment which might have been in order, if offered when the bill 
    was first taken up, may be held not germane to the bill as modified 
    by prior amendments.
        The Chair, therefore, rules that the amendment seeks to amend a 
    separate piece of legislation, namely, the Emergency Petroleum 
    Allocation Act of 1973, which is not amended in the bill under 
    consideration and sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See Sec. 42.23, infra, for similar ruling.

Sec. 42.23 To a section of a bill prescribing the functions of a new 
    Federal Energy Administration in meeting the energy needs of the 
    Nation, amended to limit exercise of those functions ``to the 
    extent expressly authorized by other sections of the bill or any 
    other provisions of law'', an amendment prescribing

[[Page 9120]]

    guidelines to be followed by the Administrator in establishing 
    petroleum prices (a permissible limitation on the discretionary 
    authority conferred in that section), but also directly imposing 
    ceiling prices on petroleum products where the Administrator had 
    not exercised his pricing authority pursuant to those guidelines, 
    was held to directly change substantive law and was held to be not 
    germane.

    On Mar. 6, 1974,(3) during consideration of H.R. 11793 
(4) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that, 
while a proposition reorganizing existing discretionary governmental 
authority under a new agency may be amended by imposing limitations on 
the exercise of those functions, an amendment directly changing 
policies in the substantive law to be administered by that agency is 
not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 5433-36, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Federal Energy Administration Act. See Sec. 42.22, supra, for a 
        similar ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss) is nongermane 
    to this reorga

[[Page 9121]]

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

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

        The amendment I have offered is a limitation upon the 
    Administrator. It says he cannot go back before the prices set in 
    May of 1973 in the exercise of his authority, excepting that he may 
    add a total of $1.35, bringing to $5.25 a barrel the effective 
    price of crude oil. It does provide that there can, upon certain 
    findings by the Administrator, be an increase to $7.09. . . .
        . . . We are limiting the discretion. We are limiting the 
    authority which we are by this act itself, the proposed legislation 
    in the Committee on Government Operations, granting to the 
    administrator. Clearly that is germane; clearly that is within the 
    province of this committee and of this House to limit the scope of 
    authority conferred or being conferred upon a new office. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        The Chair had, of course, anticipated that further questions 
    regarding the

[[Page 9122]]

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

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

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

[[Page 9123]]

Policy-making Authority of New Agency Limited to That in Existing Law--
    Amendment Prescribing New Policy

Sec. 42.24 To a bill consolidating certain existing governmental 
    functions under a new agency, amended to limit the policy-making 
    authority of that agency to that contained in existing law, an 
    amendment prescribing new policy by amending a law not amended by 
    the bill is not germane.

    The proceedings of Mar. 5, 1974, relating to H.R. 11793, the 
Federal Energy Administration Act, are discussed in Sec. 4.11, supra.

Authorization for Department of Energy--Amendment Authorizing Funds for 
    Study of Tax Credits Affecting Energy Use

Sec. 42.25 Where existing law requires a Department to study and 
    recommend changes in all laws on an annual basis to encourage 
    energy conservation, an amendment to an annual authorization bill 
    for that Department directing it to study and recommend changes in 
    one category of laws with funds covered by the bill was held 
    germane as confined to the fiscal year covered by the bill and as a 
    specific direction within the general category of duties required 
    by existing law.

    On Oct. 18, 1979,(6) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (7) authorizing appropriations 
for the Department of Energy for one fiscal year, including funds for 
conservation programs of the Department. An amendment was offered to 
the bill, adding a new title authorizing appropriations for the same 
fiscal year for a study of legislative proposals for energy tax credits 
introduced in the 96th Congress, including an assessment of the costs 
to the United States and the savings in energy through such proposals. 
The amendment was held to be germane since confined to the use of funds 
for the appropriate fiscal year, and since the Department of Energy had 
the responsibility under existing law, in carrying out its conservation 
programs, to annually study and recommend changes in all laws to 
encourage energy conservation. The amendment stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 125 Cong. Rec. 28763, 28764, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 3000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Clinger: Page 41, after line 24, 
    insert a new

[[Page 9124]]

    title IV as follows and renumber the following titles accordingly.

                                    TITLE IV

                                tax credit study

            Sec. 401. (a) There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Department of Energy for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1980, not to exceed $38,500 to conduct the study under 
        subsection (b).
            (b) The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a study to assess 
        the various proposals for Federal tax credits for residential 
        coal-heating equipment, as contained in legislation introduced 
        in the Congress during the 96th session. The study shall 
        include an estimate of the costs to the United States of the 
        various tax credit proposals and an evaluation of the possible 
        savings in consumption of heating oil and natural gas that 
        would result from the proposals. Not later than one year after 
        the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy 
        shall submit to the Congress a report of the results of the 
        study. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane.
        Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us, H.R. 4839, is a 1-year 
    authorization bill for the Department of Energy. It is an 
    authorization bill which relates to the energy activities of the 
    Department of Energy as opposed to taxable matters and taxes.
        The amendment is not germane for several reasons. The first is 
    that it relates to matters other than energy, in that it directs a 
    study with regard to tax credits. Nowhere in the proposal before 
    us, Mr. Chairman, do we find anything relating to tax credits in 
    the legislation. . . .
        I would point out that the Secretary of Energy, according to 
    the language of the amendment in paragraph (b) is directed to 
    conduct a study to assess various proposals for Federal tax credits 
    for residential coal heating equipment as contained in the 
    legislation in the Congress. I now quote: ``During the 96th 
    session.''
        Now, I assume that refers to the 96th Congress. The 96th 
    Congress will be for this fiscal year, plus portions of the 
    succeeding fiscal year.
        I would observe that if the study includes matters which were 
    introduced during the 96th Congress, it will include matters which 
    were introduced after the conclusion of the fiscal year in which we 
    find ourselves and after the conclusion of the period covered by 
    the authorization proposal.
        The amendment further in its last three lines says as follows:

            Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act. . . .

        That mandates actions by the Secretary of Energy 1 year after 
    the date of enactment of this statute, which would be whatever date 
    it might be, but it would be 1 year after at least probably the 
    conclusion of the fiscal year in question. Again I recall to the 
    Chair the fact that the proposal before us is a 1-year 
    authorization bill and that this mandates actions by the Secretary 
    well after the conclusion of the period covered in the 1-year 
    authorization bill which is before the committee.
        For that reason, I believe that the amendment is nongermane. I 
    would urge that position on the Chair. . . .
        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I would . . 
    .

[[Page 9125]]

    urge upon the Chair the fact that this proposal is very vague and 
    indefinite, in that the study shall be based on all legislation 
    which may be introduced in the 96th Congress, which is an 
    impossibility for the Secretary to undertake, since all of the 
    proposals in the 96th Congress have not yet been introduced and 
    there is no limit to when they can be introduced before the end of 
    the 96th Congress and the impossibility of meeting this 1-year 
    deadline is within the ambiguity of this amendment.
        Therefore, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge that the point 
    of order be sustained. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (8) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    directs the Secretary of Energy with funds separately authorized by 
    the amendment for fiscal year 1980 to conduct a study to assess 
    legislative proposals introduced in the 96th Congress which 
    provides Federal tax credits for residential coal heating equipment 
    in order to evaluate the costs of those proposals and possible 
    savings in the consumption of heating oil and natural gas that 
    would result therefrom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Secretary shall report his findings not later than 1 year 
    after enactment.
        The possibility that the study might not be completed within 
    the fiscal year 1980 does not seem to the Chair to be crucial in 
    this case, since the study is only to be funded by fiscal year 1980 
    funds and since other activities of the Department of Energy funded 
    by the bill for fiscal year 1980 are ongoing in nature and could 
    also involve continued participation beyond September 30, 1980.
        A more central question is the issue of the tax study. While 
    ordinarily revenue matters are within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means and would not be germane to a bill 
    reported by another committee, in the present case the Department 
    of Energy is mandated by its organic statute (Public Law 95-91) to 
    annually study and recommend changes in all laws and regulations 
    needed to encourage more conservation of energy.
        The Chair would also observe that title III, which the 
    committee has already dealt with, does address the issue of energy 
    conservation programs in the Department.
        As a new title, the amendment imposes upon the Secretary of 
    Energy for fiscal year 1980 a more specific responsibility within 
    the ambit of the Secretary's existing authority and confined to the 
    fiscal year covered by the titles of the bill read to this point.
        The Chair would further observe that the observation made by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) are addressed to the merits 
    and the substance of the amendment rather than to its germaneness.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Permanent Law Amendment to Authorization Bill

Sec. 42.26 A bill authorizing appropriations to an agency for one year 
    but not amending the organic law by extending the existence of that 
    agency

[[Page 9126]]

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

    During consideration of H.R. 13350 in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 20, 1976,(9) the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 14912, 14913, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also Sec. Sec. 41.14 and 41.17, supra, for similar 
        instances in which a bill extended only an authorization. 
        Compare Sec. Sec. 39.28 and 39.30-39.32, supra, in which the 
        bill sought to extend the existence of an agency, and 
        amendments to the organic law creating that agency were held to 
        be germane to the bill if germane to the basic law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane to H.R. 13350.
        The bill authorizes appropriations for 1 year for the programs 
    administered by the Energy Research and Development Administration.
        The amendment would have the effect of making permanent the 
    Energy Resources Council, a body established within the Executive 
    Office of the President. Such an amendment is clearly beyond the 
    scope of a 1-year authorization bill and is, therefore, not 
    germane.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the point of order be sustained, 
    and I specifically refer to rule XVI, clause 7. . . .
        Mr. Goldwater: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment is directly 
    related to subject matter of the bill--ERDA's programs and how they 
    are

[[Page 9127]]

    carried out under the Energy Reorganization Act.
        The Reorganization Act created ERDA and its programs and also 
    the Energy Resources Council to insure the full and complete 
    coordination of those programs and all other energy agencies and 
    programs. ERDA's programs and the ERC go hand and glove in a 
    programmatic sense.

                        fundamental purpose as test

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

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

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

                           committee jurisdiction

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

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

                          general versus specific

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

                         amendment to existing law

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

                                 key point

        The amendment is germane, because this bill includes program 
    support for the salaries of ERDA employees who staff parts of the 
    Energy Resources Council.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment and has listened to the 
    argument in support of the point of order and to the argument 
    presented by the gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) very 
    carefully and it, indeed, is an argument which deserves the careful 
    attention of the Chair.

[[Page 9128]]

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

Study of Energy Conservation--Additional Study

Sec. 42.27 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute establishing a 
    Federal Energy Administration and directing that agency to conduct 
    a comprehensive study of energy conservation, an amendment 
    directing that agency to conduct another study as to whether 
    regulations issued under the Economic Stabilization Act were 
    contributing to the energy shortage was held to be germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 11450 (11) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Dec. 14, 1973,(12) the Chair held that to a 
proposition establishing an executive agency and conferring broad 
authority thereon, an amendment directing that agency to conduct a 
study of a subject within the scope of that authority was germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The Energy Emergency Act.
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 41752, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Oklahoma to the amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers:
            On page 9, after line 22, section 104 is amended by 
        inserting the following new subsection after subsection (c), 
        and redesignating the subsequent subsections:
            Sec 2. Price Control and Shortages. The President and the 
        Administrator shall conduct a review of all rulings and 
        regulations issued pur

[[Page 9129]]

        suant to the Economic Stabilization Act to determine if such 
        rulings and regulations are contributing to the shortage of 
        petroleum products, coal, natural gas, and petrochemical 
        feedstocks, and of materials associated with the production of 
        energy supplies, and equipment necessary to maintain and 
        increase the exploration and production of coal, crude oil, 
        natural gas, and other fuels. The results of this review shall 
        be submitted to the Congress within thirty days of the date of 
        enactment of this Act. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    regretfully make a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, as the Chair will note, the amendment before us 
    imposes the duty upon the President to perform a study related to 
    the effectiveness and the effects of another statute, namely, the 
    Economic Stabilization Act. As the Chair notes, the Economic 
    Stabilization Act and studies under the Economic Stabilization Act 
    lie in the jurisdiction of another committee, namely the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency.
        I am sure the Chair is also aware that nowhere else in this 
    statute appears the Economic Stabilization Act.
        While I recognize the merits of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma and salute him for an awareness of a 
    problem of considerable importance, nevertheless the rules of this 
    House do not permit this committee to amend the Economic 
    Stabilization Act, referring to the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce, and indeed the Economic Stabilization Act is not 
    mentioned anywhere else in the bill.
        Of course, it follows the committee of which we are now a part 
    may not direct studies relating to the effect of that under the 
    guise of amending the bill H.R. 11882, because it deals with 
    different matters.
        I make a point of order against the amendment on the grounds of 
    germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: I think the amendment is germane to this 
    bill, because in the first place it does fit into the overall 
    concept of the bill in trying to ease our energy problems and fits 
    in with the title of the bill.
        Second, it does not amend the Economic Stabilization Act in any 
    way but merely calls for a study to give to this Congress 
    information that will be necessary in case an amendment to that act 
    is necessary in the future.
        So I believe it is germane to this bill, because, it does fit 
    into the overall objective.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
    Jones) only provides for a study of certain effects of actions 
    taken under the Economic Stabilization Act. The amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute in its present form is replete with various 
    studies.
        Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Environmental Research and Development--Amendment 
    Adding Permanent Regulatory Authority

Sec. 42.28 To a bill authorizing environmental research and

[[Page 9130]]

    development by an agency for two years, an amendment adding 
    permanent regulatory authority to that agency by amending a law not 
    being amended by the bill and not within the jurisdiction of the 
    committee reporting the bill is not germane.

    On June 4, 1987,(14) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 2355, the Environmental Research and 
Development Authorization for fiscal 1988 and 1989, reported from the 
Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The bill had as its purpose 
the authorization of environmental research and development programs. 
An amendment was offered which sought to amend the Clean Air Act, a law 
not amended by the bill and one that was within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce. The amendment, moreover, sought to 
provide new regulatory authority for the agency that was to conduct the 
research and development programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 133 Cong. Rec. 14739, 14753-14755, 14757, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 2355

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,
        section 1. short title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Research, 
        Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1987''.
        sec. 2. general authorizations.

            (a) Environmental Research, Development, and 
        Demonstration.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Environmental Protection Agency for environmental research, 
        development and demonstration activities, the following sums: . 
        . .
            (9) $55,866,600 for fiscal year 1988 for energy activities 
        of which not more than $52,331,100 shall be for acid deposition 
        research, and $56,216,900 for fiscal year 1989 for energy 
        activities of which not more than $52,611,900 shall be for acid 
        deposition research. . . .

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 12, after line 22, 
        insert the following new section:
        sec. 8. acid deposition control.

            Title I of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding at the 
        end thereof:

                       ``Part E--Acid Deposition Control
        ``sec. 181. emissions from utility boilers.

            ``(a) State Plans to Control Emissions.--Not later than one 
        year after the enactment of this section, the Governor of each 
        State shall submit to the Administrator a plan establishing 
        emission limitations and compliance schedules for controlling

[[Page 9131]]

        emissions of sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from fossil 
        fuel fired electric utility steam generating units in the 
        State. The plan shall meet the requirements of subsections (b) 
        and (c). . . .
        ``sec. 185. fees.

            ``(a) Imposition.--Under regulations promulgated by the 
        Administrator, the Administrator may impose a fee on the 
        generation and importation of electric energy. Such fee shall 
        be established by the Administrator at such level (and adjusted 
        from time to time) as will ensure that adequate funds are 
        available to make interest subsidy payments in the amount 
        authorized under section 187. . . .
        sec. 102. revisions of new source performance standards for 
        control of nitrogen oxide emissions.

            Section 111 of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding the 
        following new subsections at the end thereof:
            ``(k) . . . The Administrator shall revise the standards of 
        performance for emissions of nitrogen oxides from electric 
        utility steam generating units which burn bituminous or 
        subbituminous coal. . . .

