[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]
[F. Procedural Matters]
[Â§ 45. Consideration Under Special Rule; Waiver of Points of Order; Effect on Germaneness Requirement]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9201-9225]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         F. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
 
Sec. 45. Consideration Under Special Rule: Waiver of Points of Order; 
    Effect on Germaneness Requirement

    Points of order against nongermane amendments may be waived either 
by the terms of a special rule or through the mere failure to raise 
points of order. In recent years, it has become common practice to 
delineate in some detail the conditions under which a bill may be 
considered, including with some specificity the points of order based 
on the germaneness rule that will or will not be waived. The terms of a 
special rule may thus apply to all amendments, specific amendments, or 
amendments of a specified nature; the Committee on Rules may even 
report a special rule altering the ordinary test of the germaneness of 
an amendment, such as rendering only one portion of an amendment 
subject to a germaneness point of order, while preserving consideration 
of the remainder of the amendment as original text and waiving 
germaneness points of order with respect thereto.

    Of course, a waiver of points of order against amendments should be 
distinguished from a waiver of other points of order against the

[[Page 9202]]

text of a bill. Where the House waives all points of order against a 
bill, such waiver does not apply to amendments offered from the 
floor.(14) Waiver of points of order against the text of a 
bill for other reasons, by adoption of the resolution making its 
consideration a special order of business, does not vitiate the rule 
that amendments from the floor must be germane.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 31.43, supra.
15. See Sec. 19.26, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issue of germaneness cannot be raised against an amendment when 
all points of order against that amendment have specifically been 
waived.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 45.3 et seq., infra. See also Sec. 19.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A resolution providing for consideration of a bill may waive points 
of order against the text of another bill proposed to be offered as an 
amendment.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 45.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A resolution providing for consideration of a bill may waive points 
of order against nongermane committee amendments, whether the 
resolution provides for an open (18) or closed 
(19) rule. Language such as the following is used in 
effecting such waiver:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See H. Res. 471 (Committee on Rules), 113 Cong. Rec. 12621, 90th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., May 15, 1967, providing for consideration of a 
        bill (H.R. 1318) authorizing appropriations for the Food Stamp 
        Act of 1964. The bill as introduced amended only the section of 
        the Food Stamp Act of 1964 relating to authorizations for 
        appropriations. Committee amendments were to other sections of 
        the act and broadened the scope of the bill.
19. See H. Res. 1005, 112 Cong. Rec. 22209, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 
        12, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It shall be in order to consider without the intervention of 
    any point of order the amendments recommended by the Committee on 
    ---------- now printed in the bill.

    A special rule adopted by the House may waive points of order 
against a nongermane committee substitute, as in the following 
resolution: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 390, 117 Cong. Rec. 12320, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 28, 
        1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 390

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 6444) to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 
    1937 to provide a 10 per centum increase in

[[Page 9203]]

    annuities. . . . It shall be in order to consider, without the 
    intervention of any point of order under clause 7, rule XVI, the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now printed in the 
    bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
    five-minute rule.

    Where a bill is being considered under the provisions of a 
resolution which specifies that committee amendments shall be in order, 
``any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding,'' no issue can 
properly be raised as to the germaneness of any such 
amendment.(1) But where the House has adopted a resolution 
waiving points of order against committee amendments, no immunity is 
granted Members to offer amendments which are not 
germane.(2) Where a resolution providing for consideration 
of a bill merely states that, after a specified time allowed for 
general debate, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
minute rule, amendments to the bill are in order in accordance with the 
standing rules of the House.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See the remarks of Chairman William H. Natcher (Ky.), in response 
        to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. H. R. Gross (Ia.), at 106 
        Cong. Rec. 10575, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 18, 1960. H.R. 5 
        (Committee on Ways and Means), the Foreign Investment Incentive 
        Tax Act of 1960, was being considered pursuant to the 
        provisions of H. Res. 468.
 2. See Sec. 13.12, supra.
 3. See, for example, the remarks of Speaker John W. McCormack (Mass.) 
        at 111 Cong. Rec. 18076, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1965, 
        in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Gerald R. Ford.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above,(4) nongermane amendments generally are 
not barred unless the point of order is actually raised against them. 
Of course, the fact that no point of order was made against a 
particular amendment does not waive points of order against subsequent 
amendments of a related nature.(5) Similarly, where an 
amendment to a general appropriation bill proposes a change in existing 
law but is permitted to remain because no point of order is raised 
against it, the amendment may be perfected by germane amendments that 
do not contain additional legislation.(6) Moreover, a 
legislative provision in a general appropriation bill, permitted to 
remain pursuant to a resolution waiving points of order against the 
bill, may be perfected by germane amendment that does not add further 
legislation.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 43, supra.
 5. See Sec. 13.19, supra.
 6. See Sec. 15.49, supra. See also Sec. 15.45, supra.
 7. See Sec. 15.35, supra. See also Sec. 15.15, supra.

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

[[Page 9204]]

                          -------------------Illustrative Forms of 
    Special Rules Waiving Points of Order

Sec. 45.1 The following House Resolution, agreed to on Sept. 15, 1983, 
    is illustrative of special rules waiving points of order based on 
    the germaneness rule; such rules are frequently used in the modern 
    practice in prescribing procedures for the consideration of 
    particular bills.

