[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]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7381-7383]
 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule


[[Page 7381]]




                               VOLUME 10

A. General Principles

    Sec. 1. Introduction
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by Evan Hoorneman, J.D. Manuscript editing 
by Joan Deschler Bamel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec. 2. Proposition to Which Amendment Must Be Germane
    Sec. 3. Amendment as Relating to Subject Matter Under Consideration
    Sec. 4. Committee Jurisdiction of Subject Matter as Test
    Sec. 5. Fundamental Purpose of Amendment as Test
    Sec. 6. Amendment Accomplishing Result of Bill by Different Method
    Sec. 7. Amendment Substituting Different Agency To Administer 
            Provisions
    Sec. 8. Individual Proposition Offered as Amendment to Another 
            Individual Proposition
    Sec. 9. General Amendments to Specific or Limited Propositions; 
            Amendments Enlarging Scope of Proposition
   Sec. 10. Specific Amendments to General Propositions; Amendments as 
            Within Scope
   Sec. 11. Amendment Adding to Two or More Propositions of Same Class
   Sec. 12. Amendment Extending Coverage of Bill to Other Subjects of 
            Same Class
   Sec. 13. Proposition and Amendment as Affecting Different Classes of 
            Persons or Entities

[[Page 7382]]

   Sec. 14. Amendments Conferring Powers Not Granted in Bill
   Sec. 15. Amendments to Appropriation Bills; Rescission Bills
   Sec. 16. Consent Calendar Bills

B. Application of Rule to Particular Forms of Amendment or Proposition

   Sec. 17. In General; Amendment to Special Rule; Amendment to 
            Concurrent Resolution
   Sec. 18. Amendment Offered to Particular Paragraph, Section, or 
            Title
   Sec. 19. Amendment Adding New Section or Title to Bill
   Sec. 20. Amendment Striking Portion of Text of Bill or Amendment
   Sec. 21. Substitute Amendment; Amendment in Nature of Substitute; 
            Amendment to Amendment
   Sec. 22. Committee Amendment
   Sec. 23. Instructions in Motion To Commit or Recommit
   Sec. 24. Amendment Proposing Permanent Legislation Offered to 
            Temporary Legislation


                               VOLUME 11 

C. House-Senate Relations

   Sec. 25. Rule of Germaneness in the Senate
   Sec. 26. Senate Amendments to House Bills and Amendments; Conference 
            Agreements
   Sec. 27. --Amendment to Senate Amendment
   Sec. 28. Requirement That Amendments to Motions To Instruct 
            Conferees Be Germane

D. Amendments Imposing Qualifications or Restrictions

   Sec. 29. In General; Amendments Providing for Exceptions or 
            Exemptions

[[Page 7383]]

   Sec. 30. Amendments Providing for Conditions or Qualifications
   Sec. 31. --Amendment Postponing Effectiveness of Legislation Pending 
            Contingency
   Sec. 32. Amendments Providing for Restrictions or Limitations
   Sec. 33. --Amendments Affecting Powers Delegated in Bill
   Sec. 34. --Restrictions on Use or Availability of Funds

E. Relation of Amendment or Bill to Existing Law

   Sec. 35. Amendments to Bills Which Amend Existing Law
   Sec. 36. Amendment Repealing Existing Law to Bill Amending That Law
   Sec. 37. Amendments to Bills Which Repeal Existing Law
   Sec. 38. Amendments to Bills Which Incorporate Other Law or Matter
   Sec. 39. Amendments to Bills Extending Existing Law or Authority 
            Under Existing Law
   Sec. 40. Amendment Continuing Temporary Law to Bill Amending That 
            Law
   Sec. 41. Amendment Changing Existing Law to Bill Citing or Making 
            Minor Revisions in That Law
   Sec. 42. Amendment Changing or Citing Existing Law to Bill Not 
            Citing That Law

F. Procedural Matters

   Sec. 43. Generally; Point of Order and Debate Thereon
   Sec. 44. Timeliness of Point of Order
   Sec. 45. Consideration Under Special Rule; Waiver of Points of 
            Order; Effect on Germaneness Requirement
   Sec. 46. Factors in Chair's Ruling; Refusal by Chair To Rule; 
            Anticipatory and Hypothetical Rulings

Index to Precedents at end of Volume 11







                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule


 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 1. Introduction


    A House rule (1) provides that ``no motion or 
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall 
be admitted under color of amendment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Rule XVI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 794 (1991). Note: 
        This chapter provides complete coverage of precedents through 
        the 100th Congress, 2d session, and discusses significant 
        precedents from the 101st Congress. For earlier coverage of the 
        subject of germaneness, see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5801-
        5924; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2908-3064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule states the requirement of ``germaneness,'' which pertains 
to the relationship between an amendment and the matter sought to be 
amended.(2) The ``germaneness'' rule, as it is known, 
contains one of the most important principles affecting legislative 
proceedings, and has been adopted by the House in every Congress since 
1789. Moreover, since the requirement of germaneness of amendments is 
an integral part of the legislative process, the issue of germaneness 
may properly be raised in the House even prior to the adoption of the 
rules.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 2, infra, for general discussion of the determination of 
        the proposition to which an amendment must be germane.
 3. See Sec. 1.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule of germaneness applies to amendments and not to language 
of the bill as introduced.(4) Thus, while a committee may re

[[Page 7386]]

port a bill embracing different subjects, it is not in order during 
consideration of the bill to introduce a new subject by way of 
amendment. The rule, however, applies to amendments offered by the 
committee as well as to amendments offered from the 
floor.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the ruling of Chairman Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.) at 101 Cong. Rec. 
        11710, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955, with regard to a 
        point of order raised by Mr. H.R. Gross (Iowa). The Chair 
        indicated that a point of order will not lie if based on the 
        contention that provisions contained in a bill as introduced 
        are not within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the 
        bill.
            See also the remarks of Chairman Frank H. Buck (Calif.) at 
        83 Cong. Rec. 2174, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 18, 1938. In 
        response to a point of order raised by Mr. John W. McCormack 
        (Mass.), the Chairman noted that the question of germaneness 
        was not in issue, since ``This is a provision in the bill as 
        reported by the committee, and not an amendment to it.''
            A point of order will not lie that an appropriation in a 
        general appropriation bill is not germane to the rest of the 
        bill. See Sec. 17.1, infra.
 5. See, for example, Sec. 42.5, infra. See, generally, Sec. 22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The concept of germaneness implies more than the mere ``relevance'' 
of one subject to another. It is frequently stated that the fact that 
two subjects are related does not necessarily render them germane to 
each other.(6) The germaneness of an amendment, for example, 
may depend on the relative scope of the amendment and the proposition 
sought to be amended. Thus, a proposition of narrow or limited scope 
may not be amended by a proposition of a more general 
nature.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See, for example, Sec. 3.57, infra.
 7. See Sec. 9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One important purpose of the germaneness rule is to prevent the 
House from having to consider matters for which it is not fully 
prepared. Thus, an amendment may be held to be germane only if its 
subject bears a certain relationship to that of the proposition sought 
to be amended. An informal criterion that appears from the rulings 
discussed in this chapter may be that if the subject of a proposed 
amendment to a bill is not one that would reasonably be expected to be 
within the contemplation of those considering that bill, the amendment 
is probably not germane. Conversely, if consideration of the general 
subject matter of the amendment would naturally arise during 
consideration of the bill itself, it may be germane. Accordingly, one 
frequently cited test of the germaneness of an amendment to a bill is 
whether the subject matter of the amendment falls within the 
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then Majority Leader, once stated 
with respect to the rule requiring germaneness of amendments: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 17.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The rule of germaneness] is a rule which this Congress has 
    followed since 1789. . . .
        It is the rule without which this House could never complete 
    its legislative program if there happened to be a substantial 
    minority in opposition. . . .
        No legislative body of this size could ever operate unless it 
    did comply with the rule of germaneness. . . .

    The germaneness of an amendment should be determined from 
provisions of its text rather than

[[Page 7387]]

from the purposes which circumstances may suggest.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 5 Hinds' Precedents, Sec. Sec. 5783, 5803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other factors may determine issues of germaneness. For example, a 
proposition to expel a Member would not be germane to a proposition to 
censure, since a different requirement as to the voting margin is 
mandated.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See the proceedings of July 30, 1979, at 125 Cong. Rec. 21297, 
        21298, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., in which a privileged resolution 
        was offered to expel a Member, in preference to reserving the 
        question for consideration in later connection with a proposal 
        to censure the Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The only challenge to a ruling of the Chair or the content thereof 
lies through an appeal. Appeals from germaneness rulings are not 
traditional in the practices of the House, and when made go to the 
propriety of the Chair's ruling and not to the substance of the subject 
of the amendment. The germaneness rule itself, for example, applies 
only to amendments and cannot be used to challenge a ruling of the 
Chair.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See, for example, the response of the Chair at 124 Cong. Rec. 
        23108, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., July 27, 1978, to a parliamentary 
        inquiry made by Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, perhaps 
        facetiously, as to whether one could ``make a point of order 
        against the ruling . . . for not being germane to the point of 
        order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While numerous precedents (rulings of the Chair) have been 
chronicled with respect to the germaneness of amendments in a wide 
variety of contexts, it is essential to note that the Chair, in 
determining which of the tests of germaneness discussed in this chapter 
is most applicable, must first understand the nature and scope of the 
pending portion of the proposition being amended, and then the 
relationship of the offered amendment to that pending text. By 
initially achieving such a textual understanding, the Chair is then 
advised to follow the most appropriate line of precedent in rendering a 
ruling. It is therefore possible for the reader to avoid the 
misperception that an equally compelling and valid germaneness test can 
be applied and precedent cited to support either side of a germaneness 
point of order, by examining in full the pending bill and amendment 
text either where it is printed in this chapter or in the permanent 
Congressional Record where cited.

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

Application of Rule Before Adoption of Rules

Sec. 1.1 Prior to the adoption of the rules, when the House is 
    operating under general parliamentary law, an amend

[[Page 7388]]

    ment may nevertheless be subject to a point of order if it is not 
    germane to the proposition to which offered.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a resolution 
providing that the Speaker administer the oath of office to a Member-
elect,(13) an amendment was offered (14) which 
provided that the Speaker should administer the oath, but which also 
added several conditions by way of punishment of the Member-elect for 
acts committed in a prior Congress. Such punishment included a fine and 
loss of seniority. In ruling on a point of order raised by Mr. Emanuel 
Celler, of New York, against the amendment, the Speaker (15) 
stated: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Under consideration was H. Res. 1, providing for administration of 
        the oath of office to Representative-elect Adam Clayton Powell.
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 23, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969.
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 23, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state . . . that while we are operating under 
    general parliamentary law . . . volume VIII, section 3384 of 
    Cannon's Precedents states:

            While the House is governed by general parliamentary usage 
        prior to the adoption of rules, the Speakers have been inclined 
        to give weight to the precedents of the House in the 
        interpretation of that usage. . . .

        [I]t appears to the Chair that the punishment of Mr. Powell for 
    acts committed in the 88th or 89th Congresses, or declaring his 
    seat vacant in the 91st Congress, is not germane to the proposition 
    that he be now sworn in.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. As a further example, see the remarks of Speaker McCormack at 113 
        Cong. Rec. 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967, in response 
        to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Joseph D. Waggonner, Jr. 
        (La.). The Speaker's statement was to the effect that, where a 
        resolution is being considered in the House prior to adoption 
        of the rules, the rule applies that, after rejection of a 
        motion for the previous question, the resolution is open to 
        ``any germane amendment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relationship Between Amendment and Text To Be Amended

Sec. 1.2 The germaneness of an amendment is determined by the 
    relationship between its text and the portion of the bill to which 
    offered, and is not judged by motives for offering the amendment 
    which circumstances may suggest, nor by the fact that the 
    amendment, offered to a public bill, may in substance be 
    characterized as private legislation benefiting individuals.

    The proceedings of May 30, 1984, relating to H.R. 5167, the

[[Page 7389]]

Defense Department authorization for fiscal 1985, are discussed in 
Sec. 3.45, infra.

Point of Order Based on Committee Jurisdiction But Without Reference to 
    Germaneness Issue

Sec. 1.3 The point of order that a section in a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute was not within the jurisdiction of that 
    committee does not lie when that section is read for amendment, 
    where no question of germaneness is presented.

    The proceedings of July 16, 1974, during consideration of H.R. 
15560 (a bill concerning loans to livestock producers) are discussed in 
Sec. 43.8, infra.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 2. Proposition to Which Amendment Must Be Germane

    The requirement of germaneness pertains to the relationship between 
an amendment and the particular proposition sought to be amended. For 
example, the issue has been raised with respect to an amendment to a 
particular part of a bill,(18) amendments to amendments 
(19) and amendments affecting specified provisions of 
existing law where the bill itself amends such law.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See, for example, Sec. 18, infra, discussing amendments offered to 
        a particular paragraph, section, or title of a bill.
19. See Sec. 21, infra.
20. See Sec. Sec. 35-42, infra, for discussion of issues of germaneness 
        as affected by the relation of the bill or amendment to 
        existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is well established that the subject matter of an amendment must 
relate to the portion of the bill to which it is offered.(1) 
If offered to a specific section of a bill, the amendment should be 
germane to that section. If the amendment is offered as a new section 
or title, its germaneness may depend upon its appropriateness at that 
point in the bill at which it is offered,(2) or, if diverse 
portions of the bill have been read or the bill is open to amendment at 
any point, may depend upon its relationship to the bill as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, for example, Sec. 18.7, infra.
            On one occasion, the Chairman remarked, in the course of 
        ruling on the propriety of an amendment to a supplemental 
        appropriation bill that, ``If the amendment is germane to any 
        part of the bill, it is germane at the point at which it has 
        been offered.'' See Sec. 15.3, infra. The Chairman probably 
        intended his remarks to have reference only to the particular 
        context in which he made his ruling.
 2. See Sec. 19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule of germaneness applies to the relationship between a pro

[[Page 7390]]

posed amendment and the pending bill to which offered and not to the 
relation between such amendment and an existing title of the United 
States Code which the pending bill seeks to amend.(3) At the 
same time, whether an amendment affecting existing law is germane may 
depend upon the extent to which it proposes to change such law, and in 
some instances upon whether the bill under consideration so vitally 
affects the whole law as to bring the entire act under 
consideration.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 18.7, infra.
 4. See Sec. 35, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a perfecting amendment to text is offered pending a vote on a 
motion to strike out the same text, the perfecting amendment must be 
germane to the text to which offered, not to the motion to strike 
out.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 18.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair considers 
the relationship of the amendment to the bill as it may have been 
modified by the Committee of the Whole at the time the amendment is 
offered.(6) Thus, where matter has been stricken from a 
bill, an amendment that might have been germane to such matter may be 
ruled out as not germane to the bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 12.10, 19.14, 35.8, and 35.49, infra.
 7. See Sec. 35.32, infra. As to principles applicable where it is 
        sought to amend a Senate amendment which strikes portions of a 
        House bill, see Sec. 27.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment that might be considered germane if offered at the end 
of the reading of the bill for amendment may not be germane if offered 
during the reading, before all the provisions of the bill are before 
the Committee of the Whole for consideration.(8) Thus, on 
one occasion, during consideration of a bill relating to procurements 
by the Department of Defense, an amendment concerned with duties of the 
Comptroller General in connection with defense contracts was at first 
ruled out as not germane to the part of the bill to which offered, 
since at that point in the reading of the bill no reference had been 
made to any agency of government other than the Department of 
Defense.(9) Subsequently, however, when the scope of the 
bill had been broadened by additional paragraphs passed in the reading, 
a similar amendment was held to be in order.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 18.1, infra.
 9. See Sec. 18.1, infra.
10. See Sec. 18.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The title of a bill is not determinative on the question of whether 
a proposed amendment is germane to the bill.
    An amendment may be germane to more than one portion of a 
bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 2.2, infra.

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

[[Page 7391]]

    The general rule that an amendment must be germane to the portion 
of the bill to which offered is limited by the proposition that an 
amendment in the form of a new section or paragraph need not 
necessarily be germane to the section or paragraph immediately 
preceding it.(12) Each precedent should be examined 
separately to determine the structure of the bill to which the new 
section or paragraph is offered. See, for example, the proceedings of 
June 19, 1939, (13) where an amendment offered as a new 
section to a tax bill (to a title dealing with transfers of 
securities), was held not germane, since there was already a section 
dealing with the subject matter to which the amendment would have been 
germane (in a preceding title) and this section had been passed in 
reading for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2932, 2935.
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 7500, 7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment need only be germane to the pending portion of a bill 
as that portion has been perfected by prior amendment.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 2.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute must be 
germane to the portion of the substitute to which 
offered.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the proceedings of Dec. 14, 1973, relating to H.R. 11450 (the 
        Energy Emergency Act), as discussed in Sec. 41.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test of germaneness of a perfecting amendment to an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute for a bill is its relationship to that 
substitute, and not to the original bill.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 21.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment must be germane to the title of the bill to which 
offered.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See, for example, the proceedings of Sept. 19, 1986, relating to 
        H.R. 2482, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
        amendment of 1986, discussed in Sec. 4.76, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment adding a new title to a bill being read for amendment 
by titles must be germane to the titles considered up to that 
point.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.  See, for example, the proceedings of Oct. 18, 1979, relating to 
        H.R. 3000, the Department of Energy Authorization Act for 
        fiscal 1980 and 1981, discussed in Sec. 10.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test of germaneness of an amendment adding a new section at the 
end of a bill is its relationship to the entire bill as 
perfected.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See the proceedings of Aug. 2, 1978, relating to H.R. 12514, the 
        International Security Assistance Authorization for fiscal 
        1979, discussed in Sec. 19.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test of the germaneness of an amendment is its relationship to 
the pending text of the bill as

[[Page 7392]]

already amended in Committee of the Whole, and cannot be based upon the 
hypothetical adoption of other amendments not yet 
offered.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, for example, the proceedings of July 8, 1987, relating to H.R. 
        2342, the Coast Guard Authorization for fiscal 1988, discussed 
        in Sec. 4.46, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test of germaneness to a pending title of a bill is the 
relationship of the amendment and the law being amended therein to the 
law being amended by that title, and not to other portions of the bill 
not then pending for amendment.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See the proceedings of July 31, 1990, relating to H.R. 1180, the 
        Housing and Community Development Act, discussed in Sec. 4.58, 
        infra.

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

Amendment Germane to More Than One Portion of Bill

Sec. 2.1 To the last title of a general appropriations bill, containing 
    general provisions applying to funds carried throughout the bill, 
    an amendment limiting the use of funds by an agency funded in a 
    previous title of the bill was held germane.

    An amendment limiting the use of funds by a particular agency 
funded in a general appropriations bill may be germane if offered at 
more than one place in the bill; thus, the amendment may be offered 
when the paragraph carrying such funds is pending, or to any general 
provisions portion of the bill affecting that agency or all agencies 
funded by the bill. An illustration of this principle can be found in 
the proceedings of July 16, 1979,(2) during consideration of 
H.R. 4393, Treasury, Postal Service and General Government 
Appropriations for fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 18807, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: On page 39, after line 16, 
        add the following new section:

            Sec. 613. No part of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
        made available to the Internal Revenue Service by this Act 
        shall be paid to any person as a reward or bounty for 
        information concerning violations of the internal revenue laws.

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is out of order. We have 
    already passed that place in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, the amendment [is] only a limitation 
    of

[[Page 7393]]

    spending and adds a new section to the bill. I would maintain that 
    it is in order and it is germane to the bill as a whole.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order. The Chair feels that the amendment comes at an appropriate 
    point in the bill and is germane to the general provisions title 
    and the point of order is overruled.

Sec. 2.2 To a portion of a bill amending several miscellaneous laws on 
    a general subject, an amendment to another law relating to that 
    subject is germane; thus, to a title of an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute amending several diverse educational assistance 
    laws, an amendment affecting laws relating to federal impact school 
    assistance was held germane, even though that subject matter had 
    been contained in another title already passed in the reading for 
    amendment.

    On Mar. 27, 1974,(4) during consideration of a bill to 
amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
(5) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 8508, 8509, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H.R. 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

                     amendment of emergency school aid act

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

        Mr. [Robert J.] Huber [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7394]]

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

                          amendment to public law 874

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

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

        Mr. Perkins: I insist on the point of order. This is an impact 
    amendment and we have already passed that title.
        The Chairman: Is that the position of the gentleman from 
    Michigan?
        Mr. Ford: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I insist on the point of order. I 
    did not press the point of order before the gentleman had an 
    opportunity to explain what he was trying to do. I think his 
    motives are fine, but I disagree with the result it would have. I 
    wanted him to have an opportunity to do that; but clearly his 
    amendment comes too late, since we have already concluded title III 
    of the act which dealt with impact aid.
        The amendment the gentleman now offers is not a peripheral or 
    general amendment. It is a substantive amendment of the definition 
    of a child qualifying for impact aid under the basic act covered in 
    title III of this bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair holds that while an examination of the amendment 
    shows it would have been more appropriately offered to another 
    title of the bill, the Chair does observe that the title which is 
    under consideration is referred to as Miscellaneous Amendments and 
    it amends several other acts, the Emergency School Aid Act, the 
    Education of the Handicapped Act and others; so in view of these 
    circumstances, the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order.

Accompanying Report Not Relied on in Determining Germaneness

Sec. 2.3 In determining the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair 
    considers its relationship to the text to which offered and does 
    not rely on accompanying report language not contained in the 
    pending text.

    The proceedings of Oct. 6, 1978, relating to H.R. 13750, the Sugar 
Stabilization Act of 1978, are discussed in Sec. 4.73, infra.

Content of Bill, Not Title Headings, as Determinative

Sec. 2.4 The scope of a title of a bill is determined by the provisions 
    contained therein and not by the phraseology of the formal heading 
    of the

[[Page 7395]]

    title; thus, to a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce entitled ``Conversion from Oil or 
    Gas to other fuels,'' but referring only to industrial conversion 
    from oil or gas to coal, an amendment adding a new section 
    increasing the authorization of the Energy Research and Development 
    Administration to promote the practical application of fusion 
    energy (a matter within the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on 
    Atomic Energy and not within the scope of the title of the bill), 
    was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 18, 1975, (7) during consideration of the 
Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (8) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
sustained a point of order against an amendment to the pending title of 
the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 29333-35, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            title vi--conversion from oil or gas to other fuels

        Sec. 601. Extension of authority to issue orders.
        Sec. 602. Extension of enforcement authority. . . .
        Sec. 606. Incentives to open new underground mines producing 
    low sulfur coal. . . .
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: On page 338, after line 
        25, insert a new section.
            ``Sec. 607. An additional $100,000,000 is authorized for 
        the Energy Research and Development Administration for a high 
        priority program exclusively geared to the practical 
        application of fusion energy.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan reserves a point of 
    order.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington reserves a point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the 
    amendment comes to the wrong bill and to the wrong committee. The 
    authorization for nuclear research should come to the Joint 
    Committee on Atomic Energy and the Energy Research and Development 
    Administration. . . .
        I make my point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the ground that this 
    amendment is out of order because the jurisdiction falls 
    exclusively with the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and the 
    Energy Research and Development Administration.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) also 
    reserved a point of order against the amendment.

[[Page 7396]]

        Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point of order?
        Mr. Dingell: . . . I would like to commend my good friend, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for offering what I think is a 
    very well written amendment. Unfortunately, no hearings have been 
    held on it, and it has not been considered.
        I would point out to the body that the germaneness rule 
    requires that the character of the amendment be such that the 
    membership would have reasonably been apprised that amendments of 
    that sort might be placed before the body. Unfortunately, the 
    character of the amendment is such that it provides certain 
    authorities for ERDA, the Energy Research and Development Agency.
        Unfortunately, I do not think there is any way that anyone here 
    could have anticipated amendments dealing with adding authorities 
    or changing authorities within ERDA. . . .
        Mr. Gonzalez: . . . In arguing the point of germaneness, I will 
    address myself first to the remarks of the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. McCormack). . . .
        If we are going to debate on a point of order the merits of the 
    amendment, it is contrary to the clear indication in Deschler's 
    Procedure, one of which decisions I quoted yesterday, on page 73, 
    which says that one does not look to the material content of the 
    general purposes of the bill to determine the specificity--there is 
    a good Watergate word--the specificity of the pending amendment.
        The gentleman says, ``This is the wrong church, the wrong pew. 
    It ought to go over here into another bill.''. . .
        Facetiously, let me say that we can make that comment about the 
    last 6 months and say that this bill before the committee has been 
    in the wrong committee and in the wrong place for the last 6 
    months.
        Let me say, however, that in Deschler's Procedure, both cases 
    that I cited yesterday in the Record clearly control the situation 
    here.
        I cannot think of anything more germane than this amendment to 
    the section of the bill that is talking about research and 
    development. It is actually authorizing moneys for that purpose. . 
    . .
        As to the point of the second gentleman, the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell), his contention again comes repetitiously as 
    yesterday. He talks about the sanctity of committee jurisdiction. 
    Deschler's Procedure and particularly that citation I quoted 
    yesterday clearly says that that shall not be a governing factor in 
    determining whether or not an amendment is germane to a pending 
    bill. The jurisdiction of a committee is not the controlling factor 
    with respect to germaneness. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.

        The title of title VI is exceptionally broad, in the opinion of 
    the Chair.
        If the content of title VI were as broad as the title, the 
    Chair believes that the arguments of the eloquent gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) might bear more weight. But it is the content 
    of the pending title and not its heading against which the 
    germaneness of the amendment must be weighed.
        The Chair has had the opportunity to examine with some care all 
    of title

[[Page 7397]]

    VI and also language on pages 17 and 18 of the committee report 
    which deals with title VI. The Chair will not read from those words 
    except to say that the Chair only refers to those words in that 
    they support his view that title VI actually deals with the 
    conversion from oil or gas to coal and thus the scope of the title 
    is quite narrow. The amendment therefore does not fit the rule of 
    germaneness despite the eloquence of the gentleman from Texas and 
    the Chair feels compelled to rule that the amendment is not germane 
    to title VI and therefore sustains the various points of order.

Sec. 2.5 While the heading of a title of a bill as ``miscellaneous'' 
    does not necessarily permit amendments to that title which are not 
    germane thereto, the inclusion of sufficiently diverse provisions 
    in such title may permit further amendment which in effect need 
    only be germane to the bill as a whole.

    Where the final title of a foreign aid bill, as perfected, 
contained a variety of unrelated provisions such as effective dates for 
all the provisions of the bill, requirements that authority to make 
payments in the bill be subject to advance appropriations, delay of the 
submission date for a report on foreign service personnel, provisions 
relating to human rights reports, imposition of language requirements 
for personnel in the foreign service, and prohibition of foreign aid to 
certain countries, an amendment limiting the expenditure of funds 
authorized in each title of the bill to a certain percentage was held 
to be germane. Amendments offered on Apr. 10, 1979,(9) to 
Title VI of the bill H.R. 3324,(10) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 125 Cong. Rec. 8032, 8034-37, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. The International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

                              effective dates

        Sec. 601. The amendments made by titles I, II, III, and V and 
    the provisions of title IV shall take effect on October 1, 1979.
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a technical amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 46, immediately 
        after line 9, insert the following new section:

                            unified personnel system

            Sec. 602. Section 401(a) of the International Development 
        and Food Assistance Act of 1978 is amended by striking out 
        ``March 15'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``May 1''.
            (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective 
        as of March 15, 1979. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 46, immediately 
        after section 601, insert the following new section:

[[Page 7398]]

                            budget act requirements

            Sec. 603. (a) The authority to make payments which is 
        provided in sections 405(a), 406(a), 406(c), 407(e), 408(d), 
        and 412 of this Act shall be effective only to the extent that 
        the budget authority to make such payments is provided for in 
        advance by appropriation Acts.
            (b) Appropriations may not be made for the fiscal year 1979 
        under the authority of section 501(d). . . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: 
        Page 46, after section 604, insert the following:

                foreign language and area knowledge requirement

            Sec. 605. The heads of affected departments and agencies, 
        in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall review every 
        personnel position in the U.S. Government involving service in 
        foreign countries which are authorized by this Act, the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961, the Agricultural Trade Development and 
        Assistance Act of 1954, the Peace Corps Act, or the Arms Export 
        Control Act, whose incumbent should have a useful knowledge of 
        the language or dialect and the history and culture common to 
        such country. Each position reviewed and designated as 
        requiring language competence and area knowledge shall, within 
        two years after enactment of this Act, be filled only by an 
        individual with appropriate language and area knowledge. . . .

        [The Zablocki and Panetta amendments were adopted.]
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 46, immediately 
        after line 9, insert the following new section:

            PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO VIETNAM, CAMBODIA, AND CUBA

            Sec. 602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
        this Act, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated in 
        this Act shall be used for any form of aid or trade, either by 
        monetary payment or by the sale or transfer of any goods of any 
        nature, directly or indirectly, to the Socialist Republic of 
        Vietnam, Cambodia, or Cuba. . . .

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a 
    substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 46, immediately after 
        line 9, insert the following new section:

            prohibition on assistance to vietnam, cambodia, and cuba

            Sec. 606. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
        this Act, funds authorized to be appropriated in this Act shall 
        not be used for any form of aid, either by monetary payment or 
        by the sale or transfer of any goods of any nature to the 
        Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Cambodia, or Cuba.

        [The Zablocki substitute was adopted, and the Ashbrook 
    amendment adopted as amended.]
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 46, line 7 after 
        Sec. 601 insert (a) and add the following new paragraph:

[[Page 7399]]

            ``(b) Provided, That, No more than 90 percent of the funds 
        authorized to be appropriated by each title of this act shall 
        be expended, excluding those funds authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 111, all of title II and section 302.''

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin listened to the 
    Clerk read the amendment, and I read the amendment, it appears that 
    the amendment provides a limitation on authorization of funds in 
    section 111, all of title II, and section 302.
        I believe the gentleman's amendment, therefore, is not in order 
    and is subject to a point of order since he is authorizing to be 
    appropriated by each title no more than 90 percent of the funds.
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: I do, Mr. Chairman, but I am not quite sure on what 
    grounds the gentleman from Wisconsin made a point of order.
        He simply described the amendment. The amendment is germane to 
    title VI. Title VI clearly refers to the effective dates of all 
    titles, and this amendment simply has the effect, with three 
    exceptions, of cutting by 10 percent the amount of the funds made 
    effective on those dates.
        Mr. Chairman, it is a simple cut in funding. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland provides a 
    percentage limitation on funds authorized to be appropriated by the 
    bill now pending, with the exception of certain specified sections 
    of authorized funds. Title VI of the bill, entitled ``Miscellaneous 
    Provisions'' has by amendment already been substantially expanded 
    in its scope, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Maryland need be germane only to the title as a whole, since the 
    bill is being read by title.
        Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair, and the ruling of 
    the Chair, that the amendment is germane to title VI, and the point 
    of order is overruled.

Where Bill Is Open to Amendment at Any Point

Sec. 2.6 The test of the germaneness of an amendment is its 
    relationship to the pending portion of a bill to which offered, and 
    where a bill is by unanimous consent considered as read and open to 
    amendment at any point, the germaneness of an amendment thereto is 
    determined by its relationship to the entire bill rather than to 
    the particular section to which offered.

    A proposition amending the Postal Reorganization Act in several 
diverse respects, considered as read and open to amendment at any point 
by unanimous consent, was considered sufficiently

[[Page 7400]]

comprehensive in scope to admit as germane an amendment to another 
subsection of that Act to render the entire Postal Service operation 
subject to the annual appropriation process, although the section of 
the proposition to which offered contained an annual authorization only 
for a limited (public service) aspect of the Postal Service operation. 
The proceedings of Sept. 29, 1975,(12) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 30761, 30764, 30767, 30768, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) . . . Pursuant to the rule, the 
    Clerk will now read the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute printed in the reported bill as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Postal Reorganization Act Amendments 
        of 1975''.
            Sec. 2. Section 2401(b) of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``(b)(1) There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, and 
        for each of the fiscal years ending September 30, 1977, 1978, 
        and 1979, an amount equal to $35 multiplied by the number of 
        delivery addresses estimated by the Postal Service to be served 
        during the fiscal year involved. There is authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Postal Service for the period commencing 
        July 1, 1976, and ending September 30, 1976, an amount equal to 
        one-fourth the amount authorized under this subsection for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1976. . . .

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute be considered as read, printed in the 
    Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Page 12, strike out 
        line 20 and all that follows through page 13, line 6, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 2. (a)(1) Section 2401(a) of title 39, United States 
        Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(a)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, such 
        sums as may be necessary to enable the Postal Service to carry 
        out the purposes, functions, and powers authorized by this 
        title. . . .
            (b) Section 2401(b) of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``(b)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service such sums as may be necessary as reimbursement 
        to the Postal Service for public service costs incurred by it 
        in providing a maximum degree of effective and regular postal 
        service nationwide, in communities where post offices may not 
        be deemed self-sustaining, as elsewhere. . . .

[[Page 7401]]

        Mr. Hanley: Mr. Chairman, I raise (a) point of order on the 
    grounds that the matter contained in the amendment is in violation 
    of clause 7, rule XVI of the rules of the House, which provides in 
    part that--

            No motion or proposition on a subject different from that 
        under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

        The bill under consideration, H.R. 8603, is narrow in scope 
    since it relates only to the following specific subject matters.
        First, it provides authorization for increased public service 
    appropriations by changing the statutory formula currently in 
    existence.
        Second, it would limit the amount of the next temporary rate 
    increase and would establish new procedures and limitations for the 
    implementation of other future temporary postal rates.
        Third, it would amend the law with respect to the Postal Rate 
    Commission by changing its procedures to expedite rate and 
    classification cases; by subjecting the Commissioners to Senate 
    confirmation; and by expanding the powers of the Chairman in 
    administering the Commission. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) has made a point of 
    order to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander) to section 2 of the bill. The gentleman's point of order 
    relates, in the Chair's judgment, primarily to the germaneness 
    based upon the scope of the gentleman's amendment and as it relates 
    to the scope of the bill, which bill is open to amendment at any 
    point.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander) actually amends section 2(a) of the bill, although 
    section 2(a) of the Postal Act is not amended in the bill before 
    the Committee here this afternoon.
        The Chair notes, however, as conceded by the chairman of the 
    subcommittee, there are several enumerated purposes which touch 
    upon many different ramifications and aspects of the postal law. 
    These purposes are diverse in nature.
        Since all of the bill is before the Committee at this point, 
    the Chair, reluctantly, comes to the conclusion that the position 
    of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) in his point of order 
    is not well founded and, therefore, the Chair must overrule the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from New York.

Sec. 2.7 Where a bill is by unanimous consent being considered as read 
    and open to amendment at any point, the germaneness of an amendment 
    to a portion of that bill may be judged by its relationship to the 
    bill as a whole rather than merely to the section of the bill to 
    which offered; thus, to a bill open to amendment at any point 
    containing protections of the rights of mentally ill 
    institutionalized persons and also a separate title promoting 
    support groups for persons suffering a certain memory disorder (Alz

[[Page 7402]]

    heimer's disease) whether or not institutionalized, an amendment 
    expanding the bill's protections to include non-institutionalized 
    mentally ill persons who are in need of such institutionalization 
    was held germane to the bill as a whole, since the bill already 
    covered some persons who were not confined.

    On Jan. 30, 1986,(14) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 4055, relating to protection of and advocacy 
for mentally ill persons. Pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement, 
the bill was being considered as read and open to amendment at any 
point. The bill stated in part: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 132 Cong. Rec. 1045-52, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Id. at p. 1045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (4) The term ``neglect'' means a negligent act or omission by 
    any person responsible for providing services in a hospital nursing 
    home, board and care home, or community facility for mentally ill 
    individuals which caused or may have caused injury to a mentally 
    ill individual or which placed a mentally ill individual at risk of 
    injury, and includes the failure--
        (A) to establish or carry out an appropriate individual program 
    plan or treatment or discharge plan for a mentally ill individual,
        (B) to provide adequate nutrition, clothing, or health care for 
    a mentally ill individual. . . .

    An amendment was offered, as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 1051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stewart B.] McKinney [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McKinney: Page 4, strike out lines 
        10 through 12 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(A)(i) in the case of individuals who need to be placed 
        in inpatient mental health facilities, to place such 
        individuals in optimum therapeutic settings and to provide 
        mental health treatment and related support services 
        appropriate to such individuals level of functioning.
            ``(ii) in the case of residents of public inpatient mental 
        health facilities who have been inappropriately placed in such 
        facilities, to discharge such residents, and, to the extent 
        appropriate, to place them in optimum therapeutic setting and 
        to provide mental health treatment and related support services 
        appropriate to such individuals' level of functioning.
            ``(iii) in the case of individuals who are discharged from, 
        or are in need of placement in, inpatient mental health 
        facilities, to inform them of available community-based 
        facilities and programs providing mental health treatment and 
        related support services and to provide them access to a 
        sufficient number of adequately staffed and adequately funded 
        community-based facilities and programs providing mental health 
        and related support services, and
            ``(iv) to otherwise establish or carry out an appropriate 
        individual program plan or treatment or discharge plan for a 
        mentally ill individual,
            Page 4, insert after line 21 the following:
            For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A), 
        the term ``opti

[[Page 7403]]

        mum therapeutic setting'' means the environment that is least 
        restrictive of an individual's personal liberty and where the 
        care, treatment, habilitation, or rehabilitation is 
        particularly suited to the level of services necessary to 
        properly implement an individual's treatment, habilitation, and 
        rehabilitation. The optimum therapeutic setting for an 
        individual may be a licensed and properly operated State 
        hospital or other public residential care facility.

    A point of order was made against the amendment on the grounds that 
it sought to broaden the coverage of the bill to include a class of 
persons not within the scope of the proposition sought to be amended. 
The Chair,(17) however, overruled the point of order, 
stating that the bill as a whole was broad enough to encompass the 
class of persons that was the subject of the amendment. Title II of the 
bill stated in part: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
18. 132 Cong. Rec. 1047, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      TITLE II--FAMILY SUPPORT GROUPS
    sec. 201. alzheimer's disease.