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: . . . On the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman, the committee feels that the amendment as 
    drafted by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] has a 
    regulatory purpose which goes beyond the R&D programs authorized by 
    this bill. And for this reason the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that 
    section 2 of this bill states as follows, the first sentence after 
    the title of section A: ``There are authorized to be appropriated 
    to the Environmental Protection Agency for environmental research, 
    development and demonstration activities the following sums'' and 
    it delineates the amounts of those sums. Some of those are for 
    activities which are authorized under the Clean Air Act. So we have 
    money authorized here. The amendment I have will use little or no 
    funds of those. There is nothing in here that says it is prohibited 
    from using those funds. The amendment that I offered and as I say 
    has no budgetary impact in addition to what is already authorized 
    under this bill, it provides for the development of State plans to 
    take care of the problems of acid rain. It authorizes studies which 
    are research programs. It also authorizes development programs to 
    control the emissions consistent with the Clean Air Act by amending 
    the Clean Air Act to do that, both for stationary sources and 
    mobile sources and also authorizes certain field experiments.
        I believe it is well within the authority that is gathered and 
    given by this bill which is a bill of general nature within the 
    areas being authorized. So I feel it is well within the 
    jurisdiction of the committee, there is no question about that and 
    I believe it is germane.
        The Chairman: (15) . . . [T]he Chair is prepared to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Nick J. Rahall, II (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ruling that the gentleman's amendment, the 
    gentleman from Vermont, amends a law that does not come within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. In 
    addition, the pending bill is research and development legislation 
    and the gentleman concedes that he not only addresses a research 
    issue, but addresses regulation regarding

[[Page 9132]]

    acid rain that is outside the jurisdiction of the committee 
    reporting the pending bill.
        The gentleman from New Jersey's point of order is sustained.

Temporary Suspension of Environmental Laws--Amendment To Prohibit 
    Federal Assistance Under Another Law

Sec. 42.29 To a proposition temporarily suspending certain requirements 
    of a law, an amendment accomplishing that result by prohibiting 
    federal assistance under another law (within the jurisdiction of a 
    different House committee) where there has been failure to comply 
    with standards imposed by the amendment was held to be not germane.

    On May 1, 1974,(16) during proceedings relating to H.R. 
14368, the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, 
the Committee of the Whole was considering an Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute amending 
several sections of the Clean Air Act to permit limited variances from 
environmental requirements, including the temporary suspension of 
certain emission standards imposed upon automobile manufacturers. An 
amendment was offered which sought to impose restrictions on emissions, 
only for new automobiles, in designated geographical areas, through 
requirements affecting the manufacture, purchase, and registration of 
automobiles. The amendment also sought to withdraw state entitlements 
to federal assistance under the Clean Air Act or under the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act. The latter Act was within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Public Works. The amendment was ruled out of order 
as not germane. The proceedings are discussed in greater detail in 
Sec. 4.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 12520, 12522-24, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Temporary Suspension of Clean Air Act Requirements--Suspension of 
    Requirements of Other Environmental Laws

Sec. 42.30 To a proposition temporarily suspending certain requirements 
    of the Clean Air Act, an amendment temporarily suspending other 
    requirements of all other environmental protection laws was held 
    not germane.

    The proceedings of Dec. 14, 1973, relating to H.R. 11450 (the 
Energy Emergency Act), are discussed in Sec. 9.44, supra.

[[Page 9133]]

Bill Amending Federal Water Pollution Control Act--Amendment to Clean 
    Air Act

Sec. 42.31 To a bill reported from the Committee on Public Works and 
    Transportation amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, an 
    amendment amending the Clean Air Act (a statute within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce) to regulate 
    ``acid rain'' by controlling emissions into the air was held not 
    germane as amending a law and dealing with a subject within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee.

    On July 23, 1985,(17) during consideration of H.R. 8, 
the Water Quality Renewal Act of 1985, the Chair sustained a point of 
order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 131 Cong. Rec. 20041, 20050-52, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 113, after line 13, 
        insert the following new title:

                       TITLE II--ACID DEPOSITION CONTROL
        section. 1. short title.

            This title may be cited as the ``Water Quality Improvement 
        and Acid Deposition Reduction Act of 1985.''
        sec. 2. purpose.

            The purpose of this Act is to improve water quality, 
        protect human health and preserve aquatic resources in the 
        United States by reducing the threat of acid deposition.

           Subtitle I--Acid Deposition Control and Assistance Program
        sec. 101. amendment of clean air act.

            Title I of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding the 
        following new part at the end thereof:

                       ``Part E--Acid Deposition Control

                        ``Subpart 1--General Provisions

                          ``Sec. 181. purpose of part.

            ``The purpose of this part is to decrease sulfur dioxide 
        emissions in the 48 contiguous States by requiring certain 
        electric utility plants and other sources to reduce their rates 
        of sulfur dioxide emissions. The reduced rates shall be rates 
        which (if achieved by those sources in the emissions baseline 
        year) would have resulted in total emissions from such sources 
        12,000,000 tons below the actual total of sulfur dioxide which 
        those sources emitted in the emissions baseline year. The 
        reduction is to be achieved within 10 years after the date of 
        the enactment of this part. Such reduction shall be achieved 
        through--
            ``(1) a program under subpart 2 consisting of direct 
        federally mandated emission limitations for 50 of the largest 
        emitters of sulfur dioxide. . . .

        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: . . . The amendment which the 
    gentleman offers is not germane. It is,

[[Page 9134]]

    with minor changes, substantially that embodied in H.R. 1030, which 
    the gentleman introduced on February 7, 1985. The purpose of that 
    bill was to decrease sulphur dioxide emissions by requiring certain 
    electric utilities plants and other sources to reduce their rates 
    of emissions. Since the bill made extensive amendments to the Clean 
    Air Act, it was referred solely to the Committee on Energy and 
    Commerce, who have jurisdiction of this matter.
        Today we have almost identical provisions before us embodied in 
    Mr. Conte's amendment which are far beyond the scope of the bill we 
    are now considering, H.R. 8, and deal with the subject properly 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee, that is, the 
    Committee on Energy and Commerce.
        The scope of H.R. 8 is limited to the Clean Water Act and does 
    not include extensive amendments to the Clean Air Act as the 
    gentleman has proposed. . . .
        Mr. Conte: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment I feel is germane 
    to the committee amendment. It deals with the same subject matter 
    as contained in the bill.
        For example, the committee amendment includes a program to 
    address the acidification of this Nation's lakes. If implemented, 
    this amendment would accomplish the same goal by controlling the 
    source of this acidity. Also, the bill, as a whole, is concerned 
    with the protection and improvement of water quality in this 
    country. And this amendment directly addresses the protection of 
    water quality by controlling acid rain.
        For these reasons, the amendment is in order and germane to the 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. [Howard C.] Nielson of Utah: . . . The Public Works and 
    Transportation Committee does have water pollution, but they do not 
    have air pollution; they do not have air quality in their 
    committee.
        As the gentleman from Kentucky appropriately stated, this is 
    the exclusive province of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 
    the Health and Environment Subcommittee of that committee. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) It is the ruling of the Chair 
    that the amendment changes a law not amended in the pending bill 
    and outside the jurisdiction of the reporting committee, and deals 
    with the regulation of emissions not within the scope of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Harry M. Reid (Nev.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For that reason, the amendment is not germane.

Exemptions From Endangered Species Act for Economic Development 
    Projects--Amendment Conferring New Authorities on Officials With 
    Respect to Projects

Sec. 42.32 To a bill amending the Endangered Species Act to establish 
    new procedures for determining the extent of protection to be 
    accorded to endangered species by permitting exemptions for 
    qualifying economic development projects, an amendment waiving the 
    provisions of that Act and other laws to

[[Page 9135]]

    permit construction of certain public works projects and to require 
    modifications of those projects by federal officials whose 
    authorities to regulate those projects were not addressed by the 
    pending bill, was ruled out as nongermane since broadening 
    authorities of agencies not directly covered by the bill.

    On Oct. 14, 1978,(19) during consideration of H.R. 14014 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the amendment described above. The pending section of the bill 
and the amendment offered thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 124 Cong. Rec. 38134, 38140, 38141, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Endangered Species Act Amendments of 
        1978''.
            Sec. 2. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
        U.S.C. 1533) is amended--
            (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(1) the following 
        new sentence: ``At the time any such regulation is proposed, 
        the Secretary shall also by regulation, to the maximum extent 
        prudent, specify any habitat of such species which is then 
        considered to be critical habitat. The requirement of the 
        preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to any species 
        which was listed prior to enactment of the Endangered Species 
        Act Amendments of 1978.''. . .

        Mr. [Teno] Roncalio [of Wyoming]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roncalio: On page 32, after line 
        21, add new section (No. 12) as follows:
            ``The Department of the Army Permit to Basin Electric Power 
        Cooperative for the Missouri Basin Power Project, issued on 
        March 23, 1978, as amended October 10, 1978, is hereby ratified 
        and shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of the National 
        Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) . . . and the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) as 
        amended; and the Rural Electrification Administration loan 
        guarantee commitments and approvals associated therewith 
        relating to the Missouri Basin Power Project are deemed to 
        satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
        Act, and the Endangered Species Act; Provided That following 
        the rendering of a biological opinion by the United States Fish 
        and Wildlife Service concerning the effect, if any, of the 
        operation of the Missouri Basin Power Project on endangered 
        species or their critical habitat, the responsible officers of 
        the Rural Electrification Administration and of the Army Corps 
        of Engineers shall require such modifications in the operation 
        of the Project as they and the Secretary of the Interior may 
        determine are required to insure that actions authorized, 
        funded, or carried out by them, relating to the Missouri Basin 
        Power Project do not jeopardize the continued existence of such 
        endangered species and threatened species or result in the 
        destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is 
        or has been determined to be critical, by the Secretary of the 
        Interior, after

[[Page 9136]]

        consultation as appropriate with the affected States.''. . .

        Mr. John J. Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the grounds it is not 
    germane. The amendment deals with several statutes not before the 
    House committee. It would affect the National Environment Policy 
    Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 16 
    U.S.C. 531; the Rural Electrification Act and loan guarantees and 
    approvals thereunder, and legislation creating the Missouri Basin 
    power project.
        The amendment could have gone to the Committees on the Interior 
    and Public Works, as those are the committees with jurisdiction 
    over the basic statutes cited.
        The amendment imposes duties and burdens specifically on the 
    Corps of Engineers and other agencies, such as the Environmental 
    Protection Agency, which are not subject to specific mandate in the 
    Endangered Species Act, which we are considering today. . . .
        Mr. Roncalio: . . . In the first place, the amendment seeks to 
    change none of the statutes which my good friend, the gentleman 
    from Omaha, has cited.
        The precedents are clearly established for comparable 
    legislation. I shall read from the most recent one, from Deschler's 
    Procedures in the U.S. House of Representatives, page 477, at which 
    there is cited under the amendments and the germaneness rule:

            Sec. 5.18 For a bill authorizing the construction of a 
        trans-Alaska oil-gas pipeline pursuant to procedures--

        That bill came out of this very body not 4 years ago--
        promulgated by the Secretary of Interior and including a 
        prohibition against judicial review on environmental impact 
        grounds of any right-of-way or permit which might be granted, 
        an amendment in the nature of a substitute containing a similar 
        series of safeguards and including an exception from the 
        prohibition against judicial review--to provide a mechanism for 
        expediting other actions challenging pipeline permits--was held 
        germane. 119 Cong. Rec. 27673-75, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 
        1973.

        The holding at that time survived a challenge against it and 
    was held germane, even though there was a prohibition against 
    providing a mechanism for expediting other actions challenging 
    pipeline permits, whether they be for the Corps of Engineers or any 
    others; so the amendment is clearly germane to the proceedings 
    today. . . .
        Mr. Cavanaugh: Mr. Chairman, I just reiterate that the 
    amendment does impose new duties and obligations upon agencies of 
    Government not in consideration in this legislation, the National 
    Environmental Protection Policy Act, the Federal Water Pollution 
    Control Act, and the REA Act, and imposes new burdens and 
    obligations upon those agencies not envisioned in this legislation. 
    . . .
        Mr. Roncalio: Mr. Chairman, the amendment imposes no burden of 
    any kind on anybody. It imposes no burden whatever on the staffers 
    of any of the agencies mentioned by the gentleman from Nebraska. It 
    lets them go about their work and do nothing. It does not impose a 
    duty of any kind.
        The Chairman: (20) . . . The Chair, in exploring the 
    amendment in the

[[Page 9137]]

    very brief time in which the Chair has had to look at this and 
    exploring the cited examples, feels that this is not a question 
    actually of waiver, but rather a question of the expanded authority 
    and responsibility and obligation of the Departments cited by the 
    gentleman from Nebraska in connection with his point of order, such 
    as that calling for expanded authority on the part of the Army 
    Corps of Engineers and the Rural Electrification Administration--
    authorities not covered by the pending bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Therefore, based on the brief opportunity the Chair has had, 
    the Chair would find it necessary to sustain the point of order.

    A similar amendment was then offered which omitted references to 
other statutes except the Endangered Species Act, but was also ruled 
out as not germane. See Sec. 35.104, supra.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Bill Including Criminal 
    Penalties for Sabotage--Amendment to Federal Criminal Code

Sec. 42.33 To a bill authorizing appropriations for the Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission, amended by several permanent changes in law 
    relating to the organization of the Commission and to regulation of 
    nuclear facilities, including a provision amending the Atomic 
    Energy Act to impose a criminal penalty for sabotage of nuclear 
    facilities, an amendment in the form of a new title amending the 
    Federal Criminal Code to make it a felony to assault a Commission 
    inspector was held to be germane as within the class of conduct 
    already covered by the bill although amending a different law.

    On Dec. 4, 1979,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2608, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorization 
for fiscal 1981, under a special rule prohibiting, with one exception, 
amendments to the bill that ``amend or affect'' the Atomic Energy Act. 
The following amendment, among others, had been agreed to: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 34514, 34518, 34519, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Id. at p. 34516.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harris: Page 11, after line 15, 
        add the following new section:
            Sec. 303. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by 
        adding a new section to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 235. Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities''.--
            ``(a) Any person who willfully injures, destroys, or 
        contaminates . . . any nuclear production facility . . . or 
        utilization facility licensed under this Act . . . any special 
        nuclear material or byproduct material possessed pursuant to a 
        license issued

[[Page 9138]]

        by the Commission under section 53 or section 81 of this Act . 
        . . or any special nuclear material or byproduct material 
        contained in a carrier, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or 
        imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both. . . .

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: Page 11, after line 15, 
        add the following new title:

                      TITLE IV--PROTECTION FOR INSPECTORS

            Sec. 401. Section 1114 of Title 18, United States Code is 
        amended by inserting ``any construction inspector or quality 
        assurance inspector on any Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
        licensed project,'' after ``Department of Justice.''. . .

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, on my point of 
    order, according to the rule, these modifications of major law are 
    not allowed, and this is a modification of the law, so it is not 
    appropriate at this time. It is not germane to the bill.
        Mr. Gonzalez: . . . I find nothing here that conflicts with the 
    particular wording of the rule under which this is being 
    considered.
        In the first place, it does not address itself to any revision 
    of the Atomic Energy Commission Act.
        In the second place, it addresses itself to a fundamental 
    problem, a most significant and most disturbing problem that should 
    concern all Members of Congress writing laws on the inspection 
    process, which is the key and the heart of the whole deficiency 
    that we have heard many complaints about the NRC.
        Therefore, I cannot think of anything more germane than this 
    amendment, which merely says that it shall be an offense to 
    assault, attack or criminally intimidate an inspector. . . .
        I cannot find any real reason why this would not fall squarely 
    within the definition of the rule limitations, as well as an 
    amendment that has already been adopted, having to do with 
    culpability and sanctions. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . We have had what is 
    called a modified closed rule here in which certain kind of 
    amendments were ruled out. It seems to me that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Texas is not within the scope of the rule adopted by 
    the House.
        Second, the gentleman's amendment would change title 18, 
    section 114, which is the Criminal Code of the United States and 
    deals with protection of officers and employees of the United 
    States in the performance of their duties.
        I do not see anything in the bill that relates to that title 
    18.
        I therefore urge the point of order be sustained.
        The Chairman: (3) . . . (T)he Chair is prepared to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There are two bases for possible objection here with regard to 
    this amendment. The first is in regard to the rule and the 
    statement in the rule prohibiting with one exception any amendment 
    to the bill that amends or affects the Atomic Energy Act. This 
    amendment in no way affects or changes the Atomic Energy Act.
        The second possible basis is with regard to germaneness to the 
    bill as a

[[Page 9139]]

    whole, in its amended state. There are in the bill as amended 
    diverse permanent provisions of law that deal with civil and 
    criminal sanctions, the most relevant of which was the Harris 
    amendment. This amendment would impose criminal sanctions for 
    assaults on an Atomic Energy employee, a matter within the class of 
    general subjects related to nuclear regulations and safeguards 
    already covered by the bill as amended.
        Therefore, it is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is 
    germane, considering the other amendment dealing with criminal 
    violations against the Federal nuclear establishment.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order on the 
    amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Arguably, a showing could have been made 
that such an amendment as that proposed to Title 18 of the United 
States Code could be construed as ``affecting'' the criminal provisions 
contained in the Atomic Energy Act, which would have caused the 
amendment to be ruled out under the unique provisions of the special 
modified closed rule on the bill, which prohibited amendments that 
``amend or affect'' the Atomic Energy Act. It is also worth noting 
that, while the question of committee jurisdiction was not raised with 
respect to the issue of germaneness, the ruling supports the 
proposition that committee jurisdiction over a law is not the sole test 
of germaneness of an amendment where the bill being amended already 
contains provisions on the same general subject, although not 
specifically amending that law.