    The following special rule, H. Res. 309,(8) illustrates 
the form that may be taken by rules that waive points of order under 
the germaneness rule. The resolution provided an ``open'' rule for 
consideration of a bill reported by two committees to which it had been 
jointly referred; provided for general debate divided between the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation; provided, in lieu of the two committees' 
amendments printed in the bill, for consideration of a compromise text, 
that of another introduced bill as an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as an original bill for amendment, each section to be 
considered as read; waiving germaneness points of order against a 
described amendment relating to certain subject matter (``cost 
overruns'') if printed in the Record and if offered by a designated 
Member; provided for a separate vote, and for a motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See 129 Cong. Rec. 24306, 24307, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 15, 
        1983 (agreed to, at p. 24312).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COAL PIPELINE ACT OF 1983

        Mr. [Gillis W.] Long of Louisiana: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 309 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 309

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
        XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
        the bill (H.R. 1010) to amend the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 
        with respect to the movement of coal, including the movement of 
        coal over public lands, and for other purposes, and the first 
        reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. After general 
        debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue 
        not to exceed three hours, one and one-half hours to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and one 
        and one-half hours to be equally divided and controlled by the 
        chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Public 
        Works and Transportation, the bill shall be con

[[Page 9205]]

        sidered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of 
        the amendments recommended by the Committees on Interior and 
        Insular Affairs and Public Works and Transportation now printed 
        in the bill, it shall be in order to consider an amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the bill 
        H.R. 3857 as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
        under the five-minute rule, and each section of said substitute 
        shall be considered as having been read. It shall be in order 
        to consider an amendment relating to cost overruns printed in 
        the Congressional Record of September 14, 1983, by, and if 
        offered by, Representative (E. G.) Shuster of Pennsylvania and 
        all points of order against said amendment for failure to 
        comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI are hereby 
        waived. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for 
        amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
        House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any 
        Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 
        adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the 
        substitute made in order as original text by this resolution. 
        The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
        bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
        without instructions.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Shuster amendment addressed regulation 
of railroads by the ICC, and not regulation of coal pipelines, and was 
thus not germane. This rule, describing the amendment made in order and 
waiving all points of order under the germaneness rule, did require the 
amendment to be printed in the Record. The Committee on Rules has on a 
number of occasions made in order amendments to be printed in the 
Record, with germaneness waivers, on the word of the Member that only 
the amendments that the Member has verbally presented to the Committee 
on Rules would be printed and offered. (By the strict terms of the 
rule, Representative Shuster could have printed more than one amendment 
on ``cost overruns'' in the Record on any subject, and if the Chair had 
been satisfied that his amendment was related to that subject, though 
not necessarily the amendment presented in the Committee on Rules, the 
first such amendment offered in the Committee of the Whole would have 
been in order.)

Sec. 45.2 In an earlier example of a practice that is common today, a 
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules waived points of 
    order, including those based on the rule as to germaneness, against 
    a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    In the 90th Congress, a committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of

[[Page 9206]]

1967 added two new titles to the bill, neither of which was germane to 
the bill as introduced. The bill as introduced related only to postal 
rates and revenue, whereas the titles added by the committee amendment 
related respectively to federal salary increases and to the regulation 
of mailing advertisements of a ``pandering'' nature. A resolution 
(9) reported by the Committee on Rules, providing for 
consideration of the bill (10) with the committee amendment, 
stated in part as follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 939 (Committee on Rules).
10. H.R. 7977 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 28406, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 10, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 7977) to adjust certain postage rates, and for 
    other purposes. . . . It shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute recommended by the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
    Service now printed in the bill, and such substitute for the 
    purpose of amendment shall be considered under the five-minute rule 
    as an original bill, and read by titles instead of by sections. . . 
    .

Special Rule Making Portion of Amendment Subject to Points of Order--
    Consideration of Remainder of Amendment

Sec. 45.3 The Committee on Rules may report a special rule altering the 
    ordinary test of the germaneness of an amendment, as by rendering 
    only one portion of an amendment subject to the point of order that 
    it is not germane to the introduced bill, while preserving 
    consideration of the remainder of the amendment as original text 
    and waiving other germaneness points of order. Thus, in the 95th 
    Congress, the following resolution was reported which provided an 
    ``open'' rule; provided for consideration of a committee substitute 
    as an original bill by titles and waiving points of order against 
    such substitute containing an appropriation and nongermane matter; 
    but allowing a point of order when consideration of said substitute 
    begins that a designated section thereof would be nongermane if 
    offered to the bill as introduced, and providing, if said point of 
    order is sustained,

[[Page 9207]]

    for consideration of such substitute without that section as 
    original text by titles, and waiving points of order against such 
    substitute; making in order an amendment printed in the Record if 
    offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the 
    committee substitute; providing for a separate vote on amendments 
    adopted to the bill or to the substitute made in order, and for a 
    motion to recommit with or without instructions.

    A special rule as described above was reported on May 23, 1978: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See the proceedings at 124 Cong. Rec. 15094-96, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 
        For discussion of a point of order made, under the terms of H. 
        Res. 1188, against a section of the amendment in the nature of 
        a substitute being read as original text for amendment, see 
        Sec. 21.18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 10929, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   APPROPRIATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1979

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1188 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1188

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 10929) to authorize 
        appropriations during the fiscal year 1979, for procurement of 
        aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat vehicles, 
        torpedos, and other weapons, and research, development, test 
        and evaluation for the Armed Forces, and to prescribe the 
        authorized personnel strength for each active duty component 
        and of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of the 
        Armed Forces and of civilian personnel of the Department of 
        Defense, to authorize the military training student loads, and 
        to authorize appropriations for civil defense, and for other 
        purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
        bill and shall continue not to exceed three hours, to be 
        equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
        minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, the bill 
        shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
        shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now 
        printed in the bill as an original bill for the purposes of 
        amendment, said substitute shall be read for amendment by 
        titles instead of by sections and all points of order against 
        said substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of 
        clause 5, rule XXI and clause 7, rule XVI, are hereby waived, 
        except that it shall be in order when consideration of said 
        substitute begins to make a point of order that section 805 of 
        said substitute would be in violation of clause 7, rule XVI if 
        offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as introduced. If 
        such point of order is sustained, it shall be in order to con

[[Page 9208]]

        sider said substitute without section 805 included therein as 
        an original bill for the purpose of amendment, said substitute 
        shall be read for amendment by titles instead of by sections 
        and all points of order against said substitute for failure to 
        comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 5, 
        rule XXI are hereby waived. It shall be in order to consider 
        the amendment printed in the Congressional Record of May 17, 
        1978, by Representative [Milton R.] Carr [of Michigan] if 
        offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
        Committee on Armed Services. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
        rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
        may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate 
        vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
        the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
        final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit with or without instructions. . . .