        (a) Family Support Groups.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
    Services (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
    ``Secretary''), acting through the National Institute of Mental 
    Health, the National Institutes on Health, the National Institute 
    on Aging, and the Administration on Aging, shall promote the 
    establishment of family support groups to provide, without charge, 
    educational, emotional, and practical support to assist individuals 
    with Alzheimer's disease or a related memory disorder and members 
    of the families of such individuals. Such groups shall be 
    established in university medical centers and in other appropriate 
    health care facilities which receive Federal funds from the 
    Secretary and which conduct research on Alzheimer's disease or 
    provide services to individuals with such disease.

    The point of order, made by Mr. William E. Dannemeyer, of 
California, and the ensuing discussion and ruling thereon, were as 
follows: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 1051, 1052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, the bill in the form before us 
    deals with people in mental health facilities in the States of the 
    Union, people who are already there. This amendment, offered by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. McKinney], deals with people who 
    are not in mental health facilities but people who may be eligible 
    to be there, a completely different subject. The discussion of 
    whether or not somebody should be in a mental health facility is a 
    subject and an issue that is separate and distinct from the status 
    and the custody and the care of those who are already located in a 
    mental health facility. It is on that distinction that I think the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut is subject to a point 
    of order which should be sustained. . . .
        Mr. McKinney: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the point of order, I 
    would suggest that in fact my amendment

[[Page 7404]]

    simply changes some language in the existing bill and that I very 
    appropriately state that optimum therapeutic care is as important 
    for the person on the sidewalk as it is for the person in the 
    institution. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair, in reviewing the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Connecticut [Mr. McKinney], would observe that, basically, the 
    gentleman's effort is to broaden the definition of ``neglect'' and 
    to make that somewhat more elaborate.
        It still pertains to persons needing inpatient mental health 
    facilities, in any event.
        So the Chair would have to conclude that the amendment only 
    covers a class already covered by the bill as a whole and that the 
    amendment is germane.

New Title Germane to Bill as a Whole Though Subject is Within Another 
    Committee's Jurisdiction

Sec. 2.8 While ordinarily an amendment waiving provisions of law within 
    another committee's jurisdiction is not germane to a bill reported 
    by a different committee, where the bill as amended already 
    contains diverse provisions relating to the subject of the 
    amendment, a waiver of other provisions of law on that subject may 
    be germane; thus, to a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture relating to registration of pesticides but also 
    including provisions on liability under other federal law and on 
    judicial review of regulations and pesticide use, an amendment in 
    the form of a new title included in a motion to recommit waiving 
    any other law otherwise requiring payment of attorneys' fees for 
    civil actions brought under the law being amended was held germane 
    to the bill as a whole, committee jurisdiction no longer being the 
    exclusive test of germaneness since the bill as a whole and as 
    amended contained matters within another committee's jurisdiction.

    On Sept. 19, 1986,(20) during consideration of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (1) in 
the House, Speaker Pro Tempore Steny A. Hoyer, of Maryland, overruled a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 132 Cong. Rec. 24741, 24742, 24746, 24747, 24769, 99th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
 1. H.R. 2482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    sec. 811. review of regulations.

[[Page 7405]]

        Section 16 (7 U.S.C. 136n) is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following:
        ``(e) Review of Regulations.--
        ``(1)(A) Any regulation issued under this Act and first 
    published in the Federal Register in final form after the effective 
    date of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
    Amendments of 1986 shall be reviewable only as provided by this 
    subsection. Any person may obtain judicial review of the regulation 
    by filing a petition for review in the United States court of 
    appeals for the circuit wherein the person resides or has its 
    principal place of business or in the United States Court of 
    Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Any petition under 
    this paragraph for review of a regulation shall be filed within 120 
    days after the date of promulgation of the regulation as designated 
    by the Administrator in the Federal Register.''. . .
    sec. 821. liability.

        (a) Pesticide Use.--An agricultural producer shall not be 
    liable in any action brought after the effective date of this Act 
    under any Federal statute for damages caused by pesticide use 
    unless the producer has acted negligently, recklessly, or 
    intentionally. Proof that the agricultural producer used the 
    pesticide in a manner consistent with label instructions shall 
    create a rebuttable presumption that the agricultural producer did 
    not act negligently. . . .

    An amendment was offered as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bedell as a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Roberts: Section 821(a) of the text of 
    H.R. 5440 (the Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
    2482), is amended (page 138, lines 2 through 10) to read as 
    follows:
        sec. 821. liability for lawful application.

            (a) Pesticide Use and No Private Right of Action.--(1) 
        Liability under Federal environmental statutes for the costs of 
        response or damage incurred with respect to a release or 
        threatened release into the environment of a pesticide shall, 
        in any case where the application was in compliance with label 
        instructions and other applicable law, be imposed on the 
        registrant or other responsible parties, not the agricultural 
        producer, unless the producer has acted negligently, 
        recklessly, or with the intent to misuse such pesticide. There 
        shall be a rebuttable presumption that the application was in 
        compliance with label instructions and otherwise lawful. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. 
    Bedell as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Roberts.
        The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. . . .

        Mr. [Ron] Marlenee [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Clerk will report the motion 
    to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7406]]

            Mr. Marlenee moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2482 (as 
        amended by H.R. 5440) to the Committee on Agriculture with the 
        instructions that it adopt the following amendment and 
        forthwith report it back to the House:
            Amendment to the text of H.R. 5440 (the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute to H.R. 2482), after page 163, line 21, 
        insert the following new title:

                     TITLE XII--LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS

                       fees and expenses in civil actions

            Sec. 1201. The Act is amended by inserting the following 
        new section after section 31:
            ``Sec. 32. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
        attorneys fees or expenses shall be awarded for any civil 
        action brought under section 3(a) of this Act for failure to 
        meet deadlines.''. . .

        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order on the motion to recommit that the motion is not germane 
    under clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Marlenee: . . . Mr. Speaker, my amendment, I submit, is 
    germane for the following reasons:
        The title of the bill is for ``other purposes'' than amending 
    FIFRA.
        Other examples of enactments amended by this bill or by the 
    underlying FIFRA Act are the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act.
        The bill authorizes a program and funding for the pesticide 
    program. It also adds a new program, reregistration, new section 
    3(a) of FIFRA. Both this 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 H.R. 5440) and some will come from 
    appropriated funds.
        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 
    that germaneness.
        The bill (title VIII) is rife with references to courts and 
    court review. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] makes a point of order 
    that the amendment proposed by the instructions in the motion to 
    recommit offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Marlenee] is 
    not germane. Volume III, section 2709 of Cannon's Precedents 
    indicates that it is not in order to include in a motion to 
    recommit instructions to insert an amendment not germane to the 
    section of the bill to which offered. While an earlier version of 
    this amendment was held not germane when offered as an amendment to 
    title I of the bill being read title by title, this amendment 
    proposes to add a new title at the end of the bill limiting the 
    award of attorneys' fees in certain civil actions brought under 
    section 16 of the FIFRA law. The test of germaneness is now 
    properly measured against the bill taken as a whole. The Chair 
    notes that section 202 of the bill deals with civil actions against 
    the United States for just compensation, and that the bill 
    extensively amends other sections of the FIFRA law in titles VIII 
    and IX. In the opinion of the Chair, since the bill already deals 
    with issues relating to adminis

[[Page 7407]]

    trative procedure and judicial review of actions taken under this 
    act, the amendment is germane to the bill as a whole, and the point 
    of order is overruled.

Amendment Adding New Section at End Required To Be Germane to Perfected 
    Bill as a Whole

Sec. 2.9 The test of germaneness of an amendment adding a new section 
    at the end of a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole, as 
    perfected by the Committee of the Whole.

    On Aug. 1, 1979,(2) during consideration of the 
Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979 (3) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, ruled 
that to a bill authorizing the imposition of rationing plans by the 
President to conserve energy, providing mechanisms to avoid energy 
marketing disruptions, and broadened by amendment to provide for 
monitoring of middle distillates and supplies of diesel oil, an 
amendment adding a new section to require a set-aside program to 
provide middle distillates for agricultural production was germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 21964-68, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. S. 1030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas J.] Tauke [of Iowa]: Page 50, 
    after line 2, insert the following new section:

             monitoring of middle distillate supply and demand

        Sec. 4. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall establish and 
    maintain a data collection program for monitoring, at the refining, 
    wholesale, and retail levels, the supply and demand levels of 
    middle distillates on a monthly basis in each State.
        (b) The program to be established under subsection (a) shall 
    provide for--
        (1) the prompt collection of relevant demand and supply data 
    under the authority available to the Secretary of Energy under 
    other provisions of law;
        (2) making such data available to the Congress, as well as to 
    appropriate State agencies and the public in accordance with 
    otherwise applicable law, beginning on the 5th day after the close 
    of the month to which it pertains, together with projections of 
    supply and demand levels for the then current month; and
        (3) the review and adjustment of such data and projections not 
    later than the 15th day after the initial availability of such data 
    and projections under paragraph (2).
        (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``middle 
    distillate'' has the same meaning as given that term in section 
    211.51 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on 
    the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 7408]]

        (d) The program established under this section shall not 
    prescribe, or have the effect of prescribing, margin controls or 
    trigger prices for purposes of the reimposition of price 
    requirements under section 12(f) of the Emergency Petroleum 
    Allocation Act of 1973.
        Redesignate the following sections accordingly.

    After some debate, Mr. Tauke made a request, as follows, and the 
amendment was agreed to, as modified: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 21966, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tauke: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
    amendment as follows:

            On line 16 strike ``5th'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``10th''.

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Iowa?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk will report the modification to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On line 16 strike ``5th'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``10th''.

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Tauke), as modified.
        The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

    Thereafter, Mr. Tauke offered the following amendment: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 21967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Tauke: Page 50, after line 2, insert 
    the following new section:

       national middle distillate set-aside program for agricultural 
                                 production

        Sec. 4. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, the President shall establish and maintain a 
    national set-aside program to provide middle distillates for 
    agricultural production.
        (b) The program established under subsection (a) shall--
        (1) be made effective only if the President finds that a 
    shortage of middle distillates exists within the various regions of 
    the United States generally, or within any specific region of the 
    United States, and that shortage--
        (A) has impaired or is likely to impair agricultural 
    production; and
        (B) has not been, or is not likely to be, alleviated by any 
    State set-aside program or programs covering areas within that 
    region;
        (2) provide that, in regions in which such program is 
    effective, prime suppliers of such fuel be required to set aside 
    each month 1 percent of the amount of the middle distillates to be 
    supplied during that month in that area;
        (3) provide that amounts of fuel set aside under such program 
    be directed to be supplied by such prime suppliers to applicants 
    who the President determines would not otherwise have adequate 
    supplies to meet requirements for agricultural production;
        (4) provide that such prime suppliers may meet such 
    responsibilities for supplying fuel either directly or through 
    wholesale purchasers who resell fuel, but only in accordance with 
    the requirements established under such program; and

[[Page 7409]]

        (5) shall not supersede any State set-aside program for middle 
    distillates established under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
    Act of 1973.
        (c) For purposes of this section--
        (1) The term ``agricultural production'' has the meaning given 
    it in section 211.51 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
    in effect on the date of the enactment of this section, and 
    includes the transportation of agricultural products.
        (2) The term ``prime supplier'', when used with respect to any 
    middle distillate, means the supplier, or producer, which makes the 
    first sale of the middle distillate into any region for consumption 
    in that region.
        (3) The term ``middle distillate'' has the same meaning as 
    given that term in such section 211.51.
        (4) The term ``region'' means any PAD district as such term is 
    defined in such section 211.51. Redesignate the following sections 
    accordingly.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a conservation 
    bill. It deals with conservation of petroleum and petroleum 
    products and energy. It deals also with rationing.
        Mr. Chairman, if the Chairman will observe the amendment before 
    him, he will notice it creates a national middle distillate set-
    aside program for agricultural production. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is 
    quite possible this is a highly desirable thing but that is not the 
    question before the Chair. The question before the Chair is: Does 
    this bill deal with the set-aside of middle distillates or set-
    asides of other petroleum products?
        The answer to that question is a resounding no. The 
    legislation, S. 1030 before us, contains nothing relating to set-
    aside of petroleum products or matters relating to set-aside of 
    petroleum products.
        The members of the committee could not have reasonably expected 
    set-aside amendments to be laid before them on the basis of the 
    legislation which lies before us; so the purposes of the bill and 
    the purposes of the amendment are quite different and distinct. I 
    would, therefore, urge on the chair that this amendment is not 
    germane. I would further state that the proposal goes on to deal 
    with a number of set-aside matters which are not included in the 
    proposal before us, but which are embodied in other statutes, such 
    as the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act. The legislation deals 
    with the term ``agricultural production'' as defined in section 
    211.51 of title X, which is not under the jurisdiction of the 
    Commerce Committee.
        The proposal deals with and defines the term prime supplier of 
    middle distillate and the term defines a number of other matters 
    which are not found in the legislation here.
        As a matter of fact, it would convert the legislation before us 
    from essentially a conservation program to an allocation program, 
    something which would not be the intention of the committee, as 
    opposed to a rationing program which was. . . .
        Mr. Tauke: . . . Mr. Chairman, in this particular measure that 
    we are

[[Page 7410]]

    considering, we have taken great pains during the past several 
    hours to provide specific consideration for certain businesses that 
    are part of our economy. We considered, for example, nursing homes 
    and health institutions. We have considered with the last amendment 
    of the gentleman from Michigan a whole host of other special 
    businesses in this country. This is a special consideration for the 
    agricultural industry.
        In addition, I think it is appropriate to note that in this 
    measure that the bill has been dealing with the allocation of fuels 
    when supplies are scarce. That is what is the exact purpose of this 
    amendment is, to deal with the allocation of fuels at a time when 
    supplies are scarce.
        So in view of both of those items, it occurs to me that it is 
    appropriate that this amendment be considered a part of this 
    measure. . . .
        Mr. [Charles] Pashayan [Jr., of California]: The point of 
    order, I believe, has something to do with the substance of the 
    amendment as it relates to the bill. The point I am making is that 
    although this is dealing with the set aside, that is only the form. 
    The substance, in fact, relates to the bill, because it is the only 
    way agriculture can be protected under the bill; whereas other 
    businesses do not need set asides and that is the only way we can 
    protect agriculture, so I do think it relates to the substance of 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, this bill 
    before us deals with EPCA in the rationing section and adds a 
    section on conservation.
        Now, EPCA stands for the Emergency Energy Policy and 
    Conservation Act. It is in the conservation parts of this bill that 
    we have the Tauke amendment offered.

        The Department of Energy regulations, based on the Emergency 
    Energy Policy and Conservation Act, include those DOE regulations 
    based on that act, include set aside programs for energy 
    conservation or energy usage; so it seems to me that the amendment 
    of the gentleman from Iowa is clearly germane in that he is dealing 
    with set asides as a method of conservation, but from the 
    standpoint of concern about the agricultural community and whether 
    or not the agricultural community will have adequate energy to meet 
    its needs in the interests of the society. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard in favor of the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I just would like to point out briefly that this 
    is, unlike the other amendments we have had which deal with 
    hospitals, nursing homes and the whole other host of special 
    interests sought to be protected, those all sought to be protected 
    under conservation plans that might be put forward under this bill 
    and the limitation of Presidential powers to put forward such 
    plans.
        This amendment is quite different. It seeks to set up an 
    allocation plan specifically to set aside certain amounts of fuel 
    for agriculture.
        Therefore, it seems to me quite different from anything else in 
    this bill. It is unrelated and I believe it clearly is out of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . One other point that omitted my 
    attention until

[[Page 7411]]

    the staff drew it to my attention, and it is that the very 
    rationing part of this bill was added as an amendment to the basic 
    legislation in the subcommittee. Therefore, making the legislation 
    quite broad in its approach and for that reason of breadth and for 
    the reason that we accepted that rationing amendment or that 
    rationing portion as an amendment in the subcommittee, it seems to 
    me that the offering of the gentleman from Iowa is very appropriate 
    in the full House at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa and considered the point of order as to its germaneness 
    to the bill raised by the gentleman from Michigan.
        The [test of the germaneness of a new section is its 
    relationship] to the bill as read to this point and in that case we 
    have a bill at this point in which section 2 deals with rationing.
        Section 3 deals with conservation and market disruption, 
    specifically the purpose which the gentleman from Indiana pointed 
    out on page 24 which establishes mechanisms to alleviate 
    disruptions in gasoline and diesel oil markets; in addition to 
    which, a new section 4 has been agreed to by the committee which 
    provides for the monitoring of middle distillates and supply of 
    diesel oil.
        Therefore, the scope of the bill as read to this point is 
    significantly broadened and it is now considerably more diverse 
    than any one section thereof.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order and holds 
    that the amendment is germane.

Senate Amendment Adding New Section to House Bill Must Be Germane to 
    Bill as a Whole

Sec. 2.10 The test of the germaneness of that portion of a Senate 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adding a new section to a 
    House bill is the relationship of that section to the subject of 
    the House bill as a whole.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(6) during consideration of a 
conference report on H.R. 2166 (Tax Reduction Act of 1975), it was held 
that to a House bill containing several sections amending diverse 
portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and 
business tax credits, a part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
substitute which added a new section relating to tax credits for new 
home purchases and amending a portion of the law amended by the House 
bill was germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 8900, 8902, 8930, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)

        The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
    Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2166) to 
    amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a refund of 
    1974 individual income taxes,

[[Page 7412]]

    to increase the low income allowance and the percentage standard 
    deduction, to provide a credit for certain earned income, to 
    increase the investment credit and the surtax exemption, and for 
    other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
    agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as 
    follows:
        That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of 
    the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In 
    lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
    insert the following: . . .

           TITLE II--REDUCTIONS IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES . . .

        Sec. 208. Credit for purchase of new principal residence. . . .

    TITLE VI--TAXATION OF FOREIGN OIL AND GAS INCOME AND OTHER FOREIGN 
                                INCOME . . .

        Sec. 602. Taxation of earnings and profits of controlled 
    foreign corporations and their shareholders. . . .

                    TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

        Sec. 701. Certain unemployment compensation.
        Sec. 702. Special payment to recipients of benefits under 
    certain retirement and survivor benefit programs. . . .
    Sec. 208. Credit for Purchase of New Principal Residence

        (a) Allowance of Credit.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A 
    of chapter 1 (relating to credits allowed) is amended by 
    redesignating section 44 as section 45 and by inserting after 
    section 43 the following new section:
    ``Sec. 44. Purchase of New Principal Residence.

        ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual there is 
    allowed, as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for 
    the taxable year, an amount equal to 5 percent of the purchase 
    price of a new principal residence purchased or constructed by the 
    taxpayer. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the conference report on the ground it 
    contains matter which is in violation of provision 1, clause 7, of 
    rule XVI. The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is 
    that section of the report dealing with the tax credit on sales of 
    new homes. It appears in section 208 of the conference report, on 
    page 14, as reported by the Committee on Conference. . . .
        [A] careful scrutiny of the titles of the House bill, as it was 
    sent to the Senate, shows many types of tax measures, but nothing 
    relating to the sale of homes. This clearly is an addition of a 
    very divergent nature to the bill and deals with the nonbusiness 
    and nonpersonal type of credit. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak 
    against the point of order.
        Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad bill. It was a broadly based 
    bill when it left this House to go to the other body. It has many 
    diverse sections and many different kinds of tax treatments. It 
    does deal with tax credits. It did deal with tax credits when it 
    left the House, both for individuals and for corporations.

[[Page 7413]]

        Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this falls totally within the 
    purview of the bill as we passed it in the House and should be 
    considered germane to the bill.
        The Speaker: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) makes the point of 
    order against section 208 of the conference report on the bill H.R. 
    2166 on the ground that it would not have been germane to H.R. 2166 
    as passed by the House and is thus subject to the provisions of 
    clause 4, rule XXVIII.
        In passing upon any point of order against a portion of the 
    Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute which the conferees 
    have incorporated in their report, the Chair feels it is important 
    to initially characterize the bill H.R. 2166 in the form as passed 
    by the House. The House-passed bill contained four diverse titles, 
    and contained amendments to diverse portions of the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954. Title I of the House bill provided a refund 
    of 1974 individual income taxes. Title II provided for reductions, 
    including credits, in individual income taxes. Title III made 
    several changes in business taxes, and title IV further affected 
    business taxes by providing for the repeal of the percentage 
    depletion for oil and gas.
        The Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute contained 
    provisions comparable to all four titles in the House-passed bill, 
    and also contained a new title IV amending other portions of the 
    Internal Revenue Code, making further amendments to the code with 
    respect to tax changes affecting individuals and businesses, and a 
    new title VI and title VII, relating to taxation of foreign and 
    domestic oil and gas income and related income, and to the tax 
    deferment and reinvestment period extension, respectively. The 
    provision against which the gentleman makes the point of order was 
    contained in section 205 of title II of the Senate amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chair would call the attention of the House to the 
    precedent contained in Cannon's VIII, section 3042, wherein the 
    Committee of the Whole ruled that to a bill raising revenue by 
    several diverse methods of taxation . . . an amendment in the form 
    of a new section proposing an additional method of taxation--a tax 
    on the undistributed profits of corporations--was held germane. The 
    Chair would emphasize that the portion of the Senate amendment 
    included in the conference report against which the point of order 
    has been made was in the form of a new section to the House bill, 
    and was not an amendment to a specific section of the House bill. 
    As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 14.4, the 
    test of germaneness in such a situation is the relationship between 
    the new section or title and the subject matter of the bill as a 
    whole.
        The Chair would also point out that section 203 of the House 
    bill, on page 10, amends the same portion of the code which this 
    part of the conference report would amend.
        For these reasons, the Chair holds that section 208 of the 
    conference report is germane to the House-passed bill and overrules 
    the point of order.

Sec. 2.11 Where conferees report a conference substitute, in

[[Page 7414]]

    cluding provisions of the House bill and of the Senate amendment in 
    conference, the test of germaneness to be applied when a point of 
    order is raised under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, is the relationship of 
    the language derived from the Senate amendment to the House-passed 
    bill as a whole, and not to a portion of that bill.

    To a House bill containing several sections amending diverse 
portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide certain individual and 
business tax credits, a new section of a Senate amendment in the nature 
of a substitute contained in a conference report, which added a new 
section to the House bill and which dealt with earnings and profits of 
controlled foreign corporations and included limitations on the use of 
foreign tax credits from foreign oil-related income was held germane. 
The portion of the conference substitute in question on Mar. 26, 
1975,(8) was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 8909, 8915, 8933, 8934, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was the conference report on H.R. 2166, the Tax 
        Reduction Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        (a) Repeal of Minimum Distribution Exception to Requirement of 
    Current Taxation of Subpart F Income.--
        (1) Repeal of Minimum Distribution Provisions.--Section 963 
    (relating to receipt of minimum distributions by domestic 
    corporations) is hereby repealed.
        (2) Certain Distributions by Controlled Foreign Corporations to 
    Regulated Investment Companies Treated as Dividends.--Subsection 
    (b) of section 851 (relating to limitations on definition of 
    regulated investment company) is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following new sentence:
    ``For purposes of paragraph (2), there shall be treated as 
    dividends amounts included in gross income under section 
    951(a)(1)(A)(i) for the taxable year to the extent that, under 
    section 959(a)(1), there is a distribution out of the earnings and 
    profits of the taxable year which are attributable to the amounts 
    so included.''. . .

    The pertinent part of the statement of the managers was as follows:

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

        House bill.--No provision.
        Senate amendment.--The Senate amendment repeals the foreign tax 
    credit on all foreign oil-related income and allows any taxes on 
    that income as a deduction. The amendment also provides that 
    foreign oil-related income is to be taxed at a 24-percent rate.

[[Page 7415]]

        Conference substitute.--The conference substitute modifies the 
    Senate amendment and applies a strict limitation on the use of 
    foreign tax credits from foreign oil extraction income and foreign 
    oil-related income. . . .
         Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the conference report on the ground that it 
    contains matter which is in violation of the provisions of clause 7 
    of rule XVI. The nongermane matter that I am specifically referring 
    to is that section of the report dealing with taxation of earnings 
    and profits of controlled foreign corporations and their 
    shareholders, in section 602 as reported by the committee of 
    conference. . . .
        As the Speaker well knows, I am sure, from listening carefully 
    to the explanations regarding previous points of order, at no point 
    during the consideration of the House-passed bill is there any 
    mention of foreign taxation and the dealings of foreign taxes 
    insofar as American corporations and their subsidiaries are 
    concerned.
        Title I of the 1975 tax bill dealt with the refund for 1974 
    taxes. Title II dealt with reductions in individual income taxes. 
    Title III dealt with certain changes in business taxes, the title 
    which dealt with the investment tax credit or income tax total, 
    particularly as related to small businesses.
        This particular provision, Mr. Speaker, in no way deals with a 
    matter that was covered, mentioned, or dealt with by the bill that 
    is presented to the House, or voted upon by the House. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Speaker, the bill that 
    the House passed had a great many diverse sections in it; it had 
    credits. The matter that has been raised is an amendment to the 
    Internal Revenue Code very clearly, and much of it is in the way of 
    a credit. We have dealt with credits here both for individuals and 
    for corporations in the bill that the House passed.
        It seems to me that in a bill of this scope and in a bill that 
    deals as broadly with tax credits and matters such as this that 
    does involve an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code, it is very 
    clearly within the province of the bill, and should be ruled 
    germane.
        The Speaker: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated in the opinion of the Chair on a similar 
    point of order made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) 
    and for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Oregon, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also Sec. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Germaneness of Amendment in Nature of Substitute Determined by 
    Relationship to Bill as a Whole

Sec. 2.12 The test of germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole 
    and is not necessarily determined by the content of an incidental 
    portion of the amendment which if offered separately, might not be 
    germane to the por

[[Page 7416]]

    tion of the bill to which offered.

    On July 8, 1975,(11) the Committee of the Whole, during 
proceedings relating to H.R. 49 (a bill concerned with national 
petroleum reserves on public lands), had under consideration amendments 
recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 
authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to establish national 
petroleum reserves on certain public lands and authorizing exploration 
for oil and gas on naval petroleum reserve number 4 with annual reports 
to Congress. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered 
which contained similar provisions and also required a task force study 
of the values and best uses for subsistence, scenic, historical, and 
recreational purposes, and for fish and wildlife, of the public lands 
in that naval petroleum reserve was held germane despite the inclusion 
of that incidental portion which, if considered separately, might not 
have been germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 21631-34, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Melcher: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
            That in order to develop petroleum reserves of the United 
        States which need to be regulated in a manner to meet the total 
        energy needs of the Nation, including but not limited to 
        national defense, the Secretary of the Interior, with the 
        approval of the President, is authorized to establish national 
        petroleum reserves on any reserved or unreserved public lands 
        of the United States (except lands in the National Park System, 
        the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
        System, the National Wilderness Preservation System, areas now 
        under review for inclusion in the Wilderness System in 
        accordance with provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and 
        lands in Alaska other than those in Naval Petroleum Reserve 
        Numbered 4). . . .
            (f) The Secretary of the Interior with the approval of the 
        President, is hereby authorized and directed to explore for oil 
        and gas on the area designated as Naval Petroleum Reserve 
        Numbered 4 if it is included in a National Petroleum Reserve 
        and he shall report annually to Congress on his plan for 
        exploration of such reserve, Provided, That no development 
        leading to production shall be undertaken unless authorized by 
        Congress. He is authorized and directed to undertake a study of 
        the feasibility of delivery systems with respect to oil and gas 
        which may be produced from such reserve: Provided further, That 
        the Secretary of the Interior shall, through a Task Force, 
        including representatives of the State of Alaska, the Arctic 
        Slope Regional Corporation, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 
        and the Office of National Petroleum Reserves established by 
        this Act, functioning cooperatively, study and review the 
        values and best uses of the public domain lands contained in 
        Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4 as subsistence lands for 
        natives, scenic,

[[Page 7417]]

        historical, recreational, fish and wildlife, wilderness or for 
        other purposes, and, within three years, submit to Congress his 
        recommendations for such designation of areas of those lands as 
        may be appropriate and, Provided further, that oil and gas 
        exploration within the Utukok River and Teheshepuk Lake areas 
        and others containing significant subsistence, recreational, 
        fish and wildlife, historical or scenic values, shall be 
        conducted in a manner so as to preserve such surface values.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order. . . .
        The bill, H.R. 49, authorizes as follows:

            To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish on 
        certain public lands of the United States national petroleum 
        reserves the development of which needs to be regulated in a 
        manner consistent with the total energy needs of the Nation, 
        and for other purposes.

        Mr. Chairman, if we refer to the bill in toto, nowhere will we 
    find in that bill language relating to subsection (f) of the 
    amendment submitted to us. I regret that I cannot give the Chair 
    the precise citation.
        I will state that the point of order goes to the section 
    relating to the words,

            Provided further, That the Secretary of the Interior shall, 
        through a Task Force, including representatives of the State of 
        Alaska, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the U.S. Fish 
        and Wildlife Service and the Office of National Petroleum 
        Reserves established by this Act, functioning cooperatively, 
        study and review the values and best uses of the public domain 
        lands contained in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4 as 
        subsistence lands for natives, scenic, historical, 
        recreational, fish and wildlife, wilderness or for other 
        purposes, and, within three years submit to Congress his 
        recommendations for such designation of areas of those lands as 
        may be appropriated. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, a fundamental rule of the House of 
    Representatives is that the burden of establishing the germaneness 
    of an amendment falls upon the offeror and does not fall upon the 
    Member challenging the germaneness. I would point out that nowhere 
    else in the bill is there a proviso for a provision for a study 
    involving groups, and nowhere in the title of the legislation is 
    there anything that would justify or authorize a study of the kind 
    that is set forth here in the amendment.
        As a matter of fact, nowhere in the amendment that was reported 
    by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to the House of 
    Representatives is there anything which would relate to a study. A 
    study of the kind that is before us is totally different and alien.
        The purpose of the legislation is to establish a program of 
    national strategic reserves and for the development of the 
    petroleum reserves and not for the establishment of a study. It is 
    not for the establishment of a study relating to fish and wildlife 
    values, historical values, and matters of that sort.
        So since the burden falls upon the offeror of the amendment, 
    the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Melcher), I would point out that he 
    has assumed for himself a burden which is impossibly heavy, and 
    that is to provide a study of such sweeping import relating to 
    totally different matters than those which are contained in the 
    bill.

[[Page 7418]]

        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, the point of order should be 
    sustained.
        Mr. Melcher: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Chairman, I think the point is covered in rule XVI at 
    section 798c where it says as follows:

            . . . the test of the germaneness of an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute for a bill is its relationship to the 
        bill as a whole, and is not necessarily determined by the 
        content of an incidental portion of the amendment which, if 
        considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction of 
        another committee.

        Mr. Chairman, I think that about settles the point.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Neal Smith (Io.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The proviso cited by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    is on page 8 of the mimeographed form of the Melcher amendment.
        Had this proviso been presented separately, the germaneness 
    would have been measured against the portion of the Interior 
    Committee amendment to which offered. However, having been 
    presented as a part of an overall substitute, the Chair would rule 
    that the provision objected to is merely incidental to the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment, and that under the precedent 
    cited by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Melcher), in section 
    798(b) of the Manual the amendment is germane to the text when 
    viewed as a whole.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Germaneness Determined by Form of Bill as Modified by Prior Amendment

Sec. 2.13 In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair 
    considers the relationship of the amendment to the bill as modified 
    by the Committee of the Whole.

    See, for example, the proceedings of Apr. 23, 1975, relating to 
H.R. 6096, the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act, 
discussed in Sec. 3.51, infra.

Germaneness Determined by Form of Bill at Time Amendment Offered

Sec. 2.14 The germaneness of an amendment is determined by its 
    relationship to the form of the bill at the time the amendment is 
    offered and is not affected by prior adoption of a special rule 
    permitting consideration of a nongermane committee amendment, where 
    the committee amendment has not yet been considered.

    The proceedings of Sept. 25, 1975, relating to H.R. 1287, a bill to 
amend the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 to halt the 
importation of Rhodesian chrome, are discussed in Sec. 31.23, infra.

[[Page 7419]]

Amendment to Amendment Must Be Germane Thereto

Sec. 2.15 The germaneness of an amendment to an amendment is determined 
    on the basis of the relationship between the two amendments.

    The proceedings of Oct. 2, 1975, relating to S. 2230, authorizing 
appropriations for the Board for International Broadcasting for 1976, 
and to Promote Improved Relations Between the United States, Greece and 
Turkey, are discussed in Sec. 8.23, infra.

Amendment Offered to Amendment in Nature of Substitute Must Be Germane 
    Thereto Rather Than to Bill

Sec. 2.16 The test of germaneness is the relationship between an 
    amendment and the amendment in the nature of a substitute to which 
    it is offered, and not between the amendment and the bill for which 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute has been offered.

    During proceedings relating to a bill (H.R. 8860) to amend and 
extend the Agricultural Act of 1970, the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration an amendment in the nature of a substitute amending 
several Acts within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. 
An amendment to such amendment directing the Secretary of Agriculture 
to establish emergency temporary work standards for agricultural 
workers exposed to pesticide chemicals notwithstanding the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act (a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Education and Labor), and repealing certain work 
regulations promulgated under that Act, was held to be not germane, 
despite inclusion of a similar provision in the bill to which the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute had been offered. The 
proceedings of July 19, 1973, (13) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 24962, 24963, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilmer] Mizell [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mizell to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Foley: On page 53, line 
        3, insert the following:
            Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding section 6(c) of the 
        Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 654(c)) 
        or any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture 
        shall provide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5, 
        title 5, United States Code, for an emergency temporary 
        standard prohibiting agricultural workers from entering areas 
        where crops are produced or grown

[[Page 7420]]

        (such emergency standard to take immediate effect upon 
        publication in the Federal Register) if he determines (1) that 
        such agricultural workers are exposed to grave danger from 
        exposure to pesticide chemicals, as defined in section 201(q) 
        of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(q)), 
        and (2) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect 
        such agricultural workers from such danger.
            (b) Such temporary standard shall be effective until 
        superseded by a standard prescribed by the Secretary of 
        Agriculture by rule, no later than six months after publication 
        of such temporary standard. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
    order against the amendment in that it is not germane because it 
    would have the effect of amending the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act which is under the jurisdiction of the Education and 
    Labor Committee. . . .
        [Mr. Mizell: Mr. Chairman, this language was in the committee 
    bill that was reported to the House, and the Foley substitute 
    eliminated this section of the bill, and so for that reason, I 
    offer the amendment at this time, and I think it is germane to the 
    bill since this bill does cover a number of subjects. . . .
        [Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, the rule 
    under which this legislation came to us precluded a point of order 
    being raised against the Mizell amendment, the one that was 
    contained in the original Agriculture Committee bill since this 
    bill was a clean bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture.
        What we are now dealing with is a situation in which this is an 
    amendment to a substitute.
        The subject matter covered by the amendment is clearly not 
    germane to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, since 
    it is covered by the Committee on Education and Labor, and thus I 
    believe the point of order ought to be sustained by the Chair. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair advises the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Mizell) that as far as the rule is concerned, it has no relevance 
    concerning the point of order at this time. It is true that the 
    content is the amendment as offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Mizell) on the original bill, but the amendment 
    before the House at this time is in the nature of a substitute.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that the point of order must be 
    sustained.

Substitute Must Be Germane to Amendment for Which Offered

Sec. 2.17 The test of the germaneness of a substitute amendment is its 
    relationship to the amendment for which offered and not its 
    relationship to the pending bill.

    On June 1, 1976,(15) during consideration of a bill 
(16) extending the Federal Energy Administra

[[Page 7421]]

tion Act, an amendment was offered which sought to change a provision 
of the bill relating to the date of termination of the Federal Energy 
Administration. A substitute for that amendment was then offered. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 16051, 16055, 16056, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. H.R. 12169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is in several parts. The first, Mr. Chairman, is that the 
    amendment must be germane to the Fithian amendment. I make the 
    point that it is not.
        Mr. Chairman, the Fithian amendment, if the Chair will note, 
    simply relates to the termination of the existence of the FEA as an 
    agency and sets a date for the expiration thereof.
        This amendment goes much further, and if the Chair will consult 
    the amendment, the Chair will find that it relates to the 
    compensation of executives, that it relates and fixes the levels at 
    which executives' salaries and compensation will be held. It deals 
    with the administration being able to employ and fix the 
    compensation of officers and employees and it limits the number of 
    positions which may be at different GS levels.
        It goes much further. It deals with section 527 of the Energy 
    Policy and Conservation Act, which is not referred to in the 
    Fithian amendment and, indeed, which is not referred to elsewhere 
    in the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, it deals with the fixing of the compensation of 
    Federal employees. It deals with the powers of the President, the 
    duties and powers of the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget functioning through and under the President. It deals with 
    the

[[Page 7422]]

    filing of the plans for the termination of the act with the Speaker 
    of the House of Representatives and it provides a plan to deal with 
    the orderly transfer of functions to the Federal Energy 
    Administration to such Departments and so forth.
        It goes further and effectively amends the Reorganization Act 
    by providing that the plan may be approved or disapproved by either 
    House of Congress in a fashion in conformity with the requirements 
    of the Reorganization Act. . . .
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: . . . This amendment simply deals 
    with the termination of the FEA after 15 months. The only 
    difference between my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Fithian) would be that it does indicate that the 
    President should through OMB present to the Congress a plan . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 2.18 The test of germaneness is the relationship between a 
    substitute and the amendment for which offered, and not between the 
    substitute and the original bill; accordingly, where an amendment 
    denied eligibility for certain higher education assistance benefits 
    to persons refusing to register for military service, a substitute 
    denying benefits under the same provisions of law except to persons 
    refusing to register for religious or moral reasons was held 
    germane.