Bill To Increase Strength of Armed Services--Amendment To Amend 
    Internal Revenue Code

Sec. 42.34 To a bill, reported by the Committee on Armed Services, to 
    provide for the common defense by increasing the strength of the 
    armed forces, an amendment seeking to amend the Internal Revenue 
    Code, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, was held not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948,(4) the following amendment was offered: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
 5. 94 Cong. Rec. 8701, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Eberharter: Amend H.R. 6401, on page 
    43, line 1, by inserting after the period the following: ``Section 
    22(b) (relating to exclusions from gross income) of the Internal 
    Revenue Code is hereby amended by striking out `January 1, 1949' 
    wherever occurring therein, and inserting in lieu thereof `January 
    1,

[[Page 9140]]

    1951.' Section 10(b) of the act of August 8, 1947 (Public Law 384, 
    80th Cong.), entitled `An act to terminate certain tax provisions 
    before the end of World War II' is hereby amended by striking out 
    `January 1, 1949' and inserting in lieu thereof `January 1, 
    1951'.''

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

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, it is with 
    great reluctance that I make a point of order against the 
    amendment. It has to do with the revenue laws and should be 
    considered by the Ways and Means Committee. The amendment . . . is 
    clearly out of order on this legislation. . . .
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Section 14 
    of the bill provides for the pay and allowances of the members who 
    will be inducted under this bill. My amendment has reference to 
    their pay and allowances and merely seeks to maintain the same rate 
    of pay as is now in existence for the men in the armed services 
    whose rate of pay will be changed in January next. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) . . . Clearly the amendment 
    proposes to legislate on the Internal Revenue Code which is 
    legislation that would be within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Ways and Means. Therefore the Chair is constrained to sustain 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military Procurement Contracts--Amendment Affecting Contracts of Other 
    Agencies

Sec. 42.35 To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on Armed 
    Services amending several laws within the jurisdiction of that 
    committee on the subject of military procurement and military 
    departments, an amendment amending and extending the Renegotiation 
    Act, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, 
    Finance and Urban Affairs and covering not only the Department of 
    Defense procurement contract profits but also contracts entered 
    into by other agencies not within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Armed Services was held to be not germane.

    On June 26, 1985,(7) during consideration of H.R. 1872 
(8) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 131 Cong. Rec. 17417-19, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. The Defense Department Authorization for fiscal 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: At the end of Title VIII 
        (page 143, after line 19), add the following new section:
        sec. 802. war profiteering prohibition act.

            (a) Section 102 of the Renegotiation Act of 1951 (50 U.S.C. 
        App.

[[Page 9141]]

        1212) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(f) Certain Amounts Received After October 1, 1985.--
        Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), the 
        provisions of this title shall not apply to contracts with 
        departments, or related subcontracts, to the extent of the 
        amounts received or accrued by a contractor or subcontractor 
        during the period beginning on October 1, 1985, and ending on 
        the date of the enactment of this subsection.''
            (b) The last sentence of section 102(c)(1) of the 
        Renegotiation Act of 1951 (50 U.S.C. App. 1212(c)(1)) is 
        amended to read as follows: ``For purposes of this title, the 
        term `termination date' means September 30, 1988.''. . .

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: . . . I make a point 
    of order on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, in 
    that it is nongermane under the rule. The subject matter falls 
    principally outside the jurisdiction of this committee, and the 
    Renegotiation Act to which the amendment applies includes a variety 
    of departments in the executive branch over which this committee 
    has no jurisdiction or oversight or authority, and nothing in this 
    bill pertains to it or would give rise to the amendment.
        So I would insist, reluctantly, on my point of order. The 
    amendment is well intended, and I cannot argue with the thrust of 
    that either, but I do think at this point (it) is not germane, and 
    I do insist upon my point of order. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule on the gentleman's point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment would make certain changes in, and extend the 
    provisions of, the Renegotiation Act of 1951. That act was 
    originally in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    but the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 transferred specific 
    jurisdiction over renegotiation to the Committee on Banking, 
    Finance and Urban Affairs. The act covers contracts for procurement 
    and construction necessary for the national defense, but the act 
    covers not only the Department of Defense and the military 
    departments, but also the Maritime Administration, the General 
    Services Administration, the Atomic Energy Commission, the National 
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Federal Aviation Agency, 
    and such other agencies having a connection with the national 
    defense as the President may designate. The title of the bill under 
    consideration deals with procurement for the Department of Defense 
    and the military departments, and not with other agencies outside 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services.
        Since the subject matter of the amendment goes beyond the 
    coverage of the title and bill under consideration, and since it 
    falls squarely within the jurisdiction of another committee, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Muster-Out Pay Bill--Amendment To Amend Selective Service and Training 
    Act

Sec. 42.36 To a bill providing muster-out pay for men in the armed 
    services, an amendment seeking to amend the Selective Service and 
    Training Act of 1940 to provide

[[Page 9142]]

    that agencies of the Selective Service System be used for the 
    purpose of furnishing advice and assistance to members of the armed 
    services and their heirs and representatives with regard to claims 
    and rights, was held not germane.

    On Jan. 19, 1944,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Muster-Out Pay Bill of 1944.(11) The 
bill stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 90 Cong. Rec. 424, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. S. 1543 (Committee on Military Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Be it enacted, etc., That (a) except as provided in 
        subsection (b) of this section, each member of the armed forces 
        who shall have been engaged in active service in the present 
        war, and who is discharged or relieved from active service 
        under honorable conditions on or after December 7, 1941, shall 
        be eligible to receive mustering-out payment.
            (b) No mustering-out payment shall be made to--
            (1) any member of the armed forces who, at the time of 
        discharge or relief from active service, is receiving base pay 
        at a higher rate than the base pay of the third period as 
        prescribed in section 1 of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, as 
        amended. . . .
            Sec. 2. (a) Mustering-out payment for persons eligible 
        under section 1 shall be in sums as follows:
            (1) $300 for persons who have performed active service for 
        60 days or more;
            (2) $100 for persons who have performed active service for 
        less than 60 days. . . .
            (3) Any member of the armed forces entitled to mustering-
        out payment who shall have been discharged or relieved from 
        active service under honorable conditions before the effective 
        date of this act shall, if application therefor is made within 
        1 year after the date of enactment of this act, be paid such 
        mustering-out payment by the War Department or the Navy 
        Department, as the case may be, beginning within 1 month after 
        application has been received and approved by such department. 
        . . .
            Sec. 5. (a) Mustering-out payments due or to become due 
        under this act shall not be assignable and any payments made to 
        or on account of a veteran hereunder shall be exempt from 
        taxation. . . .
            Sec. 6. As used in this act, the term ``member of the armed 
        forces'' means any member of the Army or Navy of the United 
        States, the United States Marine Corps, the United States Coast 
        Guard, or any of their respective components. . . .
            Sec. 7. Appropriations for the Army and Navy, and the 
        several components thereof, respectively, shall be available 
        for the payments provided by this act and necessary 
        administrative expenses. There is hereby authorized to be 
        appropriated such additional sums as may be necessary to carry 
        out the provisions of this act. Amounts expended hereunder 
        shall be included in the annual reports to the Congress by the 
        departments concerned.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Voorhis of California: on page 9, line 
    25, insert a new section as follows:

            Sec. 8. The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 as 
        amended is

[[Page 9143]]

        further amended by adding to section 8-G thereof the following: 
        Under such rules and regulations as the Director of Selective 
        Service may prescribe, the facilities . . . and personnel of 
        the Selective Service System shall be available for the purpose 
        of furnishing advice and assistance to members of the armed 
        forces and to their heirs . . . or legal representatives in 
        connection with their claims for any rights, benefits . . . or 
        allowances . . . due by reason of service in the armed forces. 
        . . .

    Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, having raised a point of order 
against the amendment, the proponent of the amendment stated: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 425, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Jerry] Voorhis of California: . . . This is a bill for 
    mustering-out pay. My amendment seeks to provide machinery which 
    would be, in my judgment, of very marked assistance to the veteran 
    at the time he is mustered out. . . . I think it might well be that 
    in a great many cases the payment of this mustering-out pay, if 
    made to the veteran, could be accompanied by advice and counsel and 
    help which he may receive from his local draft board, and would 
    make the payment of that mustering-out pay of greater benefit to 
    him than would otherwise be the case.

    The Chairman,(13) without elaboration, held that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Amend Selective Service Act--Amendment To Amend Naturalization 
    Laws

Sec. 42.37 To a bill to amend the Selective Service Act of 1948, an 
    amendment proposing to amend the naturalization laws was held not 
    germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a bill (14) 
comprising amendments to the Universal Military Training and Service 
Act, the following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. S. 1-1951 (Committee on Armed Services).
15. 97 Cong. Rec. 3909, 3910, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Sadlak:
        Page 26, following the amendment offered by Mr. Walter, insert 
    the following: ``Any citizen of a foreign country who . . . shall 
    have been inducted into the Armed Forces of the United States 
    pursuant to the provisions of this title, shall be eligible for 
    full and immediate United States citizenship in accordance with the 
    provisions of section 22 of this title.''
        On page 52, after line 14, insert the following new paragraph:

            (y) The Selective Service Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 604), as 
        amended, is further amended by adding at the end of title I 
        thereof a new section, as follows:

          Naturalization of Persons Inducted or Enlisted in the Armed 
                                     Forces

            Sec. 22. (a) Any person not a citizen . . . who on or after 
        June 25,

[[Page 9144]]

        1950, and not later than June 3, 1952, has actively served or 
        actively serves, honorably, in the Armed Forces of the United 
        States and who, having been lawfully admitted . . . to the 
        United States, including its . . . possessions . . . shall have 
        been at the time of his . . . induction within any such areas 
        may (notwithstanding the provisions of sections 303 and 326 of 
        the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended) be naturalized upon 
        compliance with all of the requirements of the naturalization 
        laws, except that (1) no declaration of intention and no period 
        of residence within the United States or any State shall be 
        required. . . .

    The following exchange (16) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 3910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    pending bill.

        The Chairman: G5(17) Does the gentleman from Connecticut desire 
    to be heard on the point of order? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Antoni N.] Sadlak [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, how much 
    time will be allotted to me for that purpose?
        The Chairman: That is in the discretion of the Chair. The 
    gentleman's argument must be confined to the point of order. The 
    Chair will hear the gentleman on the point of order.
        Mr. Sadlak: . . . Under the provisions of S. 1 aliens who are 
    legally here in the United States will be more readily inductible 
    into the armed services than heretofore because of the provisions 
    that have been added to the original measure. Since we are bringing 
    them into service under the bill and because many will continue to 
    come within the provisions of this act voluntarily by enlistment, I 
    feel my amendment has positive germaneness since it is directly 
    concerned with those actively engaged in the common defense and 
    security of the United States as is this title of S. 1.  . .
        The Chairman: . . . It appears clearly that the scope of the 
    amendment is beyond the scope covered by the pending bill and, 
    therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Direct Loans for Veterans--Use of Specified Funds for Guaranteed 
    Mortgages

Sec. 42.38 To a bill encouraging new residential construction for 
    veterans' housing by increasing the maximum authorized for direct 
    loans, an amendment authorizing use of a portion of the National 
    Service Life Insurance Fund for purchase of guaranteed mortgages, 
    was held to be not germane.

    On Mar. 25, 1957,(18) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (19) to encourage new residential 
construction for veterans' housing. The bill stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 4312, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 4602 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Be it enacted, etc., That section 512 of the Servicemen's 
        Readjustment

[[Page 9145]]

        Act of 1944 (38 U.S.C., sec. 694 (l) is amended to read as 
        follows:

                           ``direct loans to veterans

            ``Sec. 512. (a) The Congress finds that housing credit 
        under section 501 of this title is not and has not been 
        generally available to veterans living in rural areas, or in 
        small cities and towns not near large metropolitan areas. It is 
        therefore the purpose of this section to provide housing credit 
        for veterans living in such rural areas and such small cities 
        and towns.
            ``(b) Whenever the Administrator finds that private capital 
        is not generally available in any rural area or small city or 
        town for the financing of loans guaranteed under section 501 of 
        this title, he shall designate such rural area or small city or 
        town as a `housing credit shortage area', and shall make, or 
        enter into commitments to make, loans for any or all of the 
        following purposes in such area--
            ``(1) For the purchase or construction of a dwelling to be 
        owned and occupied by a veteran as his home;
            ``(2) For the purchase of a farm on which there is a farm 
        residence to be owned and occupied by a veteran as his home. . 
        . .
            Sec. 2. (a) Subsection (a) of section 513 of such act (38 
        U.S.C., sec. 694m) is amended (1) by striking out ``June 30, 
        1957'' and inserting ``July 25, 1958,'' and (2) by inserting 
        immediately before the period at the end of the second sentence 
        thereof the following: ``Retaining, however, a reasonable 
        reserve for making loans with respect to which he has entered 
        into commitments with veterans before such last day.''. . .
            Sec. 3. (a) The fourth sentence of subsection (a) of 
        section 500 of such act (38 U.S.C., sec. 694) is amended by 
        striking out all that follows ``in this title,'' and inserting 
        ``is automatically guaranteed by the Government by this title 
        in an amount not exceeding 60 percent of the loan if the loan 
        is made for any of the purposes specified in section 501 of 
        this title. . . .
            (b) Subsection (b) of section 501 of such act (38 U.S.C., 
        sec. 694a) is amended by striking out all that follows ``(b)'' 
        to the colon immediately preceding the first proviso and 
        inserting: ``Any loan made to a veteran for any of the purposes 
        specified in subsection (a) or subsection (c) of this section 
        501 is automatically guaranteed, if otherwise made pursuant to 
        the provisions of this title, in an amount not exceeding 60 
        percent of the loan.''

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Edmondson: On page 9, immediately 
    after line 20, insert the following:

            (d) Such section 501 (of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act) 
        is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
        new subsection:
            ``(d) In order to stabilize the price at which loans 
        guaranteed under this section generally will be salable to 
        investors, the President in his discretion may authorize the 
        Administrator to invest and reinvest not more than 25 percent 
        of the National Service Life Insurance Fund by purchasing, and 
        making commitments to purchase, loans guaranteed under this 
        section. . . .''