        Mr. Meeds: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1188 provides 
    for the consideration of H.R. 10929, the Department of Defense 
    Appropriation Authorization Act of 1979. On May 17, by a nonrecord 
    vote, the Committee on Rules granted the rule requested by the 
    Committee on Armed Services for consideration of this legislation 
    with two exceptions. The committee granted an open rule providing 3 
    hours of general debate and making the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute to be considered as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment and providing that the substitute shall be 
    read for amendment by titles instead of by sections.
        One exception to the Armed Services request provided in the 
    rule would allow a point of order against section 805 of the bill 
    concerning Korea troop withdrawal provisions on the basis of 
    nongermaneness. In testimony before the Committee on Rules, the 
    chairman of the Committee on International Relations, Mr. Zablocki, 
    and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs, 
    Mr. Wolff, had requested this exception in the rule because they 
    believed that section 805 is a matter of jurisdiction for their 
    committee.
        The other exception in the rule requested makes in order the 
    substitute of Representative Carr printed in the Congressional 
    Record of May 17, 1978. Under the open rule, Mr. Carr would already 
    be entitled to offer his amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
    Although this provision in the rule does not give Mr. Carr special 
    or preferred status under the rule, it does indicate the Rules 
    Committee's desire to have all the diverse viewpoints on the DOD 
    legislation available for consideration by the House. . . .

        Mr. Del Clawson [of California]: . . . Mr. Speaker, House 
    Resolution 1188 provides for the consideration of H.R. 10929, the 
    Department of Defense Appropriation Authorization Act, 1979. This 
    is an open rule providing 3 hours of debate. The rule is fairly 
    simple in principle, though it does furnish some unusual 
    procedures. While most of these provisions should be relatively 
    familiar, a couple are out-of-the-ordinary.
        More usual aspects of the rule allow the committee amendment in 
    the na

[[Page 9209]]

    ture of a substitute to be made in order as an original bill for 
    the purpose of amendment. The bill will be read for amendment by 
    title instead of by sections. All points of order are waived 
    against the substitute for two reasons. The first waiver is for 
    failure to comply with clause 5, rule 21, which deals with 
    appropriations in a legislative measure. The second is of clause 7, 
    rule 16, the germaneness rule, since several unrelated provisions 
    were added to the original bill.
        Less common facets of the rule may be a bit complicated in 
    procedure, but simple in objective. The rule acknowledges that a 
    point of order may lie against section 805 of the committee 
    substitute under the germaneness rule. Should a point of order be 
    sustained, the entire substitute must be stricken out. Deletions 
    may not be made by sections nor titles; a substitute is a ``package 
    deal.'' If necessary, then, the rule would make the committee 
    substitute in order as the original bill once again, but without 
    that particular section. In short, this is the method by which that 
    section may be ruled out of order.
        The final major provision of the rule acknowledges the right of 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) to offer an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute which was previously entered in the Record. 
    All other amendments are accorded the same rights whether or not 
    they are mentioned in the rule. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
    to put a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair regarding the language 
    on page 2 of the rule, line 24, through line 4 on page 3. It 
    appears to me that the making in order of the offering of a 
    substitute to the committee amendment by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Carr) is nothing more than an expression of the right 
    of any Member of the House to offer such amendment at any time in 
    the Committee of the Whole. My question to the Chair is whether or 
    not the appearance of this language in the rule in any way changes 
    the right of the Chair to recognize members of the committee in 
    order of seniority at the Chair's discretion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore [James C. Wright, of Texas]: The 
    recognition will be a matter for the Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole House to determine. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: My specific question, Mr. Speaker, was whether or 
    not this varies the precedents regarding recognition and confers 
    upon the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) some special status as 
    opposed to the Chair's recognizing other members of the Committee 
    on Armed Services handling the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would still be up to the Chairman 
    of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union to 
    determine the priorities of recognition. To some degree, that could 
    depend upon the debate that was held upon the rule.
        Certainly nothing contained in the sentence to which the 
    gentleman refers would in and of itself prejudice any right that 
    any other Member might have to offer any other germane amendment. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, under the 
    language of the rule I understand that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Michigan would be in order, even after

[[Page 9210]]

    other amendments would be possibly adopted to the committee 
    substitute.
        Mr. Meeds: My understanding of the parliamentary situation is 
    that that would not be correct; that this would have to be offered 
    immediately after the reading of the first section or at the end; 
    so from the standpoint that it would be offered at the end, it 
    certainly could be offered after other amendments and, indeed, 
    other substitutes had been offered.
        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, 
    that is what I mean; if offered at the end after other amendments 
    are adopted or even after another substitute had been adopted, even 
    if the other substitute had been adopted, then the substitute 
    amendment of the gentleman from Michigan, as I read the rule, would 
    be in order at that time. . . .
        Mr. Del Clawson: . . . Mr. Speaker, if I may just make an 
    observation, it is my understanding that the Committee on Rules, 
    while they did make in order the substitute amendment of the 
    gentleman from Michigan, it is my understanding it was not intended 
    to confer upon the gentleman any special privilege that is not the 
    prerogative of any other Member, providing they are recognized in 
    the regular order of the business of the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the Chair respond by stating that 
    the rules of the House will apply and will not be abridged by 
    reason of the adoption of this rule. If another amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute should have been adopted, it would not 
    perforce thereafter be in order to offer an additional amendment, 
    whether it be the Carr amendment or any other.
        As the Chair interprets the inclusion of the language referred 
    to in the rule, it confers no special privilege upon the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute referred to as the Carr substitute. 
    It presumes and makes in order such language as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. Beyond that, it does not foreclose 
    consideration of any other germane language that otherwise would be 
    in order.
        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the Chair properly, 
    then, following my colloquy and my questions of the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Meeds), the rule does not so provide as I had 
    thought, and so if along the way a substitute is adopted other than 
    that offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr), then at the 
    end of our consideration the substitute of the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Carr) would not be in order; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair believes the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Volkmer) has correctly stated the parliamentary 
    situation, if any amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    adopted, then additional amendments would not be in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 805 of the committee substitute 
related to troop withdrawals from Korea, a matter unrelated to the bill 
and beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services; the 
Committee on International Relations successfully urged the Committee 
on Rules to render that section and that section alone subject to a 
germane

[[Page 9211]]

ness point of order, while protecting the consideration of the 
remainder of the substitute as original text. Since a point of order 
against any portion of an amendment renders the entire amendment 
subject to the point of order, language was necessary in the rule to in 
effect allow the consideration of a new amendment without the offending 
section. For a similar rule, see Sec. 45.4, infra.