    On July 28, 1982,(18) during consideration of H.R. 6030 
(military procurement authorization for fiscal 1983), Chairman Les 
AuCoin, of Oregon, held that to a proposition denying benefits to 
recipients failing to meet a certain qualification, a substitute 
denying the same benefits to some recipients but excepting others was 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 18355-58, 18361, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which is printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 26, after line 22, 
        add the following new section:

                 enforcement of military selective service act

            Sec. 1010. (a) Section 12 of the Military Selective Service 
        Act (50

[[Page 7423]]

        U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding after subsection (e) the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) The Director of the Selective Service System shall 
        submit to the Secretary of Education, with respect to each 
        individual receiving, or applying for, any grant, assisted 
        loan, benefit, or other assistance, under title IV of the 
        Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), or 
        participating in any program established, or assisted, under 
        such title, verification of whether such individual has 
        violated section 3 by not presenting and submitting to 
        registration pursuant to section 3. . . .
            ``(3) If the Secretary of Education preliminarily 
        determines that any individual described in paragraph (1) has 
        violated section 3, the Secretary of Education shall notify 
        such individual of the preliminary determination.
            ``(4) Any individual notified pursuant to paragraph (3) may 
        submit to the Secretary of Education within a period of time of 
        not less than 30 days after receiving such notification any 
        information with respect to the compliance or violation of 
        section 3 by such individual.
            ``(5) After the period of time specified in paragraph (4) 
        and taking into consideration any information submitted by the 
        individual, the Secretary of Education shall make a final 
        determination on whether each individual notified pursuant to 
        paragraph (3) has complied with or violated section 3.
            ``(6)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
        individual finally determined by the Secretary of Education 
        pursuant to paragraph (5) to have violated section 3 is not 
        eligible for, and may not receive, any grant, assisted loan, 
        benefit, or other assistance, under title IV of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), and may not 
        participate in any program established, or assisted, under such 
        title. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Simon as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: At the end of the bill add 
        the following new section:
            Sec. 1010. (a) Section 12 of the Military Selective Service 
        Act (50 U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding after subsection 
        (e) the following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) In order to receive any grant, loan, or work 
        assistance under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
        (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), a person who is required under 
        section 3 to present himself for and submit to registration 
        under such section shall--

            ``(A) submit to the institution of higher education which 
        the person intends to attend, or is attending, proof that such 
        person has submitted to such registration;
            ``(B) complete and submit the necessary forms for such 
        registration at the time of filing application for such grant, 
        loan, or work assistance; or
            ``(C) submit a statement that such person refuses to submit 
        to such registration for religious or moral reasons.
            ``(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the Director, 
        after consultation with the Secretary of Education, is 
        authorized to prescribe methods for providing to, and 
        collecting from, institutions of higher education the forms 
        necessary for registration under section 3, and for collecting 
        statements described in paragraph (1)(C) from such 
        institutions.''.
            (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) of this section 
        shall apply to loans, grants, or work assistance under title IV 
        of the Higher Edu

[[Page 7424]]

        cation Act for periods of instruction beginning on or after 
        July 1, 1983. . . .

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order. . . .
        [T]he amendment which I offered and was printed in the Record 
    was a nongermane amendment which had points of order raised against 
    it.
        Subsequently, I appeared before the Rules Committee and asked 
    for those points of order to be waived, which they granted in the 
    rule.
        Now in the amendment that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Simon) is offering, in section (c) he says to submit a statement 
    that such person refuses to submit to such registration for 
    religious and moral reasons. That is additional law which had 
    nothing to do with the amendment and the waiver of points of order 
    that were granted by the Rules Committee. I say that the 
    gentleman's amendment is out of order because of that. . . .
        Mr. Simon: . . . Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is how 
    we can have something that is workable. My aim is the same as that 
    of the gentleman from New York, but I think the gentleman from New 
    York, with all due respect, has not dealt with this whole very 
    complex problem of student loans and grants.
        I think the amendment that I have is the only workable one. I 
    think it is totally within the province of the amendment that the 
    gentleman has.
        I think the substitute amendment that I have offered is in 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair finds that both the amendment and the substitute 
    amendment prescribe limitations on eligibility under title IV of 
    the Higher Education Act of 1965, both in similar ways.
        The question of the waiver granted to the Solomon amendment by 
    the rule is not relevant to the point of order since the test of 
    germaneness is whether the substitute amendment is germane to the 
    amendment, not to the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that the amendment is in order and 
    the gentleman is recognized.

Sec. 2.19 The test of germaneness is the relationship between a 
    substitute and the amendment for which offered, and not between the 
    substitute and the original bill.

    The proceedings of July 28, 1982, relating to H.R. 6030, the 
military procurement authorization for fiscal 1982, are discussed in 
Sec. 29.11, infra.

Amendment to Substitute Need Not Affect Same Page and Line Numbers

Sec. 2.20 An amendment to a substitute is not required to affect the 
    same page and line numbers as the substitute in order to be 
    germane, it being sufficient that the amendment is germane to the 
    subject matter of the substitute. Accordingly, to a substitute to 
    require that certain emer

[[Page 7425]]

    gency energy conservation plans (entailing the use of auto stickers 
    indicating certain days an auto would not be operated) be 
    established (1) only after consultation with state governors, and 
    (2) only after consideration of rural and suburban needs, an 
    amendment striking out and inserting language elsewhere in the bill 
    which also related to the use of auto stickers as part of the 
    energy conservation plans, was held germane to the two diverse 
    conditions already required by the substitute.

    During consideration of the Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 
1979 (19) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 1, 
1979,(20) Chairman Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, overruled a 
point of order against an amendment to a substitute and held that the 
amendment was germane to the substitute. The amendment and proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. S. 1030.
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 21939, 21944-47, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Moffett [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moffett as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Rinaldo: Page 45, after line 9, insert 
        the following new subsection:
            ``(d) Needs of Rural and Certain Other Areas.--Any system 
        under this section shall be established only after consultation 
        with the Governors of the States involved and shall provide 
        appropriate consideration of the needs of those in suburban and 
        rural areas, particularly those areas not adequately served by 
        any public transportation system, through the geographical 
        coverage of the system, through exemptions under subsection 
        (c)(8), or through such other means as may be appropriate.

        Mr. [Andrew] Maguire [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Moffett as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Rinaldo: At the end insert the following: Page 43, beginning on 
        line 24, strike out ``day of each week that vehicle will not be 
        operated'' and insert ``day of each week the owner of that 
        vehicle has selected for that vehicle not to be operated''.

        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the Maguire amendment, although offered to the 
    Moffett amendment, is really a direct amendment to the bill before 
    us. Therefore, it is not germane to the Moffett substitute. In 
    addition, the Moffett substitute goes to page 45, line 9 of the 
    bill before us. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey (Mr. Maguire) goes to page 43, line 24.
        In addition, it is also not germane for that purpose.

[[Page 7426]]

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: I do, Mr. Chairman, and I 
    am sure the gentleman from New Jersey desires to do so also.
        Mr. Chairman, the question of where the amendment might lie in 
    the bill with regard to page or section is not important. I would 
    observe to the Chair that the amendment offered originally by the 
    minority goes to several pages in the bill. I would point out that 
    what is involved here is the text of the amendments, and whether or 
    not the language and the purposes and the concepts of the amendment 
    are germane and are relative and relevant to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Connecticut.
        I believe that a reading of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut will show that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Maguire) is in fact germane to 
    it in terms of concept and in terms of purposes for which the 
    amendment happens to be offered. For that reason, I think that the 
    point of order should be rejected. . . .
        Mr. Maguire: Mr. Chairman, the key point is that this is a 
    refinement of the material that the Moffett substitute deals with. 
    Therefore, the page on which it appears is irrelevant, and the 
    point of order should be overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the substitute and the amendment, and 
    states that while the page references are different, the principal 
    matter of concern is the relationship between the amendment and the 
    substitute. Clearly, there is a substantive relationship that goes 
    beyond the question of the pages, since both deal with auto sticker 
    plans.
        On the matter of the scope of the amendment and its 
    germaneness, the Moffett substitute imposes conditions on the 
    entire auto sticker plan in the bill in two diverse aspects. One is 
    a requirement of consultation with Governors, and the other is a 
    special consideration which would be required for suburban and 
    rural areas. The amendment to the substitute clearly deals with 
    another diverse element of the plan itself, and, because of the 
    diverse scope of the substitute, is germane to the substitute.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Instructions in Motion to Recommit

Sec. 2.21 Instructions included in a motion to commit or recommit the 
    pending proposition must be germane thereto; to a concurrent 
    resolution expressing Congressional concern over certain domestic 
    policies of a foreign government and urging that government to 
    improve those internal problems in order to enhance better 
    relations with the United States, an amendment, contained in a 
    motion to commit with instructions, urging the President to 
    undertake specified diplomatic actions as a con

[[Page 7427]]

    sequence of that foreign government's policies, was held to be not 
    germane.

    The proceedings of July 12, 1978, relating to S. Con. Res. 95 
(expressing the sense of Congress regarding trials of dissidents in the 
Soviet Union), are discussed in Sec. 23.2, infra.

Amendment Must Be Germane to Section to Which Offered--Amendment 
    Proposing To Change Same Section of Existing Law as Section to 
    Which Offered Ruled Out as Different Subject Matter

Sec. 2.22 To a section of a bill narrowly amending one section of 
    existing law dealing with procedural rules governing labor 
    elections and organization, an amendment changing the same section 
    of law to require promulgation of rules defining unfair labor 
    practices, a subject covered in another section of the law but not 
    addressed in the pending section of the bill, was held to be not 
    germane.

    During consideration of the Labor Reform Act of 1977 (1) 
in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 5, 1977,(2) the Chair, 
in sustaining a point of order against the amendment described above, 
reiterated the proposition that an amendment must be germane to the 
section of the bill to which it is offered. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 8410.
 2. 123 Cong. Rec. 32507, 32508, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 19, after line 5, 
        insert the following new paragraph (c):
            ``(c) The Board shall within three months after the date of 
        enactment of the Labor Reform Act of 1977, issue rules or 
        regulations to implement the provisions of section 8(b)(1) 
        including rules which shall assure that no labor organization 
        shall threaten or impose an unreasonable disciplinary fine or 
        other economic sanction against any person in the exercise of 
        rights under the Act (including but not limited to the right to 
        refrain from any or all concerted activity or to invoke the 
        processes of the Board).

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by my colleague and friend 
    from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook), although in some ways meritorious, is 
    offered to section 3 of the bill which amends section 6 of the 
    National Labor Relations Act, the rulemaking authority. Under 
    section 3, the Board is directed to make rules, first, that assure 
    equal access during representation campaigns, which we have done; 
    second, that define classes of representation cases; and three, 
    schedules governing the holding of elections.

[[Page 7428]]

        The amendment offered, in effect, changes section 8 of the act 
    relating to unfair labor practices. It is directed, therefore, at a 
    subject not contemplated in the bill and establishes a new unfair 
    labor practice, and is not germane to the committee bill or to 
    section 3. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . I believe this does come under the general 
    rulemaking. It is in section 6. Furthermore, when we refer to 
    willful violations, on page 22, in section 7, this bill does refer 
    to unfair labor practices, and I think under the previous 
    precedents established, where we open up a section referring to 
    unfair labor practices, it is now not timely for the chairman to 
    say that this bill does not amend unfair labor practices. Section 7 
    clearly refers to unfair labor practices, as does my amendment to 
    section 3, and I would hope the Chair would overrule the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Germaneness Determined Without Reference to Subjects of Titles Not Yet 
    Read

Sec. 2.23 An amendment should be germane to the particular paragraph or 
    section to which it is offered without reference to the subject 
    matter of other titles not yet read.

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

Amendment Offered to Amendment Made in Order by Special Rule

Sec. 2.24 The test of germaneness of an amendment to a pending 
    amendment is its relationship to the pending amendment and not to 
    the bill to which that pending amendment has been offered; thus, 
    where a special rule

[[Page 7429]]

    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 that are germane to that amendment may 
    be offered, and, if adopted, may not be subsequently challenged as 
    not coming within the coverage of the waiver.

    On July 22, 1975,(4) during consideration of the Energy 
Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (5) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 23990, 23991, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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: (6) The gentleman from Texas reserves 
    a point of order, and the gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair would permit me, I 
    should make

[[Page 7430]]

    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 amendment 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

[[Page 7431]]

    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.

Amendment Modifying a Law Being Extended by Bill

Sec. 2.25 A bill continuing and reenacting an existing law may be 
    amended by a proposition modifying in a germane manner the 
    provisions of the law being extended.

    On June 1, 1976,(7) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration a bill (H.R. 12169) reenacting a law, to extend the 
existence of the Federal Energy Administration. That law provided, in 
the absence of such extension, for termination of the agency and a 
consequent transfer of its functions to other agencies. An amendment in 
the nature of a substitute was offered which itself provided for 
termination of the agency and the transfer of certain of its functions 
to other agencies--matters deemed to be within the jurisdiction of 
committees other than that which reported the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 16021-25, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

                             abolition of functions

            Sec. 2. The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be abolished: the functions 
        of the Office of Management and Administration (other than the 
        Office of Private Grievances and Redress); the functions of the 
        Office of Intergovernmental, Regional, and Special Programs; 
        the functions of the Office of Congressional Affairs . . .
            Sec. 3. (a) The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be transferred to other 
        agencies as directed in this section:
            (1) The functions of the Offices of Energy Policy and 
        Analysis, Energy Conservation and Environment, and

[[Page 7432]]

        International Energy Affairs shall be transferred to the Energy 
        Research and Development Administration.
            (2) The functions of the Office of Energy Resource 
        Development (including the Office of Strategic Petroleum 
        Reserve) shall be transferred to the Department of the 
        Interior.
            (3) The functions of the Office Regulatory Programs 
        (including the Office of Private Grievances and Redress) shall 
        be transferred to the Federal Power Commission. . . .

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

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House require that 
    the amendment be germane to the bill which is before the House both 
    as to the place in the bill to which the germaneness question 
    arises, and the amendment is offered, and also as to the bill as a 
    whole.
        The first grounds for the point of order are that the amendment 
    goes beyond the requirements of the place in the bill to which the 
    amendment is offered; the second is that it fails to meet the test 
    of germaneness in several particulars. First, that it is a matter 
    which would have been referred to a diversity of committees other 
    than the committee which presently has the responsibility therefor. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there are several tests of 
    germaneness, the first being the test of committee jurisdiction. 
    Obviously, none of the matters referred to in the amendment are 
    properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce.
        The second test is that they must be pertinent to the matters 
    before the House. It is clearly obvious that such broad transfer of 
    responsibilities to diverse agencies and also the imposition of 
    responsibilities on the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget, are far beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and that the responsibility for 
    the establishing of a savings clause with respect to litigation is 
    not within the jurisdiction of that committee.
        Another test of germaneness is the fact that the amendment 
    should give notice to the Members as to what they could reasonably 
    anticipate in the sense of amendments which might be presented to 
    them. . . .
        Lastly, to meet the test of germaneness, it is required that 
    the subject matter relate to the subject matter of the bill, and 
    the amendment which is before us clearly seeks to transfer these 
    responsibilities broadly throughout the Federal Government; the 
    establishment of savings clauses and the oversight responsibilities 
    which are imposed go far beyond the requirements of the rules of 
    the House. So that for all of these reasons I respectfully insist 
    upon my point of order. . . .
        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: . . . Committee 
    jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment and the original bill 
    is not the exclusive test of germaneness--August 2, 1973.
        The bill H.R. 12169 incorporates by reference the entire 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, a bill which was 
    reported by the House Government Operations Committee. It does so 
    by, in essence, reenacting the entire act.
        Amendments to the entire act are in order and therefore the 
    substitute,

[[Page 7433]]

    which, if outside of Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee 
    jurisdiction, strays no farther than into Government Operations 
    Committee jurisdiction, is undeniably germane. And the germaneness 
    of an amendment in the nature of a substitute is its relationship 
    to the bill as a whole, and is not necessarily determined by the 
    content of an incidental portion of the amendment which, if 
    considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee--August 2, 1973. Furthermore, to a bill continuing and 
    reenacting an existing law an amendment germane to the existing act 
    sought to be continued was held to be germane to the pending bill--
    VIII, 2940, 2941, 2950, 3028; October 31, 1963. To a bill extending 
    an existing law in modified form, an amendment proposing further 
    modifications of that law may be germane--April 23, 1969; February 
    19, 1975.
        The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill--VIII, 2911--the purposes of both 
    H.R. 12169 and the substitute are to continue the functions of the 
    Federal Energy Administration. The differences are simply: First, 
    to what extent the functions will be continued; and second, what 
    bodies of Government will be responsible for continuing the 
    functions. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, the rules of 
    the House under rule X(i)(3) give the Committee on Government 
    Operations jurisdiction over the reorganizations in the executive 
    branch of the Government. The bill we have before us is an 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce bill. Therefore, the Schroeder 
    amendment is nongermane because it involves matter not before the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        The title of the bill before us, both as it was originally 
    drawn and as it is amended, does only two things, and as amended it 
    reads:

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

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

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

        In other words, the effort to abolish and reorganize would not 
    be germane to a bill to merely authorize and mod

[[Page 7434]]

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

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

        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Several days ago the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) 
    placed her amendment in the Record. The attention of the Chair was 
    called to the amendment at that time.
        Generally speaking, as far as germaneness is concerned, since 
    the committee proposal before the Committee at this time extends 
    the term of the original act, amendments that would be considered 
    as germane to the original act being reenacted would be considered 
    as germane at this time.
        This principle, in part, was the basis of the decision in 
    Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 2941, that a bill 
    continuing and reenacting the present law is subject to an 
    amendment modifying the provisions of the law carried in that bill.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) is not germane to 
    the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 
    12169.
        The committee amendment extends the term of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act until September 30, 1979, and provides specific 
    authorizations for appropriations for that agency through fiscal 
    year 1977.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish the 
    Federal Energy Administration and some of its functions, and would 
    transfer other functions currently performed by the agency to other 
    Departments and agencies in the executive branch, and would 
    authorize appropriations for the next fiscal year for the 
    performance of those functions transferred by the amendment.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the committee bill, 
    the law--Public Law 93-275--being continued and reenacted by the 
    bill, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute against which 
    the point of order has been raised. While it is true that the basic 
    law which created the Federal Energy Administration was reported as 
    a reorganization proposal from the Committee on Government 
    Operations in the last Congress, and while it is also true that a 
    bill containing the substance of the amendment has been jointly 
    referred to that committee and to the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce in this Congress, the Chair would point out that 
    committee jurisdiction is not the sole or exclusive test of 
    germaneness.

[[Page 7435]]

        The Chair would call the attention of the Committee to 
    extensive precedent contained in Cannon's volume VIII, section 
    2941, which the Chair has already cited, where an amendment germane 
    to an existing law was held germane to a bill proposing its 
    reenactment. The Chair feels that this precedent is especially 
    pertinent in the limited context where, as here, the pending bill 
    proposes to extend the existence of an organizational entity which 
    would otherwise be terminated by failure to reenact the law.
        In such a situation, the proper test of germaneness is the 
    relationship between the basic law being reenacted and the 
    amendment, and not merely the relationship between the pending bill 
    and the amendment.
        It is important to note that the law being extended was itself 
    an extensive reorganization of various executive branch energy-
    related functions. Not only did Public Law 93-275 transfer several 
    functions from the Interior Department and the Cost of Living 
    Council to the FEA, but that law also authorized the Administrator 
    of FEA to perform all functions subsequently delegated to him by 
    Congress or by the President pursuant to other law. Section 28 of 
    that law provides that upon its termination, which would result if 
    the pending bill is not enacted, all functions exercised by FEA 
    would revert to the department or agency from which they were 
    originally transferred.
        It appears to the Chair, from an examination of the committee 
    report, that all of the functions which the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute proposes to abolish or to transfer are being 
    extended and authorized by the committee bill.
        Since the basic law which created the FEA is before the 
    committee for germane modification, since changes in that law 
    relating to the delegation of authority to perform functions from 
    or to the FEA are germane to that law, and since the pending 
    committee bill authorizes the FEA to perform all of the functions 
    which the amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish or 
    transfer, the Chair holds that the amendment is germane to the 
    committee proposal and overrules the point of order.

Sec. 2.26 To a bill extending the Federal Energy Administration Act, 
    including the Administrator's authority under that Act to conduct 
    energy programs delegated to him, an amendment seeking to restrict 
    the manner in which the Administrator was to submit energy action 
    proposals to Congress was held germane to the law being extended as 
    a limitation on discretionary authority conferred in that law, and 
    therefore germane to the bill.

    On June 1, 1976,(9) during consideration of H.R. 12169 
(Federal Energy Administration extension), it was held that to a bill 
continuing and reenacting an existing law, a germane amendment 
modifying the provisions of the law being extended was in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 16045, 16046, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7436]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Any such amendment which, with respect to a class of 
        persons or class of transactions (including trans

[[Page 7437]]

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

        The effect of the Eckhardt amendment is to strike the words 
    ``or both'' from section 12(c)(1) of EPAA. As such it is, in 
    effect, an amendment to EPAA, not to the FEA Act under 
    consideration here, and is therefore, nongermane. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the 
    amendment is, as is stated, to limit the discretion of an 
    administrator with respect to submission of energy actions. The 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 provided that subject to 
    the provisions of the procedures set forth in this act, the 
    administrator shall be responsible for such actions as are taken by 
    this office that adequate provision is made to meet the energy 
    needs of the nation. To that end, they shall make such plans and 
    direct and conduct such programs related to the production, 
    conservation, use, control, distribution, rationing and allocation 
    of all forms of energy as are appropriate in connection with only 
    those authorities or functions--and then it lists them.
        What the amendment does, it limits the discretionary authority 
    of the administrator. The act itself creates the agency and gives 
    general authority to the administrator. It is true, of course, that 
    there are other acts that call for certain processes but these 
    processes are conducted under the authority of the administration 
    as described in the energy act.
        The effect of this amendment is simply to require that the FEA 
    submit to Congress, separate from other matters, the question of 
    price decontrol. That is, it may not package in a single proposal 
    to Congress both price decontrol and allocation decontrol. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) on the ground that it is not germane to the bill.
        The amendment would amend section 5 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act to restrict the discretion of the Administrator 
    in the method of submitting energy action proposals to Congress, a 
    function delegated to him by the President under the Petroleum 
    Allocation Act of 1973. Section 5 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act directs the Administrator to prepare for and 
    conduct programs for production, conservation, use, control, 
    distribution, rationing, and allocation of energy in connection 
    with authorities transferred to him by law or delegated to him by 
    the President.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Texas would place a 
    specific restriction on the exercise of that discretion to perform 
    functions under other laws.

[[Page 7438]]

        On March 6, 1974, when the original Federal Energy 
    Administration Act was being considered for amendment in the 
    Committee of the Whole, an amendment was offered to section 5 of 
    the bill, the section of the act presently in issue. The amendment 
    would have prohibited the Administrator from setting ceiling prices 
    on domestic crude oil above a certain level in the exercise of the 
    authority transferred to him in the bill, and Chairman Flynt ruled 
    that the amendment was germane as a limitation on the discretionary 
    authority conferred on the Administrator in that section and as a 
    limitation not directly amending another existing law.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair finds that the amendment is 
    germane to the bill under consideration and to the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act which it extends, and overrules the point of 
    order.

Senate Amendment Striking Language in House Bill--Motion To Recede and 
    Concur With Amendment

Sec. 2.27 Where a Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in a 
    House bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and 
    concur with an amendment is the relationship between the language 
    in the motion and the provisions in the House bill proposed to be 
    stricken by the Senate amendment.

    The proceedings of Dec. 12, 1974, relating to H.R. 16901, the 
agriculture, environment and consumer appropriations bill for fiscal 
1975, are discussed in Sec. 27.14, infra.

Germaneness of Senate Amendment That Was Amended by House

Sec. 2.28 The test of germaneness under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, of a 
    portion of a conference report originally contained in a Senate 
    amendment is its relationship to the final House version of the 
    bill committed to conference, and not to the original House-passed 
    bill which may have been superseded by a House amendment to the 
    Senate amendment prior to conference; thus, where the House (by 
    unanimous consent) amended a Senate amendment to include matter 
    germane to the Senate amendment although not germane to the 
    original House-passed bill, the Chair stated that a germaneness 
    point of order would not lie against the Senate amendment as so 
    modified in a conference report.

    The proceedings of July 28, 1983, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 2973 (interest and

[[Page 7439]]

dividend tax withholding repeal), are discussed in Sec. 26.3, infra.

Amendments Stating Congressional Policy Offered to Substitute Providing 
    Humanitarian Assistance

Sec. 2.29 To a substitute providing humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance to victims of war in South Vietnam, two amendments 
    containing Congressional foreign policy declarations with respect 
    to the roles of other nations in causing and ending that war were 
    held to go beyond the scope of the purpose of the bill and were 
    held to be not germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(11) during consideration of H.R. 6096, 
the Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance and Evacuation Act, amendments 
expressing the sense of Congress relative to the causes of 
circumstances addressed by the bill's provisions, and including broad 
declarations of foreign policy, were ruled out of order as not germane, 
the bill being limited to relief for a specific situation. The first of 
the amendments was offered by Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 11510, 11511, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman to the substitute amendment 
        offered by Mr. Eckhardt for the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: At the end of the substitute 
        and renumber accordingly; add the following new section:
            ``Sec. --. The Congress finds that the provisions of this 
        Act are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris 
        Peace Agreement by the military forces of the North Vietnamese 
        and the Viet Cong now engaged in military aggression against 
        the people and government of the Republic of Vietnam; further, 
        the Congress condemns in the strongest possible terms this 
        aggression as well as the support given to the North Vietnamese 
        by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's 
        Republic of China, both of which share responsibility for the 
        faithful observance of the Paris Agreement; and further, the 
        Congress views the attitude of the governments of the Soviet 
        Union and the People's Republic of China towards this 
        aggression as a critical test of good faith, and calls upon 
        them immediately to use their influence to end the aggression 
        by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong.''. . .

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill; 
    that it includes information that does not have any indication that 
    it relates to the object of what is being done in the substitute 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from Maryland 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 7440]]

        Mr. Bauman: . . . I would say that while this amendment may not 
    be pleasing to the 71 Members who voted against the Ashbrook 
    amendment, it goes to the very heart of the matter which is 
    contained in this bill, which deals with humanitarian aid and 
    evacuation procedures. By reason of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Montgomery) it now includes the 
    problem of prisoners of war and missing in action and 
    accountability.
        In fact, it deals with policy in that matter. The scope of the 
    bill has broadened considerably, and it is all within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations and deals 
    directly with the reason that this legislation must be offered 
    today and acted upon. In fact, that is the very reason for this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I seek 
    recognition on the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman) does this: It intends to direct international 
    policy, to direct the State Department to provide general 
    provisions controlling the policy of the United States in matters 
    far beyond the Vietnamese question.
        The substitute on the floor does none of these things. It 
    essentially provides, in its major provisions, which are similar to 
    the committee bill, means by which certain persons may be removed 
    from Vietnam, that is, citizens of the United States and 
    dependents, persons entitled to come over because of their 
    connection with the U.S. nationals. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment and in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the amendment, particularly the language, ``the Congress 
    views the attitude of the governments of the Soviet Union and the 
    People's Republic of China toward this aggression as a critical 
    test of good faith,'' does, in fact, go far beyond the scope of the 
    legislation before us.
        The point of order is sustained.

        Mr. [John H.] Buchanan [Jr., of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Buchanan to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: On page 3, after line 9, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 8. The Congress finds that the provisions of this 
        Act are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris 
        Peace Agreement by the military forces of the North Vietnamese 
        and the Viet Cong now engaged in military aggression against 
        the people and government of the Republic of Vietnam; further, 
        the Congress condemns in the strongest possible terms this 
        aggression as well as the support given to the North Vietnamese 
        by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's 
        Republic of China, both of which share responsibility for the 
        faithful observance of the Paris Agreement.'' . . .

        Mr. Edgar: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the same 
    grounds I stated before. This amendment is not germane. This piece 
    of legislation raises issues which should not be dealt with in this 
    fashion. . . .

[[Page 7441]]

        Mr. Buchanan: . . . I have stricken from the original amendment 
    the language to which the Chair earlier referred. I believe all the 
    remaining language deals specifically with what the provisions of 
    this legislation do and why they are necessary. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        While it is true that the Chair did refer particularly to 
    certain language in the earlier amendment, the Chair does not 
    indicate that if that particular language had not been there, the 
    amendment would have been found to be in order.
        The language of the amendment still goes far beyond the scope 
    of the bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 2.30 To a substitute dealing with humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance to war victims in Vietnam, perfected by amendment to 
    prohibit such assistance to specified groups, a further amendment 
    stating that the necessity for the relief provided has been caused 
    by the actions of the groups denied assistance was held germane as 
    an expression of foreign policy not extending beyond the purposes 
    of the perfected proposition.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(13) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 6096, the Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance and 
Evacuation Act. An amendment was offered by Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of 
Ohio, and the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 11507, 11508, 11511, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Insert new section 8 and 
        renumber following sections:
            ``Sec. 8. To insure that the assistance is provided to such 
        persons throughout South Vietnam no funds authorized in this 
        Act shall be used, directly or indirectly, to aid the 
        Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) or the Provisional 
        Revolutionary Government (PRG) nor shall any funds authorized 
        under this Act be channeled through or administered by the DRV 
        or the PRG.'' . . .

        [The amendment was agreed to.]
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: On page 3, after line 9, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 8. The Congress finds that the provisions of this 
        Act are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris 
        Peace Agreement by the

[[Page 7442]]

        military forces of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong now 
        engaged in military aggression against the people and 
        government of the Republic of Vietnam.

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . . I object to this 
    amendment because it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Rousselot: . . . (The amendment) does very much refer to 
    this legislation. It discusses the Paris peace agreements and the 
    necessity for the use of military forces. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair finds that the present amendment is narrowly drawn. 
    It refers to the situation in Vietnam to which this substitute in 
    its perfected form is directed, and the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.

New Title Dealing With Energy Used in Production of Beverage Containers 
    Offered to Energy Conservation Bill

Sec. 2.31 A bill of several titles dealing generally with energy use 
    and conservation and containing a title specifically dealing with 
    efficiency of energy-using consumer products and requiring energy 
    efficiency labeling of such products, was held sufficiently broad 
    in scope to admit as germane an amendment in the form of a new 
    title dealing with energy use in the production of certain non-
    energy consuming products (beverage containers) and incorporating 
    the labeling requirements in the bill to demonstrate energy 
    production requirements of such products.

    On Sept. 18, 1975,(15) it was demonstrated that the test 
of germaneness of an amendment adding a new title to a bill being read 
by titles is the relationship between the amendment and the bill as a 
whole. The proceedings during consideration of the Energy Conservation 
and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (16) in the Committee of the 
Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 29322-25, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         TITLE V--IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS

                      Part A--Automobile Fuel Mileage

        Sec. 501. Definitions.
        Sec. 502. Average fuel economy standards applicable to each 
    manufacturer. . . .

       Part B--Energy Labeling and Efficiency Standards for Consumer 
                      Products other than automobiles

        Sec. 551. Definitions and coverage.
        Sec. 552. Test procedures.
        Sec. 553. Labeling.

[[Page 7443]]

        Sec. 554. Energy efficiency standards. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 331, after line 10, 
        add the following:

        TITLE VI--ENERGY LABELING AND EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR BEVERAGE 
                                   CONTAINERS

                            definitions and coverage

            Sec. 601.--For purposes of this part--
            (1) The term ``beverage container'' means a bottle, jar, 
        can, or carton of glass, plastic, or metal, or any combination 
        thereof, used for packaging or marketing beer or any other malt 
        beverage, mineral water, soda water, or a carbonated soft drink 
        of any variety in liquid form which is intended for human 
        consumption. . . .
            (4) The term ``energy efficiency'' means the ratio 
        (determined on a national basis) of: The capacity of the 
        beverage container times the number of times it is likely to be 
        filled, to the units of energy resources consumed in producing 
        such container (including such container's raw materials) and 
        in delivering such container and its contents to the consumer.
            The Commissioner, in determining the energy efficiency 
        shall adjust any such determination to take into account the 
        extent to which such containers are produced from recycled 
        materials. . . .

                                    labeling

            Sec. 603. The provisions of section 553, except paragraph 
        (B) of subsection (a)(1), shall be applicable to beverage 
        containers as defined in section 601. In addition, if the 
        Commissioner determines that a beverage container achieves the 
        energy efficiency target described in section 604, then no 
        labeling requirement under this section may be promulgated or 
        remain in effect with respect to such type. . . .

               requirements of manufacturers and private labelers

            Sec. 605. The provisions of section 555 of this act with 
        respect to consumer products to which a rule under section 553 
        applies shall be applicable to beverage containers as defined 
        in section 601. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order [is] on the ground that the amendment is not germane to the 
    bill before us. The amendment seeks to impose efficiency standards 
    on the manufacture of beverage containers. There is nothing in the 
    bill relating to beverage containers. The amendment seeks to change 
    efficiency standards imposed upon beverage containers themselves. 
    There is nothing in this bill relating to beverage containers.
        Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, not only is the amendment not 
    germane to the bill but it also fails because it is not germane to 
    the bill as amended because as the Chairman recalls all references 
    to the efficiency standards have been removed from the bill with 
    respect to industrial processes. If the amendment were to be 
    offered relating to efficiency in manufacturing processes, it more 
    appropriately should have been offered in sections relating to 
    efficiency in manufacturing.
        Those have now been deleted, of course. The amendment is not 
    germane because it comes too late in the bill, for that matter, 
    after it has been considered and acted upon in the House.

[[Page 7444]]

        The amendment is very, very complex, setting up standards for 
    efficiency in a whole series of devices. With regard to the 
    mechanism we are under, this efficiency is judged and it goes into 
    a lengthy complex set of judgments that must be exercised by the 
    administrators with regard to this efficiency; but dealing solely 
    with the question of bottles and containers. As I pointed out, 
    there is no reference in the bill to bottles and containers. For 
    that reason, the amendment is not germane. . . .

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . In Cannon's Procedures 
    of the House of Representatives, the rule of germaneness occurs at 
    section 794. It says that while the committee may report a bill 
    embracing different subjects, it is not in order during the 
    consideration of a bill to introduce a new subject. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the nature of the new subject in this 
    legislation, it seems to me, is embraced in section 604 of the 
    amendment as submitted by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 
    Jeffords], in which we are not dealing with the set of standards of 
    the operation of appliances as we were in the appliance section, or 
    automobiles, as we were in the automobile standards section; but 
    rather in the design of a nonenergy consuming product which the 
    author of the amendment seeks to prohibit with reference to its 
    possibilities of reuse. It gives the authority to the Secretary to 
    prohibit a product on the basis of its design. So we are, in 
    effect, impacting on the product with reference to the manufacture 
    of the product in some mechanical or energy-consuming way. That, it 
    seems to me, is a new direction or a new subject under the rule of 
    germaneness, as opposed to the other approaches which the bill as 
    reported out of the committee has taken. It is an area which I 
    rather doubt comes under the purview of our committee, in that the 
    purview of the committee relates to the consumption of energy as 
    such and the licensing of that energy and the pricing of it and so 
    forth. . . .
        Mr. [Phillip H.] Hayes of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I simply 
    wanted to add in regard to the standard . . . of looking to the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment in qualifying its germaneness, 
    that this particular amendment would seek to add for the first time 
    in the bill a class of product which does not in and of itself 
    consume an average annual per household energy factor, nor does it 
    consume in and of itself energy at all. . . .
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, never have I had an opportunity to 
    tell so many distinguished gentlemen that they are wrong at the 
    same time. First, let us go back to the basics here. What are we 
    concerned with when we talk about the germaneness? Let us look at 
    the legislative manual.
        The fundamental purpose of an amendment is that it must be 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill. What is the 
    fundamental purpose?
        Let us take a look at the title, ``Energy Conservation and Oil 
    Policy Act of 1975.'' Look what we are trying to do. We are trying 
    to conserve energy. Let us take a look at title III, with its broad 
    powers over the whole area of development of petroleum. There are 
    tremendous powers over the whole industry in allocation, 
    production, as to where the industry goes. . . .
        Let us get to the argument made by many, and that is it is 
    different be

[[Page 7445]]

    cause we are talking about energy consumed in the production of the 
    consumer product rather than the consumer himself.
        The FEA is not going to go around this country chasing after 
    people with electric toothbrushes to see whether they brush 
    properly or to see whether they are plugged in properly. They are 
    going to go to the manufacturer and say, ``You have a toothbrush 
    here that has to have a certain energy efficiency improvement.'' So 
    we are saying when the product is sold that particular beverage 
    container must consume less than a certain amount of energy. It is 
    identical in purpose. The bill does not try to go out and nail the 
    consumer. It gets to him by labeling. It says, ``Here is a consumer 
    product that uses less energy.'' My amendment will say, ``Here is 
    something that uses less energy.'' I see no difference whatsoever. 
    Its basic purpose and fundamental purpose is the same as the bill, 
    to conserve energy and conserve oil. How anybody can argue that 
    this is not germane is impossible for me to see.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Indiana, the gentleman from Michigan, the 
    gentleman from Ohio, and the gentleman from Texas have made points 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) on the ground that it is not germane to the 
    bill.
        The Chair would like to state that if the amendment had been 
    offered to title V, the arguments of many of the gentlemen would 
    have more significance.
        The amendment offered would add a new title to the bill 
    relating to energy conservation in the production of beverage 
    containers.
        The test of germaneness in such a situation is the relationship 
    between the new title to be added by the amendment and the entire 
    bill.
        The Chair would state, initially, that he has reexamined the 
    precedents contained in section 6.13 and section 6.19 of chapter 28 
    of Deschler's Procedure, wherein an amendment prohibiting the 
    production of nonreturnable beverage containers was held not 
    germane to the Energy Emergency Act, and finds that the situations 
    are distinguishable.
        As noted, the germaneness is dependent upon the relationship 
    between the amendment in the form of a new title and the entire 
    bill to which offered.
        The 1973 bill was designed to regulate and promote the 
    production, allocation, and conservation of energy resources and 
    contained no reference to the production of consumer goods. In that 
    context, the nonreturnable container amendment was not germane.
        However, the bill now under consideration contains several 
    diverse titles, all relating to use, consumption, availability, and 
    conservation of energy.
        The Chair notes specifically the provisions of title V relating 
    to end use and energy consumption of certain consumer products.
        The Chair, therefore, believes that the bill is sufficiently 
    broad in scope to admit as germane an amendment in the form of a 
    new title which is drafted in the form presented by incorporating 
    by reference certain standards in the bill, and which relates to 
    the conserva

[[Page 7446]]

    tion of energy by an industry engaged in the production of a 
    consumer product, specifically, beverage containers.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Amendment Changing Date of Termination of Agency Offered to Amendment 
    in Nature of Substitute Terminating Agency

Sec. 2.32 Where the Committee of the Whole had under consideration a 
    bill extending the Federal Energy Administration Act and an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute abolishing the Federal 
    Energy Administration on a date certain and transferring some of 
    its functions to other agencies, an amendment offered to such 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute for purposes of changing 
    the date for termination of such agency was held to be germane.