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

        Mr. [E. Ross] Adair [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to the pending legislation. This amendment would require an 
    amendment to the National

[[Page 9146]]

    Service Life Insurance Act whereas the legislation here before us 
    today relates to the Servicemen's Readjustment Act. It would also 
    provide funds for guaranteed loans whereas the legislation now 
    pending relates to direct loans. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 103 Cong. Rec. 4313, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, may I say 
    with regard to the point of order that this amendment was written 
    with the intention to confine definitely to the scope of this bill 
    and to the functions of this bill the additional authority over 
    NSLI funds that was provided for the President and for the 
    Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. It is designed entirely to 
    bolster and support the direct and guaranteed loan program for the 
    veterans of the United States. I personally do not see why it 
    requires any further amendment to the national service life 
    insurance law because it seems to me to give an implementing 
    authority to the President consistent with his present powers. . . 
    . The money is affected only to the extent that it is shifted from 
    purchase of Government bonds over to a purchase of Government-
    insured mortgages. . . . Further, may I point out, Mr. Chairman, 
    the legislation does contain sections which do amend the guaranteed 
    loan program as well as amendments of the direct loan program.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Robert L. F. Sikes (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair the bill before us, H.R. 4602, does 
    deal primarily and solely with direct loans, and it is clearly 
    shown in the title and elsewhere in the bill that that is the 
    intent of the bill. The amendment which has been offered would 
    include guaranteed loans, and it would bring in the national 
    service life insurance. Therefore, new legislation would be brought 
    into consideration, and in the opinion of the Chair the amendment 
    is not germane. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Sale of Surplus War Housing--Amendment Proposing That Specified 
    Instruments, Otherwise Nonnegotiable, Be Acceptable as Part Payment

Sec. 42.39 To a bill having for its purpose the disposal of surplus war 
    housing, an amendment proposing that ``terminal leave bonds,'' 
    nonnegotiable under existing law, be acceptable as part payment in 
    purchases of such housing was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
amending the National Housing Act and providing for the expeditious 
disposition of certain war housing. The bill provided in part: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 3492 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 6916, 6918, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12, 1947.

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

[[Page 9147]]

            Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as the 
        ``War Housing Disposal Act of 1947.''

                                  definitions

            Sec. 2. For the purposes of this act--
            (1) The term ``Administrator'' means the Federal Works 
        Administrator.
            (2) The term ``Lanham War Housing Act'' means the act 
        entitled ``An act to expedite the provision of housing in 
        connection with national defense, and for other purposes,'' 
        approved October 14, 1940, as amended.
            (3) The term ``war housing'' means any interest, owned by 
        the United States and under the control of the National Housing 
        Agency, in (A) housing (other than temporary housing) acquired 
        or constructed under the Lanham War Housing Act . . . or under 
        the Second Deficiency Appropriation Act, 1944 (Public Law 375, 
        78th Cong.), and (B) such other property as is determined by 
        the Administrator to be essential to the use of such housing. . 
        . .

            transfer of war housing to federal works administration

            Sec. 3. (a) The functions of the National Housing 
        Administrator and of the National Housing Agency with respect 
        to war housing are hereby transferred to the Administrator. . . 
        .

                              sale of war housing

            Sec. 4. (a) All war housing (except mortgages, liens, or 
        other interests as security) transferred to the Administrator 
        by section 3 shall, subject to the provisions of this act, be 
        sold for cash as expeditiously as possible and not later than 
        December 31, 1948.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill on June 18, 1947: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 93 Cong. Rec. 7259, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Florida: Page 4, line 10, 
    after the period insert the following sentence: ``For purposes of 
    this subsection terminal leave bonds (at face value plus interest 
    at the time of sale) may be transferred to, and accepted by, the 
    Administrator in lieu of cash, but shall be held by the 
    Administrator until said bonds are payable as may be provided by 
    law.''

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

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane, that 
    it operates in effect as an amendment to the Terminal Leave Pay 
    Act, which is not within the subject matter of the bill under 
    discussion.

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

        Mr. [Dwight L.] Rogers of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I do not think 
    there is any question that this certainly deals with how these 
    houses may be purchased. . . . The bill says cash. I provide by 
    this amendment that for the purposes of this section the cash 
    payment may be reduced by the value of the bond. That is all. To my 
    mind, Mr. Chairman, it is germane. . . .

    Other remarks addressed to the point of order were as follows:

[[Page 9148]]

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    bill relates to the sale of certain war housing. Certainly, it 
    seems to me in connection with the sale of war housing that 
    Congress can determine the method of payment. . . . It certainly 
    seems to me if the Congress . . . tries to permit the use of these 
    terminal-leave bonds in payment . . . it is certainly germane to 
    this bill, the basic premise of which is the sale of certain war 
    housing, and this is an incidental part thereof. . . .
        Mr. Wolcott: . . . Under the terminal-leave-payment bill, there 
    is an express provision that the bonds are nonnegotiable and that 
    the bonds are nontransferable. In order to provide that they be 
    used as down payment . . . in connection with these projects, they 
    must be negotiated. . . . For that reason, we amend a basic 
    provision of the law which is not within the purview of the bill 
    presently under consideration.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. George B. Schwabe (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair holds the point of order is well taken, for the 
    reason that the Terminal Leave Pay Act provided that the bonds were 
    nonnegotiable for a definite period of time--5 years. That is not 
    within the purview of the bill under consideration, this being a 
    bill which does not seek to amend or change the provisions of the 
    Terminal Leave Pay Act, but merely for the disposal of surplus 
    housing.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill To Amend Federal Deposit Insurance Act--Amendment To Change name 
    of Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation

Sec. 42.40 To a bill to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, an 
    amendment proposing to change the name of the Federal Savings and 
    Loan Insurance Corporation, which had been created by a different 
    act, was held not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill (6) 
to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the following amendment was 
offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. S. 2822 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 10727, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: 
    Page 62, after line 4, add the following new section:

            Sec. 6. The name of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance 
        Corporation created by section 402(a) of the National Housing 
        Act is hereby changed to ``Federal Savings Insurance 
        Corporation,'' and the words ``Federal Savings and Loan 
        Insurance Corporation'' wherever else appearing in law shall be 
        deemed to mean ``Federal Savings Insurance Corporation.''

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

[[Page 9149]]

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the Federal 
    Savings and Loan Association, and the Federal Savings and Loan 
    Insurance Corporation are set up under a separate act. I do not 
    think there is any question at all that a point of order would lie 
    against this amendment. We have not had any hearings on this. . . .

    Remarks made by Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, in defense of the 
amendment, were as follows:

        Mr. Chairman, the purpose of changing the name of the Federal 
    Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation is because it is a long name 
    and is not really in conformity with what is actually done. The 
    Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation does not insure 
    loans. . . . What they really do is insure the savings, and this 
    designation is in accordance with their functions and their duties. 
    . . .
        . . . We have already legislated in this bill on the name of 
    the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, providing that 
    if they use the phrase ``Federal Savings Insurance Corporation'' in 
    their advertisements it will not be a violation of the law 
    preventing the associations from stating they are federally 
    insured. . . .

    The Chairman,(8) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
 9. 96 Cong. Rec. 10727, 10728, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Committee has under consideration a bill to amend the 
    Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The gentleman from New York has 
    offered an amendment to change the name of the Federal Savings and 
    Loan Insurance Corporation, which was created under another act.
        They are two very separate and distinct acts; therefore the 
    Chair is constrained to rule that the amendment is not germane and 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill To Remove Loan Agencies From Department of Commerce--Amendment 
    Affecting President's Authority Under War Powers Act

Sec. 42.41 To a bill to remove federal loan agencies from the 
    Department of Commerce, an amendment to lessen the President's 
    authority, given him under the War Powers Act, with respect to the 
    redistribution of functions of executive agencies was held not 
    germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration to provide for the effective administration of certain 
lending agencies of the federal government. The bill stated in part: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. S. 375 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 1190, 1191, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 16, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 2. All powers, functions, and duties of the Department 
        of Commerce and of the Secretary of Com

[[Page 9150]]

        merce which relate to the Federal Loan Agency (together with 
        the respective personnel, records, and property, including 
        office equipment, relating to the exercise of such functions, 
        powers, and duties) are hereby transferred to the Federal Loan 
        Agency to be administered under the direction and supervision 
        of the Federal Loan Administrator.
            Sec. 3. The unexpended balance of the funds made available 
        to the Secretary of Commerce by Public Law 365, Seventy-eighth 
        Congress, approved June 28, 1944, for administrative expenses 
        of supervising loan agencies, shall be transferred to the 
        Federal Loan Agency to be used for the administrative expenses 
        of that Agency.
            Sec. 4. No functions, powers, or duties shall be 
        transferred from the Federal Loan Agency under the provisions 
        of title I of the First War Powers Act, 1941, or any other law 
        unless the Congress shall otherwise by law provide.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 1191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Wolcott: Page 2, line 20, at the end 
    of section 4, add a new section as follows:

            Section 1 of Public Law 354, Seventy-seventh Congress, is 
        amended as follows: At the end of said section 1 strike out the 
        period and insert a colon and the followng: ``Provided 
        further'' , That hereafter, no order providing for the 
        redistribution of functions or providing for the transfer or 
        consolidation of any existing executive or administrative 
        commission, bureau, agency, Government owned or controlled 
        corporation or office, or the duties, powers, or functions 
        thereof, shall be effective unless the Congress shall provide 
        otherwise by concurrent resolution.''

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

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of 
    the pending bill is merely to take out of the Commerce Department 
    the Reconstruction Finance Corporation as it now exists and there 
    is no change made in the organic law. This amendment attempts to 
    repeal the War Powers Act vesting in the President all the 
    extensive powers necessary for the successful prosecution of the 
    war.

        The proposed amendment certainly cannot be germane to the 
    pending bill. I make a point of order against the amendment for the 
    reasons stated.

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

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: . . . I have always taken 
    the position the amendment is in order inasmuch as the bill itself 
    seeks to amend the authority of the President under [the War Powers 
    Act] and this is merely a further limitation upon the President's 
    authority to transfer and consolidate executive agencies.

    The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    seeks to take from the President all authority under the War Powers 
    Act. The War Powers Act was reported to the House by the Committee 
    on the Judiciary. Again the Chair calls attention that the 
    definition of ``germaneness'' is that it must be closely allied to 
    the bill which is

[[Page 9151]]

    under consideration. The Chair, therefore, rules that the amendment 
    is not germane and sustains the point of order.

Regulation of Credit for Purchasers of Goods--Regulation of Reserve 
    Requirements for Banks

Sec. 42.42 To a provision of a bill authorizing the Board of Governors 
    of the Federal Reserve System to regulate terms of credit extended 
    to purchasers of various goods, an amendment authorizing the board 
    to make changes in the reserve requirements for banks was held not 
    germane.

    On July 20, 1951, during consideration of a bill (14) to 
amend the Defense Production Act of 1950, an amendment was offered, as 
follows: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 3871 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
15. 97 Cong. Rec. 8607, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Multer: At page 45, after line 6, 
    insert the following:

            (d) Sec. 606. In order to protect the Nation's monetary, 
        banking, and credit structure, and interstate and foreign 
        commerce, against increased inflationary pressures, and to 
        prevent injurious credit expansion, the Board of Governors of 
        the Federal Reserve System are authorized, notwithstanding any 
        other provision of law, to establish and from time to time 
        change by regulation the requirements as to reserves to be 
        maintained against demand or time deposits or both. . . .

    The following exchange (16) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at pp. 8607, 8608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that in substance, if not in 
    language, the amendment seeks to amend the Federal Reserve Act, and 
    in that respect is not germane to the subject matter of this bill. 
    As I understand, it is sought to increase the reserve requirements 
    of banks. These are established under authority contained in the 
    Federal Reserve Act. Inasmuch as this bill has no language in it 
    which amends, modifies, or repeals in any respect the rediscount 
    rates, reserve requirements, or other functions of the Federal 
    Reserve Board, excepting those which have been delegated to it 
    under this act in the administration of the direct controls as 
    opposed to the indirect controls, it is not germane to this act. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: There is no doubt, Mr. 
    Chairman, but what title 6 of the Defense Production Act deals with 
    the authority of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve bank 
    in connection with controlled credit. We have a title in this bill 
    which deals with the same subject.
        The Chairman: (17) Will the gentleman point out the 
    title?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).

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

[[Page 9152]]

        Mr. Multer: Title 6 of the law entitled ``Control of Consumer 
    and Real-estate Credit.'' ``The Board of Governors is authorized, 
    notwithstanding the provisions of Public Law 386, to exercise 
    consumer credit,'' and so forth. . . .
        Mr. Wolcott: . . . I was certain that the gentleman from New 
    York understood the difference between indirect controls and direct 
    controls, but it is very obvious, if he insists upon this language 
    to this bill, that he does not know the difference between indirect 
    controls exercised under the Federal Reserve Act, and direct 
    controls which we make possible under this act the administration 
    of which is delegated to the Federal Reserve Board. . . .
        Mr. [Fred L.] Crawford [of Michigan]: . . . If I understood the 
    amendment correctly, it goes directly to the increasing of the 
    reserve powers of the Federal Reserve Board in line with the basic 
    provisions of the Federal Reserve law. My contention is that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill now under consideration or to 
    the section which we are now considering. The amendment would have 
    the effect of amending the Federal Reserve Banking Act instead of 
    merely dealing with the use of credit.
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair has . . . had an opportunity to 
    read portions of title VI of the Defense Production Act of 1950, 
    which has to do with control of consumer and real-estate credit.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York is actually beyond the scope of the Defense 
    Production Act of 1950 and beyond the scope of the bill before the 
    Committee, H.R. 3871.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott]. . . .

New Office Within Department of Justice--Amendment To Abolish 
    Department of Justice

Sec. 42.43 To a bill establishing a new Office of Law Enforcement and 
    Criminal Justice within the Department of Justice, an amendment 
    abolishing the Department of Justice and transferring its powers 
    and functions to a new independent agency was held to be not 
    germane as a reorganization within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Law Enforcement 
and Criminal Justice Assistance Act of 1967,(18) the 
following amendment was offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 5037 (Committee on the Judiciary).
19. 113 Cong. Rec. 21845, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 8, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William E.] Minshall: On Page 25, 
    strike out lines 5 through 15, and insert the following:

            Sec. 401. (a) There is hereby established as an independent 
        agency of Government an Office of Justice which shall be headed 
        by an Attorney General who shall be appointed

[[Page 9153]]

        for a term of 15 years by the President by and with the advice 
        and consent of the Senate. The Attorney General, in the 
        performance of his duties, shall not be subject to the 
        direction or supervision of the President, nor shall he be a 
        member of his Cabinet.
            (b) There are hereby transferred to the Attorney General of 
        the Office of Justice all functions exercised by the Department 
        of Justice on the date of enactment of this Act, including all 
        functions provided for in this Act. Such personnel, property, 
        and unexpended balances of appropriations as the Director of 
        the Bureau of the Budget determines relate primarily to 
        functions transferred by this Act shall be transferred to the 
        Office of Justice.
            (c) The Department of Justice, the office of Attorney 
        General in such Department, and all other offices provided for 
        by law in such Department are hereby abolished.
            (d) Effective date of this section will be March 1, 1969.

    In ruling on a point of order raised against the amendment, the 
Chairman (20) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Minshall] 
    proposes the abolishment of the Department of Justice and the 
    transfer of its functions to a newly created Office of Justice. . . 
    .
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] has raised the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill under 
    consideration.
        The bill now before the Committee of the Whole bestows certain 
    new functions, authority, and responsibilities on the Attorney 
    General. It creates, within the Department of Justice, a new Office 
    of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. It does not reorganize the 
    existing structure of the Department.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is, in effect, 
    a plan for governmental reorganization, and as such would not be 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, which 
    reported this bill. This is one argument against considering the 
    amendment germane.
        The Chair feels that the situation presented by this amendment 
    is analogous to that presented when a bill amendatory of existing 
    law in one particular is sought to be amended by a repeal of the 
    law. In those cases, decisions are uniform to the effect that the 
    amendments are not considered germane--volume [Cannon's Precedents] 
    VIII, sections 2948-2949.
        The Chair does not feel that the amendment is within the scope 
    of the bill before the Committee of the Whole. It relates to a 
    subject not under consideration at this time. The Chair therefore 
    sustains the point of order.

Control of Crime Through Research and Training--Amendment To Regulate 
    Sale of Firearms

Sec. 42.44 To a bill designed to aid in the control of crime through 
    research and training, an amendment aimed at the control of crime 
    through regulation of the sale of firearms was held not 
    germane.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 6.6, supra, for discussion of the proceedings found at 113 
        Cong. Rec. 21846-50, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 8, 1967, 
        relating to H.R. 5037 (Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Act 
        of 1967, Committee on the Judiciary).