Sec. 45.4 The following special rule is here included as a further 
    illustration, being in effect similar to that described in 
    Sec. 45.3, supra. The resolution here waives points of order 
    against consideration of a bill authorizing enactment of new budget 
    authority and not reported by May 15 preceding the fiscal year in 
    question; provides for reading a committee substitute as an 
    original bill by titles; waives all points of order against such 
    substitute for failure to comply with the germaneness rule but 
    allows one point of order, when consideration of said substitute 
    begins, that two titles of the substitute (taken together) would 
    violate the germaneness rule if offered as a separate amendment to 
    the bill as introduced; provides that if such point of order is 
    sustained, such substitute, without those two titles shall be read 
    as an original bill by titles for amendment, and waives all points 
    of order against the substitute for failure to comply with the 
    germaneness rule; and provides for a separate vote and a motion to 
    recommit with or without instructions.

    The following resolution was reported on Aug. 11, 1978: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 124 Cong. Rec. 25705, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1307 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1307

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, section 402(a) of the Congressional 
        Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 11280) to reform the civil 
        service laws. After general debate, which shall be confined to 
        the bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be 
        equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
        minority member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
        Service, the

[[Page 9212]]

        bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
        shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Post Office and 
        Civil Service now printed in the bill as an original bill for 
        the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, said 
        substitute shall be read for amendment by titles, instead of by 
        sections, and all points of order against said substitute for 
        failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI are 
        hereby waived, except that it shall be in order when 
        consideration of said substitute begins to make one point of 
        order that titles IX and X would be in violation of clause 7, 
        rule XVI if offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 11280 as 
        introduced. If such point of order is sustained, it shall be in 
        order to consider said substitute without titles IX and X 
        included therein as an original bill for the purpose of 
        amendment, said substitute shall be read for amendment by 
        titles instead of by sections and all points of order against 
        said substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of 
        clause 7, rule XVI are hereby waived. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
        rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
        may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate 
        vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
        the Whole to the bill or to the amendments in the nature of a 
        substitute made in order by this resolution. The previous 
        question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
        amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
        except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Special Rule Permitting Amendments Printed in Record To Be Offered--
    Amendment Differing From Printed Amendment

Sec. 45.5 Where a special rule permits the offering of only those 
    germane amendments to a bill which have been printed in the Record, 
    an amendment which differs in any respect from a printed amendment 
    may not be offered (except by unanimous consent) even to cure a 
    germaneness defect in a printed amendment previously ruled out.

    During consideration of H.R. 8410 (14) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Oct. 5, 1977,(15) the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment under the circumstances 
described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 32510, 32511, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 17, line 5, insert 
        ``(1)'' after ``(A)'' and insert the following new subparagraph 
        (ii) after line 15:
            ``(ii) which shall assure that the expressing of any views 
        . . . opinion, or the making of any statement or

[[Page 9213]]

        the dissemination thereof . . . shall not constitute grounds 
        for, or evidence justifying, setting aside the results of any 
        election conducted under section 9(c)(6) of this Act, if such 
        expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise 
        of benefit.''

        The Chairman: (16) The Chair would like to inquire 
    of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) if this amendment which 
    was reported by the Clerk is printed in the Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I would say the amendment was 
    printed in the Record. The Chair previously ruled it out of order 
    and I have struck certain language to make it conform with the 
    ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment was not printed in the 
    Record, notwithstanding the attempt of my good friend to revise it 
    in such a way as to indicate that it was. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to sustain the point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, is the Chair indicating an 
    amendment that was printed in the Record on Monday and ruled out of 
    order for parliamentary reasons cannot be revised and offered as a 
    substitute?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman that 
    the amendment was not printed in the Record in the form in which 
    the gentleman now presents it as an amendment to the bill.
        Mr. Ashbrook: The gentleman from Ohio would concede that.
        The Chairman: And the Chair would be constrained to sustain the 
    point of order.

Amendment Made in Order as New Title

Sec. 45.6 Where the resolution providing for consideration of a bill 
    makes in order a specific amendment to the bill as a new title, it 
    need not be germane to an existing title.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 19.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver as to ``Text of'' Another Bill

Sec. 45.7 Where a resolution providing for the consideration of a bill 
    makes in order, irrespective of questions of germaneness, ``the 
    text of'' a specified bill as an amendment, only those points of 
    order are considered to be waived which are directed against the 
    complete text of that bill offered as an amendment; if a part or 
    parts of the specified bill are offered as independent amendments, 
    they must meet the test of germaneness.

    In the 91st Congress, a resolution was under consideration which 
provided in part as follows: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 115 Cong. Rec. 38123, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1969.

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

[[Page 9214]]

                                H. Res. 714

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, it shall 
    be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 4249) to extend the Voting Rights 
    Act of 1965 with respect to the discriminatory use of tests and 
    devices. After general debate . . . the bill shall be read for 
    amendment. . . . It shall be in order to consider, without the 
    intervention of any point of order, the text of the bill H.R. 12695 
    as an amendment to the bill. . . .

    During the proceedings, the Speaker Pro Tempore (19) 
responded to a series of parliamentary inquiries, as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 38130, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, under the 
    resolution (H. Res. 714), if adopted, should the bill, H.R. 12695, 
    be considered and rejected, would it then be in order, following 
    rejection of H.R. 12695, should that occur, to offer a portion or 
    portions of H.R. 12695 as amendments to H.R. 4249?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that would be in 
    order subject to the rule of germaneness, if germane to the bill 
    H.R. 4249. . . .
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, should a portion of H.R. 12695 be 
    offered under the conditions set forth in my previous inquiry and 
    should it not be germane, a motion to that effect, to rule it out 
    of order, would be then in order and be sustained, I gather?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That, of course, would be a matter for 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to consider when it is 
    before him.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, I have one additional parliamentary 
    inquiry. Under House Resolution 714, if adopted, would it be in 
    order to include in the motion to recommit a portion or portions of 
    H.R. 12695 which might otherwise be subject to a point of order on 
    the point of germaneness?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would not want to pass upon 
    that hypothetically. At the time the occasion arises the Chair 
    would pass upon it.