    On June 1, 1976,(18) during consideration of H.R. 12169 
in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, overruled a point of order against an amendment as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 16025, 16026, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

    On line 4 of section 3 strike the colon and insert the words 
``effective September 30, 1977:''. . .

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

[[Page 7447]]

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

 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 3. Amendment as Relating to Subject Matter Under Consideration

    A broad requirement of the germaneness rule is that an amendment 
relate to the subject matter under consideration. It has been stated 
that,

        The fundamental test of germaneness . . . is that a proposition 
    submitted must be akin and relative to the particular subject 
    matter to which the proposition is offered as an 
    amendment.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 3.26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, an amendment relating to a subject to which there is no 
reference in the text to which offered may not be germane to the 
bill.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 5.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, the fact that two subjects are related does not 
necessarily render them germane to each other.(1) 
``Germaneness,'' as has been noted,(2) implies more than 
``relevance.'' For example, it has been held that, to a proposal to 
authorize certain activities, an amendment proposing to investigate the 
advisability of undertaking such activities is not 
germane.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, for example, Sec. 3.57, infra.
 2. See Sec. 1, supra.
 3. See Sec. 5.29, infra.

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

[[Page 7448]]

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

Amendment Affecting Excess-Profits Tax Credits Offered to Bill Relating
 to Settlement of Strikes

Sec. 3.1 To a bill relating to the settlement of labor disputes and 
    strikes, an amendment was held to be not germane which proposed 
    reduction of excess-profits tax credits of employers in an amount 
    determined by the duration of any work stoppages resulting from 
    labor disputes on the employers' premises.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill (4) 
relating to the settlement of labor disputes, the following amendment 
was offered: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 4908 (Committee on Labor).
 5. 92 Cong. Rec. 1009, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of 
    Pennsylvania] to the Case amendment: Page 15, after line 8, add a 
    new section, as follows:

        Excess-Profits Tax Carry-Back Credits as Affected by Strikes

        Sec. 14. If in any taxable year ending after December 31, 1945, 
    there exists a stoppage of work at any time during such taxable 
    year because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment, or 
    other premises of the taxpayer, who is an employer under any of the 
    provisions of this act, the unused excess-profits credit for such 
    taxable year shall be reduced by an amount which is such part of 
    the unused excess-profits credit as the number of days during which 
    such stoppage was in effect is of the total number of days in such 
    taxable year prior to January 1, 1947.

    After Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, made the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane, Mr. Eberharter stated:

        . . . [T]he amendment applies only to those employers who are 
    taxpayers and whose plant or establishment is affected by a strike 
    or by a work stoppage. Therefore, it brings them entirely within 
    the provisions of both the committee bill and the Case amendment.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [A]fter having examined all the bills that have been 
    introduced, including the declarations of policy, the opening 
    paragraphs, and all the remainder of the bills, as far as the Chair 
    can discover there is not one word mentioned about taxes or the 
    disposition of taxes. Although the rule and the action of the House 
    in adopting the rule opened the whole question to a very wide 
    interpretation, the Chair does not feel that the question of the 
    disposition of excess profits is within the purview of any of the 
    bills. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7449]]

Amendment Declaring Intent of Congress as to Suspension of Tax Measures 
    Offered to Bill Relating to Settlement of Strikes

Sec. 3.2 To a bill relating to the settlement of labor disputes and 
    strikes, an amendment declaring the intent of Congress that certain 
    tax measures be suspended for the duration of any strikes that 
    impair the economy was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill (7) 
relating to the settlement of labor disputes, the following amendment 
was offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 4908 (Committee on Labor).
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 854, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 4, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey, of West 
    Virginia, to the Case substitute for H.R. 4908: On page 3, line 18, 
    after the word ``arbitration'', strike out the period, insert a 
    comma, and insert ``And in this connection it is the declared 
    intent of the Congress that all subsidies now being paid out of the 
    United States Treasury in the form of tax refunds, tax rebates, and 
    `carry back' payments to individuals, companies, or corporations, 
    be suspended for the duration of any strike or strikes now existing 
    or that may occur during the calendar year that lead to industrial 
    unrest, delay reconversion, and otherwise impair our national 
    economy.''

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

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is clearly out of order. It is not germane to the bill. 
    There is nothing in this bill that has anything to do with the 
    carry-back.

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

        Mr. Bailey: The Congress is being asked for a two-page 
    declaration of policy contained in the proposed Case substitute to 
    H.R. 4908 to make known its intent as regards strikes in industry. 
    This declaration of policy is also predicated on the assumption 
    that the speedy end of strikes will be in the public welfare and 
    tend also to stabilize our post-war economy.

    The Chairman, Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Bailey] deals with both taxation 
    and the disposition of taxes, and is not germane to the pending 
    amendment.
        The point of order is sustained.

Bill Relating to Settlement of Strikes--Amendment to Federal Corrupt 
    Practices Act Concerning Political Contributions of Labor 
    Organizations

Sec. 3.3 To a bill relating to the settlement of labor disputes

[[Page 7450]]

    and strikes, an amendment seeking to amend the Federal Corrupt 
    Practices Act and concerning political contributions of labor 
    organizations was held to be not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(10) relating to settlement of labor disputes, the following 
amendment was offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 4908 (Committee on Labor).
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 1020, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ralph E.] Church [of Illinois]: Page 
    15, line 9, of the Case amendment, insert the following:
        Section 13 of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 1925, is 
    hereby amended to read as follows:
        Sec. 13. It is unlawful . . . for any corporation . . . or any 
    labor organization to make any contribution . . . or levy any 
    assessments on its . . . members . . . in connection with any 
    election at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors, or a 
    Senator or a Representative in . . . Congress are to be voted for. 
    . . .

    Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, having raised the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane, the Chairman (12) 
without elaboration held that the amendment was not germane to the 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Prohibiting Compensation to Persons Forcibly Seeking To 
    Prevent Workmen From Returning to Work Offered to Amendment 
    Prohibiting Compensation to Defense Employees Participating in 
    Strikes

Sec. 3.4 To an amendment prohibiting compensation to persons 
    participating in strikes while employed in the production of 
    defense articles, a substitute prohibiting compensation under 
    specified circumstances to any person ``who assists in maintaining 
    a picket line or otherwise seeks forcibly to prevent the return of 
    workmen'' to work, was held not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during proceedings relating to the Military 
Appropriations Bill of 1942,(13) the following proposition 
(14) was under consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 4965 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. See 87 Cong. Rec. 4837, 4838, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., June 6, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Joe] Starnes [of Alabama]: On page 
    71, after line 12, insert a new section, as follows:
        Sec. 11. No part of any appropriation contained in this act 
    shall be available

[[Page 7451]]

    for the payment of compensation to any person by whomsoever 
    employed who, while employed directly or indirectly, in the 
    manufacture or production of any defense article, as defined in 
    Public Act No. 11, Seventy-seventh Congress, shall hereafter stop 
    work for a period in excess of 10 days by reason of being a 
    voluntary participant in any strike called in any plant 
    manufacturing or producing defense articles.

    The following substitute amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 87 Cong. Rec. 4887, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., June 9, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Substitute amendment for the Starnes amendment by Mr. [Francis 
    H.] Case of South Dakota:
        Sec. 13. No part of any appropriation contained in this act 
    shall be available for the payment of compensation to any person 
    for services in a plant engaged in the manufacture or production of 
    any defense article . . . who assists in maintaining a picket line 
    or otherwise seeks forcibly to prevent the return of workmen after 
    the National Mediation Board shall have certified to the President 
    that further stoppage of work in that plant will critically impede 
    the national-defense program.

    The following proceedings (16) then took place with 
respect to a point of order raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at pp. 4887, 4888.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Snyder [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) . . . The Chair . . . is clearly 
    of the opinion that the substitute amendment is not in order by 
    reason of the fact that it is not germane to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Starnes]. The amendment as 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama has to do with the stoppage 
    of work, by its terms saying ``shall hereafter stop work for a 
    period in excess of 10 days,'' and so forth, whereas the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from South Dakota has to do with picketing 
    and picketing lines, which is quite different from a stoppage of 
    work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For that reason the substitute is not in order, inasmuch as it 
    is not germane to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Alabama [Mr. Starnes]. On the ground that it is not germane, the 
    Chair holds it is out of order.

Bill To Promote Cotton Research and Marketing--Amendment Affecting 
    Labor in Cotton Industry

Sec. 3.5 To a bill establishing a cotton research program and promoting 
    the marketing of cotton, an amendment providing for research with 
    respect to training and utilization of displaced farm labor in the 
    cotton industry, was held to be not germane.

    The following exchange,(18) which occurred during 
consideration of the Cotton Research and

[[Page 7452]]

Promotion Act of 1966,(19) concerned the propriety of 
amendments offered by Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 4838, 4839, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1966.
19. H.R. 12322 (Committee on Agriculture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: [The amendments] 
    are not germane. They provide for research and development projects 
    and studies with respect to training or retraining and utilization 
    of displaced farm labor engaged in the growing of cotton. . . .
        The bill under consideration deals only with cotton and the 
    promotion and research in the field of cotton. The bill has nothing 
    whatever to do with farm labor. . . .
        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Chairman, I know of nothing more germane or 
    relevant to a bill which deals with the increased productivity of 
    cotton, which deals with the question of competitive efficiency, 
    than at the same time to deal with the question of what happens to 
    individuals engaged in the farming of cotton who are affected by 
    that increased productivity. . . .
        [Section 6(b) of H.R. 12322] provides for research and 
    development projects and studies with respect to production and 
    distribution to make marketing more efficient and cotton generally 
    more competitive.
        My amendment is a companion to that section. It calls for 
    research and development projects and studies with respect to 
    training . . . of displaced farm labor engaged in the growing of 
    cotton. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    the amendment deals with persons in farm labor, and the bill itself 
    deals with commodities and the promotion of commodities, and that 
    the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Abolishing Federal Energy Administration--Amendment Delaying 
    Termination

Sec. 3.6 To an amendment abolishing the Federal Energy Administration 
    on a date certain and transferring some of its functions to other 
    agencies at that time, an amendment delaying the termination date 
    of that agency for one year was held to be germane.

    On June 1, 1976,(1) during consideration of H.R. 12169 
(Federal Energy Administration extension), in response to a point of 
order, the Chair held the following amendment germane to the matter to 
which it was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 122 Cong. Rec. 16025, 16026, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fithian to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Schroeder: Strike out 
        ``That the Federal Energy Administration is abolished'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following section:
            ``Sec. 1. Section 30 of the Federal Energy Administration 
        Act of 1974 is amended by striking out `June 30,

[[Page 7453]]

        1976' and inserting in lieu thereof `September 30, 1977'.''
            On line 3 of section 2 insert after ``shall be abolished'' 
        the words ``effective September 30, 1977''.
            On line 4 of section 3 strike the colon and insert the 
        words ``effective September 30, 1977:''

        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    reserve his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve my 
    point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    insist upon his point of order?
        Mr. Dingell: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the amendment must be not only 
    germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute and to the 
    bill but it must be germane to the particular part of the bill to 
    which it is addressed.
        Mr. Chairman, if we will read the bill, we will observe there 
    are two parts. There is a section 1 and a section 2. Section 1 
    relates to authorizations for appropriations, and section 2 relates 
    to the extension of the life of the agency. The provisions relating 
    to the extension of the agency itself, we will observe, are in 
    section 2, which appears at page 10 of the bill, and while it might 
    be desirable to have the amendment that the gentleman offers set 
    forth as a policy from his point of view, the fact of the matter is 
    that the amendment should be offered to the later part of the bill, 
    section 2, printed at page 10, and not to the Schroeder amendment 
    as offered. . . .
        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I recognize 
    what the distinguished subcommittee chairman is speaking about, but 
    I would call to his attention the fact that the extension of the 
    life of the Federal Energy Administration affects both section 1 
    and section 2. Therefore, it seems to me that in the normal, 
    orderly process of the business of the House, we ought to offer 
    this amendment at the earlier time.
        We should note that the amendment that has been offered clearly 
    indicates that in section 1, section 30 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act of 1974 is amended by striking out ``June 30, 
    1976,'' which is in section 1, and extending it to another date 
    which is 15 months hence. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think what we 
    now have to decide is whether or not we can proceed to debate a 
    matter which we can alter and come out halfway between the 
    Schroeder position and the Dingell position. That, it seems to me, 
    is not altogether unreasonable, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. 
    Schroeder) is an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    entire bill and the Schroeder amendment is open to amendment at any 
    point. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
    Fithian) simply changes the date in the Schroeder amendment when 
    FEA is to be abolished. It simply provides for a change of date.
        The amendment is germane to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentlewoman

[[Page 7454]]

    from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder). The Chair, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

Provision To Establish Termination Date for Energy Agency--Substitute 
    Providing Reorganization Plan

Sec. 3.7 For an amendment establishing a termination date for the 
    Federal Energy Administration, a substitute not dealing with the 
    date of termination but providing instead a reorganization plan for 
    that agency was held to be not germane.

    On June 1, 1976,(3) during consideration of a bill 
(4) extending the Federal Energy Administration Act, an 
amendment was offered which sought to change a provision of the bill 
relating to the date of termination of the Federal Energy 
Administration. A substitute for that amendment was then offered. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 16051, 16055, 16056, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. H.R. 12169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is in several parts. The first, Mr. Chairman, is that the 
    amendment must be germane to the Fithian amendment. I make the 
    point that it is not.
        Mr. Chairman, the Fithian amendment, if the Chair will note, 
    simply relates to the termination of the exist

[[Page 7455]]

    ence of the FEA as an agency and sets a date for the expiration 
    thereof.
        This amendment goes much further, and if the Chair will consult 
    the amendment, the Chair will find that it relates to the 
    compensation of executives, that it relates and fixes the levels at 
    which executives' salaries and compensation will be held. It deals 
    with the administration being able to employ and fix the 
    compensation of officers and employees and it limits the number of 
    positions which may be at different GS levels.
        It goes much further. It deals with section 527 of the Energy 
    Policy and Conservation Act, which is not referred to in the 
    Fithian amendment and, indeed, which is not referred to elsewhere 
    in the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, it deals with the fixing of the compensation of 
    Federal employees. It deals with the powers of the President, the 
    duties and powers of the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget functioning through and under the President. It deals with 
    the filing of the plans for the termination of the act with the 
    Speaker of the House of Representatives and it provides a plan to 
    deal with the orderly transfer of functions to the Federal Energy 
    Administration to such Departments and so forth.
        It goes further and effectively amends the Reorganization Act 
    by providing that the plan may be approved or disapproved by either 
    House of Congress in a fashion in conformity with the requirements 
    of the Reorganization Act. . . .
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: . . . This amendment simply deals 
    with the termination of the FEA after 15 months. The only 
    difference between my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Fithian) would be that it does indicate that the 
    President should through OMB present to the Congress a plan. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Appropriations for Programs Administered by Department of Energy--
    Amendment Appropriating Funds for Program Under Department of 
    Agriculture

Sec. 3.8 To a portion of an appropriation bill containing funds for a 
    certain purpose to be expended by one government agency, an 
    amendment containing funds for another government agency for the 
    same general purpose may not be germane al

[[Page 7456]]

    though authorized by law; thus, to a title of a general 
    appropriation bill containing funds for energy programs 
    administered by the Department of Energy, an amendment 
    appropriating a portion of those funds for a pilot wood utilization 
    program authorized by law to be conducted by the Department of 
    Agriculture was held not germane.

    On July 24, 1981,(6) during consideration of the Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations, fiscal 1982,(7) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Anthony C. Beilenson, of California, 
sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 127 Cong. Rec. 17226, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 4144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: Page 16, line 19, insert 
        immediately before the period the following: ``, and Provided 
        further, That $5,000,000 of the funds provided herein shall be 
        made available to the Secretary of Agriculture for the 
        establishment of pilot wood utilization projects and 
        demonstrations as authorized by the Wood Residue Utilization 
        Act of 1980, Public Law 96-554.''.

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the gentleman's amendment. . . .
        The amendment is not germane to this paragraph of the bill nor 
    to the bill as a whole. The wood residue program is authorized by 
    Public Law 96-554, and clearly is to be administered by the Forest 
    Service, Department of Agriculture, which is funded under the 
    Interior appropriations bill.
        This program was not authorized to be administered or funded by 
    the Department of Energy, which is where the gentleman's amendment 
    applies.
        Under clause 7, rule XVI, it is stated that it is not in order 
    during consideration in the House to introduce a new subject by way 
    of amendment, and an amendment inserting an additional section 
    should be germane to the portion of the bill to which it is 
    offered.
        I contend this amendment is not germane to this paragraph or 
    this bill and is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI. . . .
        Mr. Weaver: . . . [T]he Department of Energy now funds wood 
    utilization programs. This bill is law. We are not changing 
    existing law. We are referring only to existing law and it is an 
    energy manufacturing program and, therefore, definitely germane to 
    this bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill).
        For the purposes stated by the gentleman from Alabama, the 
    distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the point of order is 
    sustained and the amendment is held not germane to the pending 
    title of the bill, which relates only to the Department of Energy.

[[Page 7457]]

Proposition To Authorize Gasoline Rationing--Amendment Establishing 
    User Charge for Gasoline

Sec. 3.9 To a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    which amended section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act 
    of 1973 to authorize the President to establish priorities, 
    including rationing of gasoline, among users of petroleum products, 
    an amendment providing that any rationing proposal for individual 
    users of gasoline should include payment of a user charge to 
    qualify for additional allocations was held to constitute a tax 
    which was not within the category of rationing authority in the 
    substitute and was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (H.R. 11450) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 14, 1973, (8) the Chair 
ruled that an amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 41750, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sec. 103. Amendments to the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 
                                    1973

        (a) Section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 
    is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsections:
        ``(h)(1) If the President finds that, without such action, the 
    objectives of subsection (b) cannot be attained, he may promulgate 
    a rule which shall be deemed a part of the regulation under 
    subsection (a) and which shall provide, consistent with the 
    objectives of subsection (b), an ordering of priorities among users 
    of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any refined petroleum product, 
    and for the assignment to such users of rights entitling them to 
    obtain any such oil or product in precedence to other users not 
    similarly entitled. A top priority in such ordering shall be the 
    maintenance of vital services (including, but not limited to new 
    housing construction, education, health care, hospitals, public 
    safety, energy production, agriculture, and transportation 
    services, which are necessary to the preservation of health, 
    safety, and the public welfare). . . .
        ``(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `allocation' 
    shall not be construed to exclude the end-use allocation of 
    gasoline to individual consumers.
        Mr. [James G.] Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Martin of North Carolina to the 
        amendment

[[Page 7458]]

        in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: On page 
        6, at line 6, strike the period, and add: ``; Provided, 
        however, That any proposal by the President for the rationing 
        of fuel for personal automobiles and recreational vehicles 
        should, in addition to the basic non-discriminatory ration, 
        include provisions under which the individual consumer may 
        qualify for additional allocations of fuel upon payment of a 
        fee or user charge on a per unit basis to the Federal Energy 
        Administration.''

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    is not germane. . . .
        I make the point of order on the amendment on the ground that 
    it authorizes a user's fee in the nature of a tax and that is not 
    supposed to come within the jurisdiction of our committee. That 
    authority is delegated to the Ways and Means Committee.
        Mr. Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the 
    amendment is germane and pertinent to the section dealing with 
    gasoline rationing. . . .
        This amendment does not propose a tax as such and so does not 
    run afoul of the prerogatives of the honorable Committee on Ways 
    and Means. Instead it proposes an administrative fee to be charged, 
    much as fees are charged by the National Park Service under the 
    Golden Eagle plan for use of our park resources. This fee as I 
    propose it would be charged for preferential use of any extra 
    limited fuel resources.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order on the ground that this amendment in 
    effect would result in a tax not directly related to the rationing 
    authority conferred by the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provisions Authorizing Rationing Plans and Monitoring of Fuel 
    Supplies--Amendment to Set Aside Fuel for Agriculture.

Sec. 3.10 To a bill authorizing the imposition of rationing plans by 
    the President to conserve energy, providing mechanisms to avoid 
    energy marketing disruptions, and broadened by amendment to provide 
    for monitoring of middle distillates and supplies of diesel oil, an 
    amendment adding a new section to require a set-aside program to 
    provide middle distillates for agricultural production was held to 
    be germane.

    On Aug. 1, 1979,(10) during consideration of the 
Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979,(11) Chairman 
Dante B. Fascell held that the test of germaneness of an amendment 
adding a new section at the end of a bill is its relationship to the 
bill as a whole, as perfected by the Committee of the

[[Page 7459]]

Whole. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 21967, 21968, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. S. 1030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas J.] Tauke [of Iowa]: Page 50, 
    after line 2, insert the following new section:

             monitoring of middle distillate supply and demand

        Sec. 4. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall establish and 
    maintain a data collection program for monitoring, at the refining, 
    wholesale, and retail levels, the supply and demand levels of 
    middle distillates on a monthly basis in each State.
        (b) The program to be established under subsection (a) shall 
    provide for--
        (1) the prompt collection of relevant demand and supply data 
    under the authority available to the Secretary of Energy under 
    other provisions of law;
        (2) making such data available to the Congress, as well as to 
    appropriate State agencies and the public in accordance with 
    otherwise applicable law, beginning on the 5th day after the close 
    of the month to which it pertains, together with projections of 
    supply and demand levels for the then current month; and
        (3) the review and adjustment of such data and projections not 
    later than the 15th day after the initial availability of such data 
    and projections under paragraph (2).
        (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``middle 
    distillate'' has the same meaning as given that term in section 
    211.51 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on 
    the date of the enactment of this Act.
        (d) The program established under this section shall not 
    prescribe, or have the effect of prescribing, margin controls or 
    trigger prices for purposes of the reimposition of price 
    requirements under section 12(f) of the Emergency Petroleum 
    Allocation Act of 1973.
        Redesignate the following sections accordingly.

    After some debate, Mr. Tauke made a request, as follows, and the 
amendment was agreed to, as modified: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 21966, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tauke: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
    amendment as follows:

            On line 16 strike ``5th'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``10th''.

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Iowa?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk will report the modification to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On line 16 strike ``5th'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``10th''.

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Tauke), as modified.
        The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

    Thereafter, Mr. Tauke offered the following amendment: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 21967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Tauke: Page 50, after line 2, insert 
    the following new section:

[[Page 7460]]

       national middle distillate set-aside program for agricultural 
                                 production

        Sec. 4. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, the President shall establish and maintain a 
    national set-aside program to provide middle distillates for 
    agricultural production.
        (b) The program established under subsection (a) shall--
        (1) be made effective only if the President finds that a 
    shortage of middle distillates exists within the various regions of 
    the United States generally, or within any specific region of the 
    United States, and that shortage--
        (A) has impaired or is likely to impair agricultural 
    production; and
        (B) has not been, or is not likely to be, alleviated by any 
    State set-aside program or programs covering areas within that 
    region;
        (2) provide that, in regions in which such program is 
    effective, prime suppliers of such fuel be required to set aside 
    each month 1 percent of the amount of the middle distillates to be 
    supplied during that month in that area;
        (3) provide that amounts of fuel set aside under such program 
    be directed to be supplied by such prime suppliers to applicants 
    who the President determines would not otherwise have adequate 
    supplies to meet requirements for agricultural production;
        (4) provide that such prime suppliers may meet such 
    responsibilities for supplying fuel either directly or through 
    wholesale purchasers who resell fuel, but only in accordance with 
    the requirements established under such program; and
        (5) shall not supersede any State set-aside program for middle 
    distillates established under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
    Act of 1973.
        (c) For purposes of this section--
        (1) The term ``agricultural production'' has the meaning given 
    it in section 211.51 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
    in effect on the date of the enactment of this section, and 
    includes the transportation of agricultural products.
        (2) The term ``prime supplier'', when used with respect to any 
    middle distillate, means the supplier, or producer, which makes the 
    first sale of the middle distillate into any region for consumption 
    in that region.
        (3) The term ``middle distillate'' has the same meaning as 
    given that term in such section 211.51.
        (4) The term ``region'' means any PAD district as such term is 
    defined in such section 211.51. Redesignate the following sections 
    accordingly.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a conservation 
    bill. It deals with conservation of petroleum and petroleum 
    products and energy. It deals also with rationing.
        Mr. Chairman, if the chairman will observe the amendment before 
    him, he will notice it creates a national middle distillate set-
    aside program for agricultural production. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is 
    quite possible this is a highly desirable thing but that is not the 
    ques

[[Page 7461]]

    tion before the Chair. The question before the Chair is, Does this 
    bill deal with the set-aside of middle distillates or set-asides of 
    other petroleum products? The answer to that question is a 
    resounding no. The legislation, S. 1030 before us, contains nothing 
    relating to set-aside of petroleum products or matters relating to 
    set-aside of petroleum products.
        The members of the committee could not have reasonably expected 
    set-aside amendments to be laid before them on the basis of the 
    legislation which lies before us; so the purposes of the bill and 
    the purposes of the amendment are quite different and distinct. I 
    would, therefore, urge on the chair that this amendment is not 
    germane.
        I would further state that the proposal goes on to deal with a 
    number of set-aside matters which are not included in the proposal 
    before us, but which are embodied in other statutes, such as the 
    Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act. The legislation deals with the 
    term ``agricultural production'' as defined in section 211.51 of 
    title X, which is not under the jurisdiction of the Commerce 
    Committee.
        The proposal deals with and defines the term prime supplier of 
    middle distillate and the term defines a number of other matters 
    which are not found in the legislation here.
        As a matter of fact, it would convert the legislation before us 
    from essentially a conservation program to an allocation program, 
    something which would not be the intention of the committee, as 
    opposed to a rationing program which was. . . .
        Mr. Tauke: . . . Mr. Chairman, in this particular measure that 
    we are considering, we have taken great pains during the past 
    several hours to provide specific consideration for certain 
    businesses that are part of our economy. We considered, for 
    example, nursing homes and health institutions. We have considered 
    with the last amendment of the gentleman from Michigan a whole host 
    of other special businesses in this country. This is a special 
    consideration for the agricultural industry.
        In addition, I think it is appropriate to note that in this 
    measure that the bill has been dealing with the allocation of fuels 
    when supplies are scarce. That is what is the exact purpose of this 
    amendment is, to deal with the allocation of fuels at a time when 
    supplies are scarce.
        So in view of both of those items, it occurs to me that it is 
    appropriate that this amendment be considered a part of this 
    measure. . . .
        Mr. [Charles] Pashayan [Jr., of California]: The point of 
    order, I believe, has something to do with the substance of the 
    amendment as it relates to the bill. The point I am making is that 
    although this is dealing with the set aside, that is only the form. 
    The substance, in fact, relates to the bill, because it is the only 
    way agriculture can be protected under the bill; whereas other 
    businesses do not need set asides and that is the only way we can 
    protect agriculture, so I do think it relates to the substance of 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, this bill 
    before us deals with EPCA in the rationing section and adds a 
    section on conservation.

[[Page 7462]]

        Now, EPCA stands for the Emergency Energy Policy and 
    Conservation Act. It is in the conservation parts of this bill that 
    we have the Tauke amendment offered.
        The Department of Energy regulations, based on the Emergency 
    Energy Policy and Conservation Act, include those DOE regulations 
    based on that act, include set aside programs for energy 
    conservation or energy usage; so it seems to me that the amendment 
    of the gentleman from Iowa is clearly germane in that he is dealing 
    with set asides as a method of conservation, but from the 
    standpoint of concern about the agricultural community and whether 
    or not the agricultural community will have adequate energy to meet 
    its needs in the interests of the society. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard in favor of the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I just would like to point out briefly that this 
    is, unlike the other amendments we have had which deal with 
    hospitals, nursing homes and the whole other host of special 
    interests sought to be protected, those all sought to be protected 
    under conservation plans that might be put forward under this bill 
    and the limitation of Presidential powers to put forward such 
    plans.
        This amendment is quite different. It seeks to set up an 
    allocation plan specifically to set aside certain amounts of fuel 
    for agriculture.
        Therefore, it seems to me quite different from anything else in 
    this bill. It is unrelated and I believe it clearly is out of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . One other point that omitted my 
    attention until the staff drew it to my attention, and it is that 
    the very rationing part of this bill was added as an amendment to 
    the basic legislation in the subcommittee. Therefore, making the 
    legislation quite broad in its approach and for that reason of 
    breadth and for the reason that we accepted that rationing 
    amendment or that rationing portion as an amendment in the 
    subcommittee, it seems to me that the offering of the gentleman 
    from Iowa is very appropriate in the full House at this time.

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa and considered the point of order as to its germaneness 
    to the bill raised by the gentleman from Michigan.
        The [test of the germaneness of a new section is its 
    relationship] to the bill as read to this point and in that case we 
    have a bill at this point in which section 2 deals with rationing.
        Section 3 deals with conservation and market disruption, 
    specifically the purpose which the gentleman from Indiana pointed 
    out on page 24 which establishes mechanisms to alleviate 
    disruptions in gasoline and diesel oil markets; in addition to 
    which, a new section 4 has been agreed to by the committee which 
    provides for the monitoring of middle distillates and supply of 
    diesel oil.
        Therefore, the scope of the bill as read to this point is 
    significantly broadened and it is now considerably more diverse 
    than any one section thereof.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order and holds 
    that the amendment is germane.

[[Page 7463]]

Energy Conservation Bill--Amendment Prohibiting School Busing; Imposing 
    Criminal Penalties

Sec. 3.11 To a title of a bill designed to enable agencies of the 
    government to formulate policies of energy conservation, an 
    amendment prohibiting certain uses of fuel (for school busing) by 
    any person and imposing criminal penalties for such use was held 
    not germane to the fundamental purpose of the title.

    On Sept. 17, 1975,(14) it was demonstrated that the test 
of the germaneness of an amendment in the form of a new section to a 
title of a bill being read by titles is the relationship between the 
amendment and the pending title. The proceedings during consideration 
of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (15) 
in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 28925-27, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Collins of Texas: Page 273, insert 
        after line 4 the following new section:

            energy conservation through prohibition of unnecessary 
                                 transportation

            Sec. 450. (a)(1) No person may use gasoline or diesel fuel 
        for the transportation of any public school student to a school 
        farther than the public school which is closest to his home 
        offering educational courses for the grade level and course of 
        study of the student and which is within the boundaries of the 
        school attendance district wherein the student resides.
            (2) Any person who violates subsection (1) of this section 
        shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 
        one year, or both, for each violation of such subsection. . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]his is clearly beyond the scope of the matters that are 
    dealt with in this title of the bill. It would very substantially 
    introduce administrative duties that are not provided for in any 
    way in the bill, and it is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this 
    committee. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, we have had a 
    similar amendment in conservation bills before which have passed 
    the House before, and in this particular bill. It comes in 
    conjunction with sections on energy conservation through van 
    pooling arrangements, through the use of car pools. It is an 
    identical type of conservation measure as the limitation of 
    limousines we discussed earlier, and the conservation of gasoline.
        This is very much consistent because what we are talking about 
    here in conservation, the unnecessary and unneeded uses of 
    transportation. Also, we have the jurisdiction over the FEA, and it 
    seems to me that we would be concerned with this. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from New York makes 
    a point of order

[[Page 7464]]

    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Collins) on grounds that it is not germane to title IV. The 
    gentleman from Texas, in responding to the point of order, has 
    cited certain amendments that have been adopted to the bill during 
    debate, and the Chair is not clear as to whether he is talking only 
    about this bill or about earlier bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I understand that 
    specifically this bill itself, in this particular bill itself on 
    page 270, we have a section of this bill which says, ``Energy 
    Conservation Through Van Pooling Arrangements.''
        On page 271, we have a section called ``Use of Carpools.'' We 
    just adopted the Santini amendment, which is related to it. We 
    talked about limousines. We have been talking about transportation 
    and vehicles. Here we are talking about conservation, and we could 
    conserve a great deal of gasoline and diesel fuel. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan): . . . I would point out 
    that the bill before us relates to allocation of gasoline. It 
    relates to the conservation of energy. But this amendment adds a 
    criteria category and purpose to the bill which is above, apart and 
    different from anything else found anywhere else in the bill, and 
    that is a specific prohibition of the use of fuels for a particular 
    purpose, which carries us beyond the purposes of the bill.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I would cite to the Chair that the nature 
    of the amendment must be such as to notify the House that it might 
    reasonably anticipate it and might be related to the purposes for 
    which the bill is drawn.
        Mr. Chairman, I might add further that the amendment adds 
    criminal sections, imposing, for example, penalties on bus drivers 
    of school buses, and goes well beyond the allocation powers or the 
    conservation powers which are vested in the Federal Government, 
    adding, essentially, a new criminal section of the bill which was 
    not previously before us and which is not in the bill. . . .
        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    call the attention of the Chair to title VI of the bill, 
    particularly section 605, where we have a section that prohibits 
    the use of natural gas as boiler fuel for the generation of 
    electricity.
        It would seem to me that here we have a similar type of fuel--
    gasoline--and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Collins) by his 
    amendment would prohibit the use of that fuel in transporting 
    school children. . . .
        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, there is one further thing 
    I wish to say. We have talked about whether there were penalties or 
    not provided in this bill.
        In the bill itself, in previous sections, violations were set 
    out and there were penalties of $5,000. There are several sections 
    in the FEA sections that provide for penalties. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to state at the outset that the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ottinger) against 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Collins) is 
    on the ground that the amendment is not germane to title IV, and we 
    are in effect limited in our consider

[[Page 7465]]

    ation to the matters contained in title IV.
        As will be clear in the statement which the Chair will make, 
    the ruling that the present occupant of the Chair made under 
    seemingly similar circumstances on an earlier bill is different.
        The amendment would prohibit the use by any person--and that is 
    the key to the ruling of the Chair--of gasoline or diesel fuel for 
    certain transportation of public school students, and would 
    establish a criminal penalty for violation of the amendment's 
    provisions. The Chair has noted the Chair's ruling, cited in 
    Deschler's Procedures, chapter 28, section 26.9, that an amendment 
    restricting the regulatory authority of the President, who was 
    authorized by the bill to establish priorities among users of 
    petroleum products, was germane where the amendment required the 
    product so allocated be used only for certain transportation of 
    public school students.
        It appears to the Chair that the ruling on that occasion was 
    specifically directed to the fact that the bill conferred certain 
    regulatory authority upon the President, and that the amendment 
    placed a specific limitation and direction on the power so 
    delegated. The amendment now in question does not address itself to 
    the authority of an agency of Government, except in its last 
    subsection relating to certain determinations by the Administrator 
    of the Federal Energy Administration. But the direct thrust of the 
    amendment is to prohibit certain uses of fuel by any person.
        It is true that the title to which the amendment is offered 
    deals with the subject of the conservation of energy, but the 
    provisions of title IV address the goal of conservation through 
    actions and encouragement by an agency of Government, not through 
    prohibitions on the use of fuel by any person.
        The Chair is unable to discover in title IV or in the basic act 
    being amended criminal prohibitions applicable to any person using 
    the fuel in a certain way.
        The Chair, therefore, finds that the amendment is not germane 
    to the fundamental purposes of the title to which offered and 
    sustains the point of order.

Proposition To Require Study of Energy Conservation--Amendment 
    Requiring Study of Effect of Regulations on Energy Shortage

Sec. 3.12 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 the Energy Emergency Act (17) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec.

[[Page 7466]]

14, 1973,(18) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 11450.
18. 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 pursuant 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

[[Page 7467]]

    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: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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.

Permanent Direction to Agency To Promulgate Regulations Based on Study

Sec. 3.13 While an amendment to an annual authorization bill which 
    requires a study to be made with a portion of the authorized funds 
    may be germane, a permanent direction to the agency or department 
    in question to promulgate regulations based on such study is not 
    germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 12, 1979, relating to H.R. 3000, the 
Department of Energy authorizations for fiscal 1980 and 1981, are 
discussed in Sec. 24.3, infra.

Proposition Requiring Agency To Conduct Study--Amendment Requiring 
    Agency To Propose Legislation

Sec. 3.14 To a proposition directing that a study be conducted to 
    determine the feasibility of establishing certain standards of fuel 
    economy for automobiles, an amendment requiring submission by the 
    investigating agency of proposed legislation implementing the 
    conclusions of such study was held to be germane.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(20) during consideration of H.R. 
11450, the Energy Emergency Act, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
that directed the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study of 
the feasibility of establishing a fuel economy improvement standard of 
twenty percent for 1980 and subsequent model year automobiles. An 
amendment was offered to that section, requiring submission by the 
Agency of proposed legislation which would affirmatively establish a 
fuel economy improvement standard of twenty-five percent or

[[Page 7468]]

as close thereto as was deemed feasible in the light of criteria 
specified in the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 41747, 41748, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: 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. Rogers to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 67, after 
        line 26, add the following . . .
            ``(b)(1)) Subject to paragraph (2) and (3), not later than 
        30 days after submission of the results of the study under 
        subsection (a), the Administrator shall submit to the Committee 
        on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Public Works of the Senate 
        proposed legislation which would establish a 25 per centum fuel 
        economy improvement standard applicable to 1980 and later model 
        new motor vehicles. . . .
            ``(2) If the Administrator determines that establishing a 
        fuel economy improvement standard of 25 per centum for 1980 and 
        later model new motor vehicles--
            (A) is technologically or economically unfeasible,
            (B) cannot be complied with safety and without interferring 
        with applicable emission requirements, or
            (C) will have unreasonably disruptive impact on employment 
        or the economy,
    he shall propose legislation establishing such lesser fuel economy 
    improvement standard which he determines is as close to 25 per 
    centum as possible without having any of the effects described in 
    subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C). . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that this amendment is not germane, that we have 
    no other subject matter such as this in the bill, and, furthermore, 
    that the House of Representatives or the Congress in prior action 
    has authorized another Department of the Federal Government to 
    undertake the same study, and thus this amendment is not in order. 
    . . .
        Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, actually this simply carries out part 
    of the provision in the law which provides for a study on how this 
    can be accomplished.
        All this amendment does, in connection with that study, is to 
    say the following: Where that study says, ``He shall report to the 
    Congress,'' this simply says or sets forth the manner in which he 
    shall do that, by proposing specific legislative proposals that we 
    ourselves would rule on, as the results of a study. And then he 
    proposes how we can save fuel mileage.
        That is all it is doing. It is set at 1980, and it simply 
    carries out what we are trying to do in that study by having him 
    report to the Congress.
        It simply tells him how he shall make his report to the 
    Congress, that it is proper and economically feasible. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) For the reasons stated by the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rogers), the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although an amendment which directs that 
certain actions or activities be undertaken is not germane

[[Page 7469]]

to a proposal merely to investigate the subject matter 
involved,(2) the amendment offered by Mr. Rogers in the 
above instance required simply the submission of proposed legislation 
as a follow-up of the study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Prescribing Standards for Educational Agencies Administering 
    Programs--Amendment Providing Remedies Where Agencies Deny Equal 
    Educational Opportunity

Sec. 3.15 To an Education and Labor Committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute extending and amending several laws relating to 
    federal assistance to state and local educational agencies and 
    prescribing standards to be followed by educational agencies in the 
    administration of federally funded educational programs, an 
    amendment proscribing educational agencies from denying equal 
    educational opportunity to public school students and providing 
    judicial and administrative remedies for denials of equal 
    educational opportunity and of equal protection of the laws was 
    held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 69 (3) in the Committee of 
the Whole on Mar. 26, 1974,(4) the Chair held that to a 
proposition amending several laws providing federally funded 
assistance, an amendment restricting the activities of the state and 
local agencies which are the recipients of those funds and also 
providing a judicial remedy where the restrictions imposed upon those 
agencies are not complied with is germane. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. A bill to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Act.
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 8262-64, 8269, 8270, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Esch to the committee substitute 
        amendment: Page 58, after line 18, insert a new Title II (and 
        number the succeeding Titles and Sections accordingly):

                  ``TITLE II--EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

            Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the ``Equal 
        Educational Opportunities Act of 1974''.