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

[[Page 9154]]

Increased Salaries for Members--Amendment Affecting Audits in House

Sec. 42.45 To a bill reported from the Committee on Post Office and 
    Civil Service providing in part for increased salaries for Members 
    of Congress and legislative employees, an amendment proposing 
    changes in the Accounting and Auditing Act and relating to 
    procedures governing audits of financial transactions of the House 
    of Representatives and the Architect of the Capitol was held to be 
    not germane as within the jurisdiction of another House committee 
    (Government Operations).

    In the 88th Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
relating to salary increases for federal officers and employees, the 
following amendment was offered: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 8986 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 3. 110 Cong. Rec. 5125, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 12, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Oliver P. Bolton on page 40, 
    immediately following line 4, insert the following:

            Sec. 203. Section 117 of the Accounting and Auditing Act of 
        1950 (64 Stat. 837; 31 U.S.C. 67) is amended by adding at the 
        end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(c) Except as otherwise provided by law, the Comptroller 
        General in auditing the financial transactions of the House of 
        Representatives and of the Architect of the Capitol shall make 
        such audits at such times as he may deem appropriate. For the 
        purpose of conducting such audits, the provisions of section 
        313 of the Budget and Accounting Act (42 Stat. 26; 31 U.S.C. 
        54) shall be applicable to the legislative agencies under 
        audit. . . .''

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

        Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is not germane and has nothing to do with pay raises. It 
    was not discussed in our committee. It covers a subject completely 
    outside the provisions of the bill. It is not contemplated within 
    the title of the bill.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated, as follows: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 5126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: . . . The bill deals with the 
    salary of the Members of the House. My amendment would go toward 
    the accounting for those expenditures of the House which if they 
    were not expended by the House would well be considered salary. . . 
    .

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The subject matter of the pending bill pertains to salaries of 
    various gov

[[Page 9155]]

    ernmental employees and not to accounting. The amendment that the 
    gentleman from Ohio offers is, in effect, the same as a bill which 
    he has introduced that was referred to the Committee on Government 
    Operations. The subject matter of the bill and of the gentleman's 
    amendment pertains to accounting, which comes under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations and not 
    under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
    Service.

Penalties for Violation of House Rules

Sec. 42.46 To an amendment requiring registration and public disclosure 
    by lobbyists before Congress and the executive branch and providing 
    civil penalties for failure to so register and disclose, an 
    amendment applying the same sanctions to persons having the 
    privilege of the floor of the House and violating the prohibition 
    in the House rules against lobbying on the floor or in adjacent 
    rooms is in effect a change in the rules of the House and is not 
    germane.

    During consideration of the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 
1976 (H.R. 15) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 28, 
1976,(6) Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment to the pending amendment 
in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 122 Cong. Rec. 33087, 33088, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. For discussion of 
        other germaneness issues arising from amendments to H.R. 15, 
        see Sec. Sec. 3.74-3.76, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gary] Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania to the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: 
        On page 19, line 17, insert immediately following 
        ``thereunder,'': ``or ex-Members of the House of 
        Representatives, former Parliamentarians of the House, former 
        elected officers of the House, and former elected minority 
        employees of the House of Representatives who violate Rule 
        XXXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives by appearing 
        in the Hall of the House or adjacent rooms as a representative 
        of an organization which is required to register under this 
        Act,''.
            On page 20, line 1, insert immediately following 
        ``misleading,'' ``or ex-Members of the House of 
        Representatives, former Parliamentarians of the House, former 
        elected officers of the House, and former elected minority 
        employees of the House of Representatives who willfully violate 
        Rule XXXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives by 
        appearing in the Hall of the House or adjacent rooms as a 
        representative of an organization which is required to register 
        under this Act.''. . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I would raise 
    a point of order to the amendments of

[[Page 9156]]

    fered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I have just gotten the 
    amendments, but it would appear to me, Mr. Chairman, that they 
    would violate the purposes of the bill and the substitute for the 
    bill in that they would require sanctions against ex-Members of the 
    House, former parliamentarians of the House, former elected 
    officers of the House, and so forth, as opposed to the 
    organizational concept from which both the bill and substitute 
    recede.
        Mr. Chairman, for those reasons we feel that they are not 
    germane to the bill or the substitute therefor.
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, the amendment applies 
    only to those ex-Members of the House, and so forth, who are 
    mentioned here, who would be required to register under another 
    section by this act.
        And in relationship to the gentleman's remarks about the 
    sanctions applying to individuals, section 13(a) begins:

            Sec. 13. (a) Any individual or organization knowingly 
        violating section 4, 5, or 6 of this Act, or the regulations 
        promulgated thereunder, shall be subject to a civil penalty of 
        not more than $5,000 for each such violation.

        So, query, Mr. Chairman: The amendment is designed in such a 
    way that not all ex-Members will have to comply but only those who 
    find themselves as lobbyists or who would be required to file under 
    another section of this act.
        There is no prohibition in this act preventing a Member from 
    being fined under the sanction section.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to look at the sanction 
    provisions in the amendment in the nature of a substitute and to 
    examine the amendment thereto. For a variety of reasons, but the 
    primary one which the Chair will state, the Chair is prepared to 
    sustain the point of order. The reason that the Chairman will 
    sustain the point of order is that the effect of the amendment is 
    tantamount to a rules change, an attempt to provide a new 
    enforcement mechanism for violation of a House rule and the Chair 
    feels that it is important that the rules of the House be very 
    carefully protected. The sanctions provided in the Bennett 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute are for failure to report 
    or disclose information, and the Chair feels that this amendment 
    goes well beyond that and in effect deals with the rules of the 
    House and he therefore sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further 
    on the point of order?
        The Chairman: No. The Chair has ruled.

Civil Rights--Amendment Providing Compensation for Businesses Injured 
    by Enforcement of Antidiscrimination Laws

Sec. 42.47 To that title of a civil rights bill prohibiting 
    discrimination based on race, color, and the like, in places of 
    public accommodation and providing for enforcement of such 
    prohibition, an amendment providing that the owner of a business 
    that is

[[Page 9157]]

    damaged by such enforcement be entitled to damages as provided for 
    property taken for public use, was held to be not germane.

    In the 88th Congress, during consideration of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1963,(7) the following amendment was offered: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 7152 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 8. 110 Cong. Rec. 1987, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 5, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: 
    On page 48, at the end of title II, add a new subsection, as 
    follows:

            (d) When any business is destroyed or caused to become 
        insolvent, or suffers financial loss as a result of any action 
        brought under the provisions of title II, upon the request of 
        the owner it shall be deemed that such business has been taken 
        for public use under the right of eminent domain, as authorized 
        in subsection (12) of section 490 of title 40 of the United 
        States Code, and the defendant shall be entitled to full 
        damages as provided for property taken for public use.

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object to 
    the amendment and make a point of order against it on the ground 
    that the amendment is not germane to title II of the bill.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Mississippi offers an amendment to title II 
    by adding a new subsection which would have for its objective the 
    reimbursement to individuals for any business that is destroyed or 
    caused to become insolvent. Title II refers to injunctive relief 
    against discrimination in places of public accommodation. The 
    amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi, to which a point of 
    order has been made, would bring into title II section 490 of title 
    40 of the United States Code, and in the opinion of the Chair that 
    is not germane to the pending title. Therefore, the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

--Amendment Providing for Plea in Bar to Contempt Proceeding, Based on 
    Proceedings Against Same Person Under Separate Statutes

Sec. 42.48 To a bill authorizing the Attorney General to institute or 
    intervene in civil contempt proceedings based on a violation of 
    civil rights, an amendment was held to be not germane which 
    provided that a plea in bar be available to any person proceeded 
    against under such provisions or under separate criminal statutes 
    who could establish a prior proceeding against him based on the 
    same offense.

[[Page 9158]]

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(10) to secure and protect the civil rights of persons 
within the jurisdiction of the United States, the following amendment 
was offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
11. 103 Cong. Rec. 9384, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Texas: page 12, after the 
    last period add a new paragraph to be numbered part V.

            Notwithstanding any provisions herein contained or 
        otherwise provided by statute, rule or regulation, no person 
        shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in 
        jeopardy of life or limb. And a plea in bar shall be available 
        to any person proceeded against under this act or the Criminal 
        Statutes of the United States or any State thereof, who can 
        establish a prior proceeding against such person for the same 
        offense, act or transaction, for which he is called upon to 
        answer, whether such proceeding be under the Criminal Statutes 
        of the United States or any State thereof or under the 
        provisions of this act.

    The following exchange (12) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 9384, 9385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the distinguished 
    gentleman from Texas is not germane. It provides for changes in 
    criminal statutes, it provides for immunities in criminal statutes, 
    for double jeopardy, which cannot be part and parcel of a bill that 
    is limited solely to civil penalties and civil procedures. . . .
        Mr. [Walter E.] Rogers [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    is certainly in order because it is an incorporation in this act of 
    a part of the Constitution that is applicable to the provisions of 
    this new law which creates a restriction on how far the Attorney 
    General can exercise this right or the other courts of the land can 
    exercise the right if the Attorney General takes action.

        The Chairman: (13) . . . The Chair holds that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas is too broad in its 
    purposes, it opens up all other statutes, rules, and regulations, 
    whereas the bill under consideration is confined strictly to 
    matters of civil rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

District of Columbia Code--Substitute Amendment Affecting Revenue and 
    Other Laws of District

Sec. 42.49 To a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    comprising in part general provisions relating to the organization 
    of the District of Columbia government as well as amendments to 
    several revenue provisions of the District of Columbia Code, a 
    proposed substitute making comparable amend

[[Page 9159]]

    ments to the revenue laws and diverse other laws of the District of 
    Columbia as well as amending portions of the code not affected by 
    the committee amendment was held to be germane.

    On Aug. 11, 1969, during consideration of the District of Columbia 
Revenue Act of 1969,(14) a committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute was pending. Such proposition sought to amend several 
acts relating to District of Columbia taxes and to provide an annual 
federal payment authorization for the District, and also contained 
general provisions pertaining to the organization and structure of the 
District government. A substitute was offered generally amending the 
same revenue acts, creating a federal payment formula for the District 
applicable for the next five fiscal years, and amending several 
provisions of the District of Columbia Code not amended by the 
committee amendment.(15) A point of order was raised against 
the substitute, as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 12982 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
15. See 115 Cong. Rec. 23126-29, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Id. at p. 23129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Dowdy [of Texas]: The bill is a bill to provide 
    additional revenue for the District of Columbia. The substitute 
    amendment offered contains provisions which would amend title XXXI 
    of the District of Columbia Code, which concerns education and 
    cultural institutions; therefore, it is not germane to the bill 
    pending before the House.

    The following exchange ensued:

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: . . . I would point out that 
    this particular proposal was placed in the law governing the 
    District of Columbia by the revenue bill of last year. So it would 
    certainly be germane to the subject in that it was put in in this 
    fashion and so it can be taken out in the same fashion.
        I would also point out that there is in the committee amendment 
    a personnel freeze dealing with the Board of Education which 
    provides that the personnel freeze will not apply to it. The 
    subject has been raised in the bill.
        Further, I point out that this revenue bill abolishes an office 
    in the District of Columbia and freezes certain employees and does 
    away with certain powers of the District Government, so that it 
    covers matters other than revenue. . . .
        Mr. Dowdy: . . . The fact that this provision was put into 
    title 31 of the District Code in a revenue bill last year has 
    nothing to do with whether it is germane to a revenue bill this 
    year. . . .

    The Chairman,(17) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had an opportunity to study the question during 
    the quorum

[[Page 9160]]

    call and the Chair would say to the gentleman from Texas the fact 
    that there might be other items in the bill which might be subject 
    to a point of order, as was just stated, indicates that the 
    committee amendment has in it items which are other than revenue 
    matters and therefore opens the bill up to other related 
    amendments. The fact is that the legislation before us is basically 
    a revenue matter, but it does apply to many other sections of the 
    District of Columbia Code. Among other things not having to do with 
    revenue, it eliminates the office of the Director of Public Safety; 
    it provides for a freeze on the number of personnel and employees 
    who may be hired by the District of Columbia government. These 
    provisions also involve the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968. The 
    language involving education here involves a part of existing law. 
    It seems to the Chair it is germane to the bill in toto. Therefore 
    the Chair feels that the point of order must be overruled.

Transfer of Property for Use as Homeless Shelter--Amendment Requiring 
    Reversion of Property if Not Used for Charitable Purpose Under 
    Internal Revenue Code

Sec. 42.50 To a bill authorizing the transfer of federal property to 
    accomplish a particular purpose, an amendment rescinding the 
    transfer if the use of the property is not consistent with that 
    purpose (as defined in another law) is germane if that law refers 
    to the same purpose covered by the bill; thus, to a bill providing 
    for the transfer of a specified property in the District of 
    Columbia solely for the purpose of providing shelter to homeless 
    and to protect the public health, amended to include restrictions 
    on liability and maintenance responsibilities, an amendment 
    requiring reversion of the property if not used for that charitable 
    purpose as defined under a provision of the Internal Revenue Code 
    was held germane as a further restriction on the same use of the 
    property.

    During consideration of H.R. 4784 (the District of Columbia 
homeless shelter transfer bill) in the Committee of the Whole on June 
5, 1986,(18) Chairman John P. Murtha, of Pennsylvania, 
overruled a point of order against the amendment described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 132 Cong. Rec. 12592-94, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 4784

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        Administrator of General Services shall, within five days after 
        the date of enactment of

[[Page 9161]]

        this Act, transfer jurisdiction over the property located at 
        425 Second Street, Northwest, in the District of Columbia, to 
        the municipal government of the District of Columbia in 
        accordance with section 1 of the Act of May 20, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 
        122), other than the first proviso of such section, solely for 
        purposes of administration and maintenance of such property for 
        providing shelter and related services to homeless individuals 
        in the District of Columbia and for other use in the protection 
        of the public health. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: At the end of the bill add the 
        following new section:
            Sec. 2. Upon the transfer of jurisdiction pursuant to the 
        first section of this Act, the Federal Government (1) shall not 
        be liable for injuries or damages that occur while the property 
        is under the jurisdiction of the municipal government of the 
        District of Columbia and that arise out of the operation, 
        maintenance, repair, renovation, reconstruction, or other 
        capital improvement of that property by such municipal 
        government; and (2) shall not be responsible for the operation, 
        maintenance, repair, renovation, reconstruction, or other 
        capital improvement of that property while the property is 
        under the jurisdiction of such municipal government. Nothing in 
        this section shall be deemed to prohibit the Federal Government 
        from funding the renovation of the property. . . .

        The Committee amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph J.] DioGuardi [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. DioGuardi. At the end of the bill 
        add the following new section:
            Sec. 4. (a) If any organization selected by the municipal 
        government of the District of Columbia to administer such 
        property as a shelter for homeless individuals uses such 
        property in a manner that would cause a charitable organization 
        as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 
        of 1954 to lose its tax exempt status under section 501(a) of 
        the Internal Revenue Code of 1954--
            (1) the property shall be considered to have ceased being 
        used for the purposes described in the first section of this 
        Act; and

            (2) jurisdiction over such property shall revert to the 
        United States. . . .

        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is not germane to 
    H.R. 4784. It places restrictions on the use of the building in 
    question that are not within the jurisdiction of the Government 
    Operations Committee, have nothing to do with the transfer of 
    Federal property, which this bill addresses, and is otherwise in 
    violation of rule XVI. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . The Chair agrees with the 
    gentleman from New York that this amendment merely places 
    additional restrictions on the use of the property covered by this 
    bill in addition to those other restrictions which are already in 
    the bill. So the Chair thinks the amendment is germane and 
    overrules the point of order.