Waiver of Points of Order Against Amendment--Germane Amendments to Such 
    Amendment

Sec. 45.8 Where a special rule waives points of order against the 
    consideration of a designated amendment which might otherwise not 
    be germane if offered to a bill, and does not specifically preclude 
    the offering of amendments thereto, germane amendments to that 
    amendment may be offered and, if adopted, it is then too late to 
    challenge the germaneness of the original amendment as amended.

[[Page 9215]]

    On July 22, 1975,(1) during consideration of H.R. 7014 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, it was held that where 
points of order have been waived against a specific amendment which has 
then been altered by amendment, a point of order will not lie against 
the modified amendment as not coming within the coverage of the waiver:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 23990, 23991, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 
        Sec. 2.18, supra, in which a substitute amendment was held to 
        be germane to the amendment for which offered, the Chair noting 
        that any question as to the waiver of points of order, by 
        special rule, against the original amendment was not relevant, 
        the only test being the germaneness of the substitute to the 
        original amendment.
 2. Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Krueger: In section 8(d)(2)(E)(ii)(a)(1) of the 
        Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 as amended by Mr. 
        Krueger's amendment, strike the words ``(including development 
        or production from oil shale,'' and insert a comma after 
        ``gas''.
            In section 8(d)(2)(E)(ii)(a)(2) of the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973 (as amended by Mr. Krueger's amendment) 
        strike the words ``oil shale,''.

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order, and pending that I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Texas reserves 
    a point of order, and the gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: The parliamentary inquiry is what determines 
    germaneness of this amendment, if it is germane, to the Krueger 
    amendment? It would then be admissible at this time as germane, as 
    I understand it. In other words, the relation to the Krueger 
    amendment would determine germaneness in this instance, I would 
    assume.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman is asking whether the amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado has to be germane, the 
    answer, of course, is ``yes''. Is the gentleman contending that it 
    is not germane?
        Mr. Eckhardt: No. The gentleman merely asks whether or not on 
    the question of germaneness with respect to this amendment, the 
    question is determined on whether or not this amendment is germane 
    to the Krueger amendment.
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . . The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) 
    to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Brown of Ohio) there were--ayes 39, noes 31.
        So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 9216]]

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against 
    the Krueger amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to state he believes the 
    point of order comes too late. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair would permit me, I 
    should make a point of order now if I must do so or I will at such 
    time as the vote arises on the Krueger amendment on the ground that 
    the Krueger amendment is now outside the rule.
        If the Chair will recall, I queried of the Chair whether or not 
    the question of germaneness on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Colorado was based upon its germaneness to the 
    Krueger amendment or if that were the standard. The Chair answered 
    me that it was. Therefore, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from Colorado was not subject to a point of order at that time and 
    I point out to the Chair that the question of germaneness rests 
    upon whether or not the amendment is germane to the amendment to 
    which it is applied.
        At that time it was not in order for me to urge that the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado was not germane 
    because it was indeed germane to the Krueger amendment, but the 
    rule protects the Krueger amendment itself from a point of order on 
    the grounds of germaneness and specifically says that it shall be 
    in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order 
    the text of an amendment which is identical to the text of section 
    301 of H.R. 7014 as introduced and which was placed in the 
    Congressional Record on Monday and it is described.
        The Krueger amendment upon the adoption of the Schroeder 
    amendment becomes other than the identical amendment which was 
    covered by the rule. At this point the question of germaneness of 
    the Krueger amendment rests on the question of whether or not it is 
    at the present time germane to the main body before the House.
        It is not germane to the main body before the House because of 
    the--and I cite in this connection Deschler on 28, section 24 in 
    which there are several precedents given to the effect that an 
    amendment which purports to create a condition contingent upon an 
    event happening, as for instance the passage of a law, is not in 
    order. For instance 24.6 on page 396 says:

            To a bill authorizing funds for construction of atomic 
        energy facilities in various parts of the Nation, an amendment 
        making the initiation of any such project contingent upon the 
        enactment of federal or state fair housing measures was ruled 
        out as not germane.

        There are a number of other authorities in that connection, 
    that is, an amendment postponing the effectiveness of legislation 
    pending contingency.
        Now, with respect to the question of timeliness, the gentleman 
    from Texas could not have raised the point of order against the 
    Schroeder amendment because of the fact that the Schroeder 
    amendment was, in fact, germane to the Krueger amendment. It is 
    clearly stated that the test of germaneness must rest on the 
    question of the body upon which the amendment acts, and as I 
    queried the Chair at the time, I asked that specific question, 
    would the germaneness of the Schroeder amend

[[Page 9217]]

    ment rest upon the question whether it is germane to the Krueger 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I only state 
    that it seems to me that the rule makes the Krueger amendment in 
    order by its text, but it does not prohibit it being amended by 
    subsequent action of this body and that if the text had been 
    changed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) in its 
    introduction, the point of order might have been appropriate; but 
    the point of order that is attempted to prohibit this body from 
    amending the text of the Krueger amendment after it has been 
    properly introduced and been made germane by the rule would 
    prohibit those others in the majority of this body from acting on 
    any perfection of the Krueger amendment. I do not think that is the 
    purpose of the rule. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The rule under which the matter is being considered did in fact 
    make in order the so-called Krueger amendment, and any amendment to 
    that amendment which is germane to that amendment was thus, at the 
    same time, made in order. There was no need for special provision 
    to make amendments germane to the Krueger amendment in order, and 
    the argument made by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is very 
    much to the point.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. This ruling is also discussed at Sec. 44.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 45.9 Where a special rule waives points of order against a 
    specific amendment to be offered to a bill, a germane amendment to 
    that amendment may be allowed.