                           Part A--Policy and Purpose

            Sec. 202. (a) The Congress declares it to be the policy of 
        the United States that--
            (1) all children enrolled in public schools are entitled to 
        equal educational opportunity without regard to race, color, 
        sex, or national origin; and

[[Page 7470]]

            (2) the neighborhood is the appropriate basis for 
        determining public school assignments.
            (b) In order to carry out this policy, it is the purpose of 
        this Act to specify appropriate remedies for the orderly 
        removal of the vestiges of the dual school system. . . .

                           Part B--Unlawful Practices

                    denial of equal educational opportunity

            Sec. 204. No State shall deny equal educational opportunity 
        to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or 
        national origin, by--
            (a) the deliberate segregation by an educational agency of 
        students on the basis of race, color, or national origin among 
        or within schools . . .

                              Part C--Enforcement

                                 civil actions

            Sec. 207. An individual denied an equal educational 
        opportunity, as defined by this title may institute a civil 
        action in an appropriate district court of the United States 
        against such parties, and for such relief, as may be 
        appropriate. The Attorney General . . . may also institute such 
        a civil action on behalf of such an individual. . . .

                               Part [D]--Remedies

                      formulating remedies; applicability

            Sec. 213. In formulating a remedy for a denial of equal 
        educational opportunity or a denial of the equal protection of 
        the laws, a court, department, or agency of the United States 
        shall seek or impose only such remedies as are essential to 
        correct particular denials of equal educational opportunity or 
        equal protection of the laws.
            Sec. 214. In formulating a remedy for a denial of equal 
        educational opportunity or a denial of the equal protection of 
        the laws . . . a court, department, or agency of the United 
        States shall consider and make specific findings on the 
        efficacy in correcting such denial of the following remedies 
        and shall require implementation of the first of the remedies 
        set out below, or of the first combination thereof which would 
        remedy such denial:
            (a) assigning students to the schools closest to their 
        places of residence which provide the appropriate grade level 
        and type of education for such students, taking into account 
        school capacities and natural physical barriers; . . .

                           transportation of students

            Sec. 215. (a) No court, department, or agency of the United 
        States shall, pursuant to section 214, order the implementation 
        of a plan that would require the transportation of any student 
        to a school other than the school closest or next closest to 
        his place of residence which provides the appropriate grade 
        level and type of education for such student. . . .

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, it is settled 
    that while a bill may be brought before the House embracing 
    different subjects, as does the bill now under consideration, it is 
    not in order to introduce a new subject (V, 5825), which is 
    precisely what the gentleman's amendment would do. The fundamental 
    purpose of H.R. 69 is to extend, modify and create educational 
    programs; the fundamental purpose of the gentleman's amendment is 
    to limit the power of Federal courts to determine what constitutes 
    a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution. 
    Therefore, the amendment is not germane (VIII, 2911). Going beyond 
    the fundamental purposes of H.R. 69 and the gentleman's amendment,

[[Page 7471]]

    there is not even a specific provision of his amendment which deals 
    with educational programs, which, along with administrative 
    provisions governing such programs and two or three studies, are 
    the only subjects dealt with in H.R. 69. The facts permit only one 
    conclusion; the gentleman's amendment must be ruled out of order by 
    reason of clause 7 of rule XVI. . . .
        This amendment can in no way be described as dealing with 
    educational programs, in whole or in part. It is, as previously 
    stated, nothing less than a straightforward attempt to limit the 
    jurisdiction and power of our courts to interpret the 14th 
    amendment to the Constitution and to fashion appropriate remedies 
    for its violation. While I would, on another occasion, argue that 
    this represents a ``backdoor'' attempt to amend the Constitution--
    on the theory that a right for which there is no enforceable remedy 
    is no right at all--that is not my purpose today. I wish only to 
    point out in some detail both the particular and the fundamental 
    purposes of the gentleman's amendment so that the Chair might 
    better understand why they are completely unrelated to the bill 
    under consideration which, as I have said, deals entirely with 
    various educational programs. . . .
        Mr. [Marvin L.] Esch [of Michigan]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I think 
    we should point out that the amendment offered by me, on behalf of 
    others and myself, is clearly in order to H.R. 69. I would refer 
    the Chair to the fact that H.R. 69 not only amends the Elementary 
    and Secondary Education Act of 1965, but also amends the General 
    Education Benefit Act on which the Commissioner of Education has 
    specific authority to deal on all matters pertaining to elementary 
    and secondary education.
        Furthermore, it also amends the Emergency School Aid Act. 
    Indeed, in title IX under section 901, there are specific 
    amendments to the Emergency School Aid Act referring to the 
    question of integrated schools and even going specifically to the 
    point as to the number of minority group children which comprise 
    the makeup of a minority school.
        So, clearly an amendment which would be related to the 
    education in segregated or nonsegregated schools would be clearly 
    in order.

        It should also be pointed out that such matter pertains 
    specifically to the transportation of pupils, which is also a part 
    of this act. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that there are 
    many other extraneous matters even apart from the Elementary and 
    Secondary Education Act, such as the amendment extending adult 
    education sections, which surely do not pertain to the K through 12 
    programs, and even on the study of the need for athletic trainers 
    in secondary schools and institutions of higher education, which 
    clearly are far beyond the boundary of merely amendments to 
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . .
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: . . . Section 2995 of 
    volume VIII of the Precedents of the House clearly states that it 
    is up to the maker of an amendment to prove germaneness. I do not 
    think that is possible. H.R. 69 deals with various forms of Federal 
    aid to education. Every provision of the bill is related to that 
    purpose. On the other hand, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from

[[Page 7472]]

    Michigan does not in any way deal with Federal aid or with aid of 
    any sort to education. The sole purpose of the amendment is to 
    define unlawful practices as they relate to the segregation of 
    schoolchildren. A further major section of the amendment places 
    restrictions on Federal courts and directs the Attorney General to 
    take certain actions. The heart and substance of the amendment is 
    aimed at limiting the transportation of students. H.R. 69 does not 
    touch upon that subject matter in any way. Clearly transportation 
    is not germane to H.R. 69.
        On September 22, 1914, the Chairman of the (Committee of the) 
    Whole ruled that to be germane an amendment must be ``akin to, or 
    near to, or appropriate to or relevant to and germane amendments 
    must bear such relationship to the provisions of the bill as well 
    as meet the other tests; that is, that they be in a natural and 
    logical sequence to the subject matter and propose such 
    modifications as would naturally, properly and reasonably be 
    anticipated.''
        Certainly there is no logical sequence between providing 
    Federal aid on the one hand and restricting the powers of the 
    courts on the other.
        I would also call the attention of the Chair also to a ruling 
    on May 24, 1917, by Chairman Hamlin that if any portion of an 
    amendment is not germane then the whole amendment must go. 
    Certainly, the section of the amendment which limits court orders 
    is not germane to H.R. 69 nor is the section directing intervention 
    by the Attorney General.
        I would point out further that the amendment does not amend 
    existing law; it merely adds new language to the bill--another 
    clear sign of the non-germane nature of the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: . . . (The bill) deals 
    with educationally deprived children, with libraries, with learning 
    results from educational innovation, with support and assistance to 
    federally impacted school districts, with adult education, with 
    community education, education for the handicapped, bilingual 
    education, the study of rate funding, the study of the need for 
    athletic trainers, the amendments to the General Education 
    Provisions Act, and, finally, amendments to the Emergency School 
    Aid Act, which deals with the same subject, that is, methods by 
    which equal educational opportunities may be obtained.
        The mere fact that this seeks to achieve those objectives by 
    different means and with different enforcement mechanisms cannot 
    render the amendment not germane to the bill before us. Mr. 
    Chairman, I believe and I assert that the amendment is germane to 
    the bill and I hope that the Chair will so rule. . . .
        Mr. Meeds: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) that the Elementary and Secondary Education 
    Act covers a great deal of education. That is precisely my point of 
    order.
        Nowhere does it deal with the court's interpretation of the 
    14th amendment rights, and that is what the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Esch) seeks to do.
        Second, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Esch) is urging that 
    because

[[Page 7473]]

    his amendment amends the Emergency School Aid Act, which is also 
    amended by H.R. 69, this is sufficient to overcome the question of 
    germaneness.
        There is a very slight amendment which deals with a totally 
    different matter in this bill. As a matter of fact, there are two 
    minor matters involved. But neither of these minor amendments is in 
    any sense connected with the fundamental purpose of the gentleman's 
    amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Meeds) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Esch) is not germane to the committee substitute amendment for 
    H.R. 69.
        The committee substitute amendment for H.R. 69 has as its major 
    purpose the extension and amendment of several statutes relating to 
    Federal assistance to State and local educational agencies.
        The committee amendment contains many diverse sets of 
    guidelines to be followed by State and local educational agencies 
    in the administration of those federally funded educational 
    programs.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan does, as 
    the gentleman from Washington suggests, go to the delineation of 
    Federal court jurisdiction over constitutional questions of what 
    constitutes a denial of equal educational opportunity and of equal 
    protection of the laws; but it also contains broad directives to 
    State and local educational agencies which would prohibit those 
    agencies from implementing plans which deny, in several enumerated 
    ways, equal educational opportunity. The remedies to be imposed for 
    the violations by State agencies are not limited to court 
    proceedings but include Federal departmental and agency proceedings 
    as well, such as those of the Office of Education.
        The Chair would like to point out that while committee 
    jurisdiction is not an exclusive test of germaneness, the Committee 
    on Education and Labor has considered bills similar in text to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan.
        The Chair would also point out that under the precedents it is 
    not the function of the Chair to construe the legal effect of an 
    amendment. That is left to the committee itself. The Chair feels 
    because the amendment operates, in part, as a direct restriction on 
    the State and local educational agencies whose activities are being 
    funded and directed in many diverse ways by the committee amendment 
    that the amendment is germane, and the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Title Restricting Federal Control Over Education--Amendment Denying Use 
    of Funds for Abortion Counselling

Sec. 3.16 To a title of a bill establishing a new Department of 
    Education, containing findings and purposes and setting forth 
    restrictions on the authority of the new department to exercise 
    federal con

[[Page 7474]]

    trol over education, an amendment denying the use of funds under 
    federal programs to assist the teaching or counseling of the use of 
    abortion was ruled out of order as not germane, being unrelated to 
    the fundamental purpose of the title to restrict federal control 
    over public education and curricula, inasmuch as it sought to 
    address funding authority rather than legal restrictions.

    On June 12, 1979,(6) the Chair sustained a point of 
order against an amendment to a title of a bill (7) which 
restricted the authority of an entity to exercise control over 
institutions for which it was to administer funding under existing 
laws, holding that the amendment, which curtailed the authority of the 
agency to provide funds for certain reasons, was not germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 125 Cong. Rec. 14464, 14465, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 2444, 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 counseling 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 would say [the 
    germaneness 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 and I would like to speak on it if I might. 
    . . .
        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

[[Page 7475]]

    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 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. . . .
        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 1971 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 past 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: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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 pro

[[Page 7476]]

    visions 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 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.

Title Establishing Administrative Structure of Department of 
    Education--Amendment Relating to Transportation of Students To 
    Establish Racial Balance

Sec. Sec. 3.17 To a title of a bill establishing a new Department of 
    Education, which only addresses the administrative structure of the 
    Department and not its authority to carry out the programs 
    transferred to it, an amendment prohibiting the Department from 
    withholding federal funds to force the transportation of students 
    or teachers to establish racial or ethnic balance was held to be 
    not germane.

    During consideration of the Department of Education Organization 
Act of 1979 (9) in the Committee of the Whole on June 12, 
1979,(10) Chairman Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan, held an 
amendment to title II of the bill to be not germane. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 2444.
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 14466, 14485, 14486, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT

                               establishment

        Sec. 201. (a) There is hereby established an executive 
    department to be known as the Department of Education. There shall 
    be at the head of the Department a Secretary of Education, who 
    shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
    consent of the Senate. The Department shall be administered, in 
    accordance with the provisions of this Act, under

[[Page 7477]]

    the supervision and direction of the Secretary.
        (b) There shall be in the Department an Under Secretary, who 
    shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
    consent of the Senate. The Under Secretary shall perform such 
    functions as the Secretary shall prescribe and shall act for and 
    exercise the functions of the Secretary during the absence or 
    disability of the Secretary. . . .
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 58, after line 6, 
        insert the following new section:

         prohibition against the withholding by the secretary of funds 
                      to force racial-ethnic quota busing

            Sec. 201(c). The Secretary and the Department may not 
        withhold any funds, grants, contracts or awards otherwise 
        authorized to be granted because of failure to transport 
        students or teachers (or to purchase equipment for such 
        transportation) in order to establish racial or ethnic school 
        attendance quotas or guidelines in any school or school system, 
        or because of the failure to transport students or teachers (or 
        to purchase equipment for such transportation) in order to 
        carry out such a plan in any school or school system. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I will make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Under the test imposed by rule XVI, clause 7, it is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: . . . I make the point of order 
    on the amendment under rule XVI, clause 7, requiring that 
    amendments be germane to the subject under consideration. To be 
    germane, the amendment must have the same fundamental purpose of 
    the bill under consideration. The purpose of H.R. 2444 to establish 
    a Department of Education deals only with the organizational 
    structure of that Department. Amendments affecting programs or 
    assigning new duties to the Secretary or his assistants or 
    employees that are not now authorized by law are not consistent 
    with that organizational purpose and, therefore, should be ruled 
    out of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) 
    desire to be further heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Horton: I just wanted to make the point that this is in the 
    section that has to do with the establishment of the Department and 
    that this is a matter that is not within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Government Operations, and it is not involved in the 
    organization of this Department, and, therefore, it should be ruled 
    not germane.
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to add something to the point of order, if I may.
        It occurs to me that the manner in which the amendment is 
    written, Mr. Chairman, is limitation of the jurisdiction of a court 
    of competent jurisdiction. It goes far beyond the scope of this 
    bill and not only affects the court of competent jurisdiction, but 
    in effect tells and directs the Secretary of Education to ignore 
    and disobey the orders of the court.
        Mr. Dornan: Mr. Chairman, I have a final thought. On page 56 of 
    H.R.

[[Page 7478]]

    2444 we say in line 12 ``(5) to increase the accountability of 
    Federal education programs to the President, the Congress, and the 
    public;''.
        All I am doing with this amendment is merely limiting the scope 
    of the Secretary of this new Department of Education, and the 
    statement that I just read increases the accountability of this 
    Federal program to the Congress.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would point out to the gentleman that the matters 
    alluded to in his final argument pertain to title I. The amendment 
    which the gentleman has offered is to title II which deals with the 
    structure of the new Department of Education. Title II does not go 
    to the basic question whether substantive educational programs 
    should be retained and to the purposes for which funds under those 
    programs may be expended. Accordingly the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.

Amendment Relating to Wage Discrimination Based on Race, Offered to 
    Bill To Eliminate Wage Discrimination Based on Sex of Employee

Sec. 3.18 To a bill seeking to eliminate wage discrimination based on 
    the sex of the employee, an amendment to make the provisions of the 
    bill applicable to discrimination based on race was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(11) prohibiting wage discrimination based on sex of an 
employee, the following amendment was offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 11677 (Committee on Education and Labor).
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 14778, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 25, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New Jersey]:
        After section 4, add the following:
        Sec. 5. Whenever the word ``sex'' is used in this Act, the 
    words ``or race'' shall be added immediately thereafter.

    A point of order was made, as follows:

        Mrs. [Edith] Green of Oregon: . . . The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey is not germane to the bill under 
    discussion, which has to do with equal pay for equal work. It does 
    not cover the subject which the gentleman from New Jersey has 
    covered in his amendment.

    The Chairman (13) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Edna F. Kelly (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Providing for Reorganization of Executive Agencies--Amendment 
    Relating to President's Term of Office

Sec. 3.19 To a bill providing for reorganization of the executive 
    departments and agencies of the government, an

[[Page 7479]]

    amendment concerned with the term of office of the President was 
    held not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a government 
reorganization bill,(14) the following amendment was 
offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. S. 3331 (Select Committee on Government Organization).
15. 83 Cong. Rec. 5114, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 8, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Hamilton] Fish Jr., [of New York]: 
    Page 82, after line 15, add a new section, as follows:
        Sec. 429. That it is the sense of the Congress that the 
    precedent established by Washington and other Presidents of the 
    United States in retiring from the Presidential office after their 
    second term has become by universal concurrence a part of our 
    republican system of government . . . and that the Congress 
    commends the observance of this precedent.

    Mr. James M. Mead, of New York, having made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane, Mr. Fish responded:

        Mr. Chairman, this bill has to do with the reorganization of 
    the executive departments of the Government and the executive 
    agencies of the Government. If this bill goes through, the 
    President will be clothed with vast powers to preserve and 
    perpetuate himself in office. . . .

    The Chairman, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 5115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is nothing in the pending bill relative to the term of 
    office of the President of the United States.
        The point of order is sustained.

Bill To Remove Federal Loan Agencies From Department of Commerce--
    Amendment Relating to Term of Federal Loan Administrator

Sec. 3.20 To a bill proposing to remove federal loan agencies from the 
    Department of Commerce, an amendment relating to the term of office 
    and removal from office of the Federal Loan Administrator was held 
    not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (17) was under 
consideration which provided in part: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. S. 375 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
18. See 91 Cong. Rec. 1184, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 16, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the Federal Loan Agency, created by 
    section 402 of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 1 under 
    authority of the Reorganization Act of 1939, shall continue as an 
    independent establishment of the Federal Government and shall 
    continue to be administered under the direction and supervision of 
    the Federal Loan Administrator in the same manner and to the same 
    extent as if Executive Order 9071, dated February 24, 1942, 
    transferring the functions of the Federal Loan Agency to the Depart

[[Page 7480]]

    ment of Commerce, had not been issued.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Louis E.] Graham [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 2, line 2, insert a new subsection as follows:
        Section 1. (a) The term of office of the Federal Loan 
    Administrator created by section 402 of the President's 
    Reorganization Plan No. 1 under authority of the Reorganization Act 
    of 1939, shall be for the period of 1 year, unless he is sooner 
    removed by the President, upon reasons to be communicated by him to 
    the Senate, and he shall receive a salary at the rate of $12,000 
    per annum.
        A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: I make the point of order 
    that the amendment is not germane to the bill. It goes far beyond 
    any purpose of the bill in that it changes the organic law of the 
    lending agency and is not germane to this legislation.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 1184, 1185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Graham: . . . [T]here is no broadening of this act by this 
    amendment. It does not create a new agency; it does not create a 
    new administrator; the title remains the same, the Agency is still 
    in effect, the Administrator is still designated as the Federal 
    Loan Administrator, and the salary remains the same. Only two 
    changes are embodied in my amendment. One is fixing a definite 
    term, which is surely within the power of the legislative branch of 
    the Government to do, and the other is the protection to the 
    individual named by the President that he shall not be removed 
    except upon reason communicated by the President.

    The Chairman, Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, in ruling on 
the point of order, stated: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 1185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Graham] provides that the Federal Loan Administrator shall 
    hold office for a year and be confirmed by the Senate. The bill 
    under consideration has but one object, that is, to remove from the 
    Department of Commerce all of the Federal loan agencies. Therefore, 
    the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane. The point of 
    order is sustained.

--Amendment Relating to Management of Import-Export Bank

Sec. 3.21 To a bill having for its sole purpose the removal of federal 
    loan agencies from the Department of Commerce, an amendment 
    relating to management of the Export-Import Bank of Washington by a 
    board of directors was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
to pro

[[Page 7481]]

vide for the effective administration of certain lending agencies of 
the federal government. The following amendment was offered to the 
bill: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. S. 375 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 2. 91 Cong. Rec. 1191, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 16, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Jesse P.) Wolcott (of Michigan): Page 
    2, line 20, at the end of section 4, add a new section as follows:
        Sec. --. (a) The management of the Export-Import Bank of 
    Washington shall be vested in a board of directors consisting of 
    five persons appointed by the President of the United States by and 
    with the advice and consent of the Senate. . . .
        (c) No functions, powers, or duties of the Export-Import Bank 
    of Washington except as provided in Executive Order 9361, dated 
    July 15, 1943, and Executive Order 9880, dated September 15, 1943, 
    shall be transferred to or consolidated with any other department, 
    agency, or corporation of the Government unless the Congress shall 
    otherwise by law provide.
        (d) All acts and Executive orders or parts of the same which 
    are in conflict with the provisions of this section are hereby 
    repealed and rescinded.

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

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to this section or 
    to the bill. The bill attempts merely to lift the Reconstruction 
    Finance Corporation out of the Commerce Department unchanged. This 
    is an attempt to change the organic law under which it was created. 
    It goes further than the bill contemplates. It has no relation to 
    the purposes of the bill, and, in my opinion, is not germane.

    The Chairman, Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, sustained the 
point of order,(3) referring to a prior ruling in which he 
had found an amendment not to be sufficiently related to the sole 
object of the bill, to ``remove from the Department of Commerce all of 
the Federal loan agencies.''4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at pp. 1191, 1192.
 4. Id. at p. 1185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Requiring Percentage of Automobiles To Be Manufactured 
    Domestically and Mandating Diverse Studies of Impact of 
    Manufacturers' Practices--Amendment Requiring Study of Antitrust 
    Implications of Practices

Sec. 3.22 To a bill mandating that a certain percentage of automobiles 
    sold in the United States be manufactured domestically, imposing an 
    import restriction on any person violating that requirement, and 
    requiring diverse studies of the impact of the bill and of 
    discriminatory practices of manufacturers

[[Page 7482]]

    affecting domestic production of automobile parts, an amendment 
    directing the Attorney General to study the antitrust and tax 
    implications of automobile manufacturers' sale-lease price 
    differentials was held not germane as relating to a subject 
    (antitrust and tax law) beyond the scope of studies and 
    requirements contained in the bill.

    During consideration of the Automotive Products Act of 1983 
(5) in the Committee of the Whole on Nov. 2 and 3, 
1983,(6) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 1234.
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 30527, 30781, 30782, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       sec. 9. study of discriminatory practices affecting domestic 
                     production of motor vehicle parts.

        Within eighteen months after the date of the enactment of this 
    Act, the Secretary and the Federal Trade Commission shall jointly 
    undertake an investigation, and submit to Congress a written 
    report, regarding those policies and practices of vehicle 
    manufacturers that are used to persuade United States motor vehicle 
    dealers, in choosing replacement parts for motor vehicles, to favor 
    foreign-made parts rather than domestically produced parts. Such 
    report shall include, but not be limited to, recommended 
    administrative or legislative action that the Secretary and the 
    Federal Trade Commission consider appropriate to assure that 
    domestic producers of replacement parts are accorded fair access to 
    the United States market for such parts.

         sec. 10. impact study regarding motor vehicle dealerships.

        (a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
    Advisory Council, shall conduct a continuing study of the extent to 
    which this Act has affected employment in any way at retail motor 
    vehicle dealerships located in the United States including, but not 
    limited to, dealerships which have either--
        (1) franchises for at least one make of motor vehicle 
    manufactured by domestic manufacturers for sale and distribution in 
    interstate commerce and at least one make of motor vehicle imported 
    into the United States for such sale and distribution; or
        (2) franchises for one or more makes of motor vehicles imported 
    into the United States for sale and distribution in interstate 
    commerce but no franchises for any make of motor vehicle 
    manufactured by domestic manufacturers for sale and distribution in 
    interstate commerce.
    The study shall identify and consider all factors affecting such 
    employment and shall establish an employment base period for all 
    such dealerships which the Secretary shall utilize in the conduct 
    of the study. . . .

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Florio: On page 36, after line 4, 
        insert the following new section:

[[Page 7483]]

          sec. 11. impact study regarding unfair price discrimination.

            (a) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Advisory 
        Council, shall conduct a study of the antitrust and tax 
        implications and of the impact on retail motor vehicle 
        dealerships and consumers of the practice whereby manufacturers 
        sell or lease, or offer to sell or lease, any passenger car, 
        truck, or station wagon to any person (including any other 
        automobile dealer) during any period of time at a price which 
        is lower than the price at which the same model of passenger 
        car, truck or station wagon, similarly equipped, is sold or 
        leased, or offered for sale or lease, to such retail dealers 
        during the same period. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey is out of order in accordance with rule XVI, clause 7, the 
    rule of germaneness.
        The gentleman has offered as an amendment a form of a bill 
    which is pending before the gentleman's subcommittee which deals 
    with the question of how leasing companies buy automobiles through 
    dealerships and under what circumstances. . . .
        The findings of the bill say that there has been serious injury 
    due to increases in imports. The purposes of the bill are declared 
    as they are going to remedy the serious injuries by not allowing 
    foreign-made merchandise to be sold in the United States.
        Clearly, this amendment, which deals with domestic-sales 
    arrangements of domestic companies, has nothing whatever to do with 
    the bill and should be declared out of order. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, as 
    salutory as the purpose of this amendment is, I certainly would 
    support it under other circumstances. It gives responsibilities to 
    the Attorney General that are not in the bill. It requires a study 
    of antitrust matters which are not at all pertinent to the bill 
    before us and it deals with pricing.
        For all those reasons, I believe it is nongermane and, 
    therefore, regrettably, I have to assert a point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    wish to be heard on the point of order? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The basic test of germaneness is the question of whether the 
    amendment relates to the basic subject matter of the bill. The 
    basic subject matter of the bill before the House relates to the 
    domestic content of automobiles.
        This particular amendment, in part, provides for a study of 
    antitrust and tax implications of manufacturers sale-lease 
    practices.
        In the opinion of the Chair, that takes it beyond the subject 
    matter covered by the bill and it is not related to that subject 
    matter.
        Therefore, under rule XVI, clause 7, the Chair finds that the 
    amendment is not germane and sustains the point of order.

Study of Impact of Regulations on Automobile Industry--Amendment To 
    Require Study of Feasibility of Alternatives to Automobiles

Sec. 3.23 To a bill authorizing loan guarantees to a private

[[Page 7484]]

    automobile manufacturer, amended to require a study of the economic 
    impact of federal regulations on the entire automobile industry, an 
    amendment requiring another study of that corporation's long-term 
    involvement in the automobile industry and also the feasibility of 
    its production of advanced alternatives to automobiles was held 
    germane as within the scope of the bill as amended.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(8) during consideration of H.R. 5860 
(9) in the Committee of the Whole, it was held that to a 
proposition providing financial assistance to an individual business 
entity, broadened by amendment to address the issue of government 
regulation of the entire industry of which that entity is a part, a 
further amendment relating to the future role of that business entity 
within the industry is germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 36822-24, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. A bill authorizing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        On page 23, after line 5, insert the following new subsection 
        (c):
            ``(c) The Board shall have the power to require the 
        Secretary of Transportation to complete, within six months of 
        such request, an assessment of the economic impact on the 
        automobile industry of Federal regulatory requirements and the 
        necessity thereof.''

        The Chairman: (10) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Moorhead).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was agreed to.
        Mr. [Andrew] Maguire [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        Insert the following new Section 11 immediately after line 6, 
        page 22 and renumber the following sections accordingly;

                            long-term planning study

            Sec. 11. (a) The Secretary of Transportation, after 
        consultation with other appropriate federal agencies, shall 
        submit to the Board and to the Congress as soon as practicable, 
        but not later than six months after enactment of this Act, an 
        assessment of the longterm via

[[Page 7485]]

        bility of the Corporation's involvement in the automobile 
        industry.
            (b) The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a study 
        to assess the feasibility of the Corporation producing advanced 
        alternatives to existing automobiles which can be manufactured 
        at reasonable cost, for a broad market, and which incorporate 
        the best conservation, safety, and environmental 
        characteristics of the experimental motor vehicles designed 
        under contract to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
        Administration. The study shall include the feasibility of 
        federal, state, and local governments, and private corporations 
        contracting, over the next three to five years, with the 
        Corporation for the purchase of such advanced automobiles. . . 
        .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. Mr. Chairman, 
    under the guise of having here a direction to the Secretary of 
    Transportation to make certain additions to the financing plan, the 
    gentleman would impose on an officer of Government, little 
    mentioned in the legislation, the responsibility of doing a number 
    of things: First, consulting with other agencies; second, 
    submitting to the Board and the Congress an assessment of the long-
    term viability of the corporation; but in addition to that it would 
    require them to conduct a broad study to assess the feasibility of 
    the corporation's producing advanced alternatives to existing 
    automobiles which may be manufactured at a reasonable cost, for a 
    broad market, and which incorporate the best conservation, safety 
    and environmental characteristics, and so forth.
        The study shall include the feasibility of State and Federal 
    Government's engaging in certain actions, including private 
    corporations contracting, over the next 3 to 5 years, with the 
    corporation for the purchase of such advanced automobiles.
        Mr. Chairman, we have a situtation where we have, first of all, 
    essentially a lengthy study to be completed, and recommendations 
    with regard to the purchase of advanced automobiles, something 
    which is nowhere in contemplation of the Board. They are not to 
    engage in the purchase of automobiles, and it would just occur to 
    me, Mr. Chairman, that this goes beyond the language in the 
    legislation which is simply to afford loan guarantees to Chrysler 
    and not to set up lengthy studies for the Department of 
    Transportation.
        As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, were this amendment to be 
    introduced to stand on its own, it would have been referred to an 
    entirely different committee, probably the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, it is both 
    nongermane as relates to the general purposes of the bill, which 
    are to set up a program of loan guarantees for Chrysler; but, 
    second, it is not even within the jurisdiction of the committee 
    which has considered this matter and reported it to the House. . . 
    .
        Mr. Maguire: . . . Mr. Chairman, I really do not think that the 
    lengthiness of a study goes to the issue of whether or not an 
    amendment is germane. . . .
        The amendment is germane because it relates to the subject 
    matter that is before us in this bill, and I would simply say that 
    I think the gentleman has failed to sustain his case.
        The Chairman: . . . [T]he Chair is prepared to rule.

[[Page 7486]]

        The Chair would like to make two points: First, the amendment 
    requires a study of just the Chrysler Corp., and that is certainly 
    pertinent to the bill; but, in addition to that, the Committee of 
    the Whole has already adopted in the Solomon amendment a study 
    dealing with the economic impact of the whole automobile industry 
    on a variety of things. The Chair, therefore, believes that this 
    amendment is germane, and he overrules the point of order.

Bill Reforming Economic Regulation of Railroads--Amendment Requesting 
    Study of Impact of Tax Law Changes on Railroads

Sec. 3.24 Where a bill reforming the economic regulation of railroads 
    was being read for amendment by titles, and the title under 
    consideration, entitled ``railroad inter-carrier practices'' dealt 
    with diverse subjects, including bankruptcy and employee protection 
    issues, an amendment to such title which (1) addressed those issues 
    as well as railroad rates and ratemaking, (2) included provisions 
    requesting a study of the impact of possible tax law changes on 
    railroads, and (3) conferred certain powers on the Interstate 
    Commerce Commission, the Secretary of Transportation and other 
    officials, was held germane even though portions of the amendment 
    indirectly affected a previous title of the bill already perfected 
    by amendment.

    On Sept. 5, 1980,(11) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 7235, the Rail Act of 1980. Title II of the 
bill, which had been perfected by amendment, related to the following 
subjects:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 126 Cong. Rec. 24375-97, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            TITLE II--RAILROAD RATES, PROFITS, AND REINVESTMENT

        Sec. 201. Regulation of railroad rates in the absence of 
    effective competition.
        Sec. 202. Determination of the absence of effective 
    competition.
        Sec. 203. Investigation and suspension of rates.
        Sec. 204. Contracts.
        Sec. 205. Demand sensitive rates.
        Sec. 206. Phaseout of capital incentive rates.
        Sec. 207. Permissive limited liability rates.
        Sec. 208. Rate discrimination.
        Sec. 209. Exemption.
        Sec. 210. Intrastate rates.
        Sec. 211. Transition rate adjustments and inflation-based rate 
    increases.
        Sec. 212. Customer solicitation expenses.
        Sec. 213. Safe railroad reinvestment requirements.

[[Page 7487]]

    Title III, under consideration, related to the following subjects:

                TITLE III--RAILROAD INTER-CARRIER PRACTICES

        Sec. 301. Compensatory joint rate relief.
        Sec. 302. Rate bureaus.
        Sec. 303. Long and short haul transportation.
        Sec. 304. Railroad entry.
        Sec. 305. Service during periods of peak demand.
        Sec. 306. Reciprocal switching.
        Sec. 307. Car service compensation.
        Sec. 308. Car service orders for exigent circumstances.
        Sec. 309. Employee protection.

    An amendment was offered to Title III:

        The Chairman: (12) When the Committee of the Whole 
    House rose on Thursday, July 24, 1980, title III was open to 
    amendment at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Les AuCoin (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any amendments to title III? . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 125, strike out 
        line 14 and all that follows through line 17 on page 138 
        (including the material between lines 17 and 18)) and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following . . .
            Page 98, strike out the item in the table of contents 
        relating to section 301 and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following new items:
            Sec. 301. Compensatory joint rate relief.
            Sec. 302. Expedited division of revenues proceedings.
            Sec. 303. Regulation of railroad rates.
            Sec. 304. Determination of market dominance.
            Sec. 305. Zone of rate flexibility.
            Sec. 306. Rate regulation proceedings and study.
            Sec. 307. Inflation-based rate increases.
            Sec. 308. Investigation and suspension of rates.
            Sec. 309. Contracts.
            Sec. 310. Demand sensitive rates.
            Sec. 311. Phaseout of capital incentive rates.
            Sec. 312. Permissive limited liability rates.
            Sec. 313. Rate discrimination.
            Sec. 314. Exemption.

            Sec. 315. Intrastate rates.
            Sec. 316. Customer solicitation expenses.
            Sec. 317. Efficient marketing.
            Redesignate the following items in the table of contents 
        for title III accordingly.
            Page 98, at the end of the items relating to title III in 
        the table of contents, insert the following new item:
            Sec. 326. Safe railroad reinvestment requirements.
            Sec. 327. Rock Island and Milwaukee Railroad amendments.
            Sec. 328. Loan guarantees.
            Sec. 329. Amendment to the Regional Rail Reorganization Act 
        of 1973.
            Sec. 330. Savings provisions.
            Sec. 331. Relationship to title II.
            Sec. 332. Rail Technology and Shipper Needs Board; other 
        shipper assistance. . . .

                          regulation of railroad rates

            Sec. 303. (a) Subchapter I of chapter 107 of title 49, 
        United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 10701 
        the following new section:
        Sec. 10701a. Standards for rates for rail carriers.

[[Page 7488]]

            ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) or (c) of this 
        section and unless a rate is prohibited by a provision of this 
        title, a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the 
        jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission under 
        subchapter I of chapter 105 of this title may establish any 
        rate for transportation or other service provided by the 
        carrier. . . .

                                intrastate rates

            Sec. 315. (a) Section 11501(a) of title 49, United States 
        Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking out ``(a)(1)'' and inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``(a)'';
            (2) by striking out ``subchapter I or subchapter IV'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``subchapter IV'';
            (3) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
        paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
            (4) by striking out paragraph (2). . . .

                        ``employee protection agreements

            ``Sec. 106. (a) Not later than 5 days after the date of 
        enactment of the Harley O. Staggers Rail Act of 1980, in order 
        to avoid disruption of rail service and undue displacement of 
        employees, the Rock Island Railroad and labor organizations 
        representing the employees of such railroad with the assistance 
        of the National Mediation Board, may enter into an agreement 
        providing protection for employees of such railroad who are 
        adversely affected as a result of a reduction in service by 
        such railroad. Such employee protection may include, but need 
        not be limited to, employee relocation incentive compensation, 
        moving expenses, and separation allowances. . . .

                            ``congressional findings

            ``Sec. 102. The Congress finds that--
            ``(1) the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act 
        of 1976 was not intended to imply that there would be no labor 
        protection in the event of a total abandonment by a major rail 
        carrier and the Milwaukee Railroad Restructuring Act requires 
        the imposition of employee protection in all abandonments when 
        the rail carrier is in bankruptcy whether such carrier is being 
        reorganized or has been ordered to be liquidated. . . .

                                loan guarantees

            Sec. 328. (a) To promote competition in the transportation 
        of coal, the Secretary of Transportation shall, no later than 
        45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, take final 
        action of any application for loan guarantees, under section 
        511 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 
        1976, to be used in connection with joint ownership, 
        construction, or rehabilitation of any facilities (including 
        support facilities) for a second rail carrier to serve the 
        Powder River Coal Region in Montana and Wyoming.
            (b) The Secretary of Transportation may waive the 
        provisions of section 511(g) of the Railroad Revitalization and 
        Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 in making the loan guarantees 
        described in subsection (a) of this section. . . .