[[Page 9162]]

Authorizations for Foreign Aid Program--Amendment Affecting Trade 
    Expansion Act

Sec. 42.51 To a bill amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
    amended, to provide authorizations for the foreign aid program, an 
    amendment pertaining to trade agreement concessions with Poland, 
    proposing changes in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1963, and 
    affecting the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1968,(19) the following amendment was 
offered: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 15263 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
20. 114 Cong. Rec. 22109, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 18, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Leonard] Farbstein [of New York]: 
        On page 13, after line 25, add the following:

            Part IV--Amendment to Foreign Assistance Act of 1963

            Sec. 401. Subsection (b) of section 402 of the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1963 is amended by inserting immediately 
        before the quotation marks at the end thereof the following:
            ``The benefits of trade agreement concessions extended to 
        the Polish Peoples Republic under this subsection are 
        herebysuspended with respect to the products of Poland imported 
        after the date of enactment of this sentence. The suspension 
        under the preceding sentence shall continue until the President 
        determines that the Government of Poland has discontinued its 
        present campaign of discrimination against Polish 
        intellectuals, students . . . and the Jewish minority in 
        Poland. . . .''

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

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. It involves our trade 
    agreements with another nation, which is within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee, and it is quite outside the scope of this bill.

    Among the remarks made with respect to the point of order were the 
following:

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: . . . The Government of 
    Poland was extended most favored nation status as a result of a 
    provision of the 1963 Foreign Assistance Act. Therefore, because 
    the Government of Poland does enjoy this status today by virtue of 
    an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1963, in my view it 
    is entirely in order for an amendment which suspends that status to 
    be considered as an amendment to this bill.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 22109, 22110, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 18, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman seeks to amend section 
    402 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1963.

[[Page 9163]]

        The language of the gentleman's proposed amendment would in 
    reality apply to benefits of trade agreement concessions to Poland.
        While the language in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1963 dealt 
    with a matter relating to the Trade Expansion Act, it was seeking 
    to amend that act in a different manner.
        The Chair holds that the amendment would properly be within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and that in 
    reality it seeks to amend the Trade Expansion Act.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Types of Foreign Assistance

Sec. 42.52 To a bill authorizing military assistance to foreign 
    nations, an amendment authorizing a contribution to the United 
    Nations International Atomic Energy Agency to be used for nuclear 
    missile inspections, and amending a law which provided foreign 
    economic assistance was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the International Security Assistance Act 
of 1976 (3) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 3, 
1976,(4) Chairman Frank E. Evans, of Colorado, sustained a 
point of order against an amendment authorizing contributions to an 
international agency for nuclear missile inspections holding that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill which had as its fundamental 
purpose the authorization of military assistance programs to foreign 
nations. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 11963.
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 5226, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fraser: On page 59, after line 15, 
        add the following new section:

              Authorization For International Atomic Energy Agency

            Sec. 417. Section 313(a) of the International Development 
        and Food Assistance Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-161) is amended by 
        striking the ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3); striking the 
        period at the end of paragraph (4) and inserting in lieu 
        thereof, ``, and''; and inserting the following new paragraph 
        immediately after paragraph (4):
            (5) by adding a new subsection (i) to read as follows:
            ``(i) In addition to amounts otherwise available under this 
        section, there are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
        year 1976 and to remain available until expended $1,000,000 to 
        be available only for the International Atomic Energy Agency to 
        be used for the purpose of strengthening safeguards and 
        inspections relating to nuclear missile facilities and 
        materials.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    this amendment authorizes funds for the

[[Page 9164]]

    International Atomic Energy Agency. This is a subject of a 
    different bill, not the one before the House at this time.
        The amendment, in my opinion, exceeds the scope of the bill 
    before us and it is not germane. . . .
        The Chairman: In the opinion of the Chair, the reasons stated 
    by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) are correct.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
    Fraser) is not germane to the main purposes of the bill, and for 
    that reason the point of order is sustained.

Admission of Displaced Persons--Amendment Affecting Immigration Laws in 
    Other Respects

Sec. 42.53 To a bill providing for temporary admission into the United 
    States of certain displaced persons in Europe, an amendment 
    affecting the immigration laws in matters not related to the 
    question of displaced persons was held not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration a bill (5) to authorize admission into the 
United States of certain displaced persons. The bill stated in part: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 5. H.R. 6396 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 6. 94 Cong. Rec. 7763, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as the 
        ``Emergency Displaced Persons Admission Act.''
            Sec. 2. When used in this act, the term ``displaced 
        person'' means--
            (a) a person who was on April 21, 1947, and is upon the 
        effective date of this act in Italy or the United States, 
        British, or French zones or sectors in Germany or Austria and 
        who during World War II bore arms against enemies of the United 
        States and is unable or unwilling to return to the country of 
        which he is a national because of persecution or his fear of 
        persecution on account of race, religion, or political 
        opinions; or
            (b) a person who is registered by the International Refugee 
        Organization, according to the definitions of displaced persons 
        and refugees set forth in annex I to the constitution of the 
        International Refugee Organization, except clause (b), 
        paragraph 1, section A, part I thereof, to which the United 
        States has adhered (Public Law 146, 80th Cong.), and who 
        entered Italy or the United States, British, or French zones or 
        sectors in Germany or Austria, on or before April 21, 1947, 
        midnight;
            (c) the term ``displaced person'' shall not include any 
        person who is or has been a member of, or participated in, any 
        movement which is or has been hostile to the United States or 
        the form of government of the United States.

    An amendment was offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 94 Cong. Rec. 7870, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert Tripp] Ross [of New York]:
        Under section 2 add the following as subsection (c):

            ``(c) a person who is a native of Italy and who would have 
        been eligible for admission to the United States under all 
        United States immi

[[Page 9165]]

        gration laws at any time during the 10-year period prior to 
        June 30, 1948, under the accumulated unused Italian quota for 
        that period: Provided That the provisions of section 3, section 
        5 and section 6 of this act shall not be applicable to 
        displaced persons as defined in this subsection: Provided 
        further, That the number of immigration visas issued under this 
        subsection shall be divided equally between the fiscal years 
        1949 and 1950.''
            Subsection (c) shall become subsection (d).

    Mr. Ross explained the purpose of the amendment:

        Mr. Ross: Mr. Chairman, this amendment (would admit) to the 
    United States during the next 2 years 34,275 Italians who were 
    unable to come to this country during the years when Italian 
    immigration was suspended. Its approval (would in no way alter) our 
    basic Italian quota. It would just pick up that number which could 
    not come to this country during the war years. . . .
        Mr. Frank Fellows, of Maine, made the point of order that, 
    ``(the amendment) is not germane to the bill or to the section 
    under consideration.''
        The Chairman,(8) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. George A. Dondero (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment offered does not 
    affect the question of displaced persons as described in the bill 
    but does direct attention to the immigration laws. The Chair 
    therefore sustains the point of order.

Amendment Addressing Relationship of Bill to Existing Law as Germane 
    Where Bill Contains ``Disclaimer'' as to Its Effect on Existing Law

Sec. 42.54 While ordinarily the inclusion of language in a bill 
    ``disclaiming'' any substantive effect of the bill upon other 
    provisions of law, would not render germane amendments which did 
    affect other law, where disclaimer language in a bill is 
    accompanied by other provisions actually changing a category of law 
    cited in the disclaimer, an amendment further addressing the 
    relationship between the bill and laws cited in the disclaimer may 
    be germane; thus, where a bill required that a certain percentage 
    of automobiles sold in the United States be manufactured 
    domestically, and ``disclaimed'' any purpose to amend international 
    agreements or to confer new federal court jurisdiction over 
    conflicts arising under international agreements, but which 
    actually conferred new federal court jurisdiction over adjudication 
    of penalties assessed under the bill, an amendment prohib

[[Page 9166]]

    iting implementation of the bill if it resulted in a violation by 
    the United States of existing international agreements and also 
    conferring additional federal court jurisdiction to resolve 
    conflicts under those agreements, was held germane as relating to a 
    subject (the relationship of the bill to other law) already 
    comprehensively contained in the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 1234 (9) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Nov. 2, 1983,(10) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against an amendment to the following sections of the 
bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Fair Practices and Procedures in Automobile Products Act of 
        1983.
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 30525, 30527, 30542, 30545-47, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            (c) Congressional Disclaimers.--It is the intent of 
        Congress that this Act shall not be deemed to modify or amend 
        the terms or conditions of any international treaty, 
        convention, or agreement that may be applicable to automotive 
        products entered for sale and distribution in interstate 
        commerce and to which the United States, on the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, is a party, including, but not limited 
        to, the terms or conditions of any such treaty, convention, or 
        agreement which provide for the resolution of conflicts between 
        the parties thereto. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
        confer jurisdiction upon any court of the United States to 
        consider and resolve such conflicts, or (2) to alter or amend 
        any law existing on the date of enactment of this Act which may 
        confer such jurisdiction in such courts. . . .
        Sec. 7. Enforcement

            (a) Penalty for Failure to Meet Domestic Content Ratios.--
        (1) In furtherance of the purpose of this Act, it is unlawful 
        for a vehicle manufacturer to fail to meet for any model year 
        the applicable minimum domestic content ratio required under 
        section 5(a). . . .
            (4) Any person against whom an order is issued under 
        paragraph (2) may, within sixty calendar days after the date of 
        the order, institute an action in the United States court of 
        appeals for the appropriate judicial circuit for judicial 
        review of such order in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, 
        United States Code. The court shall have jurisdiction to enter 
        a judgment affirming, modifying, or setting aside in whole or 
        in part, the order of the Secretary, or the court may remand 
        the proceedings to the Secretary for such further action as the 
        court may direct. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Coats: Page 36, after line 3, 
        insert the following:
        Sec. 11. Ineffectiveness of Act in Case of Compensation by, or 
        Retaliation Against, United States Agricultural or Other 
        Industries

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the 
        Secretary nor any other party shall take any action under this 
        act if the implementation of any provision of this Act either--
            (1) would violate the obligations of the United States 
        under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and

[[Page 9167]]

        could therefore result in retaliation by another country; or
            (2) would entitle any other country to compensation from 
        the United States in the form of reduced restrictions on 
        imports of agricultural, industrial or other products from 
        other countries or to retaliation against the United States in 
        the form of increased restrictions against exports of 
        agricultural, industrial or other products from the United 
        States.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the United 
        States district court for the appropriate judicial district 
        shall have jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising under this 
        section. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane.
        Mr. Chairman, it is within the rules of the House and the 
    interpretation of the rule of germaneness that the amendment must 
    relate to the purposes of the legislation before the House.
        I would observe that the purposes of the legislation before the 
    House are to assure that automobiles will have a certain percentage 
    of domestic content in automobiles which are sold inside the United 
    States. The legislation before the House at this time deals with 
    automobiles and the trade in automobiles inside the boundaries of 
    the United States. The legislation before the House sets up no new 
    causes of action.
        There are provisions in the legislation which are essentially 
    disclaimers. The Chair will note that on page 15, in line 5, there 
    is language which relates to disclaimers of an intention to violate 
    GATT and which do not confer any new jurisdiction upon any court in 
    the United States to consider or to resolve conflicts related to 
    GATT or ``to alter or amend any law existing on the date of 
    enactment . . .''
        I would observe that the amendment is much more broad, and I 
    would like the attention of the Chair with regard to a number of 
    points.
        First of all, in the last four lines of the amendment, the 
    language is:

            Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the United 
        States district court for the appropriate judicial district 
        shall have jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising under this 
        section.

        That is a very broad conferral of jurisdiction upon all of the 
    Federal courts of the United States in their respective judicial 
    districts to deal with disputes. That kind of an amendment would 
    necessarily have either gone initially or sequentially to the 
    Judiciary Committee because of the jurisdiction of that committee 
    relative to disputes and causes of action. I would refer the Chair 
    to the letter which relates to this matter as written by Chairman 
    Rodino on judicial matters.
        Mr. Chairman, there are some other points I would like to make 
    concerning the scope and the sweep of this matter. First of all, 
    the jurisdiction conferred upon U.S. district courts would be to 
    determine whether the Secretary had carried out his 
    responsibilities under lines 4 through 7 of the amendment, as to 
    whether the Secretary or any other party had taken any other action 
    under the act if the implementation of any provision of this act--
    and then it goes on to say this--``would violate the obligations of 
    the United States under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
    . . .''.

[[Page 9168]]

        So that question would be reviewable. The question would also 
    be reviewable as to whether or not the action of the Secretary 
    would result in retaliation by another country. I would observe 
    that an amendment which is contingent upon some future 
    indeterminate action is also violative of the rules on germaneness.
        Beyond this, the question would be placed before the courts 
    upon action by any citizen feeling aggrieved, under the last four 
    lines, lines 19 through 22, as to whether any other country would 
    be entitled to compensation from the United States in the form of 
    reduced restrictions on imports of agricultural, industrial, or 
    other products.
        This section confers jurisdiction relative to actions which 
    would be taken in other countries regarding a whole series of other 
    commodities, agricultural, industrial, and whatever they might 
    happen to otherwise be. . . .

        I would point out further that the amendment says, Chairman, 
    that the Secretary may not take action to implement the law if it 
    violates GATT. It also says, if it would entitle any other country 
    to compensation from the United States.
        Now, in Cannon's, VIII, 3029, it states that an amendment 
    delaying operation of a proposed enactment pending an ascertainment 
    of a fact is germane when the fact to be ascertained relates solely 
    to the subject matter of the bill.
        Here the condition to be ascertained, whether the act violates 
    GATT or would entitle another country to compensation, is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the bill also creates a broad new jurisiction in 
    the U.S. district court, a form of judicial relief to determine if 
    the act violates GATT. That is, of course, an entirely new 
    provision relating to commodities, agricultural, industrial, or 
    other, which is far more broad than that in the bill.
        While this bill does allow the district court to enforce the 
    bill, this is an entirely new form of review and confers a cause of 
    action far more broad than any found anywhere else in the 
    legislation.
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out that this would confer broad 
    jurisdiction on private persons to enter the courts of the United 
    States. A provision of this sort would necessarily involve 
    jurisdiction of the committee having jurisdiction over that matter, 
    and that is, of course, the Judiciary Committee. . . .
        Mr. Coats: Mr. Chairman, the committee report issued by the 
    Committee on Energy and Commerce chaired by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) specifically states in section 2(c), which 
    was an amendment to the bill adopted by the committee, that:

            It is the intent of Congress that this act shall not be 
        deemed to modify or amend the terms or conditions of any 
        international treaty, convention, or agreement. . . .