    On July 22, 1975,(5) during consideration of H.R. 7014, 
the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975, there was pending 
in the Committee of the Whole an amendment (the Krueger amendment) 
relating to the decontrol of oil prices. The amendment, made in order 
by House Resolution 599, was to become effective only upon a 
presidential certification that certain tax legislation, described in 
detail, had been enacted. To such amendment, an amendment was offered 
which substituted congressional certification (by concurrent 
resolution) for the presidential certification as to enactment of the 
tax legislation. The Krueger amendment, which had been offered on July 
18,(6) was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 23995-97, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Id. at pp. 23525, 23526.
            See also Sec. 2.18, supra, in which a substitute amendment 
        was held to be germane to the amendment for which offered, the 
        Chair noting that any question as to the waiver of points of 
        order, by special rule, against the original amendment was not 
        relevant, the only test being the germaneness of the substitute 
        to the original amendment.

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

[[Page 9218]]

        Mr. [Bob] Krueger [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Krueger: Strike out all from 
        beginning of line four, page 214 to end of line 3, page 223 
        (section 301 of the Committee substitute) and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:

                           crude oil price regulation

            Sec. 301. (a) The Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 
        1973 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        section:
            Sec. 8. (a) For the purposes of this section:
            ``(1) The term `crude oil' means a mixture of hydrocarbons 
        that existed in liquid phase in underground reservoirs and 
        remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after passing through 
        surface separating facilities. . . .
            ``(b) Except as provided in subsections (e) and (d), no 
        price ceiling shall apply to any first sale by a producer of 
        domestic crude oil from a property. . . .
            (d)(1) The provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of section 
        8 shall not take effect unless the President finds that there 
        is in effect (A) an inflation minimization tax consonant with 
        the purposes of this section applicable to sales from a 
        property, from which domestic crude oil was produced and sold 
        in one or more of the months of May through December 1972, in 
        volume amounts greater than the production volume subject to a 
        ceiling price under subsection (c), but less than the base 
        period control volume, and (B) a production maximization tax 
        consonant with the purposes of this section applicable to sales 
        of domestic crude oil from any stripper well lease or from a 
        property from which domestic crude oil was not produced and 
        sold in one or more of the months of May through December 1972, 
        or with respect to amounts produced and sold in any month in 
        excess of the base period control volume (in the case of a 
        property from which domestic oil was produced and sold in one 
        or more of the months of May through December 1972).

    On July 22, when the Committee of the Whole resumed consideration 
of the bill, Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, offered the following 
amendment to the amendment and the proceedings ensued as indicated 
below:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wright to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Krueger: Strike Subsection (d) of the new Section 8 added 
        to the Emergency Petroleum Act of 1973 and insert in lieu 
        thereof a new Subsection (d) as follows: ``The provisions of 
        (b) and (c) shall not take effect unless the Congress finds and 
        so declares by concurrent resolution that there is in effect a 
        tax which couples a redistribution of tax receipts mechanism to 
        substantially mitigate the effect of increased energy costs on 
        consumers with an excise tax or other tax applicable to sales 
        of crude oil from a property: Provided that such tax shall 
        provide an incentive for the production of new domestic crude 
        oil.''. . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I press my point 
    of order at this time.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Richard Bolling (Mo.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that, No. 1, 
    this amendment is not germane to the Krueger amendment; and No. 2, 
    that

[[Page 9219]]

    this amendment, if added to the Krueger amendment, creates an 
    extensively and fundamentally different principle not covered by 
    the exception to the rules.
        Mr. Chairman, I cite primarily from page 415 of Deschler's 
    Procedure, section 36.9, which reads:

            The fact that a resolution providing for the consideration 
        of a bill specifically waives points of order against a 
        particular amendment is not determinative of the issue of the 
        germaneness of other, similar amendments.

        There is reference to 106 Congressional Record 5655, 86th 
    Congress, 2d Session, March 14, 1960.
        I should like to point out to the Chair how widely divergent 
    this amendment is from the original Krueger amendment. The original 
    Krueger amendment had some appeal to the committee because it did a 
    very specific thing: It said that in providing that there is what 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) always called a specific 
    recycling process with respect to the taxes collected under the 
    windfall profits tax, that specific recycling process constituted 
    the sending of the application, as I recall, of half the receipts 
    to low- and middle-income brackets and the rest to a division of 
    cities and others, the exact details of which I do not recall.
        Then if this contingency occurred and it was a contingency 
    based on a clearly and specifically defined action to become law, 
    then and then only would the windfall profits tax provisions be in 
    effect. Otherwise the bill would fall back to essentially the 
    provisions of an extension of the existing Allocation Act. . . .
        The effect of this amendment is something extremely different, 
    and it is something that I feel sure we members of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce would have appeared before the 
    Committee on Rules and strenuously objected to, because the 
    amendment would simply say that we will put this pricing mechanism 
    into effect and we will leave open to the absolute unrestrained 
    determination of another committee what the tax structure would be.
        In effect the result of that would be a complete reneging by 
    the committee setting the price and a movement from a specific 
    contingency to a complete delegation of authority to define that 
    contingency to another committee. . . .
        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: . . . I would just like to 
    say that the resolution under which the committee considers this 
    proposal today, House Resolution 599, on page 2, line 10, sets 
    forth as follows:

            It shall be in order to consider, without the intervention 
        of any point of order, the text of an amendment which is 
        identical to the text of Section 301 of H.R. 7014 as introduced 
        and which was placed in the Congressional Record of Monday, 
        July 14, 1975, by Representative Robert Krueger.

        I think that the rule specifically indicates what would be in 
    order would be the Krueger amendment and not amendments to the 
    Krueger amendment.
        For example, I do not believe that it would have been in order, 
    under this rule, for the Committee on Ways and Means windfall 
    profits section to have been introduced as an amendment to the 
    Krueger amendment. . . .