                            relationship to title ii

            Sec. 331. In any case in which any provision of or 
        amendment made by title II of this Act conflicts with any 
        provision of or amendment made by this title, the provision of 
        or amendment made by this title shall control.

            rail technology and shipper needs board; other shipper 
                                   assistance

            Sec. 332. (a)(1) There is hereby established a Rail 
        Technology and Shipper Needs Board (hereinafter in

[[Page 7489]]

        this section referred to as the ``Board''), which shall be 
        composed of the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of 
        Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of 
        Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Labor, and the 
        Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Secretary 
        of Transporation shall serve as Chairman of the Board and shall 
        have the responsibility for expediting the proceedings of the 
        Board. . . .
            (g)(1) The Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of 
        the Treasury shall jointly submit to the Congress, within 9 
        months of the effective date of this Act, a comprehensive 
        report on the anticipated effect (including the loss of revenue 
        to the Federal Treasury) of amending section 103 of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide an exemption from 
        taxation for obligations incurred in connection with the 
        rehabilitation of railroad feeder lines. Such report shall also 
        include such criteria as may be necessary to prevent the abuse 
        of such special tax status. . . .

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    considering the point of order, the nature of the amendment must be 
    considered. The salient question is whether or not by amending 
    title III, a title dealing with the question of railroad 
    intercarrier practices, and by including in that amendment a number 
    of specific matters which I will deal with later in my point of 
    order, and including provisions on title II dealing with railroad 
    rates, profits, and reinvestment, whether or not the Staggers 
    amendment is germane to the provisions in title III. That is the 
    essential question.
        In an amendment offered in this way, which, incidentally, is a 
    very, very unusual way of offering an amendment, or a substitute, 
    the question is not only one of the germaneness to the bill as a 
    whole, but the question of whether or not the amendment is germane 
    to the title sought to be amended. Such would not be true had an 
    amendment of this nature been offered after the completion of title 
    III and as a new title to the bill, or had the amendment been 
    offered as a full substitute altering the provisions previously put 
    into effect under title II.
        The first point I wish to make is the broadest point upon which 
    my point of order rests, and that is that the general subject 
    matter of title II is quite different from the subject matter dealt 
    with in title III. Essentially title II is what its title says it 
    is. It is a title dealing with railroad rates, profits, and 
    reinvestment. . . .
        . . . If the Staggers-Rahall-Lee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute deals with a different subject matter not germane to the 
    subject matter dealt with in title III, or if any part of the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute deals with some subject 
    matter not germane to title III, then the whole amendment must 
    fall. Title III, as I have pointed out, deals with railroad 
    intercarrier practices. It is true, of course, that under that 
    general heading there are several different categories that I think 
    could be understood by the sections and their headings. . . .
        The subject matter of title II deals primarily with a question 
    involved with ICC within the brackets of control defined in that 
    area and with the question of relationship between the carrier and 
    the shipper, the most salient and sensitive of which is a situation 
    involving what we call the captive shipper.

[[Page 7490]]

    Therefore, we urge as a broad proposition, and the broadest 
    proposition of our point of order, that provisions relating to the 
    title II matters and in effect attempting to strike a compromise in 
    that area of contracts, that is, the rate control area, the 
    jurisdictional area of ICC, is not germane to the provisions 
    dealing essentially with the intercarrier relationships and certain 
    other provisions in title III. We are aware of the fact that there 
    are instances where a miscellaneous section of the bill deals with 
    such a wide variety of subjects that it may be said if that were an 
    original bill, the provisions of another title of the bill would be 
    germane to it, even though the subject matter of the other title 
    has already been dealt with, but we urge that that is not the case 
    here. This is not a wide variety of subject matter. It is a subject 
    matter related to the question of interrailroad relations.
        Where there are other subject matters involved, they are narrow 
    and in most instances related to that broader topic. But the 
    position we are taking here is not limited to that broad 
    contention. There are other provisions in the Staggers substitute 
    which deal with a variety of subjects not touched even in the 
    original bill. These are sought to be brought under consideration 
    or perhaps as a matter of compromise and sweetener to various 
    groups, and they go far beyond the original area of title III. They 
    actually would amend provisions of other laws besides those related 
    to title III. It should be noted that the scope of title III is 
    limited to provisions amending the codified Interstate Commerce 
    Act, title 49 of the United States Code. In contrast, the Staggers-
    Rahall-Lee amendment in section 327 amends several other laws and 
    titles of the United States Code. . . .
        Section 327 fails to meet the test of germaneness for the same 
    reasons that the Senate amendment was deemed nongermane. First, the 
    section contains substantial amendments to existing laws which are 
    not amended by title III. Second, in contrast to title III, the 
    section provides for a substantial authorization of appropriations 
    from the U.S. Treasury and significantly alters the rights of the 
    United States as a creditor.
        Moreover, the Milwaukee and Rock Island amendments are 
    subjected to a point (of) order because the provision seeks to 
    accomplish the purposes of title III by methods that are not 
    closely allied to methods encompassed in title III. See Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 28, section 33.11, providing that:

            To a bill designed to aid in the control of crime through 
        the research and training, an amendment aimed at the control of 
        crime through regulation of the sale of firearms and affecting 
        laws not amended by the bill was held not germane.

        While title III seeks to further railroad revitalization by 
    revisions and regulatory requirements, section 327 seeks to 
    accomplish this objective in part through a substantial expenditure 
    of Federal funds. . . .
        This provision enters into that field and purports to regulate 
    through Federal law an area far beyond the original provision of 
    title III. None of the title III provisions relate to the 
    relationship between the Federal Government and State governments, 
    or alter State jurisdiction over rules, classifications, and rates 
    and practices in any

[[Page 7491]]

    way. The scope of title III is limited to interstate transportation 
    by rail 
    carriers. Therefore, section 315 of the proposed amendment dealing 
    with intrastate transportation is subject to a point of order.
        Moreover, the scope of the intrastate amendment to title III is 
    even broader than the intrastate language in title II. The title II 
    language is limited to certain preemptions of intrastate 
    ratemaking, and as I have pointed out, this has been enlarged to 
    classifications, rules, and practices. Thus, section 315 provides 
    authority for a Federal Government to preempt State regulatory 
    authority over virtually the entire operations of intrastate 
    railcarriers. . . .
        . . . We should deal with one subject matter and not inject 
    into it other subject matters during the reading of the bill. There 
    are ways to get to these points which I have alluded to, either by 
    adding a new section or a new title, which would then fall within 
    the germaneness rule with respect to the whole bill, or by offering 
    a substitute amendment at the end.
        But let us note the ingenious manner in which it is attempted 
    to leave in place, without touching it, the provisions that this 
    body with careful deliberation has established through the 
    Eckhardt-Rahall amendment to title II. The language which is 
    contained in this amendment that attempts to get by that is this:

            In any case in which any provision of or amendment made by 
        title II of this Act conflicts with any provision of or 
        amendment made by this title, the provision of or amendment 
        made by this title shall control.

        What is attempted to be done is to enter into the whole major 
    subject matter of title II and reverse it by putting this in a 
    title which does not have anything to do with the question of the 
    jurisdictional scope and limitations of the ICC. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, there is yet another section which is itself 
    subject to the point of order. That is section 332. This is subject 
    to a point of order under the committee jurisdiction test as well 
    as the subject matter test.
        In particular, section 322(g) requires the Secretary of the 
    Treasury to submit a report on the anticipated effect of amending 
    section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide an 
    exemption from taxation for obligations incurred in connection with 
    the rehabilitation of railroad feeder lines.
        This matter is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Ways and Means, and, therefore, it is not germane to legislation 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce. See Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 4.42, where 
    it is said:

            To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce containing diverse petroleum 
        conservation, and allocation provisions, an amendment imposing 
        quotas on the importation of petroleum products from certain 
        countries was held to be a matter within the jurisdiction of 
        the Committee on Ways and Means and was ruled out as not 
        germane.

        Mr. Chairman, for these many reasons, all of which are 
    supported by reason and all of which are based upon the protection 
    of the processes of this House, I urge that the Chair should rule 
    the Staggers-Rahall-Lee amendment not germane. . . .

[[Page 7492]]

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    title III, as reported by the Committee, is a diverse title dealing 
    with many and diverse railroad issues, including surcharges and 
    cancellations, rate bureaus, and employee protection in abandonment 
    proceedings involving bankrupt carriers. The title has unrelated 
    provisions dealing with many sections of the Interstate Commerce 
    Act. These provisions were separated from title II simply to break 
    up an otherwise unwieldy series of provisions. A quick synopsis of 
    the provisions in title II will bear this out.
        Section 301 permits carriers recovering less than 110 percent 
    of their variable costs in a particular movement to surcharge or 
    cancel such rates. Section 302 narrows the antitrust immunity 
    railroads have under the Reed-Bulwinkle Act to establish rates 
    collectively. Section 303 permits a railroad to charge more for a 
    longer haul than a shorter haul in the same direction over the same 
    route, contrary to existing law.

        Section 304 allows one railroad to construct a new railroad 
    line across another railroad. Section 305 provides that carriers 
    which meet commitments on contracts do not violate their common 
    carrier obligations.
        Section 306 permits the ICC to order one railroad to pick up 
    and deliver cars not on its own lines. Section 307 gives the ICC 
    the discretion to grant antitrust immunity to shippers to discuss 
    the compensation that will be paid for the use of their own cars.
        Section 308 defines the conditions which must exist before the 
    ICC may issue car service orders and limits the duration of such 
    orders. Section 309 provides for employee protection in abandonment 
    proceedings involving bankrupt rail carriers and amends title II of 
    the United States Code which deals with bankruptcy proceedings for 
    railroads.
        It is clear from a mere recitation of the extent of this title 
    that there is no common thread running through title III, except 
    that all sections deal with railroad matters. The name of title 
    III, the ``Railroad Inter-Carrier Practices,'' was used primarily 
    because section 301, the most important provision in the title, 
    addresses such practices. The title was not intended to govern the 
    subject matter of that entire title. The amendment we are offering 
    is germane because it generally deals with railroads and it 
    includes section 301 of the bill as reported by the committee with 
    other minor changes.
        The amendment contains minor changes in the present section 301 
    which are clearly germane to title III. It also contains sections 
    dealing with regulation of rates by the ICC, the establishment of 
    competition between a rail movement and existing or potential 
    movements by rail or other modes, a study by the ICC on the extent 
    to which competition should enter into the ICC decisionmaking 
    process, the establishment of a percentage zone of permissible rate 
    increases which is identical to a provision currently in title III 
    relative to general rate increases, suspension or investigation of 
    rates, contracts, exemption of rail carriers from most provisions 
    of the act, specific changes to sections of title III which will be 
    maintained, and changes to the Rock Island Transition and Employee 
    Assistance Act.

[[Page 7493]]

        Present title III amends and affects a great number of sections 
    of the Interstate Commerce Act and other statutes, a list of which 
    has been provided to the Parliamentarian, and including title II of 
    the United States Code.
        In conclusion, title III covers a broad range of railroad 
    issues, as does the amendment. There is no unifying factor in title 
    III, but they address matters affecting railroads and, accordingly, 
    and under the precedents, the amendment is and does appear to us to 
    be germane.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) 
    reserved a point of order.
        Does the gentleman from Minnesota wish to be heard on the point 
    of order? . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    further point of order.
        The point of order of the gentleman from Texas does deal with 
    germaneness, and the argumentation by the subcommittee chairman 
    also dealt with that.
        Mr. Chairman, my point of order against this amendment is one 
    of germaneness, as well. I invite the Chair's attention to section 
    328 of the proposed amendment dealing with loan guarantees. That 
    section states as its purpose, and I quote, ``to promote 
    competition in the transportation of coal.''
        The purpose of the bill before us, according to its purpose in 
    section 3, is ``to provide for the restoration, maintenance and 
    improvement of the physical facilities and financial stability of 
    the rail system of the United States.''
        Nowhere in the bill are we dealing with promoting competition 
    in the transportation of one particular item. The proposed 
    amendment's purpose is, as I stated, ``competition in the 
    transportation of coal,'' and not the ``rehabilitation (of) the 
    rail system in order to meet the demands of interstate commerce and 
    the national defense,'' as the bill proposes to do.
        The chairman of the subcommittee argues that because there are 
    a lot of different things in the bill, somehow it escapes the rules 
    of germaneness. If we are to accept that kind of reasoning, any 
    substitute, however gross, however nongermane, would somehow be 
    declared germane.
        This particular section, section 328, was not included in the 
    original bill and cannot escape that rule of germaneness, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The amendment specifically amends section 4(f) of the 
    Department of Transportation Act and states that such section of 
    the Department of Transportation Act shall not apply to any loan 
    guarantee described in the loan guarantee section attempting to 
    promote competition in the transportation of coal. The bill and the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the committee do 
    not amend this provision of the law, and this new amendment is 
    waiving a section of another law not contained in the original bill 
    nor in the committee amendment.
        This is an omnibus bill, I grant that. It does involve 
    financing of the rail system. But the amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia, and others, goes much farther than 
    the bill and expands the scope to involve loan guarantees to 
    promote competition in the transportation of a single commodity. . 
    . .

[[Page 7494]]

        Mr. Florio: Mr. Chairman, on the point that has been raised, I 
    think I have adequately addressed the question that the scope of 
    this amendment and the scope of the bill, titles I and II, are 
    sufficiently broad, related to railroad matters, that they are 
    germane, and I would just renew our request that the Chair so rule. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to be heard on the question of germaneness of the Staggers 
    substitute. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I point out at the outset that in his argument 
    the gentleman from Texas has referred to the Staggers substitute as 
    containing a provision to amend the Internal Revenue Code.
        As a matter of fact, there is no such provision in the Staggers 
    substitute. There is only a request for a study and a report of the 
    results of that study.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment is germane to title III 
    of this bill. Title II affects a broad range of issues affecting 
    railroads. It amends many provisions of the Interstate Commerce 
    Act, both in subchapter 107, subchapter 109, subchapter 111, and 
    subchapter 113, and it, as well, amends title 11 of the United 
    States Code as it applies to railroads.
        Similarly, the amendment affects a broad range of issues 
    affecting railroads. It includes amendments to various subchapters 
    of the Interstate Commerce Act and to title 45 of the United States 
    Code as it affects railroads.
        The only unifying factor in title III is that all of the 
    provisions affect railroads. In the same way, the amendment is a 
    diverse one which deals with many issues affecting railroads.
        Title III was separated from other parts of this bill only so 
    that the bill would be easier to follow. There is no logical 
    distinction between the titles of the bill. The heading for title 
    II, ``Inter-Carrier Practices,'' was chosen because the most 
    important provision in that title deals with how railroads divide 
    revenues. The other provisions do not relate only to inter-railroad 
    practices. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . I did not say that section 332(g) seeks to 
    amend the Revenue Code. What I said, in particular, section 332(g) 
    requires the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a report on the 
    anticipated effect of amending section 103 of the Internal Revenue 
    Code of 1954 to provide an exemption from taxation for obligations 
    incurred in connection with the rehabilitation of railroad feeder 
    lines.
        I did not say that it amended the Code. I said precisely what 
    it does. Yet I think it is quite clear that it calls upon the 
    Secretary of the Treasury to make a recommendation. Such 
    recommendation is clearly also within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers) is not germane to title III of H.R. 7235 but rather is an 
    attempt to indirectly amend provisions already amended in title II 
    of the bill which has been passed in the reading for amendment, and 
    also to include extraneous provisions relating to railroads not 
    addressed by title III.
        First, the Chair would state that the Chair does not rule on 
    the consistency

[[Page 7495]]

    of amendments but rather on the substance of amendments.
        Under the provisions of House Resolution 716 governing 
    consideration of the bill pending, the bill is being considered by 
    titles, and title III, not merely section 301, is now open to 
    amendment at any point. Thus, the relevant test of germaneness of 
    the amendment is its relationship to the entire pending text, title 
    III, and not merely to section 301 relating to joint rates.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the scope of title 
    III and basically agrees with the characterization of that title 
    made by the gentleman from New Jersey that title III is diverse in 
    its treatment of railroad regulation and employee protection and 
    bankruptcy issues and is not merely confined to inter-carrier 
    practices issues, as suggested by the title heading.
        The Chair would also agree that the revenue provisions cited by 
    the gentleman from Texas do not amend the Internal Revenue Code but 
    do instead call for a study on taxation, which study, if submitted, 
    would be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
        In a similar situation, an amendment requesting a study of a 
    possible change in tax law, but not amending the Internal Revenue 
    Code, was held germane to a bill not reported by the Committee on 
    Ways and Means; this ruling on October 18, 1979.
        The Chair would also note that the loan guarantee provision 
    cited by the gentleman from Minnesota relates to railroad carriers 
    only although applicable to rail transportation of coal. The Chair 
    would in this case rely on the precedent cited in Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 28, sections 2.15 and 2.16, standing for the 
    proposition that an amendment may be germane to more than one 
    portion of the bill, and involving a comparable situation wherein a 
    title of the bill in which the amendment would have been 
    particularly germane had been passed in the reading for amendment. 
    The amendment in that case was offered to a subsequent title of the 
    bill containing miscellaneous provisions on a general subject; and 
    Chairman Price stated at that time that while ``an examination of 
    the amendment shows that it would have been more appropriately 
    offered to another title of the bill, the Chair does observe that 
    the title which is under consideration is referred to as 
    miscellaneous amendments, and it amends several other acts.''
        The Chair would state that there are two other precedents in 
    chapter 28 of Deschler's that are applicable in this case. Section 
    14.3 states that an amendment may be germane at more than one place 
    in the bill, thus where the first several sections of the bill 
    pertain to one category within the subject under consideration and 
    subsequent sections introduce other such categories, an amendment 
    adding a further such category may be offered at either of two 
    places, the point which in the reading of the text the sections 
    dealing with the first category have been passed, or at the end of 
    that part of the text where the other categories have been added.
        Section 14.11 states that the test of germaneness of an 
    amendment in the form of a new section to the title of the bill 
    being read by titles is the relationship between the amendment and 
    the pending title.

[[Page 7496]]

        The Chair feels that title III is sufficiently broad in scope 
    to admit as germane an amendment dealing, inter alia, with the 
    subject of railroad rates and other railroad related employee 
    protection, bankruptcy, and financial assistance provisions 
    although they may only be applicable to specific railroads or to 
    specific commodities transported by rail.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Provision Requiring Study of Impact of Bill on Activities Not Directly 
    Regulated by Bill--Amendment Imposing Conditions Relating to Such 
    Activities

Sec. 3.25 Where an amendment seeks to make the effectiveness of a bill 
    conditional upon factors not otherwise related to the subject 
    matter of the bill, such amendment is not rendered germane merely 
    because a study is required by the bill to be made regarding the 
    impact of the bill upon factors or activities which are not 
    directly regulated by the bill.

    The proceedings of Nov. 2 and Nov. 3, 1983, relating to H.R. 1234, 
the Fair Practices and Procedures in Automotive Products Act of 1983, 
are discussed in Sec. 31.20, infra.

Bill Affecting Income Tax Liability of Life Insurance Companies--
    Amendment Proposing Repeal of Certain Excise Taxes

Sec. 3.26 To a committee substitute relating to the income tax 
    liability of life insurance companies, an amendment proposing the 
    repeal of certain wartime excise tax rates on specified articles 
    was held not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(13) relating to the income tax liability of life insurance 
companies for 1948 and 1949, Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, offered an amendment (14) whose purpose he 
described as follows: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.J. Res. 371 (Committee on Ways and Means).
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 992, 993, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 26, 1950.
15. Id. at p. 993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . This amendment repeals the wartime excise-tax rates on 
    such articles as furs, jewelry, luggage, toilet preparations, 
    lubrication oils, gasoline, tires and tubes, automobile trucks and 
    buses, automobiles and motorcycles [and other articles].

    The Chairman, Albert A. Gore, of Tennessee, in ruling on a point of 
order raised against the amendment, discussed the parliamentary 
question as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 995.

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

[[Page 7497]]

        The Committee of the Whole has under consideration House Joint 
    Resolution 371 and a committee amendment thereto, to which the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Martin] has offered an amendment. 
    The gentleman from Tennessee (17) has made a point of 
    order against the amendment to the amendment on the grounds that it 
    is not germane. . . . House Joint Resolution 371, and the committee 
    amendment thereto, deals with the Internal Revenue Code in one 
    particular, to wit, the income tax liability of insurance 
    companies. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts deals with sundry and different parts of the Internal 
    Revenue Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Jere Cooper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The fundamental test of germaneness . . . is that a proposition 
    submitted must be akin and relative to the particular subject 
    matter to which the proposition is offered as an amendment. . . .
        The Chair feels that this fundamental test of germaneness is 
    not met by the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts. Therefore, the point of order is sustained.

Bill Affecting Income Taxes--Amendment Seeking To Amend Law Respecting 
    Inheritance Taxes

Sec. 3.27 To a bill providing for the current payment of individual 
    income taxes, an amendment seeking to amend the law respecting 
    inheritance taxes was held not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the Current Tax 
Payment Bill of 1943,(18) an amendment was offered whose 
purposes were outlined by the proponent as follows: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 2570 (Committee on Ways and Means).
19. 89 Cong. Rec. 3940, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., May 4, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, this is 
    the provision that I have been urging for some time, and I expect 
    to keep up the struggle until we reach these large fortunes that 
    are now escaping taxes entirely.
        Before the passage of the income tax amendment, large 
    interests, through their shrewd lawyers, knowing that the American 
    people were going to adopt an income- and inheritance-tax 
    amendment, created these trusts and through them transferred their 
    property, you might say, to future generations. In that way they 
    have escaped all inheritance and income taxes on those 
    inheritances.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 3941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: . . . I make the point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane to this bill.
        This bill is one to provide for the current payment of 
    individual income taxes. This amendment seeks to amend the estate 
    tax law which is not touched in any way in this bill . . . There is 
    nothing in this bill relating to the subject matter of the 
    amendment.

[[Page 7498]]

    Mr. Rankin stated in response:

        . . . The enacting clause of this bill reads:

            Be it enacted, etc., That (a) this act is to be cited as 
        the current tax payment act of 1943.

        It seems to me, that inasmuch as this is a tax collection 
    measure, my amendment would be in order. . . .

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair draws attention to the fact that the bill under 
    consideration provides for the current payment of individual income 
    taxes. The amendment offered by the gentleman relates to 
    inheritance taxes.
        The point of order is sustained.

Provisions for Tax Credits--Senate Amendment Authorizing Rebates for 
    Social Security Recipients

Sec. 3.28 To a proposition seeking to reduce tax liabilities of 
    individuals and businesses by providing diverse tax credits within 
    the Internal Revenue Code, an amendment to provide rebates to 
    recipients under retirement and survivor benefit programs was held 
    to be not germane.

    Where a House bill contained several diverse amendments to the 
Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and business tax credits, 
that part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute contained 
in a conference report which authorized appropriations for special 
payments to social security recipients was deemed not to be related to 
tax benefit provisions in the Internal Revenue Code and was held to be 
not germane. The proceedings of Mar. 26, 1975,(2) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 8911, 8912, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was the conference report on H.R. 2166, the Tax 
        Reduction Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        (a) Payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, at the 
    earliest practicable date after the enactment of this Act, make a 
    $50 payment to each individual, who for the month of March, 1975, 
    was entitled . . . to--
        (1) a monthly insurance benefit payable under title II of the 
    Social Security Act,
        (2) a monthly annuity or pension payment under the Railroad 
    Retirement Act of 1935, the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, or the 
    Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, or
        (3) a benefit under the supplemental security income benefits 
    program established by title XVI of the Social Security Act; . . .
        (c) Coordination With Other Federal Programs.--Any payment made

[[Page 7499]]

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

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

        Therefore, in a broadly based bill such as this kind, where 
    various kinds of rebates are passed along to different segments of 
    the public, it seems to me that this is perfectly within the scope 
    of the bill and should be determined germane to the bill. . . .
        The Speaker: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title V of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    ``Miscellaneous Provisions'' contained sections which did not amend 
    the Internal Revenue Code and which could not be considered germane 
    to any portion of the House-passed bill or the bill as a whole. 
    Specifically, section 501 of the Senate amendment providing a 
    special payment to recipients of benefits under certain retirement 
    and survivor benefit programs, a modification of which was 
    incorporated into section 702 of the conference report, is not 
    germane to the House-passed bill. That provision is not related to 
    the Internal Revenue Code and would provide an authorization of 
    appropriations from the Treasury.
        For this reason, the Chair holds that the section 702 of the 
    conference report is not germane to the House bill and sustains the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Conable: Mr. Speaker, I move the House reject the 
    nongermane amendment covered by my point of order.

[[Page 7500]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 20 
    minutes in support of his motion.

Bill Relating to Retirement of Supreme Court Justices--Amendment 
    Subjecting Justices' Retirement Pay to Taxation

Sec. 3.29 To a bill relating to retirement of Justices of the Supreme 
    Court, an amendment providing that their retirement pay shall be 
    subject to taxation under the applicable federal income tax law was 
    held not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
relating to retirement of Justices of the Supreme Court and stating in 
part: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 2518 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 5. See 81 Cong. Rec. 1124, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 10, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That Justices of the Supreme Court are 
    hereby granted the same rights and privileges with regard to 
    retiring, instead of resigning, granted to judges other than 
    Justices of the Supreme Court by section 260 of the Judicial Code 
    (U.S.C., title 28, sec. 375), and the President shall be authorized 
    to appoint a successor to any such Justice of the Supreme Court so 
    retiring. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 1125.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jed J.] Johnson of Oklahoma: Page 1, 
    line 4, insert after the word ``retiring'' the words ``except that 
    their retired pay shall be subject to taxation under the applicable 
    Federal income-tax law.''

    Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane. The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the 
point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration deals with the retirement of 
    Justices of the Supreme Court, whereas the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma deals with the subject of taxation and 
    salaries. In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is not germane, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Repealing Tax on Margarine--Amendment Relating to Cottonseed Oil 
    Used in Margarine

Sec. 3.30 To a bill repealing a tax on oleomargarine, an amendment 
    relating to the production of cottonseed oil for use in the 
    manufacture of oleomargarine was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill (8) 
repealing the tax on oleomargarine, the following amendment was 
offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 2245 (Committee on Agriculture discharged).
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 5003, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 28, 1948.

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

[[Page 7501]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Add the 
    following new section at the end of the bill:
        No cottonseed oil shall be used in the manufacture or 
    production of oleomargarine unless such cottonseed oil shall have 
    been produced from cottonseed grown in areas certified to be free 
    from pink boll weevil worm infestation.

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

        Mr. [Edward A.] Mitchell [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania is not germane. It is a frivolous amendment and has 
    nothing to do with the measure itself. It relates to the production 
    of raw material and has nothing to do with this bill.

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

        Mr. Gross: . . . I contend it is entirely germane since it is 
    going to deal with what goes into oleomargarine.

    The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Leslie C. Arends (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending bill deals with the removal of a tax on 
    oleomargarine, whereas the gentleman's amendment deals with the 
    question of content.
        The point of order is sustained.

Federal Aid Highway Bill--Amendment Commending Certain Military 
    Personnel for Operations

Sec. 3.31 To an omnibus federal aid highway bill, an amendment in the 
    form of a new section commending certain members of the armed 
    forces for specified military operations was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Federal Aid 
Highway Act of 1970,(11) the following amendment was 
offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 19504 (Committee on Public Works).
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 38971, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Nov. 25, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas, increasing numbers of American military personnel 
    remain in captivity in North Vietnam in circumstances which violate 
    the Geneva Convention of 1949. . . .
        Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives 
    that the official command, officers and men involved in the 
    military expedition of November 21, 1970, seeking release from 
    captivity of United States prisoners-of-war . . . be commended for 
    the courage they displayed in this hazardous and humanitarian 
    undertaking. . . .

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

        Mr. [John C.] Kluczynski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a point of order against the amendment; that the amendment is 
    not germane to the bill.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, 
of New York, stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 38971, 38972.

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

[[Page 7502]]

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to enlist the support of 
    this House for action taken in an effort to rescue these prisoners. 
    . . .

    The following exchange then took place: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 38972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman from New York will 
    suspend. This bill is a bill having to do with the highway system 
    of the United States. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, allow me to make my point. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman has not addressed himself to the 
    point of order and the Chair is constrained to rule that the 
    gentleman is out of order.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, let me explain. The resolution 
    under which this bill is considered specifically waives points of 
    order and, secondly, this is an amendment to the section of the 
    emergency relief provision of the bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will suspend. There are no points 
    of order waived on those things that are not germane to the bill. . 
    . .
        The Chair is constrained to rule the gentleman is speaking on 
    an amendment that is not germane to the bill. The gentleman must 
    suspend under the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chair holds that the amendment is not germane and sustains 
    the point of order.

--Amendment Permitting Governors To Divert Funds to Urban Mass 
    Transportation

Sec. 3.32 To a bill authorizing funds for the federal aid highway 
    program, an amendment permitting the governor of a state to divert 
    funds from the highway program to urban mass transportation 
    projects was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 
1968,(16) the following amendment was offered: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 17134 (Committee on Public Works).
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 19926, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 3, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: On 
    page 25, after line 7, insert the following:

        Use of Certain Funds for Urban Mass Transportation Purposes

        Sec. 6. (a) The Governor of a State may elect to have any funds 
    apportioned to such State . . . made available, in a manner 
    prescribed by regulations of the Secretary of Transportation, for 
    urban mass transportation purposes within such State. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 19926, 19927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Fallon [of Maryland]: . . . I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . . [T]he point of order is that 
    this is the same amendment which was offered by the gentleman in 
    1966 in the Highway Act, which will use moneys from the highway 
    trust fund for other modes of transportation.

[[Page 7503]]

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 19927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, on August 11, 
    1966, I offered a similar amendment. At that time, it was ruled out 
    of order on the ground that it related to mass transportation and 
    not highways. . . . So on August 16, 1966, I offered it as an 
    amendment to the mass transit bill; and it was ruled out of order, 
    on the ground that it related to highways and not to mass 
    transportation.
        We cannot have it both ways. . . .

    The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On August 11, 1966, the present occupant of the chair presiding 
    at that time, in respect to a bill authorizing funds to Federal aid 
    highways held that an amendment permitting the diversion of funds 
    apportioned to a State from highway construction to urban mass 
    transportation was not germane.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. The ruling referred to, made during consideration of H.R. 14359 
        (the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966) is found at 112 Cong. 
        Rec. 19103, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To a bill providing for the construction of highways, an 
    amendment providing for grants for urban mass transportation was 
    ruled out as not germane.
        The Chair, following those precedents, sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Modifying Requirements as to Gold Backing United States Currency--
    Amendment Establishing Strategic Gold Reserve Related to Credits 
    for Foreign Governments

Sec. 3.33 To a bill modifying requirements relating to gold reserves 
    held as backing for Federal Reserve notes and other United States 
    currencies, an amendment to establish a strategic gold reserve and 
    requiring deposits therein in amounts equal to any deposits of gold 
    to the credit of foreign governments was held not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill (1) 
relating to gold reserves and changing the domestic monetary 
relationship between gold and currency, the following amendment was 
offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 14743 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 3687, 3688, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 21, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert W.] Johnson of Pennsylvania: 
    On page 4 following line 12 add three new sections:
        Sec. 13. From the total gold reserve available for the payment 
    of foreign claims following the effective date of this Act, there 
    shall be established a Strategic Gold Reserve to be main

[[Page 7504]]

    tained by the Secretary of the Treasury.
        Sec. 14. Whenever for any reason any quantity of gold shall be 
    removed from the Treasury for foreign shipment or for deposit to 
    the credit of any foreign government, or . . . international 
    organization within the United States, the Secretary of the 
    Treasury shall immediately place an equal number of ounces of gold 
    into the Strategic Gold Reserve.
        Sec. 15. Gold placed in the Strategic Gold Reserve shall no 
    longer be a part of the monetary reserves of the United States, and 
    may be removed from the Strategic Gold Reserve only by Act of 
    Congress.

    In response to a point of order raised by Mr. Wright Patman, of 
Texas, Mr. Johnson stated:

        Mr. Chairman, I respectfully insist that my amendment is 
    germane to the bill under consideration. This bill eliminates the 
    gold-reserve requirements on currency by repealing in part several 
    statutory requirements. My amendment would place certain conditions 
    on the ultimate disposition of any gold reserve to be authorized by 
    the bill under consideration. . . . This amendment deals with gold 
    and the subject matter of the bill is gold.

    The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would hold that the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania are not dealing with the sole question 
    involved in H.R. 14743; that is, reserves behind Federal Reserve 
    notes and U.S. notes and Treasury notes of 1890. Therefore, it is 
    not germane to the bill before the Committee, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order against the amendment.

Bill Amending Federal Reserve Act to Facilitate Expansion of Currency--
    Amendment Fixing Gold Weight of Dollar

Sec. 3.34 To a bill to facilitate currency expansion by amending the 
    Federal Reserve Act, an amendment seeking to amend the Gold Reserve 
    Act by fixing the gold weight of the dollar was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
to amend the Federal Reserve Act. The bill stated in part: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 3000 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 5. See 91 Cong. Rec. 5285, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., May 29, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That (a) the third paragraph of section 16 
    of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended, is amended by changing the 
    first sentence of such paragraph to read as follows:
        Every Federal Reserve bank shall maintain reserves in gold 
    certificates of not less than 25 percent against its deposits and 
    reserves in gold certificates of not less than 25 percent against 
    its Federal Reserve notes in actual circulation. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 5287.

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

[[Page 7505]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clair] Engle of California: On page 
    1, beginning with line 3, strike out through line 9 and the word 
    ``circulation'' in line 10 on page 1 and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following: ``That the dollar consisting of nine and eleven twenty-
    firsts grains of gold nine-tenths fine shall be the standard unit 
    of value, and all forms of money issued or coined by the United 
    States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this standard, 
    and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    maintain such parity.''

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

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: . . . The amendment is not 
    germane to the bill. . . . It would change the gold content of the 
    dollar. It would make the value of an ounce of gold $56. It would 
    give an unearned increment to the foreign holders of gold of 
    $8,500,000,000. It would give those foreign holders credits in the 
    United States to that extent if they desire to use it. It certainly 
    goes far beyond the intention or the purport of the bill.

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

        Mr. Engle of California: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment does 
    exactly the same as proposed by this bill. This bill would permit a 
    certain currency expansion by reducing the reserve in back of the 
    currency from 40 percent to 25 percent. My amendment will permit an 
    equal currency expansion by reducing the gold content of the dollar 
    in exactly the same proportion. In other words, in one instance you 
    are reducing the gold reserve in back of the currency from 40 
    percent to 25 percent, and in the other you are simply taking the 
    same percentage of gold out of the dollar. It has exactly the same 
    purpose and would permit the identical amount of currency 
    expansion.

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

        The gentleman from California (Mr. Engle) offers an amendment 
    to the bill which proposes to modify the Gold Reserve Act, which is 
    a subject foreign to the subject matter of the bill now before the 
    Committee. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Price Control Bill--Amendment Affecting Powers of Federal Reserve Board 
    Over Currency

Sec. 3.35 To a bill intended to control prices of commodities, an 
    amendment relating to certain powers of the Federal Reserve Board 
    over currency and credit was held not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of a price control 
bill,(8) the following amendment was offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 5990 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 9. 87 Cong. Rec. 9244, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 28, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7506]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Horace J.] Voorhis of California: On 
    page 20, line 20, at the end of title II, insert a new title to 
    read as follows:

                                 Title III

        Section 1. (A) Section 207 of title II of the Banking Act of 
    1935 is amended to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 207. The sixth paragraph of section 19 of the Federal 
    Reserve Act, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
        `` `Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, the 
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in order to 
    prevent injurious credit expansion or contraction, may by 
    regulation change the requirements as to reserves to be maintained 
    against demand or time deposits, or both, by member banks; but the 
    amount of the reserves required to be maintained by any such member 
    bank as a result of any such change shall not be less than the 
    amount of the reserves required by law to be maintained by such 
    bank on the date of enactment of the Banking Act of 1935.' ''. . .

    In response to Mr. John Taber, of New York, who raised the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane, Mr. Voorhis stated:

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to do with the fundamental 
    problem of inflation and deflation. It has to do with the question 
    of the control of the creation and destruction of what America now 
    uses for its money, namely, demand bank deposits. . . .

    The Chairman, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 9245.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending bill deals with price fixing or more specifically 
    with a ceiling on prices of commodities, rents and so forth. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California deals with the 
    Federal Reserve Board and its power of dealing with currency and 
    credit matters. The Chair thinks this amendment is not closely 
    enough allied with the pending bill to make it in order and, 
    therefore, the point of order made by the gentleman from New York 
    is sustained.

Modification of Mortgage Foreclosure Procedures--Amendment Providing 
    Moratorium on Foreclosures in Depressed Areas

Sec. 3.36 Where an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill 
    provided in part for amelioration of procedures relating to 
    mortgage foreclosure under the National Housing Act, an amendment 
    thereto providing for a moratorium on foreclosures of mortgages in 
    economically depressed areas was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of the Housing Act of 
1959,(11) an amendment was offered substituting the text of 
another bill.(12) The substitute con

[[Page 7507]]

sisted in part of a title relating to avoidance of foreclosure in 
certain cases of default due to circumstances beyond the control of a 
mortgagor.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. S. 57 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 8636-42, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 20, 1959. The 
        substitute was the language of H.R. 7117.
13. Id. at p. 8641 (title VI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Willard S. Curtin, of Pennsylvania, offered, as an amendment to 
the substitute, a new section providing for procedures by which an 
unemployed mortgagor residing in an economically depressed area could 
avoid foreclosure of a mortgage.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at pp. 8654, 8655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a point of order against the amendment raised by Mr. 
Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, the Chairman (15) stated: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 8655, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 20, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair calls attention to the 
    fact that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    is to section 601 which is under title VI of the amendment under 
    consideration. This particular section deals with the avoidance of 
    foreclosure and states the procedures and circumstances under which 
    a foreclosure may be avoided. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania very definitely applies to that section 
    because it states the term ``unemployed mortgagor'' means any 
    individual who is a mortgagor under a mortgage insured under this 
    act.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is germane. The point of 
    order is overruled.