        That alone expands the jurisdiction of the bill beyond specific 
    auto content.
        Second, we also adopted an amendment which directed the 
    Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Trade Commission, in 
    fact it mandated a study as to the impact on agriculture. That 
    again expands the jurisdiction beyond what the gentleman claimed in 
    his point of order, that it is auto-specific. It is broader than 
    auto-specific

[[Page 9169]]

    because the bill itself as adopted by the committee contains a 
    direction that a study be conducted of the impact on agriculture 
    and that goes directly to the heart of the amendment that I am 
    offering.
        In addition, let me just make a couple of comments about the 
    jurisdiction of the courts. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
    the bill's proponents offered language which would in effect strip 
    the U.S. courts of jurisdiction to hear disputes under the act. 
    After lengthy debate on this issue, some of that language was 
    withdrawn and the bill now purports to be neutral on jurisdiction.
        This language in the amendment simply makes clear that as is 
    the normal case in any other case, U.S. courts would have 
    jurisdiction under this section to resolve disputes. These matters 
    of conflict between U.S. international obligations and U.S. 
    statutes should be decided by U.S. tribunals and not left solely to 
    international machinery.
        So I think it is clear that the amendment before us clearly 
    fits within the bill that we are taking up, that the jurisdiction 
    is broader than just an auto-specific content, as stated by the 
    congressional findings, purpose, and disclaimer, section 2(c) and 
    as stated in section 8(G) on page 33, which mandates a study as to 
    the effect on agriculture by the Secretary of Transportation and 
    the Federal Trade Commission. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I would just observe that my good 
    friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, has been reading the language 
    of a disclaimer. Never, I believe, in the history of the House has 
    a disclaimer been used to expand the jurisdiction or to expand the 
    purposes or the scope of legislation for purposes of defining 
    whether or not a matter is germane.
        Now, if the Chair will refer to the report of the committee, 
    the Chair will find that the disclaimer is constructed, and it says 
    how the disclaimer is to be constructed, and the disclaimer says as 
    follows:

            The subsection also contains a disclaimer that the Act 
        should not be construed to confer new jurisdiction on any 
        Federal court to consider and resolve such conflicts. In short, 
        it states that the Act is not to be construed to confer 
        jurisdiction where none presently exists. At the same time, it 
        declares that the Act does not alter or amend any law existing 
        on the date of enactment of this Act which may confer such 
        jurisdictions on the courts. . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, under 
    the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, there is an elaborate 
    procedure that is prescribed with respect to complaints under that 
    act. There is no jurisdiction in the Federal courts at the present 
    time that somebody can go in and seek to enforce the provisions of 
    GATT in our courts.
        What the bill says on page 15 is that nothing in this act shall 
    be construed to confer jurisdiction.
        Were we to have gone ahead and sought to confer jurisdiction, 
    it clearly would have been beyond the jurisdiction of our 
    committee. It would have had to go to the Judiciary Committee.
        The disclaimer was put in to protect that at the express 
    request of Chairman Rodino.
        Therefore, since this amendment does seek to confer 
    jurisdiction which

[[Page 9170]]

    presently is not there, and that is a matter not within the 
    jurisdiction of the bill, I urge that the Chair sustain the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (11) Are there any further arguments 
    with regard to the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        First of all, the Chair would note that the bill before the 
    House at the present time differs from the bill that was before the 
    House in the last session.
        In the legislation that is currently before the House, the 
    committee dealt with the issue of the relationship between this 
    legislation and other law in section 2(c) which states:

            It is the intent of Congress that this Act shall not be 
        deemed to modify or amend the terms or conditions of any 
        international treaty, convention, or agreement that may be 
        applicable to automotive products entered for sale and 
        distribution in interstate commerce and to which the United 
        States, on the date of the enactment of this Act, is a party, 
        including, but not limited to, the terms or conditions of any 
        such treaty, convention, or agreement which provide for the 
        resolution of conflicts between the parties thereto. Nothing in 
        this Act shall be construed (1) to confer jurisdiction upon any 
        court of the United States to consider and resolve such 
        conflicts, or (2) to alter or amend any law existing on the 
        date of enactment of this Act which may confer such 
        jurisdiction in such courts.

        Section 2(c) therefore addresses the issue of interpretation of 
    the bill as it applies to treaties, conventions, and other 
    agreements applicable to automotive products.
        The amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
    Indiana deals specifically with the actions of the Secretary in the 
    implementation of provisions that may relate to treaties, 
    specifically the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
        It would appear, therefore, that the amendment does relate to 
    subject matter that has already been introduced in the bill by 
    virtue of section 2(c).
        With regard to the court jurisdiction argument, that issue is 
    addressed within the bill, specifically on page 30, relating to 
    appropriate judicial circuits for judicial review and other 
    provisions that relate to the jurisdiction of Federal courts. So 
    the Chair feels that the issue of court jurisdiction has, in fact, 
    been presented within the legislation.
        With regard to the disclaimer argument, it is the position of 
    the Chair that if the provision in the bill was merely a narrow and 
    technical disclaimer, then the argument of the gentleman from 
    Michigan might prevail; but since it can be read as an overall 
    provision that relates to the broad interpretation of the bill as 
    it applies to trade agreements, and since the test the Chair must 
    apply is the relationship of the amendment to the bill as a whole, 
    it is the position of the Chair that the point of order should not 
    be sustained.

Congressional Budget Process

Sec. 42.55 To a second concurrent resolution on the budget containing 
    diverse provisions which addressed congressional actions on the 
    budget, an amendment expressing

[[Page 9171]]

    the sense of Congress that language repealing the Impoundment 
    Control Act should be included in any continuing appropriation 
    bill, thereby addressing issues of Presidential authority was 
    conceded to be not germane.

    During consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 448 in the 
Committee of the Whole on Nov. 18, 1980,(12) a point of 
order was conceded and sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 126 Cong. Rec. 30026, 30027, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Latta: Insert after section 5 the 
        following new section:

            Sec. 6. It is the sense of the Congress that the 
        appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and the 
        Senate make in order as part of any continuing appropriation 
        bill for fiscal year 1981 language providing for the repeal of 
        provisions of title X of Public Law 93-344, the Congressional 
        Budget and Impoundment Control Act, effective upon enactment of 
        such continuing appropriation and to continue no later than 
        September 30, 1981. . . .

        Mr. [James M.] Frost [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is 
    not germane to House Concurrent Resolution 448, revising the 
    congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal years 
    1981, 1982, and 1983.
        This amendment would make it the sense of the Congress that any 
    continuing appropriation bill for fiscal year 1981 contain language 
    that would repeal for 1 year the impoundment provisions of the 
    Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
        The concurrent resolution implements certain directives of the 
    Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. The provisions 
    establishing the concurrent budget resolution procedure are 
    contained in the first nine titles of the act which are cited in 
    Public Law 93-344 as the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. They 
    have no relation to, nor are they derived from, title X, which is 
    cited as the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
        It would seem clear, then, that the intent of the act was for 
    concurrent resolutions on the budget to address the internal budget 
    process of the Congress rather than addressing the impoundment 
    process to be followed between the executive and the legislative 
    branches as established by statute.
        To include directives concerning impoundment in a concurrent 
    budget resolution, then, would be outside the intent of the statute 
    and beyond the scope of the resolution, thus rendering them 
    nongermane.
        While the specific language of the Latta amendment would not 
    amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, the 
    ultimate effect would be to do so. The Latta amendment would 
    require, as a sense of the Congress, that a continuing 
    appropriation bill contain language repealing for 1 year the 
    impoundment provisions of title X of the Congressional Budget and 
    Impoundment Act. In all likelihood, any amendment to such a 
    continuing appropriation bill

[[Page 9172]]

    would be nongermane. Further, if a continuing appropriation bill 
    were introduced with such language, it would be subject to referral 
    to the Committee on Rules, which has jurisdiction over amendments 
    to the Budget Act.
        While jurisdiction over a legislative matter is not the sole 
    test of germaneness, it is an important consideration. For example, 
    Deschler's Procedure at chapter 28, section 4.26, states:

            To 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 (not directly amending the Second 
        Liberty Bond Act), an amendment proposing permanent changes in 
        that act and also affecting budget and appropriations 
        procedures (matters within the jurisdiction of other House 
        committees) was held not germane.

        It may be argued that an amendment directing the offering of a 
    nongermane amendment in and of itself could be considered 
    nongermane. Argument has been proposed that section 4 of House 
    Concurrent Resolution 448 provides a basis of germaneness for the 
    Latta amendment. Section 4 contains sense of the Congress language 
    stating that, ``A full-scale review of the Budget Act and the 
    congressional budget process should be undertaken without delay.'' 
    This language does not require any specific action to be taken to 
    change the budget process or to amend the Budget Act. The Latta 
    amendment would extend the scope of the sense of the Congress 
    language in section 4 to require that a specific amendment 
    repealing the impoundment provisions of the Budget Act be adopted.
        The precedents indicate such action would be nongermane. For 
    example, Deschler's Procedure at chapter 28, section 33.23, states:

            An amendment requiring the availability of funds ``under 
        this or any other Act'' for certain humanitarian assistance was 
        held to go beyond the scope of the pending bill and was ruled 
        out as not germane, affecting funds in other provisions of law.

        I would contend, Mr. Chairman, that the Latta amendment is 
    nongermane. . . .
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: . . . This resolution 
    contains no reconciliation instruction which could force the 
    committees of the Congress to come up with the spending cuts of $17 
    billion. Likewise, it gives the President no power whatsoever to 
    accomplish these cuts by executive direction. This amendment would 
    address this deficiency if it were allowed without the point of 
    order. It provides that it is the sense of the Congress that when 
    it takes up the continuing resolution for the 1981 appropriations, 
    it will include language which suspends, for the remainder of 
    fiscal year 1981 only, the anti-impoundment provisions of the 
    Budget Act. What it would do, then, is give the President-elect the 
    ability to keep Federal spending within the ceiling established in 
    this budget resolution should the Congress be unable to do so. . . 
    .
        Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The point of order is conceded. 
    The point of order is sustained. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 9173]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Latta: At the end of the 
        concurrent resolution, add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 6. It is the sense of the 96th Congress that the 
        appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and the 
        Senate make in order on an appropriate legislative vehicle, 
        language providing for the enactment of a ceiling on spending 
        in fiscal year 1981 at the levels established by this 
        resolution. Such ceiling on fiscal year 1981 expenditures 
        should also direct the President to reserve such amounts as may 
        be necessary to remain within the ceiling, provided that such 
        reservations are applied equitably in order to retain the 
        important spending priorities adopted by Congress.''

    Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution did state the sense of 
Congress that a review of the Budget Act and congressional budget 
process should be undertaken. But the term ``congressional budget 
process'' is used in the Budget Act to refer to a timetable only for 
congressional actions on the budget, not executive branch actions; 
whereas the amendment addressed the issue of executive powers. 
Moreover, the resolution suggested a review of the Act and process but 
only in general terms, while the amendment suggested a specific change 
in a statute affecting the executive, to be accomplished on specified 
legislation in a manner requiring waivers of House rules. The second 
amendment, above, offered by Mr. Latta would not have been subject to a 
similar point of order. It was more general in its terms, did not 
suggest a repeal of existing law, and merely directed such executive 
action as would insure that expenditures remain at or below the ceiling 
contemplated within the terms of the bill itself.

Organizational Restrictions

Sec. 42.56 To a title of a bill restricting the authority of a new 
    organizational entity to exercise control over institutions for 
    which it is to administer funding under existing laws, an amendment 
    curtailing the authority of that agency to provide funds to those 
    institutions for certain reasons was held to be not germane, in 
    that it addressed funding authority rather than organizational 
    controls.

    On June 12, 1979,(14) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (15) establishing a new 
Department of Education. The title of the bill being amended contained 
findings and purposes, and restricted the authority of the new 
Department, under laws administered by it, to

[[Page 9174]]

exercise federal control over education. An amendment was offered 
denying the use of funds under federal programs to assist the teaching 
or counselling of the use of abortion. The amendment was ruled not to 
be germane, in that it was unrelated to the fundamental purpose of the 
title to organizationally restrict federal control over public 
education and curricula. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 14464, 14465, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 2444, the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

              prohibition against abortion educational expenditure

            Sec. 104. No provision of law relating to a program 
        administered by the Secretary or by any other officer or agency 
        of the executive branch of the Federal Government shall be 
        construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to 
        fund, control, supervise, or to assist in any manner, directly 
        or indirectly, the teaching of abortion as a method of family 
        planning, or counselling the use of abortion by students or 
        others, or the practice of abortion, through or in conjunction 
        with the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-864), 
        as amended; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
        (P.L. 80-10), as amended; the Higher Education Act of 1965 
        (P.L. 89-329), as amended; the Adult Education Act (P.L. 89-
        750), as amended; or any other federally sponsored educational 
        program, except as explicitly provided by statute.

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment under rule 16, clause VII. . . .
        [The rule] requires an amendment to be germane to the subject 
    under consideration and to be germane the amendment must have the 
    same fundamental purpose as the bill under consideration. This 
    amendment does not. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment has the effect of amending 
    statutes not before the House. The amendment imposes an additional 
    restriction on the expenditure of funds that are not now in the 
    law. The amendment is not related to Federal control but is a 
    direct restriction on Federal funding.
        Mr. Chairman, the prior amendments to this title have been 
    ruled proper as clarifying the intent of the legislation, not to 
    extend the authority of the Federal Government in the areas of 
    discrimination and religion. They did not undermine or add new 
    restrictions to the authority but merely offer to prevent its undue 
    expansion.
        This amendment would curtail, in a manner not previously 
    considered by the committee of substantive jurisdiction, existing 
    authority to assist biological and health educational programs and 
    rather than protecting the local authority from Federal control 
    will add a new restriction and extend Federal control over that 
    local authority. This is not a matter appropriate to a 
    reorganization bill. It is not a decision that is within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations and should 
    not be approved, ``except as explicitly provided by statute.'' It 
    just does not eliminate a flaw in this

[[Page 9175]]

    amendment because it simply leads us in circles. In effect, the 
    amendment says no provision of law shall be construed to do so and 
    so except as explicitly provided by statute. Of course, no 
    provision of the law can be construed to do anything except as 
    provided by statute.
        The last phrase of this amendment appears to be a very artfully 
    drawn one but, in fact, is meaningless and should not be used as a 
    vehicle to gain consideration of a matter on the floor that is 
    otherwise not in order, one that makes a mockery of the House rules 
    on germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . I would indicate that my colleague, the 
    gentleman from Texas, is correct in indicating that my amendment 
    would attach to several provisions of law; however, under this 
    reorganization that is precisely what we are doing. We are bringing 
    the administration provisions of law, of statutes heretofore 
    enacted, under the jurisdiction of the new Secretary of Education.
        I would also point out that on page 90 in section 437 the 
    General Education Provision Act is specifically referred to.
        The Speaker in November of 1976 in a direct ruling similar to 
    this indicated where the General Education Provision Act is brought 
    before the Congress, that opens up the provisions that are covered 
    by the General Education Provisions Act.
        Even beyond that, I limited the amendment to specific 
    educational acts that under this reorganization are brought under 
    the jurisdiction of the new Secretary of the Cabinet office to be 
    created.
        I think the rulings of the Chair in the last days, yesterday 
    and today, clearly indicate that this amendment as a limitation on 
    programs administered by the Secretary of the new department to be 
    created would be germane.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio on the grounds that it 
    is not germane to the bill.
        The Chair might state that the precedent cited by the gentleman 
    from Ohio did not involve a reorganization bill.
        The amendment which the gentleman from Ohio has offered would 
    provide that no provision of law shall be construed to authorize 
    the Secretary of Education or any other officer to fund, control, 
    or assist the teaching of abortion as a family planning method or 
    the counseling or use of the practice of abortion in connection 
    with federally sponsored educational programs, except where 
    explicitly provided by statute.
        The gentleman has argued in opposition to the point of order 
    that the provisions of title I as perfected by the Committee of the 
    Whole yesterday already limit in various respects the authority of 
    the Department of Education and other Federal officials to control 
    the activities of local educational agencies receiving Federal 
    funds for educational purposes.
        The provisions of section 103 of the bill as amended contain 
    restrictions on

[[Page 9176]]

    the authority of the Federal Government to exercise control over 
    the local discretionary use of Federal funds and to require 
    eligibility standards for the receipt of such funds; but it is 
    contrary to the fundamental purpose of those limitations to 
    directly change the Secretary's authority to provide funds to local 
    educational agencies.
        Nothing in the bill before the Committee of the Whole, which is 
    essentially an organizational bill, changes the authority to 
    provide Federal funds for educational purposes under those laws 
    whose administration is transferred to the new Department.
        Title I, as amended, remains restricted in scope to expressions 
    of policy which indicate that the authorities being transferred by 
    this bill are not to be construed as being expanded to permit 
    increased Federal control over local educational policies.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendments Retrenching Expenditures in General Appropriation Bills

Sec. 42.57 To a bill making appropriations for the current fiscal year, 
    an amendment permanently changing existing law was held not germane 
    to the bill, and thus was not in order as a ``retrenchment'' of 
    expenditures even though it tended to reduce expenditures for that 
    year.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (17) was under 
consideration making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year, 
including funds to cover increased pay costs resulting from the 
implementation of the report of the Commission on Executive, Judicial, 
and Legislative Salaries. The following amendment was offered to the 
bill: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 11400, Supplemental Appropriations, fiscal 1970 (Committee on 
        Appropriations).
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 13269, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., May 21, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Hall: On page 61, after line 4 insert 
    the following:

                               General Provisions

            The Commission on Executive, Judicial, and Legislative 
        Salaries established under Public Law 90-206 is hereby 
        abolished. The salary increases recommended by the President as 
        a result of the actions of said Commission are hereby 
        rescinded.

    Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, pointing out that the bill under 
consideration was a supplemental appropriation bill, objected to the 
amendment on two grounds, first, that it constituted legislation on an 
appropriation bill, and, second, that it was not germane to the 
bill.(19) In defending the amendment, Mr. Durward G. Hall, 
of Missouri, stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 13270.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Now, of course, under the restrictions or rescindments or 
    actions under

[[Page 9177]]

    rule XXI and the ``Holman rule,'' we can, in an appropriation bill, 
    take action by the act of the House to eliminate anything that 
    costs additional expense from the General Treasury and that has 
    been acted on previously.
        I think that the amendment is in order. Certainly it is 
    germane. Certainly it is a retrenchment on its face.

    The Chairman,(20) however, ruled that the amendment was 
not in order. He stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair has examined the amendment and the precedents, 
    and would call attention of the House to Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume 8, page 480, section 2914, which reads as follows: ``to a 
    section proposing legislation for the current year an amendment 
    rendering such legislation permanent was held not to be germane.''
        Then, in section 2915: ``to a provision in an appropriation 
    bill proposing legislation for the fiscal year provided for by the 
    bill an amendment proposing to make the provision permanent 
    legislation was held not to be germane.''
        The Chair therefore rules that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri is not germane and therefore not in order; 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent, based on 8 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec. 2915, represents the current practice under the 
germaneness requirement of the Holman rule; it effectively overrules an 
earlier line of precedents which stood for the proposition that it is 
in order on a general appropriation bill to provide for the abolition 
of an office if the certain effect of that abolition is to reduce funds 
contained in the bill, even though the language may provide permanent 
law, there being no distinction in the Holman rule itself between 
permanent and temporary legislation. The present practice and the 
earlier rulings are discussed in the introduction to Sec. 15, supra.

Rescission of Disaster Relief Funds Appropriated in Other Acts

Sec. 42.58 To an appropriation bill, an amendment providing a 
    rescission of ``disaster relief'' funds appropriated in other acts 
    was held to be not germane and to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

    On Mar. 19, 1952, during consideration of the Independent Offices 
Appropriations Bill of 1953,(1) the following amendment was 
offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 7072 (Committee on Appropriations).
 2. 98 Cong. Rec. 2543, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Tom] Pickett [of Texas]: On page 3, 
    after line 14, insert a new heading and the following language:

[[Page 9178]]

                                Disaster Relief

            The unobligated balances at the end of June 30, 1952, of 
        appropriations heretofore made for Disaster Relief under the 
        act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 875); the Independent 
        Offices Appropriation Act of 1952; act of July 18, 1951 (Public 
        Law 80); and the act of October 24, 1951 (Public Law 202), 
        shall, to the extent that they exceed in the aggregate 
        $5,000,000, not be available for obligation after June 30, 
        1952, and shall be recovered to the Treasury as miscellaneous 
        receipts.

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

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order, first, that the amendment is not germane to the 
    bill. It has no relation to any item in the bill.
        Second, it is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .

    The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment does not, as the Chair understands, apply 
    to funds contained in the pending bill H.R. 7072, but has reference 
    to funds which have been made available by the Congress in other 
    legislation. Therefore, the amendment is not germane and is clearly 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. The Chair is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order.

Senate Amendment Changing Appropriation for Agency for One Year--
    Amendment Permanently Amending Law

Sec. 42.59 To a Senate amendment pertaining only to an appropriation 
    amount for an agency for one year, an amendment not only changing 
    that figure but also adding language having the effect of permanent 
    law is not germane; thus, to a Senate amendment, reported from 
    conference in disagreement, only striking the fiscal year 1984 
    appropriation for the Congressional Research Service and inserting 
    in lieu thereof a new figure, an amendment proposed in a motion to 
    recede and concur with an amendment, permanently amending the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act to require the Congressional 
    Research Service to submit budget estimates for inclusion in the 
    United States Budget, was conceded to be not germane and was ruled 
    out on a point of order.

    During consideration of H.R. 3135 (4) in the House on 
June 29,

[[Page 9179]]

1983,(5) Speaker Pro Tempore Abraham Kazen, Jr., of Texas, 
sustained a point of order in the circumstances described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal 1984.
 5. 129 Cong. Rec. 18129, 18130, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the last 
    amendment in disagreement.
        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment number 17: Page 16, line 15, strike out 
        ``$35,543,550'' and insert ``$37,700,000''.

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fazio moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 17 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken 
        and inserted by said amendment, insert the following: 
        ``$36,620,000 to carry out the provisions of section 203 of the 
        Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended (2 U.S.C. 
        166), and section 203(g) of such act is amended, effective 
        hereafter, to read as follows:
            ``(g) The Director of the Congressional Research Service 
        will submit to the Librarian of Congress for review, 
        consideration, evaluation, and approval, the budget estimates 
        of the Congressional Research Service for inclusion in the 
        Budget of the United States Government.''. . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment embodied in the motion 
    offered by the distinguished gentleman from California is not 
    germane to the Senate amendment presently under consideration, and 
    therefore that the gentleman's motion is in violation of clause 7 
    of rule XVI.
        The gentleman's amendment has the effect of amending the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, and, for this reason, goes 
    far beyond the scope of the Senate amendment and introduces a 
    completely new subject. The amendment clearly is not germane.
        It is equally clear, Mr. Speaker, that the germaneness test is 
    applicable in the present parliamentary circumstances. In chapter 
    28, the most recent edition of Procedures in the House, it is 
    stated in section 21 that:

            Where a motion is offered to concur in a Senate amendment 
        with an amendment, the proposed amendment must be germane to 
        the Senate amendment. The rule of germaneness also applies to 
        motions to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an 
        amendment.
        Moreover, in the same section:

            When considering a Senate amendment reported in 
        disagreement by conferees, a proposal to amend must be germane 
        to the Senate amendment.

        Mr. Speaker, the germaneness test clearly applies and the 
    amendment clearly is not germane. I ask that my point of order be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Fazio: . . . I do concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.

Joint Resolution Amending National Cultural Center Act--Amendment 
    Repealing Act and Redirecting Funds

Sec. 42.60 To a joint resolution amending the National Cul

[[Page 9180]]

    tural Center Act to rename the National Cultural Center as the John 
    F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and authorizing an 
    appropriation for such Center, an amendment repealing that Act and 
    redirecting funds received under the Act to the Smithsonian Board 
    of Regents for the use of the National Portrait Gallery and making 
    acquired land available for the National Capital park and 
    playground system was held to be not germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a proposition was under consideration to 
rename the National Cultural Center as the John F. Kennedy Center for 
the Performing Arts.(6) The Joint Resolution stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 140, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 8, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Whereas the late John Fitzgerald Kennedy served with 
        distinction as President of the United States, and as a Member 
        of the Senate and House of Representatives; and . . .
            Whereas by his untimely death this Nation and the world has 
        suffered a great loss; and . . .
            Whereas the living memorial to be named in his honor by 
        this joint resolution shall be the sole national monument to 
        his memory within the city of Washington and its environs: Now, 
        therefore, be it
            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        National Cultural Center Act (Public Law 85-874; 72 Stat. 1698) 
        is amended as follows:
            (1) In section 1 by striking out ``National Cultural Center 
        Act'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``John F. Kennedy Center 
        Act'';
            (2) By striking out ``National Cultural Center'' each place 
        that it appears in such Act (including the title of such Act 
        but excluding clauses (2) and (3) of subsection (b) of section 
        2 of such Act) and inserting in lieu thereof at each such place 
        the following: ``John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
        Arts'' . . .

          (6) By adding at the end thereof the following new sections:

                                ``appropriations

            ``Sec. 8. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to 
        the Board for use in accordance with this Act, amounts which in 
        the aggregate will equal gifts, bequests, and devises of money, 
        securities, and other property, held by the Board under this 
        Act, except that not to exceed $15,500,000 shall be 
        appropriated pursuant to this section.

                             ``borrowing authority

            ``Sec. 9. To finance necessary parking facilities for the 
        Center, the Board may issue revenue bonds to the Secretary of 
        the Treasury payable from revenues accruing to the Board. . . .

                            ``gifts to united states

            ``Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to 
        accept on behalf of the United States any gift to the United 
        States which he finds has been contributed in honor of or in 
        memory of the late President John F. Kennedy and to pay the 
        money to such appropriation or other accounts, including the 
        appropriation accounts established pursuant to appropriations 
        authorized by this Act, as in

[[Page 9181]]

        his judgment will best effectuate the intent of the donor. . . 
        .
            Sec. 2. In addition to the amendments made by the first 
        section of this Act, any designation or reference to the 
        National Cultural Center in any other law, map, regulation, 
        document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be 
        held to designate or refer to such Center as the John F. 
        Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

    The following amendment was offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at pp. 143, 144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Kyl: Strike out all after the 
    resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

            That the Secretary of the Interior shall construct within 
        the District of Columbia . . . a center for the performing arts 
        to be known as the ``John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
        Arts.''. . . .
            Sec. 3. (a) The National Cultural Center Act is hereby 
        repealed.
            (b) All funds and property received under the National 
        Cultural Center Act, and income therefrom, shall vest in the 
        Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution and shall be 
        used by the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to 
        carry out the purposes of the Act entitled 'An Act to provide 
        for the transfer of the Civil Service Commission Building in 
        the District of Columbia to the Smithsonian Institution to 
        house certain art collections of the Smithsonian Institution', 
        approved March 28, 1958, and for the acquisition of works of 
        art to be housed in the building referred to in such Act; 
        except that such funds or property, and the income therefrom, 
        shall rest in an organization designated by the donor of such 
        funds or property at the time of the making of the donation 
        thereof, at such time, such organization is described in 
        section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and is 
        exempt under section 501(a) of such Code, and if, at such time, 
        a contribution, bequest . . . or transfer to such organization 
        is deductible under section 170, 2055, or 2106 of such Code.
            (c) The National Capital Planning Commission shall make any 
        land acquired under the National Cultural Center Act available 
        for use in the National Capital park and playground system.
            Amend the title of the joint resolution so as to read: 
        ``Joint Resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 
        construct the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, 
        (authorizing) an appropriation therefor, and for other 
        purposes.''

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

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. It is not germane to the pending 
    joint resolution. It would establish conditions which would not be 
    akin to the various sections of the proposal now before the House. 
    It would also set up an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 
    1954 and establish jurisdictions over and beyond those contained in 
    the Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended.

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

        Mr. [John H.] Kyl [of Iowa]: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    follows both purposes of the original legislation. There is no new 
    language in the joint resolution which was not included in the 
    previous act passed by the Congress. The language which is used 
    here

[[Page 9182]]

    was merely taken from that act, which is to be amended by this 
    amendment.

    The Chairman,(8) in ruling on the point of order stated: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Albert Rains (Ala.).
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 144, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 8, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order is well 
    taken because the amendment refers to funds from certain other acts 
    which are not incorporated in the joint resolution at all.

Modification of Salary Limitations in Price Stabilization Act--
    Amendment Imposing Supertax

Sec. 42.61 To an amendment relating to salary limitations contained in 
    the Price Stabilization Act, an amendment undertaking to establish 
    certain tax rates and schedules for the purpose of raising revenue 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(10) to increase the debt limit of the United States and for 
other purposes, the following amendment was under consideration: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 1780 (Committee on Ways and Means).
11. 89 Cong. Rec. 1954, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 12, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. [Bertrand W.] Gearhart 
    [of California]: Strike out all of section 4 and insert the 
    following:
        Sec. 4. Effective as of October 2, 1942, section 5 of the act 
    of October 2, 1942, entitled ``An act to amend the Emergency Price 
    Control Act of 1942, to aid in preventing inflation, and for other 
    purposes,'' is amended by adding subsection (d) to section 5 as 
    follows:
        (d) No action shall be taken under authorization of this act or 
    otherwise which will limit the payment of annual salaries to a 
    maximum limit less than the annual amount of salary paid with 
    respect to the particular work involved on December 7, 1941.

    An amendment was offered which stated: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Horace J.] Voorhis of California to 
    the amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Virginia: At the end of the 
    Smith amendment add the following:
        Sec. 4. Supertax on individuals.
        (a) The Internal Revenue Code is amended by inserting at the 
    end of chapter 1 the following new subchapter:

                   Subchapter E--Supertax on Individuals

        Sec. 477. Imposition of tax.
        There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable 
    year beginning after December 31, 1942, upon the supertax net 
    income of the following individuals the supertax shown in the 
    following table: . . .

    The following exchange (13) concerned a point of order 
raised against the Voorhis amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 1957, 1958.

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

[[Page 9183]]

        Mr. [Wesley E.] Disney [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. [John M.] Vorys of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .
        The point of order is that this is an amendment in the third 
    degree. It has nothing to do with the merits or the substance of 
    the amendment to which it is offered.
        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that 
    it is not in the third degree. It is an amendment to a substitute, 
    and therefore is in order. . . .
        Mr. Voorhis of California: . . . Mr. Chairman, we have before 
    us a provision, the Disney amendment, which is brought before us by 
    the Committee on Ways and Means, but which many Members contend 
    should have come from the Committee on Banking and Currency. The 
    amendment I propose to attach to this bill which is brought to us 
    by the Committee on Ways and Means does cover a matter which is 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means very 
    directly and, if adopted, it would mean that Congress would be 
    saying, ``No, it is not possible to reduce salaries as they were on 
    the date of Pearl Harbor, but we will adopt a tax program affecting 
    incomes not only from salaries but from other sources which will 
    recapture the greatest portion of those incomes in excess of 
    $25,000 net after taxes and thus make certain that nobody gets rich 
    out of the war.''
        The Chairman: (14) Section 4 of the bill, the so-
    called Disney amendment, is in relation to the limitation on 
    salaries contained in the Price Stabilization Act. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gearhart] and the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith], also 
    refer strictly to the matter of salary limitations. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California is a taxing amendment 
    which undertakes to set up rates and schedules for the purpose of 
    raising revenue. It is clearly not germane to the substitute 
    amendment to which it is offered. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aircraft Flying Over National Parks--Amendment To Establish Standards 
    for Aircraft Collision Avoidance Generally

Sec. 42.62 To a bill providing for a study of minimum altitude by 
    aircraft flying over units of the national park system and 
    regulating air traffic over a specific national park, an amendment 
    to a law not amended by the bill establishing standards for 
    aircraft collision avoidance not confined to overflights in the 
    national parks was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 18, 1986,(15) during consideration of H.R. 4430 
in the Committee of the Whole, the

[[Page 9184]]

Chair sustained a point of order against the amendment described above, 
thus demonstrating that a specific proposition may not be amended by a 
proposition more general in scope. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 132 Cong. Rec. 24082-84, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (a) Yosemite National Park.--During the applicable study and 
    review period it shall be unlawful for any fixed wing aircraft or 
    helicopter flying under visual flight rules to fly at an altitude 
    of less than 2,000 feet over the surface of Yosemite National Park. 
    . . .

                    sec. 2. grand canyon national park.

        (a) Noise associated with aircraft over-flight at the Grand 
    Canyon National Park is causing a significant adverse effect on the 
    natural quiet and experience of the Park and current aircraft 
    operations at the Grand Canyon National Park have raised serious 
    concerns regarding public safety, including concerns regarding the 
    safety of park users.
        [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan of California: At the end 
        of the bill add the following:

                      sec. 4. collision avoidance system.

            Section 312(c) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 
        U.S.C. App. 1353(c)), which relates to research and 
        development, is amended by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after 
        ``(c)'' and by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2) In carrying out his functions, powers, and duties 
        under this section pertaining to aviation safety, the Secretary 
        of Transportation shall coordinate and take whatever steps 
        necessary (including research and development) to promulgate 
        standards for an airborne collision avoidance system for all 
        United States aircraft, civil and military, to improve aviation 
        safety. . . .

        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, under the 
    rule of germaneness, rule XVI, clause 7, no subject different from 
    that under consideration shall be admitted under the color of an 
    amendment. The amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Dornan] violates that rule and I must reluctantly insist on my 
    point of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. J. J. Pickle (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has offered an 
    amendment adding a section 4 pertaining to the collision avoidance 
    system.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment and 
    it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment is not germane. 
    The bill before us, H.R. 4430, is a narrow one addressing only 
    overflights over certain national park areas.
        The amendment goes to an unrelated subject amending an act not 
    amended by the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 9185]]