[[Page 9220]]

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment has within it the two factors which are also contained in 
    the basic Krueger amendment: first, a modification, as any 
    amendment would, of the finding or the method by which a finding 
    can be made of what an appropriate tax is; and second, a 
    description of what an appropriate tax is that can be found, so 
    that the basic provisions of the Krueger amendment can be put into 
    effect; that is, the decontrol process.
        The Committee on Rules properly, I think, made in order the 
    Krueger amendment for decontrol, and . . . hinged that decontrol on 
    a suitable tax and the finding of a suitable tax.

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) 
    merely modifies that process.
        The question of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce to write this into its legislation was raised 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) in his comments on the 
    point of order.
        It seems to me that it is the prerogative of the Committee on 
    Rules to combine legislation, to see that legislation is brought to 
    the floor in tandem, so that it might be combined on the floor by 
    the committee, in its wisdom, and in this case, specifically made 
    in order by rule.
        The prospect was that the job of the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce, the jurisdictional job, decontrol, would 
    proceed on the basis of a finding of a suitable tax and it left the 
    establishment or the enactment of that tax to the Committee on Ways 
    and Means.
        Nothing in the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Wright) changes the basic thrust of the rule granted by the 
    Committee on Rules in that regard, and it occurs to me that the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) is perfectly 
    appropriate and germane. It does, in fact, as any amendment would, 
    modify the situation; but it leaves to the full committee, the 
    Committee of the Whole, the job of making that modification, in its 
    wisdom. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Although a great many matters have been discussed in connection 
    with the point of order, the Chair proposes to rule only very 
    narrowly.
        The question is whether the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Wright] offered to the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Krueger] is germane as within the 
    limitations of the precedents with regard to its scope.
        The Chair finds, basically on the arguments made by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) that it is germane, and within the 
    scope of the type of ``windfall profits tax'' defined by the 
    Krueger amendment, although the description of the tax is somewhat 
    less precise than the definition in the Krueger amendment. The fact 
    that Congress, in the Wright amendment, rather than the President, 
    as in the Krueger amendment must make the findings of enactment of 
    the tax does not render the amendment not germane. Therefore the 
    Chair overrules the various points of order and finds the amendment 
    in order.

[[Page 9221]]

Waiver of Points of Order Against Legislative Provision in 
    Appropriation Bill--Germane Amendment to Such Provision

Sec. 45.10 Where a legislative provision contained in a general 
    appropriation bill is not subject to a point of order, the House 
    having by resolution waived points of order against such provision, 
    the provision may be perfected by a germane amendment which does 
    not add legislation.

    On May 21, 1969,(8) a point of order was raised against 
an amendment to an appropriation bill, on the grounds that such 
amendment constituted legislation. Acknowledging a waiver of points of 
order, the Member making the objection (George H. Mahon, of Texas) 
contended that the waiver pertained only to matter contained in the 
bill, not amendments to the bill. The Chairman,(9) relying 
on the principle that a provision as to which points of order have been 
waived may be perfected by germane amendment, overruled the point of 
order. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 13271, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11400 (Committee on Appropriations), comprising 
        supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1970.
 9. Chet Holified (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Jeffery] Cohelan of California: 
        On page 62, line 3, add the following as a new section:
            ``(c) The limitation set forth in subsection (a), as 
        adjusted in accordance with the proviso to that subsection, 
        shall be increased by an amount equal to the aggregate amount 
        by which expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) for the 
        fiscal year 1970 on account of items designated as ``Open-ended 
        programs and fixed costs'' in the table appearing on page 16 of 
        the Budget for the fiscal year 1970 may be in excess of the 
        aggregate expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) 
        estimated for those items in the April review of the 1970 
        budget.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment in that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the rule pertaining to title IV only protects 
    what is in the bill, not amendments to the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined title IV. This is a new subparagraph to 
    title IV. Title IV is legislation in a general appropriation bill, 
    and all points of order have been waived in title IV, as a result 
    of it being legislation. Therefore the Chair holds that the 
    amendment is germane to the provisions contained in title IV and 
    overrules the point of order.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See H. Res. 414 at 115 Cong. Rec. 13246, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., May 
        21, 1969, waiving points of order against Title IV of H.R. 
        11400.

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

[[Page 9222]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair's ruling stands for the 
proposition that to a provision fixing an expenditure limitation in a 
dollar amount for a fiscal year, an amendment increasing the limitation 
by an amount to be computed pursuant to a specified formula is germane 
and does not add further legislation to the expenditure limit already 
in the bill.

Waiver of Points of Order Against Particular Amendment--Germaneness of 
    Other Similar Amendments

Sec. 45.11 The fact that a resolution providing for the consideration 
    of a bill specifically waives points of order against a particular 
    amendment is not determinative of the issue of the germaneness of 
    other, similar amendments.

    On Mar. 14, 1960, a bill (11) was under consideration 
which related to enforcement of voting rights. The rule (12) 
under which the bill was being considered provided that,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 8601 (Committee on the Judiciary).
12. H. Res. 359, at 106 Cong. Rec. 5192, 5193, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Mar. 10, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         . . . It shall be in order to consider, without the 
    intervention of any point of order, the text of the bill, H.R. 
    10035, as introduced under the date of January 28, 1960, as an 
    amendment to the bill, H.R. 8601.

    Mr. John V. Lindsay, of New York, offered the amendment 
(13) against which points of order had been so waived. He 
stated, in describing the purposes of the amendment: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 5482, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 1960.
14. Id. at pp. 5482, 5483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lindsay: . . . The amendment I have just offered is the 
    original voting referee proposal which was contained in the bill 
    H.R. 10035, originally introduced by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    McCulloch]. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, may I say that the parliamentary situation is 
    such under the rule that the only voting referee measure at this 
    point that may be offered is the text of H.R. 10035. This is the 
    bill which provides for voting referees under the auspices and 
    supervision of the Federal courts. . . . It provides that in any 
    area where there has been a voting case under the 1957 Civil Rights 
    Act the Federal judge deciding the matter shall have the power to 
    make a determination that such denials are pursuant to a 
    discriminating pattern or practice. . . .
        If the court should find a pattern or practice of voting 
    denials, referees may then be appointed by the court in order to 
    receive applications from persons of like color who claim that they 
    also have been denied the right to vote. . . .