Bill Relating to Design of Coin Currency--Amendment Providing for 
    Issuance of Commemorative Coin

Sec. 3.37 To a bill relating to the design of public coin currency, an 
    amendment providing for issuance of a commemorative coin is not 
    germane; thus, to a bill requiring public currency coins to bear a 
    design and date emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American 
    Revolution, an amendment providing for the issuance or sale of 
    Bicentennial gold commemorative coins was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 12, 1973,(17) during consideration of H.R. 8789 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment, thus illustrating that one individual 
proposition is not germane to another individual proposition, although 
the two may belong to the same class:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 29376, 29377, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.R. 8789

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United

[[Page 7508]]

    States of America in Congress assembled, That the reverse side of 
    all dollars, half-dollars, and quarters minted for issuance on or 
    after July 4, 1975, and until such time as the Secretary of the 
    Treasury may determine shall bear a design determined by the 
    Secretary to be emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American 
    Revolution.
        Sec. 2. All dollars, half-dollars, and quarters minted for 
    issuance between July 4, 1975, and January 1, 1977, shall bear 
    ``1776-1976'' in lieu of the date of coinage; and all dollars, 
    half-dollars, and quarters minted thereafter until such time as the 
    Secretary of the Treasury may determine shall bear a date 
    emblematic of the Bicentennial in addition to the date of coinage.
        Mr. [Phillip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Crane: Page 2, after line 4, add 
        the following new section and redesignate the succeeding 
        sections accordingly:
            Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, 
        regulation, or order, the Secretary of the Treasury is 
        authorized and directed to coin and issue or cause to be sold, 
        between July 4, 1975, and January 1, 1977, special gold coins 
        commemorating the Bicentennial of the American Revolution of 
        such design, in such denomination, in such quantities (not 
        exceeding sixty million pieces), and containing such other 
        metals, as he determines to be appropriate. Notwithstanding any 
        other provision of law, coins minted under this section may be 
        sold to and held by the public, and the Secretary of the 
        Treasury is authorized, by regulation, to limit the number of 
        gold pieces which any one person may purchase. . . .

        Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language in this amendment, because 
    under the Rules of the House, one individual proposition may not be 
    amended by another individual proposition, even though the two 
    belong in the same class.
        This bill merely changes the designs of our existing coins. It 
    does not change the content of the coin or of the denomination.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here in this bill with 
    currency and not commemorative coins.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Crane: . . . It must be abundantly clear to one and all 
    that we are not talking about coin of the realm when we talk about 
    minting a gold coin with .13 ounces of gold that will be selling 
    for $35. We are speaking exclusively about commemorative coins. If 
    we were talking about minting coin of the realm and circulating 
    that, we would have to sell the coins at a figure substantially 
    half that figure of $35 which the Treasury ordered.
        Second, with respect to the question of the action of this 
    particular bill, it seems to me that there is something much more 
    dramatic involved than overturning existing law on the subject of 
    what shall be on the reverse or the obverse side of any coin, which 
    at the present time regulations dictate cannot be altered except 
    once every 25 years, and that the talk of creating another 
    commemorative coin for distribution to those who wish to 
    memorialize the Bicentennial is not nearly so radical a departure 
    from the intent of this legislation and, in fact, is, indeed, 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I believe this 
    amend

[[Page 7509]]

    ment is not germane to the bill before us and, therefore, think 
    that a point of order on germaneness should lie. This bill does 
    deal with coin of the realm. The entire purpose of having half 
    dollars, dollars, and quarters minted into Bicentennial coin is 
    because they are coins in general circulation at the present time.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment would create a whole new coin 
    which would be a collector's item and not be coin of the realm, as 
    the gentleman has suggested. Therefore, I do think that it changes 
    the subject of the bill; changes the purpose of the bill, and, 
    therefore, is not germane.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hi.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair having listened to the arguments made by the 
    gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Sullivan), the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Crane), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) 
    recalls that on October 15, 1969, the Chair, while presiding over 
    the debate on H.R. 14127, had a similar amendment offered, and at 
    that time the Chair ruled that to a bill relating to the minting 
    and issuance of public currency, as is the case proposed by H.R. 
    8789, an amendment providing for minting any coin for a private 
    purpose or for a commemorative purpose was held not to be germane.
        Accordingly, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

--Amendment Specifying Metal Content of Other Coins and Requiring 
    Issuance in Uncirculated Proof Form

Sec. 3.38 To a bill relating to the design of certain coin currency, an 
    amendment specifying the metal content of other coin currency and 
    requiring its issuance in uncirculated proof form was held not 
    germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 8789 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Sept. 12, 1973,(19) Chairman Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, 
sustained points of order against two amendments (relating to the metal 
content of another currency coin) to a bill requiring certain coins to 
bear a design and date emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American 
Revolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 29377, 29378, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Crane: On page 2, following line 
        4, insert a new section 3 as follows and renumber the 
        succeeding section accordingly:
            Sec. 3. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law with 
        respect to the design of coins, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall mint and issue at face value through the Federal Reserve 
        banks after July 4, 1975, and until such time as the Secretary 
        of the Treasury may determine, one hundred and fifty million or 
        more circulating one-dollar coins which shall bear a design 
        determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be emblematic of 
        the bicentennial of the American Revolution. These one-dollar 
        coins shall meet the following specifications:

[[Page 7510]]

            (A) a diameter of 1.500 inches;
            (B) a cladding of an alloy of 800 parts of silver and 200 
        parts of copper; and
            (C) a core of an alloy of silver and copper such that the 
        whole coin weighs 24.592 grams and contains 9.837 grams of 
        silver and 14.755 grams of copper.
            (b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall mint and issue, in 
        uncirculated proof form, the above-specified coin in quantities 
        and prices as he shall determine to be appropriate. . . .

        Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I insist 
    on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I said on the previous amendment. 
    Under the Rules of the House, one individual proposition may not be 
    amended by another individual proposition, even though the two 
    belong in the same class. . . .
        Mr. Crane: . . . Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that the 
    gentlewoman's objections are not consistent. In the last one we 
    were talking about striking an altogether new coin and minting gold 
    coins. Under the provisions of this particular act we are planning 
    to continue to mint a dollar denomination coin. All that is 
    proposed is changing in the present legislation the imprint on the 
    reverse side of that coin. What this particular amendment does is 
    give the Secretary of the Treasury further instructions with 
    respect to the content of that coin, stipulating that approximately 
    40 percent of this shall be made up of silver instead of the 
    percentage of composition of copper and nickel in the present 
    coinage. . . .
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: . . . I support the point of 
    order made by the gentlewoman from Missouri. Again, the Eisenhower 
    proof set dollar was not minted as coin of the realm. These 40-
    percent silver dollars were minted to be sold as collectors' items, 
    as proof coins. As the gentleman in the well knows, they are being 
    sold for $10 apiece. They are not in general circulation. They are 
    not being minted for general distribution.
        The bill before us specifically provides for the minting of 
    general circulation coin of the realm. . . .
        Mr. Crane: I am not suggesting, in response to the objection 
    the gentleman raises, that these coins not be distributed as coin 
    of the realm. Instead, they will be minted with only 40 percent of 
    silver content. The Treasury can still make a profit by selling 
    those at $1. So these are coin of the realm. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair, after listening to the arguments on both sides, is 
    constrained to sustain the point of order for the reason that the 
    bill now pending provides for a new coinage design that would be 
    emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American Revolution and it 
    applies to dollars, half-dollars, and quarters. The amendment goes 
    to the metal content of the dollar coin, a matter not within the 
    purview of the bill . . . and the Chair therefore is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order.

    Subsequently,(20) another amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 29378, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 12, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 7511]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: On page 2, following line 
        4, insert a new section 3 as follows and renumber the 
        succeeding section accordingly:
            Sec. 3. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law with 
        respect to the design of coins, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall mint and issue at face value through the Federal Reserve 
        banks after July 4, 1975, and until such time as the Secretary 
        of the Treasury may determine, one hundred and fifty million or 
        more circulating one-dollar coins which shall bear a design 
        determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be emblematic of 
        the bicentennial of the American Revolution. These one-dollar 
        coins shall meet the following specifications:
            (A) a diameter of 1.500 inches;
            (B) a cladding of an alloy of 800 parts of silver and 200 
        parts of copper; and
            (C) a core of an alloy of silver and copper such that the 
        whole coin weighs 24.592 grams and contains 9.837 grams of 
        silver and 14.755 grams of copper.

        Mrs. Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    this amendment. It goes to the metal content of the coin and not 
    the design of the coin. . . .
        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, I would say on the point of order, it 
    is coin of the realm, and I would be willing to hear the ruling of 
    the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair's previous ruling applies to the point of order 
    against the amendment, that this amendment goes to the metal 
    content of the coin whereas the bill pending before the committee 
    pertains only to the design and date of the coin proposed to be 
    minted. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Amendment Relating to Military Personnel After Separation From Service 
    Not Germane to Bill Providing Allowances for Military Dependents

Sec. 3.39 To a bill providing allowances and allotments for dependents 
    of military personnel, an amendment relating to the pay of such 
    military personnel after separation from the service was held not 
    germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill (1) 
relating to allowances and allotments for dependents of military 
personnel, the following amendment was offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. S. 1279 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 2. 89 Cong. Rec. 8465, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 18, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Walter C.] Ploeser [of Missouri]: At 
    the end of the bill insert a new section, as follows:
        Sec. 16. That such act be amended by adding a new section to 
    title I thereof to be numbered 122 and to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 122. That . . . every person who . . . is separated from 
    (military) service . . . shall be paid monthly, for a period of 10 
    months in the case of a

[[Page 7512]]

    person receiving the base pay of an enlisted man and for a period 
    of 5 months in the case of any other person, an amount equal to the 
    monthly base pay plus one-half of dependency benefits payable under 
    this act in the case of enlisted men, and an amount equal to the 
    monthly base pay in the case of all other persons. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 8466.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: . . . The point of order is 
    that the amendment . . . is not germane to the pending bill and, in 
    addition to that, the proposed amendment would amend the Pay 
    Adjustment Act rather than the bill now pending before the 
    committee. . . .

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

        Mr. Ploeser: . . . I submit that my intention is to extend into 
    the post-war period for a brief . . . time such aid to dependents 
    as may become necessary due to difficulties in reemployment. If 
    this aid is to be extended to dependents, it becomes . . . 
    necessary to extend into the post-war period the vehicle upon which 
    dependency allowances are necessarily attached. . . . The 
    dependency allowance is, by virtue of statute now, an attachment to 
    the base pay. It therefore became necessary, in order to extend one 
    to extend both.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment which the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Ploeser] 
    offers might apply to the Pay and Adjustment Act of 1942. However, 
    the pay of the enlisted personnel of the Army cannot be germane to 
    a bill which provides for maintenance to the Servicemen's 
    Dependents Allowance Act of 1942.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Benefits and Compensation for Reservists--Return to Civilian Jobs

Sec. 3.40 To that section of a bill providing for restoration to their 
    former civilian jobs of certain persons completing active military 
    duty, an amendment providing that each such employee be entitled to 
    receive the benefits of any annual leave that would have accrued 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
to strengthen the national defense and to authorize the President to 
order reservists and retired Army personnel into active military 
service. The bill stated in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S.J. Res. 286 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 10438, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 15, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 3. (a) Any member of any reserve component of the land or 
    naval forces who . . . may be assigned to active duty . . . who . . 
    . completes the

[[Page 7513]]

    period of service required under this joint resolution shall be 
    entitled to a certificate to that effect. . . .
        (b) In the case of [a] person who has left a position or by 
    reason of being ordered into such active military service is 
    required to leave a position . . . in the employ of any employer . 
    . .
        (A) if such position was in the employ of the United States 
    Government . . . such person shall be restored to such position or 
    to a position of like status and pay. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 10442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Eugene J.] Keogh [of New York]: On 
    page 3, line 14, after ``pay'', insert the following: ``and shall 
    be entitled to receive his regular compensation for the period of 
    any accrued annual leave to which he is or may be entitled, such 
    leave to be computed from the day he is ordered into such active 
    military service, the provisions of the acts of May 10, 1916, and 
    August 29, 1916 (title 5, sec. 58, U.S.C.) to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.''

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

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to the subject matter of 
    the section involved.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman desire to be 
    heard on the point of order? The section deals with benefits and 
    compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Clifton A. Woodrum [Va.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides an additional 
    and different method of paying the members of the Reserve and sets 
    up something entirely different from what has been provided. The 
    section provides for reemployment and the amendment provides for 
    compensation and for credit in connection with retirement and sick 
    leave. They are entirely different.
        The Chairman: The Chair is constrained to hold that section 3 
    is practically entirely devoted to the benefits and compensation 
    which these men who are called into the service shall receive. It 
    would appear to the Chair that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York is certainly in line with that. Therefore 
    the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Increasing Numbers in Military Ranks--Amendment Affecting Rank of 
    Individual Upon Retirement

Sec. 3.41 To a bill making provision for a deputy chief of staff of the 
    Army and increasing the number of certain ranks, an amendment 
    providing that a certain official upon retirement from the Army be 
    retired with the rank of major general was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill (9) 
making provision for a deputy chief of staff, the following amendment 
was offered: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. S. 2222 (Committee on Military Affairs).
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 8707, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 6, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7514]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Dow W.] Harter of Ohio: Add a new 
    section as follows:
        Sec. 2. That the present incumbent of the position of president 
    of the Mississippi River Commission shall, upon retirement from 
    active service in the Army, be retired with the rank of major 
    general and with the pay and allowances authorized by law for an 
    officer on the retired list of such rank.

    Mr. James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New York, made the point of order 
against the amendment that it was not germane. The Speaker pro 
tempore,(11) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The rule of germaneness applies to a committee amendment 
    just the same as to an amendment offered by a Member in his 
    individual capacity.
        . . . The bill before the House confines itself to one subject, 
    and the amendment attempts to inject into the bill an entirely 
    different subject from that which is contained in the bill pending 
    before the House. In the opinion of the Chair the amendment is not 
    germane to the pending bill, and for that reason the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Construction of Ships for Navy--Amendment Defining 
    Naval Frontier of United States

Sec. 3.42 To a bill authorizing the construction of certain ships for 
    the Navy, an amendment defining the naval frontier of the United 
    States and providing for its protection by the Navy was held not 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a naval authorization 
bill,(12) the following amendment was offered: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
13. 83 Cong. Rec. 3707, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert] Crosser [of Ohio]: After 
    section 11 add a new section, as follows:
        Sec. 12. The naval forces of the United States shall be 
    employed to maintain inviolate the frontier against any foreign 
    foe, the naval frontier of the United States being defined as 
    extending from Bering Strait to [specified points], but in their 
    operations shall not go beyond the limits of that part of the 
    Western Hemisphere which lies west of the meridian running through 
    the twentieth degree of west longitude . . . excepting when on 
    friendly visits, except in the event of military attack upon the 
    United States or any of its possessions, and except in case of the 
    violation of . . . the Monroe Doctrine.

    Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, made the point of order against the 
amendment that it was not germane to the bill.
    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. Crosser: . . . I say it is perfectly silly to talk about 
    building any

[[Page 7515]]

    number of ships unless you state for what purpose they are being 
    built. This is all the amendment does. We say that is for the 
    purpose of defending our frontiers and say nothing about 
    establishing any policy whatever.

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

        . . . The amendment, in effect, attempts to define the naval 
    frontiers of the country or some boundary lines in the oceans. The 
    bill under consideration is one pertaining to the building of 
    warships. There is nothing in the bill which goes to setting any 
    boundary lines pertaining to the country. The amendment is 
    therefore not germane to the bill, and the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.

--Amendment Directing Investigation of Navy Accounting System

Sec. 3.43 To that section of a bill relating to contracts for 
    construction of vessels for the Navy, an amendment directing the 
    Comptroller General to make an investigation of the accounting 
    system of the Navy and to report his findings to Congress was held 
    not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a naval authorization bill (15) 
was under consideration which stated in part: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 3687, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 7. The allocation and contracts for construction of the 
    vessels herein authorized and the replacement thereof, as well as 
    for the procurement and construction of airplanes and spare parts, 
    shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions provided by 
    the act of March 27, 1934 (48 Stat. 503), as amended.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 3696.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Everett McK.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: 
    Add a new section to be designated as section 8:
        The Comptroller General of the United States is authorized and 
    directed to make a thorough investigation of the accounting system 
    employed by the Navy Department in securing compliance with the act 
    of March 27, 1934, and to submit a special report to Congress not 
    later than March 15, 1939, embodying the findings of the 
    Comptroller General, together with his recommendations for 
    enforcing compliance with that act.

    Mr. Dirksen, speaking in response to a point of order raised by Mr. 
Carl Vinson, of Georgia, stated: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 3697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Section 7 of the act deals entirely with allocations and 
    contracts for construction of vessels in the pending bill. It 
    relates to the fact that these vessels must be built in accordance 
    with the act of March 27, 1934. The amendment seeks only to make 
    effective and to secure substantial compliance with the act of 1934 
    that is stated in the bill.

[[Page 7516]]

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment in substance directs the Comptroller 
    General to investigate the accounting system used by the Navy 
    Department in carrying out the provisions of the act of March 27, 
    1934. While that act is referred to in the proposed bill, the 
    amendment brings in another branch of the Government than the Navy 
    Department, namely, the Comptroller General, and directs him to 
    perform certain duties. For that reason the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill or to the section, and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Bill Increasing Loans for Veterans' Housing--Amendment Increasing 
    Interest Rate

Sec. 3.44 To a bill encouraging new residential construction for 
    veterans' housing by increasing the authorized maximum for direct 
    loans, an amendment increasing the authorized interest rate on 
    direct loans was held to be germane.

    Under consideration on Mar. 25, 1957, was a bill (20) to 
encourage new residential construction for veterans' housing. The above 
ruling (1) of Chairman Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida, is to 
be distinguished from a prior contrary ruling with respect to a similar 
amendment which sought to affect the interest rate on ``guaranteed'' 
loans. With respect to the earlier amendment, Chairman Sikes had 
stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 4602 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
 1. See 103 Cong. Rec. 4314, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill before us deals solely with direct loans, as is 
    clearly shown in the title and in the bill itself. To bring in 
    guaranteed loans in addition would be to bring in a new class of 
    loans. . . .

Provisions Establishing Study of Use of Merchant Marine in Defense--
    Amendment Waiving Coastwise Trade Laws for Two Vessels

Sec. 3.45 To a title of a bill containing diverse provisions relating 
    to the authority of the Secretary of Defense, amended to establish 
    a study of the use of the merchant marine for defense purposes, an 
    amendment waiving the coastwise trade laws (a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries) for 
    not more than two undesignated commercial passenger vessels was 
    held germane, where the amendment was not in the form of a private

[[Page 7517]]

    bill and was related to national security issues.

    On May 30, 1984,(3) during consideration of H.R. 5167 
(the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal 1985), it was 
demonstrated that the germaneness of an amendment is determined by the 
relationship between its text and the portion of the bill to which 
offered, and is not judged by motives for offering the amendment which 
circumstances may suggest, when the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 130 Cong. Rec. 14493-96, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Biaggi: On page 157, line 18, add 
        the following section:

                               ``sealift mobility

            ``Sec. 1010. (a) In recognition of the projected shortfall 
        of our national sealift capacity and the critical role in 
        supporting our sealift mobility played by the U.S. merchant 
        marine in transporting troops and supplies during the times of 
        national emergency and war, and in recognition of the immediate 
        need for auxiliary sealift capacity pending the results of the 
        recommendations of the Commission on Merchant Marine and 
        Defense, compliance with sections 12106 and 12107 of title 46, 
        United States Code, and section 27 of the Act of June 5, 1920, 
        Ch. 250 (46 App. U.S.C. 883) shall be waived for national 
        security purposes for not more than two passenger vessels that 
        the Secretary of Transportation in consultation with the 
        Secretary of Defense determines, within one year of the date of 
        enactment of this Act, meet the following criteria. The vessel:
            ``(1) has a passenger capacity in excess of 750; . . .
            ``(4) entered passenger cruise service after 1974.
            ``(b) In order to insure its availability and utility for 
        national defense purposes, each vessel qualifying under this 
        section--
            ``(1) shall have all alterations, repairs, and rebuilding 
        of that vessel that are necessary to bring the vessel into 
        compliance with part B of Subtitle II of title 46, United 
        States Code, done in the United States, and shall comply with 
        all other requirements of law;
            ``(2) shall have all non-emergency alterations, repairs, or 
        rebuilding of that vessel done in the United States;
            ``(3) shall operate on routes that benefit its defense 
        utility purpose and shall not operate on routes presently being 
        served by other comparable, similarly qualified passenger 
        vessels;''. . . .

        Mr. [Jack M.] Fields [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment before the House is out of order 
    because it is nongermane and because it is a private bill.
        It is not germane because it has no legitimate defense 
    rationale and because it has tax and revenue dimensions. No vessel 
    need also have coastwise privileges with its tax advantages in 
    order to fly the U.S. flag.
        It is a private bill because it is actually H.R. 4333, the 
    effect of which would be to admit to American registry and to 
    coastwise privileges two British

[[Page 7518]]

    steamship vessels, the Cunard Countess and the Cunard Princess, and 
    which the Parliamentarian advised would be subject to objection as 
    a private bill. That was because H.R. 4333 is merely an attempted 
    public version of H.R. 2883 which was introduced as a private bill 
    and which was returned to committee by unanimous consent because it 
    was subject to objection. . . .
        But, private legislation presented as an amendment to a public 
    bill is out of order in accordance with the precedents of the 
    House. Even a casual reading of the precedents establishes that 
    ``it is not in order to amend a private bill by adding provisions 
    general and public in character.''. . .
        Private legislation is defined as legislation ``for the 
    interest of individuals, public companies, or corporations, a 
    parish, city or county or other locality.'' If there was ever a 
    bill which satisfied that definition it is the one presented to us 
    in the form of the so-called Troop Transport or Sealift Mobility 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Biaggi: . . . To begin with, nowhere in this bill are two 
    vessels named. The fact of the matter is, the two vessels selected 
    will be done by the Secretary of Defense, together with the 
    Secretary of Transportation.
        The vessels that are available so far for consideration are at 
    least a minimum of five, and perhaps even greater. . . .
        So clearly the argument whether this is a private bill does not 
    hold water.
        The amendment specifies two vessels, and those vessels will be 
    designated, as I said before, by the Secretary of Defense and 
    Secretary of Transportation.
        The gentleman also raises the question of taxes. He would have 
    you believe that this is the first time that this event ever took 
    place. The fact of the matter is, it happens often. But the 
    circumstances are individually considered by the Committee on 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries. There has never been that question 
    raised before.
        I believe my amendment is germane. To assess the germaneness of 
    an amendment to this defense bill, we have to first look at the 
    very close relationship between the merchant marine and national 
    defense.
        A principal basis of our current defense policy is the ability 
    of our armed forces to deploy men and supplies from the United 
    States to overseas locations. Upward of 95 percent of all movements 
    required in an overseas emergency will be by sealift.
        There is a demonstrated shortfall of sealift capacity. The 
    Jones amendment, which was just passed within the last hour 
    establishing a Commission on Merchant Marine and Defense has 
    already been accepted and is directed at assessing the Nation's 
    sealift requirements for cargo and personnel. The Commission 
    measure was considered--as H.R. 3289--by the Armed Services and 
    Merchant Marine Committees. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the linkage between defense policy and maritime 
    policy is clearest in the area of domestic waterborne commerce. . . 
    .
        Only vessels of the United States may operate in the domestic 
    commerce. With rare exceptions those vessels must be constructed in 
    the United

[[Page 7519]]

    States. The ability to operate in the coastwise market--a protected 
    market--provides economic viability to a commercial operation that 
    is essential if the operator's vessels are to be available for 
    sealift purposes. By having our fleet close by our shores our 
    military will have at hand useful vessels to transport men and 
    supplies to the theatre of action should the need arise. While U.S. 
    flagships in the foreign commerce are also important, it is much 
    more difficult to be assured of their immediate availability 
    because so much of their time is spent on the high seas or in 
    foreign ports.
        The exceptions to the requirement that vessels be built in the 
    United States are predominantly those based on national defense 
    needs.
        In one instance, Congress provided that, where required for 
    national defense, the Secretary of Defense could order waiver of 
    compliance with those laws that would otherwise restrain certain 
    vessels from operating as vessels of the United States.
        Another example of this waiver authority can be found in title 
    50 of the U.S. Code--the war and national defense title. That law 
    authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to requisition, 
    purchase, or charter foreign vessels lying idle in the jurisdiction 
    of the United States when those vessels are necessary to the 
    National Defense.
        The substance of my amendment is to implement the portion of 
    the defense authorization bill relating to sealift capacity. The 
    national defense aspect of these vessels has been recognized by the 
    Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, which supports initiatives 
    that would add passenger ships to the U.S. flag fleet. The letter 
    of support was directly addressing H.R. 4333, a bill very similar 
    to my amendment. . . .
        Finally, the amendment meets the several tests that are 
    employed to judge whether an amendment is germane. It meets the 
    subject matter test. The subject matter of H.R. 5167 is broad. It 
    has been further broadened by the Jones amendment establishing a 
    commission on merchant marine and defense.
        My amendment meets the committee jurisdiction test. If 
    introduced separately my amendment would have been referred to the 
    Merchant Marine Services Committee. Adoption of the Jones amendment 
    causes the bill to overlap the jurisdiction of the two committees 
    as well.
        This amendment meets the fundamental purposes test. The 
    adoption of the Jones Commission amendment has broadened the 
    fundamental purpose of H.R. 5167. One of its purposes is to study 
    and examine the capability of the merchant marine to meet national 
    defense needs during an emergency including transportation of cargo 
    and personnel. My amendment provides support to the national 
    defense by commercial merchant vessels--vessels that could be used 
    to transport personnel during wartime. . . .
        Mr. [Herbert H.] Bateman [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to comment very briefly on the germaneness aspect. I believe 
    the question of the private versus public bill has been expounded. 
    I am sure the Chair will be prepared to rule on it.
        With reference to the germaneness question, Mr. Chairman, I 
    think it is a very serious one. May I say, and very

[[Page 7520]]

    briefly, but for the fact that there is a Jones Act in title 46, an 
    act and a provision of law falling under the jurisdiction of the 
    Merchant Marine Committee, there would be absolutely no purpose for 
    this bill being on the floor.
        This bill is here, needs to be here, and has as its only real 
    purpose the granting of an exemption under the provisions of the 
    Jones Act. That is a matter for the jurisdiction of the Merchant 
    Marine Committee; not a matter of jurisdiction for the Armed 
    Services Committee.
        I suggest that the matter before us is not germane to the 
    purposes of the Defense Department authorization bill. . . .

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    gentleman's point of order, and germaneness is the only relevant 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whether or not an amendment is germane should be judged from 
    the provisions of its text rather than from the motives which the 
    circumstances may suggest. The burden of proof is on the proponent 
    of an amendment to establish its germaneness.
        The Chair will observe that title X, basically a broad general 
    provisions title of the bill, has been, as the gentleman from New 
    York has pointed out, further broadened by the adoption of numerous 
    other amendments. The subject matter of title X has also been 
    broadened within the jurisdiction of another committee, and it has 
    been added by an amendment.
        The Jones amendment establishing a commission has introduced 
    the subject of sealift capacity. The Chair feels that the pending 
    amendment is drafted to emphasize only that the waivers of law have 
    defense-related ramifications, and the Chair does not feel that he 
    looks behind the language of an amendment to the intent or motive 
    of its author. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order 
    and recognizes the gentleman from New York to explain his 
    amendment.
        The point of order is overruled.

Bill Authorizing Foreign Developmental and Economic Assistance--
    Amendment Establishing Center to Promote Assistance to Foreign and 
    Domestic Business Enterprise

Sec. 3.46 To a bill reported from the Committee on International 
    Relations amending laws and authorizing appropriations relating to 
    foreign developmental and economic assistance, an amendment 
    establishing within the Agency for International Development a 
    minority resources center to coordinate and promote assistance to 
    minority business enterprise in domestic programs as well as in the 
    foreign assistance programs covered by the bill, was held not 
    germane.

    During consideration of the International Development and Food 
Assistance Act of 1978 (5) in

[[Page 7521]]

the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the amendment described above, holding that the amendment was 
broader in scope than the bill and beyond the scope of the reporting 
committee. The proceedings of May 12, 1978,(6) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 12222.
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 13498, 13499, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Page 42, 
        insert the following new section after line 25 and redesignate 
        the succeeding sections accordingly:

                          minority business enterprise

            Sec. 402. (a) Chapter 1 of part III of the Foreign 
        Assistance Act is amended by inserting after section 602 the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 602A. Minority Business Enterprise.--(a) In order to 
        increase the participation of minority business enterprises in 
        activities funded by the agency primarily responsible for 
        administering part I of this Act, the Administrator of such 
        agency shall, within 90 days after the effective date of this 
        section, establish a Minority Resource Center (hereafter in 
        this section referred to as the `Center').
            ``(b) The Center shall--
            ``(1) establish and maintain, and disseminate information 
        from, an international information clearinghouse for minority 
        business enterprises, for purposes of furnishing to such 
        businesses information with respect to business opportunities 
        involving the implementation of the general policy set forth in 
        section 101 of this Act;
            ``(2) assist minority business enterprises in obtaining 
        investment capital and debt financing by utilizing such 
        financial vehicles as minority enterprise small business 
        investment companies, minority banks, and minority trade 
        associations . . .
            ``(7) participate in and cooperate with all Federal 
        programs and other programs designed to provide financial, 
        management, and other forms of support and assistance to 
        minority business enterprises. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment . . .
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Ashbrook] insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. . . .
        Title IV, as presented to us on page 41 of this bill, goes to 
    current procurement methods. The amendment of the gentleman from 
    Maryland would create a new office in the United States ostensibly 
    for the purpose of boosting minority sales and business 
    participation.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe that title IV would not be a proper 
    vehicle by which to do that. This amendment goes beyond the scope 
    of the title of the bill and is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: . . . The amendment is clearly within 
    the scope of the bill. Throughout the bill there are references to 
    facilitating our relationships with the various countries that 
    receive assistance under this bill; and certainly the establishment 
    of

[[Page 7522]]

    minority businesses helps to facilitate those relationships. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the 
    gentleman is creating an entire new office, that title IV only 
    relates to administrative provisions and goes to current 
    procurement methods, and that using this bill as a vehicle to 
    create an entire new office and an entire new section goes far 
    beyond the scope of title IV. . . .
        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, if I may reply to that 
    objection, I think we have established precedent in this House for 
    the kind of action I am taking today.
        If the Members will recall, last year we added onto the 
    Department of Transportation bill a whole new section establishing 
    a minority business resource service. If I may continue for just a 
    moment, that section was added on under the general title of 
    ``Administrative Provisions of DOT,'' so that a precedent has been 
    established. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Ohio makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland is not germane to 
    title IV or to the bill.
        The bill under consideration relates to development and 
    economic aid programs for the assistance of foreign countries. The 
    amendment would direct the Administrator of the Agency for 
    International Development to establish a minority resources center 
    and would authorize that center to perform a variety of functions 
    to assist minority business enterprises. Although such assistance 
    is required under some of the designated functions of the center to 
    bear a relationship to the general policy of the International 
    Development and Food Assistance Act of 1977, the amendment does not 
    specifically limit such assistance and participation to foreign aid 
    programs.
        For example, in subsection (a) of the amendment, there is 
    provision that in order to increase the participation of minority 
    business enterprises in activities funded by the agency primarily 
    responsible for administering part I of this act, the administrator 
    of such agency shall, within 90 days from the effective date of 
    this section, establish a minority resource center.
        That appears to the Chair to be within the general scope of the 
    act itself, and would not of itself render this amendment 
    nongermane.
        However, several of the designated functions which follow in 
    subsection (b) go beyond this, and appear to be entirely domestic 
    in character. For example, paragraph (b)(4) of the amendment would 
    allow the use of domestic investment companies, banks, and trade 
    associations.
        Paragraph (b)(7) requires the center to participate in all 
    Federal programs, domestic and otherwise, designed to provide 
    support and assistance to minority enterprises.
        It, therefore, appears to the Chair that the amendment, as it 
    is presently drafted, is far broader in scope than the bill, and in 
    part beyond the jurisdiction of the reporting committee. For the 
    reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7523]]

 Prohibition on Use of Armed Forces to Evacuate American Civilians From 
    Sinai--Amendment Interpreting Bill as Not Authorizing Any New Use 
    of Armed Forces Generally

Sec. 3.47 For an amendment providing that United States armed forces 
    may not be used to remove United States technicians placed in the 
    Sinai region under the provisions of the joint resolution under 
    consideration, a substitute stating that authority contained in the 
    joint resolution does not permit introduction of United States 
    troops in a manner not already permitted by existing law was held 
    to be germane, dealing with the same issue (the use of United 
    States troops) in a related but less specific manner.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 683 (to implement 
the United States proposal for early-warning system in the Sinai) the 
Chair overruled a point of order as described above. The proceedings of 
Oct. 8, 1975,(8) in the Committee of the Whole, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 32417, 32427, 32428, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. K. Gunn McKay (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        President is authorized to implement the ``United States 
        Proposal for the Early-Warning System in Sinai'': Provided, 
        however, That United States civilian personnel assigned to 
        Sinai under such proposal shall be removed immediately in the 
        event of an outbreak of hostilities between Egypt and Israel or 
        if the Congress by concurrent resolution determines that the 
        safety of such personnel is jeopardized or that continuation of 
        their role is no longer necessary. . . .

        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dellums: Page 2, line 7, 
        immediately before ``in the event'' insert ``, without the use 
        of the Armed Forces of the United States unless expressly 
        authorized by the United States Congress,''. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Dellums: On page 2, on line 10 after 
        the period, add the following: ``Nothing contained in this 
        resolution shall be construed as granting any authority to the 
        President with respect to the

[[Page 7524]]

        introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or 
        into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly 
        indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not 
        have had in the absence of this joint resolution.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . [T]he substance 
    of the gentleman's amendment is not germane to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California. . . .

        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . The proposal by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Dellums) is that no Armed Forces be permitted to be 
    used in connection with the evacuation of the technicians, period. 
    I mean, that is an absolute prohibition.
        What this amendment says is that no authority that the 
    President does not now have to remove technicians is granted by 
    virtue of this resolution. Now, the difference is obvious, but the 
    two go to the same point. This is a restriction on the limitation 
    of the Dellums amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair has reviewed the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and it appears to the Chair that 
    the argument made by the gentleman from Texas is well taken and 
    that his amendment is germane as a substitute, dealing with the 
    same question of the use of armed forces to evacuate civilian 
    technicians.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Bill Authorizing Military Assistance--Amendment Permitting Use of Funds 
    to Influence Political Activities in Foreign Nation

Sec. 3.48 To a bill authorizing military assistance to foreign nations, 
    an amendment permitting funds authorized in the bill to be used to 
    carry out assassinations or to influence political activities in 
    foreign nations was held germane as a related use to which foreign 
    military assistance could be put.

    On Mar. 3, 1976,(10) during consideration of the 
International Security Assistance Act of 1976 (11) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Frank E. Evans, of Colorado, overruled 
a point of order and held the following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 5234, 5235, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.R. 11963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton: Page 59, 
        immediately after line 15, insert the following new section:

                        limitation on covert activities

            Sec. 417. Section 662(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
        1961 is amended--

[[Page 7525]]

            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by inserting at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2) funds appropriated under the authority of this Act 
        may be expended (A) for planning or carrying out any 
        assassination, or (B) to finance, directly or indirectly, any 
        foreign political activity or to otherwise influence any 
        foreign election.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, there is no funding in this bill for the CIA or 
    for covert operations. The amendment is certainly not germane to 
    this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, as I 
    understand the committee chairman's position, it is that there are 
    no funds in this authorization and no funds authorized for the 
    activities described, but as I understand further, the funds for 
    this particular agency are not treated in the authorization, so it 
    seems to me the Chair is ill disposed to take cognizance of what 
    the funds are for.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The language in the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. John L. Burton) is an amendment directing how funds 
    within the bill itself shall be expended. Thus, the amendment 
    directly relates to the subject matter of and the funds within the 
    bill, and the point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Burton had earlier offered a similar 
amendment but with the opposite effect--prohibiting the use of funds in 
the bill to carry out assassinations. When the Committee rejected that 
amendment (which was also germane as a limitation on use of funds in 
the bill) he offered the amendment permitting such use of military 
assistance funds.

Bill Providing for Evacuation of Vietnamese--Amendment Prohibiting 
    Evacuation to Any State Without Consent of Congress

Sec. 3.49 To a bill dealing with the evacuation of certain individuals, 
    an amendment prohibiting their evacuation to any of the states of 
    the United States without the consent of Congress, was held to 
    relate to the evacuation process, not to immigration policy, and 
    was therefore germane.

    During consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation 
Assistance Act (12) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 
23, 1975,(13) the Chair overruled a point of order against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 6096.
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 11546, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Casey [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 7526]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Casey: Page 3, after line 3, 
        insert (e) none of the ``other foreign nationals'' referred to 
        in paragraph (d) shall be evacuated to any of the States of the 
        United States, without the express consent of Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment in that the amendment is not 
    germane. It deals with the immigration policy, and would change the 
    standards on immigration. . . .
        Mr. Casey: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment would change no 
    standards on immigration except that the classified people under 
    paragraph (d) of section 4 which says that--

            . . . none of the other foreign nationals referred to in 
        paragraph (d) shall be evacuated to any of the States of the 
        United States without the express consent of the Congress.

        It is certainly germane, because it has to do with the 
    evacuation of these people under section (d) of section 4.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the amendment does not limit the operation of 
    the bill. It pertains strictly to the evacuation process. It does 
    not mention immigration policy. It simply says that persons in a 
    certain category of evacuees contained in the bill cannot be 
    evacuated to any of the States of the United States without the 
    consent of the Congress. Therefore the amendment is germane, and 
    the point of order is not sustained.

Provisions Authorizing Humanitarian Assistance for War Victims--
    Amendments Stating Sense of Congress as to Causes of Condition

Sec. 3.50 To a substitute providing humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance to victims of war in South Vietnam, amended to deny any 
    such assistance to designated groups allegedly responsible for the 
    war, two amendments containing Congressional foreign policy 
    declarations with respect to the roles of other nations in causing 
    and ending that war were held to go beyond the scope of the purpose 
    of the bill and were ruled out as not germane; subsequently, a more 
    narrowly drawn amendment (which stated that actions by the groups 
    denied assistance under the substitute had necessitated the relief 
    to be provided), was held germane as an expression of foreign 
    policy not extending beyond the purposes of the substitute as 
    amended.