    A substitute amendment was offered (15) by Mr. William 
M.

[[Page 9223]]

McCulloch, of Ohio, for purposes of modifying and clarifying the 
Lindsay amendment. Mr. McCulloch stated: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 5483, 5484.
16. Id. at p. 5484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         . . . I have offered H.R. 10625 with certain improvements as a 
    substitute for the Lindsay amendment. Both of these bills with 
    improvements are administration measures and embody the Attorney 
    General's plan for the use of a Federal voting referee in areas 
    where a pattern or practice of discrimination exists because of 
    race or color.
        I introduced H.R. 10035 on January 28, 1960. Shortly 
    thereafter, Judge Lawrence E. Walsh, the Deputy Attorney General of 
    the United States, testified before a full meeting of the Judiciary 
    Committee. . . .
        As the result of Judge Walsh's testimony several improvements 
    in the procedure to be followed in the Federal voting referee plan 
    were suggested. These changes primarily relate to the procedure to 
    be followed by the referee and to the nature of the exceptions 
    which State officials will be permitted to file to the findings in 
    the referee's report. These changes are reflected in H.R. 10625. . 
    . .

    Mr. Robert W. Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin, offered an amendment 
(17) to the McCulloch substitute. Mr. Kastenmeier explained 
his amendment as follows: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 5644, 5645, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 15, 1960.
18. Id. at p. 5645.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         . . . The amendment is based on the fundamental proposition 
    that Congress has the constitutional authority and political 
    obligation to aid the courts and to work with the courts to 
    guarantee equal rights to all our citizens regardless of race or 
    color. . . .
        Precisely what would my amendment do? Where a court or the 
    Civil Rights Commission finds that people have been denied the 
    right to register because of race or color, the President is 
    notified. If he feels it necessary, he may appoint a Federal 
    enrollment officer, from among Federal employees and officers 
    already registered to vote in the affected local district. . . .
        If an enrollment officer is appointed, applicants deprived of 
    their voting rights because of race or color may go to the 
    enrollment officer and prove their qualifications. . . .

    The Kastenmeier amendment was agreed to.(19) The 
McCulloch substitute, having thus been amended to provide for 
Presidential appointment of enrollment officers, was agreed to. But the 
Lindsay amendment, as amended by the McCulloch substitute, was 
rejected. Subsequently, Mr. McCulloch offered an amendment 
(20) that incorporated provisions substantially similar to 
those of the Lindsay amendment and the McCulloch substitute. Against 
the amendment so offered, the following point of order was raised: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 5655.
20. Id. at pp. 5655, 5656.
 1. Id. at p. 5657.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order

[[Page 9224]]

    against this amendment for several reasons. One is that the rule 
    under which we are operating gives protection only to H.R. 10035 
    and to no other substitute proposal. In other words, the original 
    bill, the Lindsay amendment, which has already been defeated, was a 
    bill that the rule makes in order. We have already voted upon this 
    bill within the last 30 minutes. The only difference between this 
    bill and the bill we just voted down is two or three very minor 
    corrections. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, of course I made the point that the bill is not 
    germane, but if I may enlarge upon that for a moment, as I said 
    before, the rule protects only H.R. 10035. The rule would not have 
    been granted if it had not been understood that it was not germane 
    to the original bill, which it is not. While the rule protected 
    that bill, it did not protect any question of germaneness. In other 
    words, if it was not included in the rule, H.R. 10035, the rule 
    does not protect the germaneness of any other bill.

    Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, stated in response to the point 
of order:

        The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] has spoken of the rule 
    that undertook to specifically make the provisions of the original 
    bill in order. Without undertaking to state what the facts were . . 
    . the fact that the rule makes specific provision in that regard 
    does not mean that the measure itself on its merits is not germane. 
    In other words, if I understand the Rules Committee correctly, out 
    of an excess of precaution, it provided by the special rule that 
    the bill which was offered originally would be in order as an 
    amendment. When it was originally offered we operated under that 
    rule. However, addressing myself to the point of germaneness, and I 
    must say that I agree with the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Celler], title III has to do with the Federal election records. As 
    has been pointed out, the basic purpose of this legislation is to 
    deal with the right to vote--voting rights. Certainly the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch]--and may I say 
    parenthetically it is a different bill from the one we voted on; it 
    is different in a material respect. As we have listened to the 
    debate, it is a referee, voting rights bill. So in my opinion it 
    should be held germane to the original bill reported by the 
    Committee on the Judiciary.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is quite true that the rule House Resolution 359, under 
    which H.R. 8601 is being considered, contains the language that the 
    gentleman from Virginia mentioned a moment ago, concerning putting 
    in order H.R. 10035 in order to eliminate any question of 
    germaneness of that particular proposal.
        The Chair dislikes to substitute the judgment of the Chair for 
    that of the distinguished Committee on Rules, but, frankly, the 
    Chair does not believe that including this language necessarily 
    binds the present occupant of the chair.
        It is quite true that the measure, H.R. 8601, deals with 
    Federal election records, and the Chair is quite certain that the 
    membership agrees with the

[[Page 9225]]

    Chair that the scope is rather narrow. However, the Chair feels 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio has to do 
    with the basic purpose of title 3 of the bill H.R. 8601.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Resolution Making Consideration of Amendment in Order But Not Waiving 
    Points of Order; Effect; Adoption of One Amendment in Nature of 
    Substitute as Precluding the Offering of Another

Sec. 45.12 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules which 
    merely makes in order the consideration of a particular amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute but does not waive points of order or 
    otherwise confer a privileged status upon the amendment does not, 
    in the absence of a legislative history establishing a contrary 
    intent by that committee, alter the principles that recognition to 
    offer an amendment under the five-minute rule is within the 
    discretion of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and that 
    adoption of one amendment in the nature of a substitute precludes 
    the offering of another.

    The proceedings of May 23, 1978, relating to H. Res. 1188, are 
discussed in Sec. 45.3, supra.