    On Apr. 23, 1975, during consideration of H.R. 6096, the Vietnam 
Humanitarian and Assist

[[Page 7527]]

ance Act, an amendment (15) denying assistance to particular 
groups was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 11507, 11508, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Insert new section 8 and 
        renumber following sections:
            ``Sec. 8. To insure that the assistance is provided to such 
        persons throughout South Vietnam no funds authorized in this 
        Act shall be used, directly or indirectly, to aid the 
        Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) or the Provisional 
        Revolutionary Government (PRG) nor shall any funds authorized 
        under this Act be channeled through or administered by the DRV 
        or the PRG.''

    Amendments subsequently offered, expressing the sense of Congress 
relative to the causes of circumstances addressed by the bill's 
provisions, and including broad declarations of foreign policy, were 
ruled out of order as not germane, the bill being limited to relief for 
a specific situation. The first of the amendments was offered by Mr. 
Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 11510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman to the substitute amendment 
        offered by Mr. Eckhardt for the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: At the end of the substitute 
        and renumber accordingly; add the following new section:
            ``Sec. --. The Congress finds that the provisions of this 
        Act are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris 
        Peace Agreement by the military forces of the North Vietnamese 
        and the Viet Cong now engaged in military aggression against 
        the people and government of the Republic of Vietnam; further, 
        the Congress condemns in the strongest possible terms this 
        aggression as well as the support given to the North Vietnamese 
        by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's 
        Republic of China, both of which share responsibility for the 
        faithful observance of the Paris Agreement; and further, the 
        Congress views the attitude of the governments of the Soviet 
        Union and the People's Republic of China towards this 
        aggression as a critical test of good faith, and calls upon 
        them immediately to use their influence to end the aggression 
        by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong.''. . .

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill; 
    that it includes information that does not have any indication that 
    it relates to the object of what is being done in the substitute 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (17) Does the gentleman from Maryland 
    desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 7528]]

        Mr. Bauman:  . . . I would say that while this amendment may 
    not be pleasing to the 71 Members who voted against the Ashbrook 
    amendment, it goes to the very heart of the matter which is 
    contained in this bill, which deals with humanitarian aid and 
    evacuation procedures. By reason of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Montgomery) it now includes the 
    problem of prisoners of war and missing in action and 
    accountability.
        In fact, it deals with policy in that matter. The scope of the 
    bill has broadened considerably, and it is all within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations and deals 
    directly with the reason that this legislation must be offered 
    today and acted upon. In fact, that is the very reason for this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I seek 
    recognition on the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman) does this: It intends to direct international 
    policy, to direct the State Department to provide general 
    provisions controlling the policy of the United States in matters 
    far beyond the Vietnamese question.
        The substitute on the floor does none of these things. It 
    essentially provides, in its major provisions, which are similar to 
    the committee bill, means by which certain persons may be removed 
    from Vietnam, that is, citizens of the United States and 
    dependents, persons entitled to come over because of their 
    connection with the U.S. nationals. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment and in the opinion of the 
    Chair, the amendment, particularly the language, ``the Congress 
    views the attitude of the governments of the Soviet Union and the 
    People's Republic of China toward this aggression as a critical 
    test of good faith,'' does, in fact, go far beyond the scope of the 
    legislation before us.
        The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. [John H.] Buchanan [Jr., of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Buchanan to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: On page 3, after line 9, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 8. The Congress finds that the provisions of this 
        Act are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris 
        Peace Agreement by the military forces of the North Vietnamese 
        and the Viet Cong now engaged in military aggression against 
        the people and government of the Republic of Vietnam; further, 
        the Congress condemns in the strongest possible terms this 
        aggression as well as the support given to the North Vietnamese 
        by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's 
        Republic of China, both of which share responsibility for the 
        faithful observance of the Paris Agreement.''. . .

        Mr. Edgar: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the same 
    grounds I stated before. This amendment is not germane. This piece 
    of legislation raises issues which should not be dealt with in this 
    fashion. . . .

[[Page 7529]]

        Mr. Buchanan: . . . I have stricken from the original amendment 
    the language to which the Chair earlier referred. I believe all the 
    remaining language deals specifically with what the provisions of 
    this legislation do and why they are necessary. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        While it is true that the Chair did refer particularly to 
    certain language in the earlier amendment, the Chair does not 
    indicate that if that particular language had not been there, the 
    amendment would have been found to be in order.
        The language of the amendment still goes far beyond the scope 
    of the bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

    A more narrowly drawn amendment was then offered, and the Chair, 
overruling a point of order, held that, to the proposition designed to 
provide assistance for Vietnam war victims, perfected by amendment to 
prohibit use of that assistance to a specified group, a further 
amendment stating that the necessity for the relief provided had been 
caused by the actions of the group denied assistance was germane: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 11511, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rousselot to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: On page 3, after line 9, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 8. The Congress finds that the provisions of this 
        Act are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris 
        Peace Agreement by the military forces of the North Vietnamese 
        and the Viet Cong now engaged in military aggression against 
        the people and government of the Republic of Vietnam. . . .

        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order on the same grounds I stated before. I object to 
    this amendment because it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Rousselot: . . . We have stricken from this language all 
    the basic objections the Chair has raised. Also, it does very much 
    refer to this legislation. It discusses the Paris peace agreements 
    and the necessity for the use of military forces.
        It is totally germane on the basis of the Chairman's own 
    statement.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair finds that the present amendment is narrowly drawn. 
    It refers to the situation in Vietnam to which this substitute in 
    its perfected form is directed, and the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.

Provisions Authorizing Humanitarian Assistance for War Victims and 
    Naming Parties Responsible for War--Amendment Requiring 
    Negotiations With Such Parties

Sec. 3.51 To a bill dealing with humanitarian and evacu

[[Page 7530]]

    ation assistance to war victims in South Vietnam, broadened by 
    amendment to deny any such assistance to designated parties 
    allegedly responsible for the war, to assert that the necessity for 
    the relief provided has been caused by the actions of the group 
    denied assistance, and to require negotiations to account for 
    Americans missing in action, a further amendment requiring 
    negotiations with that designated group to end the war and resolve 
    the status of those missing was held germane to the bill as so 
    amended.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(19) during consideration of H.R. 6096, 
the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act, the following 
amendments were agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 11545, 11546, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (John H.) Rousselot (of California): 
    On page 3, after line 9, add the following new section:
        ``Sec. 8. The Congress finds that the provisions of this Act 
    are made necessary by the flagrant violations of the Paris Peace 
    Agreement by the military forces of the North Vietnamese and the 
    Viet Cong now engaged in military aggression against the people and 
    government of the Republic of Vietnam.''. . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. [G. V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 3, immediately after line 14, add the following new section:
        Sec. 9. It is the sense of the Congress that as the 
    humanitarian aid provided under this Act is made available in South 
    Vietnam, the President is requested to use all appropriate 
    diplomatic means at his disposal to obtain (1) an updated 
    accounting of Americans listed as missing in action in Southeast 
    Asia, and (2) the return of the remains of known American dead. The 
    President is further requested to report to the Congress within 30 
    days after aid is made available in Southeast Asia, the diplomatic 
    actions being taken. . . .

        Amendment offered by Mr. (John M.) Ashbrook (of Ohio): On page 
    3, line 13, add the following section 7 and renumber the following 
    sections accordingly:
        ``Sec. 7. No funds authorized in this Act shall be used, 
    directly or indirectly, to aid the Democratic Republic of Vietnam 
    (DRV) or the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) nor shall 
    any funds authorized under this Act be channeled through or 
    administered by the DRV or the PRG.''

    Subsequently, a further amendment was offered, as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 11550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. John L. Burton (of California): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton: On page 3, add 
        section 8: ``The Secretary of State is directed to initiate 
        immediate discussions with representatives of the Provisional 
        Revolutionary Government of the Re

[[Page 7531]]

        public of South Vietnam, to declare the support of the United 
        States for all political goals of the agreement and protocols 
        on ending the war and restoring peace in Vietnam, including 
        specifically the terms of Article 12 and to determine the 
        precise conditions under which the Provisional Revolutionary 
        Government would agree to establishment of a cease-fire and to 
        a political settlement of the conflict. The Secretary is 
        further directed to discuss with the Provisional Revolutionary 
        Government of the Republic of South Vietnam the status of any 
        Americans who are presently listed as missing in action in 
        Vietnam.
            ``Within seven days, the Secretary shall advise the United 
        States Congress and appropriate officials in Vietnam, including 
        the legislative branch of the government in Saigon and 
        principle Third Force leaders, of the progress and results of 
        these discussions.''

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a point of order against the amendment because it goes much further 
    than the scope of the bill and it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . I think that the amendment is in 
    order. It certainly deals with the whole problem of the bill. We 
    had something dealing with those missing in action, and this deals 
    with trying to get the information on the missing in action. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the judgment of the Chair, the addition of the amendments by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) and the gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Montgomery) which is very similar to the 
    second part of the pending amendment, did adequately broaden the 
    scope of this bill so that the amendment of the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. John L. Burton) would be in order. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Provisions for Assistance to Refugees--Amendment To Postpone Effective 
    Date Pending President's Report to Congress

Sec. 3.52 An amendment, offered to a substitute, postponing the 
    effective date of provisions for humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance for South Vietnam refugees until the President 
    determines and reports to Congress on the ownership of gold sought 
    to be removed from Cambodia and South Vietnam was held to be not 
    germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(2) during consideration of the Vietnam 
Humanitarian Assistance and Evacuation Act,(3) in the 
Committee of the Whole, a point of order was sustained against an 
amendment offered to a substitute, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 11511, 11512, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 6096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment

[[Page 7532]]

    to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: At the end add 
        a new section:
            ``This Act shall become effective when the President 
        determines and reports to Congress whether the 16 tons of gold 
        that Lon Nol and former President Thieu tried to send to 
        Switzerland was American property or their own personal 
        gold.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . It is an amendment that sets an 
    active triggering date for the legislation. It is not more 
    different than saying that it shall take effect on a certain date. 
    We are just saying in this amendment that we are setting this date 
    for the determination whether or not that 16 tons of gold with 
    American money is just a limitation on the executive power of the 
    bill.
        The Chairman:(4) The Chair is ready to rule. A 
    similar situation arose in the 93d Congress on a bill authorizing 
    military assistance to Israel and funds to be used in an emergency 
    force when an amendment was offered postponing the availability of 
    those funds until the President certified the existence of a 
    designated level of energy supplies. (Deschler's, chapter 28, 
    section 24.18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment in question is not germane to the purposes of the 
    substitute and the point of order is sustained.

Bill Providing Foreign Aid--Amendment Providing Aid for Areas in United 
    States

Sec. 3.53 To a bill providing aid to foreign countries, an amendment 
    providing aid for certain areas in the United States held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (5) 
to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954, the following amendment was 
offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S. 2090 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 6. 101 Cong. Rec. 9663, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West 
    Virginia]: On page 20, after line 25, insert a new subsection as 
    follows:
        (b) It is the sense of the Congress that where there are areas 
    within the continental United States in which unemployment 
    statistics as certified by the Secretary of Labor exceed 15 percent 
    of the labor force in such area or areas, the areas in question are 
    hereby declared to be eligible for assistance under the provisions 
    of this act.

    Responding to a point of order by Mr. James P. Richards, of South 
Carolina, that the amendment was not germane, the proponent stated:

[[Page 7533]]

        . . . I should argue the point of germaneness . . . by calling 
    attention to the fact that the title to the act itself invites just 
    such an amendment as mine: ``To amend the Mutual Security Act of 
    1954, and for other purposes.''
        Let me ask, Mr. Chairman, if this amendment . . . is ruled out 
    of order, where, then, may I inquire, is the mutuality? Is not the 
    United States a part of this pact that we are setting up here?

    The Chairman (7) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the pending 
    bill is to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954. The bill relates 
    entirely to aid to foreign countries. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia relates entirely to assistance to 
    areas in this country. Certainly, there can be no connection 
    between the two. . . .
        [T]he Chair sustains the point of order.

--Amendment to Discourage Establishment of Foreign Chanceries in 
    Residential Areas

Sec. 3.54 To a bill authorizing new foreign aid programs and extending 
    and revising existing mutual security laws, an amendment intended 
    to discourage the establishment of foreign chanceries in 
    residential areas of the District of Columbia was ruled out as not 
    germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of the Mutual Security 
Act of 1961,(8) the following amendment was offered: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 8400 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 9. 107 Cong. Rec. 16059, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 16, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carroll D.] Kearns [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 5, after line 25, insert the following:
        (j) It is the policy of the Congress that, since the United 
    States is generally required, in locating its chanceries abroad, to 
    observe applicable laws and zoning regulations, foreign nations 
    with which the United States maintains diplomatic relations should, 
    in the interest of comity (a necessary foundation for the 
    achievement of the objectives of the Mutual Security Act of 1961), 
    observe the laws and zoning regulations (in the District of 
    Columbia) and locate their chanceries in business areas. . . .

    Ruling on a point of order raised by Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, 
with regard to the amendment's germaneness, the Chairman 
(10) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment does seem to the Chair to have something to 
    do with the zoning laws of the District of Columbia, a subject 
    matter which is not encompassed in the bill H.R. 8400; therefore, 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7534]]

Provisions Requiring Notice to Congress of Curtailment of Agricultural 
    Exports--Amendment Requiring Payments to Farmers in Case of 
    Curtailment.

Sec. 3.55 To a section requiring notice to Congress of curtailment of 
    export of agricultural commodities, contained in a title of a bill 
    reported from the Committee on International Relations extending 
    and amending the Export Administration Act, an amendment requiring 
    domestic payments to farmers having in storage commodities for 
    which exports have been suspended was held not germane as beyond 
    the scope and subject matter of the section or title.

    On Apr. 20, 1977,(11) during consideration of H.R. 5840 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 11437, 11440, 11441, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Export Administration Amendments of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

[[Page 7535]]

            ``(B) The first payment described in subsection (A) shall 
        become payable at the initiation of the suspension of export 
        sales of the commodity concerned. Such payment shall be made at 
        a rate of 10 per centum of the parity price per bushel or bale 
        of the commodity concerned which was produced by the farm owner 
        or operator and which is held in storage by him at the time of 
        the initiation of the suspension. . . .

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, 
    apparently the amendment the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Sebelius) 
    has presented is a parity amendment pending in the part of the bill 
    before the Agriculture Committee.
        Mr. Sebelius: That is right.
        Mr. Zablocki: It is not germane to section 105, which deals 
    solely with existing authority of the President to limit export 
    controls for foreign policy purposes under the Export 
    Administration Act.
        Second, the amendment gives the President new authority where 
    export controls are imposed for new purposes under a new act.
        And, third, this new authority deals solely with domestic 
    matters which are within the jurisdiction of another country.
        As I said, it is a parity amendment.
        Lastly, this is a farm subsidy issue, not an issue of foreign 
    affairs.
        This bill does not deal with agricultural parity, it does not 
    deal with support controls.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment is not in 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Bill Prohibiting Transportation of Foreign Convict-Made Goods--
    Amendment Prohibiting Imports From Country Not in Conformity With 
    Minimum Wage Requirements

Sec. 3.56 To a bill amending the Wages and Hours Act and containing 
    provisions governing transportation of foreign goods made by 
    convicts,

[[Page 7536]]

    an amendment prohibiting the importation from any foreign country 
    of any goods produced under conditions not compatible with United 
    States law governing wages and hours was held to be germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) comprising amendments to the Wage-Hour Law, the 
following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 5435 (Committee on Labor).
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 5275, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 30, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Page 
    17, line 4, after the period insert a new section as follows:
        Sec. 21. In order to protect the minimum-wage and maximum-hour 
    standards prescribed in sections 6 and 7 it shall be unlawful for 
    any person to import . . . from any foreign country . . . any goods 
    . . . produced . . . in foreign countries unless such imports are 
    produced . . . under the same minimum-wage and maximum-hour 
    provisions which would be applicable if they were . . . produced . 
    . . in the United States.

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

        Mr. [Robert C. W.] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane to this bill. 
    The amendment deals with the question of foreign commerce. The bill 
    deals only with interstate commerce, with wage and hour provisions 
    within this country.

    The following exchange then occurred:

        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: . . . [T]he gentleman who made the 
    point of order apparently is not familiar with the bill, which, on 
    page 16, section 20, proposes to regulate and prohibit convict-
    produced goods, not only produced in the United States but in 
    foreign lands. It specifically refers to foreign convict-produced 
    goods; and even though the point of order had been made at the 
    proper time it could not be sustained because this amendment is 
    clearly germane to the bill, as it also relates to foreign 
    production.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will ask the gentleman 
    to point out the particular language in the bill to which he 
    refers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Claude V. Parsons (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: I will read. Page 16, lines 13 to 17:

            * * * the United States, or place noncontiguous but subject 
        to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country, into 
        any State, Territory, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, or district 
        of the United States, or place noncontiguous but subject to the 
        jurisdiction thereof.

        This language of the bill specifically refers to foreign 
    commerce and foreign products and has a prohibition with reference 
    to convict-produced foreign goods moving into this country.

    The Chairman, in ruling on the point of order, stated:

        The section under discussion, known as section 12, page 16, is 
    headed ``Pro

[[Page 7537]]

    hibition against interstate transportation of convict-made goods,'' 
    and in the course of describing what shall be prohibited the 
    section does prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of 
    penal- or reformatory-institution-made goods from the States, 
    Territories, and any district of the United States or from any 
    foreign country.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman proposes to prohibit the 
    importation into this country of any goods manufactured, mined, or 
    otherwise, from any foreign country that does not comply with our 
    minimum wage rates.
        The Chair thinks that in construing this amendment to section 
    20 it is clearly germane, because it prohibits the importation of 
    foreign-made goods that does not prescribe minimum rates. The point 
    of order is overruled.

Bill Imposing Conditions on Use of Agricultural Products for Relief--
    Amendment Adding Further Restrictions

Sec. 3.57 To a bill relating to emergency relief to India and requiring 
    in part that the Secretary of Agriculture certify that the 
    procurement of any agricultural product for such purpose would not 
    impair the fulfillment of vital needs of the United States, an 
    amendment requiring that such procurement not lead to curtailment 
    of domestic use of such products was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (17) was under consideration 
relating to emergency relief assistance to India and containing the 
provision described above. The following amendment was offered to the 
bill: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 3791 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
18. 97 Cong. Rec. 5832, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., May 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thruston B.] Morton [of Kentucky]: 
    Page 2, line 16, after ``United States'', insert ``nor require [the 
    Secretary of Agriculture] to promulgate regulations for the 
    curtailment of the domestic use of such products during the period 
    of such procurement.''

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

        Mr. [James P.] Richards [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that the gentleman's amendment is not 
    germane. . . . [It seems] to me that the sense of this amendment is 
    that we are dealing with a phase of our domestic economy here that 
    would not come within the scope of the bill.
        Mr. Morton: . . . The bill specifically provides that the 
    Secretary of Agriculture shall certify that such procurement will 
    not impair the fulfillment of the vital needs of this country. I 
    just go one step further and say that if he certifies that it does 
    not impair the vital needs of this country he cannot, while this 
    grain is being purchased, go ahead and pass a lot of reg

[[Page 7538]]

    ulations on the excuse that we had to ship this grain to India. . . 
    . He has to give his certification, and this qualifies the 
    certification and tightens it up. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    gentleman from Kentucky offers an amendment which, in the words of 
    the gentleman from Kentucky, goes one step further than the pending 
    bill, and also in the words of the gentleman from Kentucky, makes 
    an additional proviso. The gentleman from South Carolina makes the 
    point of order that the additional proviso is not germane. Clause 7 
    of rule XVI says that no motion or proposition on a subject 
    different from that under consideration shall be admitted under 
    color of amendment. The test of germaneness, it seems to the Chair, 
    is whether or not a new subject matter is introduced by way of 
    amendment. The gentleman from Kentucky makes the point of order 
    that his additional proviso is related to the proviso in the bill. 
    The Chair would cite to the gentleman the precedent on page 88, 
    volume 9, of Cannon's Precedents which says this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The fact that two subjects are related does not necessarily 
        render them germane.

        Under the rule cited and the precedent cited, and others at 
    hand, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Loan to United Nations--Amendment to Encourage 
    Supporters to Purchase United Nations Bonds

Sec. 3.58 To a bill authorizing a loan to the United Nations, an 
    amendment inviting Members who support the measure to purchase 
    United Nations bonds was held to be not germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(20) authorizing a loan to the United Nations, the following 
amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. S. 2768 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 1. 108 Cong. Rec. 19477, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: On page 3, 
    after section 6, insert a new section 7 reading as follows: 
    ``Provided further, That Members of the Congress who vote 
    affirmatively for the bill and thereby express their satisfaction 
    therewith shall be invited and encouraged to invest not less than 
    $1,000 each in United Nations bonds and shall be reimbursed under 
    the terms and conditions set forth in section 3 for reimbursement 
    of the United States Government.''

    The Chairman, Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruling on a point 
of order raised by Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, held that the 
amendment was not germane.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 19478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Providing for Admission of Hawaii--Amendment Affecting Boundaries 
    of Hawaii

Sec. 3.59 To a bill providing for the admission of the State of

[[Page 7539]]

    Hawaii, an amendment to allow certain other Pacific islands either 
    to be constituted into another state with the consent of the United 
    States and Hawaii, or to be included as part of the State of 
    Hawaii, was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
to provide for the admission of Hawaii into the Union, an amendment was 
offered as described above, for purposes stated by the proponent as 
follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. 50 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
 4. 105 Cong. Rec. 4034, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 12, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: . . . [This legislation] 
    leaves hanging as a part of no State, some portions of that 
    Territory that was once ruled by the royal line of Hawaii. It 
    leaves without any statehood status other islands and territories 
    in the Pacific Ocean over which the American flag flies and over 
    which we claim jurisdiction.
        This amendment, if adopted, will provide not for the immediate 
    incorporation of areas that may not presently fit into the 
    organization of the new State, but it does provide an opportunity 
    for the ultimate inclusion of every acre of American territory in 
    the Pacific Ocean to be organized into the State of Hawaii.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 4035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne N.] Aspinall [of Colorado]: . . . The bill with 
    which we are dealing, S. 50, deals with the immediate admission of 
    a new State into the Union. . . . [Subsection (a) of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas] deals with the enlargement of 
    that State at some indefinite time in the future under totally 
    different circumstances. . . .
        Subsection (b) [of the amendment] anticipates that these island 
    areas may, at some future time, seek to become a separate State. It 
    provides that they may become such if they so vote, and if the 
    State of Hawaii consents, and if the Congress agrees. This 
    situation is entirely foreign to the purposes of S. 50. . . .

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

        Mr. Poage: Mr. Chairman, basically the amendment which has been 
    offered is one that changes the boundaries of the proposed State of 
    Hawaii. The boundaries of the State of Hawaii are defined in the 
    legislation before us. 
    . . .
        We are . . . fixing a different set of boundaries from those 
    that were outlined in the original bill. We are providing that some 
    of those boundaries shall be in effect today; that others of them 
    shall be in effect at future dates upon the happening of future 
    events.

    The Chairman, Paul J. Kilday, of Texas, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at pp. 4035, 4036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In ruling on the first portion of the amendment, the Chair will 
    point out

[[Page 7540]]

    that it seeks to add additional language to the last sentence of 
    section 2 of the bill. Section 2 of the bill and the sentence to 
    which it is proposed to add language deals with the boundaries of 
    the new State of Hawaii to be admitted under this bill, and the 
    language of the proposed amendment likewise deals with the 
    boundaries of the State to be admitted. As to paragraph B of the 
    proposed amendment, the Chair would point out that this language 
    would grant to the new State of Hawaii a right over land not 
    included within the boundaries proposed in this bill but land 
    outside of the boundaries, so that it would be granting to the new 
    State of Hawaii a right over those lands which she does not now 
    possess and would be one of the conditions on which she is 
    admitted.
        The Chair is constrained to hold that the amendment is germane 
    to the bill and overrules the point of order.

Bill Relating to Administration of Parkway Lands--Amendment Authorizing 
    Secretary of Interior to Permit Certain Uses of Lands

Sec. 3.60 To a bill relating to maintenance and administration of 
    certain parkway lands, an amendment authorizing the Secretary of 
    the Interior to permit such use of the parkway lands as he may 
    determine to be consistent with the use of the lands for parkway 
    purposes, was held germane.

    In the 75th Congress, the Natchez Trace Parkway Bill (7) 
was under consideration, stating in part: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 6652 (Committee on Public Lands).
 8. 83 Cong. Rec. 1433, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 2, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That all lands and easements . . . 
    conveyed to the United States by the States of Mississippi, 
    Alabama, and Tennessee for the right-of-way for the projected 
    parkway between Natchez, Miss., and Nashville, Tenn., together with 
    sites acquired . . . for recreational areas in connection therewith 
    . . . shall be administered and maintained by the Secretary of the 
    Interior through the National Park Service. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Aaron L.] Ford of Mississippi: Page 
    2, after section 1, insert:
        Sec. 2. In the administration of the Natchez Trace Parkway the 
    Secretary of the Interior may lease or authorize the use of parkway 
    lands for such purposes and under such terms and conditions as he 
    may determine to be not inconsistent with the use of such lands for 
    parkway purposes.

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

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the bill. 
    There is noth

[[Page 7541]]

    ing in the bill with reference to leasing lands or anything of that 
    character. This is an entirely new feature and it is not germane to 
    the bill.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Harold G. Mosier (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the bill deals with lands and easements 
    that have been conveyed to the United States by the State of 
    Mississippi, the State of Alabama, and the State of Tennessee for a 
    right-of-way for a parkway. The amendment merely authorizes the 
    Secretary of the Interior to lease or authorize the use of these 
    parkway lands, which have been conveyed to the United States by 
    these States. In other words, the amendment simply authorizes the 
    Secretary of the Interior to deal in some way with the title to 
    that property. The Chair, therefore, feels that the amendment is 
    germane and overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the above ruling, Mr. Ford had 
offered a similar amendment which he conceded not to be germane; the 
amendment had made reference to the administration of the ``Blue 
Ridge'' Parkway as well as that of the Natchez Trace Parkway.

Bill Providing for Tunnel Under Potomac--Amendment Relating to Cost of 
    Approach Roads

Sec. 3.61 To a bill providing for a tunnel under the Potomac River, an 
    amendment requiring the District of Columbia and the State of 
    Virginia to pay costs of approach roads was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration to amend legislation authorizing the construction of 
bridges over the Potomac River. The following amendment was offered to 
the bill: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 6763 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
11. 103 Cong. Rec. 13497, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: On page 4, 
    strike out all of lines 4 through 15 and insert the following:
        Sec. 105. The cost of construction, reconstruction . . . and 
    repair of all facilities and related works, including streets, if 
    any, and roads, which are changed or made necessary incident to the 
    construction of said tunnel, approach ramps and connecting roads, 
    shall be paid out of funds made available for the construction of 
    said tunnel, approach ramps and connecting roads for all of which 
    the State of Virginia shall pay the full costs on the Virginia side 
    of the Potomac River and the District of Columbia shall pay the 
    full costs on the District of Columbia side of the Potomac River. . 
    . .

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

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

[[Page 7542]]

    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
    on the ground it is not germane to the bill. I do not know anyone 
    in this body who happens to be a member of the General Assembly of 
    Virginia and therefore can tell the Virginia Assembly how much 
    money it can appropriate for anything.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment deals with language contained in 
    the bill, section 101, on page 2, wherein there are designated 
    certain duties and responsibilities on the part of the State of 
    Virginia on the Virginia side of the Potomac River and so forth.

    The Chairman (12) overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard W. Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Designating Wilderness Areas--Amendment Giving Employment Benefits 
    to Those Affected

Sec. 3.62 To a bill reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs designating certain wilderness areas in Oregon, an 
    amendment adding a new title to provide a program of unemployment 
    benefits to persons affected by such wilderness designations was 
    held to be not germane as addressing a subject not contained in the 
    bill and one within the jurisdiction of other committees of the 
    House.

    On Mar. 21, 1983,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 1149 (Oregon wilderness designations), a 
point of order was raised and sustained as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 6339, 6341, 6344, 6346, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. (a) In furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness 
    Act, the following lands, as generally depicted on maps, 
    appropriately referenced, dated December 1982 (except as otherwise 
    dated), are hereby designated as wilderness and therefore, as 
    components of the National Wilderness Preservation System--
        (1) certain lands in the Mount Hood National Forest, which 
    comprise approximately forty thousand nine hundred acres, are 
    generally depicted on a map entitled ``Columbia Gorge Wilderness--
    Proposed'', and shall be known as the Columbia Gorge Wilderness . . 
    .
        Sec. 6. (a) The Congress finds that--
        (1) the Department of Agriculture has completed the second 
    roadless area review and evaluation program (RARE II); and
        (2) the Congress has made its own review and examination of 
    national forest system roadless areas in the State of Oregon and of 
    the environmental impacts associated with alternative allocations 
    of such areas.
        (b) On the basis of such review, the Congress hereby determines 
    and directs that--

[[Page 7543]]

        (1) without passing on the question of the legal and factual 
    sufficiency of the RARE II final environmental statement (dated 
    January 1979) with respect to national forest system lands in 
    States other than Oregon, such statement shall not be subject to 
    judicial review with respect to national forest system lands in the 
    State of Oregon. . . .

    An amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska: Insert before section 
    2 the heading ``TITLE I--DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS''.

            Sec. 2. Add after section 6 the following:

                            ``title ii--definitions

            ``Sec. 20. As used in this title, the term--
            ``(1) `Secretary' unless otherwise indicated, means the 
        Secretary of the Department of Labor;
            ``(2) `expansion area' means the Mount Hood, Willamette, 
        Siuslaw, Umpqua, Rogue River, Siskiyou, Deschutes, Winema, 
        Fremont, Ochoco, Wallowa-Whitman, Malheur, and Umatilla 
        National Forests, and the Salem District of the Bureau of Land 
        Management;
            ``(3) `employee' means a person employed by an affected 
        employer and, with such exceptions as the Secretary may 
        determine, in an occupation not described by section 13(a)(1) 
        of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1)); . . .
            ``Sec. 22. The total or partial layoff of a covered 
        employee employed by an affected employer during the period 
        beginning the date of enactment and ending September 30, 1986, 
        other than for a cause that would disqualify an employee for 
        unemployment compensation, except as provided in section 24, is 
        conclusively presumed to be attributable to the expansion of 
        the Oregon portion of the National Wilderness preservation 
        system. . . .
            ``Sec. 23. (a) The Secretary shall provide, to the maximum 
        extent feasible, for retention and accrual of all rights and 
        benefits which affected employees would have had in an 
        employment with affected employers during the period in which 
        they are affected employees. The Secretary is authorized and 
        shall seek to enter into such agreements as he may deem to be 
        appropriate with affected employees and employers, labor 
        organizations representing covered employees, and trustees of 
        applicable pension and welfare funds, or to take such other 
        actions as he deems appropriate to provide for affected 
        employees (including the benefits provided for in section 
        26(d)) the following rights and benefits:
            ``(1) retention and accrual of seniority rights, including 
        recall rights (or, in the case of employees not covered by 
        collective-bargaining agreements, application of the same 
        preferences and privileges based upon length of continuous 
        service as are applied under the affected employer's usual 
        practices) under conditions no more burdensome to said 
        employees than to those actively employed; and
            ``(2) continuing entitlement to health and welfare benefits 
        and accrual of pension rights and credits based upon length of 
        employment and/or amounts of earnings to the same extent as and 
        at no greater cost to said employees than would have been 
        applicable had they been actively employed. . . .
            ``Sec. 31. (a) A relocation allowance shall be paid upon 
        application by an affected employee during the applicable 
        period of protection if--
            ``(1) the Secretary determines that said employee cannot 
        reasonably be expected to obtain suitable work in

[[Page 7544]]

        the commuting area in which said employee resides; and
            ``(2) the employee has obtained--
            ``(A) suitable employment affording a reasonable 
        expectation of long-term duration in the area in which said 
        employee wishes to relocate. . . .

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane, and also that it 
    violates the provisions of the Budget Act. . . .
        Mr. [Don] Young [of Alaska]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I argue that 
    the amendment is germane. It has been heard before and has passed 
    on previous actions of this body. I want to state that if the 
    Parliamentarian will go back to the history of the House, this 
    House has acted on the same exact amendment on a similar type bill 
    in previous years. . . .
        So my argument is that the amendment is germane to the bill, 
    and it is relevant to the subject and the topic we are discussing 
    today. We should give an opportunity to this body to decide, if the 
    eastern establishment is going to have this wilderness, they are 
    going to pay for it through their tax dollars to those who will be 
    unemployed. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James L. Oberstar (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has reviewed the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Alaska.
        H.R. 1149 does not relate to the question of unemployment 
    relief to employees impacted by the wilderness designations in the 
    bill.
        The amendment contains matter not addressed on the bill and 
    within the jurisdiction of other committees of the House and, 
    therefore, is not germane to H.R. 1149.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since the Chair sustained the point of 
order under the germaneness rule, he was not obliged to rule on the 
point of order under the Budget Act. The amendment provided new 
entitlement authority effective in fiscal year 1984 and thus violated 
sec. 303(a)(4) of the Budget Act, no budget resolution for that year 
having yet been adopted.

Bill Authorizing Activities in Department of Agriculture Previously 
    Carried in Appropriation Bills--Amendment To Refund Certain 
    Payments Under Agricultural Adjustment Act

Sec. 3.63 To a bill authorizing certain activities in the Department of 
    Agriculture that had previously been carried in annual 
    appropriation bills without specific authorization, an amendment 
    seeking to refund certain payments under the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act of 1938 was held to be not germane.

[[Page 7545]]

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (15) was under 
consideration relating to control and eradication of certain animal and 
plant pests and diseases. The following amendment was offered to the 
bill: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 4278 (Committee on Agriculture).
16. 90 Cong. Rec. 2334, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 7, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ross] Rizley [of Oklahoma]: At the 
    end of the bill add a new section to be known as section 713 to 
    read as follows:
        ``That all penalties collected by the United States under the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 . . . or under the joint 
    resolution entitled `Joint resolution relating to wheat marketing 
    quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended' . 
    . . with respect to the marketing of any wheat from the 1941 or 
    1942 crops of wheat shall be refunded to the persons who bore the 
    burden of the payment of such penalties. . . .''

    In discussing the amendment, the proponent stated: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 2335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In my opinion, my amendment will not require any new 
    appropriation if it is accepted as a part of this bill. All we need 
    is an authorization, and this is an authorization bill, so that the 
    Appropriations Committee can authorize the Secretary of Agriculture 
    to reappropriate this identical fund. . . .
        If my amendment is agreed to, I take the position that all that 
    will then be necessary will be an authorization. It will be an 
    authorization to the Appropriations Committee to reappropriate 
    funds that are already on hand. . . .

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

        Mr. [Stephen] Pace [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the pending legislation is to set 
    up legislative authority for numerous items heretofore carried in 
    the agriculture appropriations bill which have not heretofore been 
    authorized by law.
        In the first place, there is no provision in the agriculture 
    appropriations bill having to do or treating with the subject of 
    refunding penalties that might have been invoked on any particular 
    crop. This amendment seeks solely to authorize the refund of 
    penalties on the wheat crop for 2 years.
        Secondly, Mr. Chairman, as was pointed out on yesterday, this 
    bill is for the purpose of setting up organic law for the 
    Department of Agriculture. Certainly there is no provision in this 
    amendment and nothing organic in this amendment, as it relates to 
    only one crop and for a period of only 2 years. It does not seek--
    if it did seek, I think the situation would be different--it does 
    not seek to establish as permanent law that all penalties on all 
    crops under certain conditions shall be refunded, but the amendment 
    simply seeks to refund the penalties on a particular crop for a 
    particular year. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated:

        . . . It is true that this is a bill which within its strictest 
    construction

[[Page 7546]]

    is an authorization bill authorizing appropriations that have 
    heretofore not been authorized by law, as I understand, for various 
    and sundry matters pertaining to the Department of Agriculture. . . 
    .
        As stated, this bill refers to the Domestic Allotment Act of 
    1938, part of which is included under the terms of my amendment. 
    What this will do will be to authorize the Appropriations Committee 
    not to make a new appropriation but to reappropriate this fund 
    which has been collected as a penalty under the provisions of the 
    Wheat Penalty Act. . . .

    The Chairman, Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, in ruling on 
the point of order, stated: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 2336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma seeks to 
    refund certain payments under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
    1938. The pending bill merely authorizes certain activities that 
    have heretofore been carried in annual appropriation bills without 
    specific authority or authorization at all.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma does not 
    come within that category and, therefore, the Chair holds that it 
    is not germane to the bill.

    A subsequent exchange concerned a parliamentary inquiry.

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: The inquiry I should 
    like to propound, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not if the amendment 
    were offered as a new title to the bill . . . would it then not be 
    in order? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair calls the attention of the gentleman to 
    the fact that merely making it another title in the bill would not 
    make it in order because it still would not be germane to the 
    pending bill.

Bill Amending Commodity Exchange Act--Senate Amendments Relating to 
    Forest Lands; Wheat Program

Sec. 3.64 To a House passed bill amending the Commodity Exchange Act to 
    authorize appropriations and to make technical improvements 
    therein, a Senate amendment authorizing the transfer of certain 
    national forest lands is not germane, nor is a Senate amendment 
    amending another law changing the wheat program.

    The proceedings of Oct. 15, 1986, relating to H.R. 4613, the 
Futures Trading Act of 1986, are discussed in Sec. 26.31, infra.

Bill Concerning Application of Freight Rates--Amendment Relating to 
    Notice Required Prior to Rate Increase

Sec.  3.65 Where a bill prescribed conditions relative to the 
    application to common carriers of certain provisions of law

[[Page 7547]]

    governing freight rates, an amendment which concerned the posting 
    of notices in connection with the establishment of rates was held 
    to be germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (19) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 1668 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
20. See 81 Cong. Rec. 3480, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 14, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That paragraph (1) of section 4 of the 
    Interstate Commerce Act, as amended February 28, 1920 (U.S.C., 
    title 49, sec. 4), be and it is hereby, amended to read as follows:
        (1) That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to 
    the provisions of this act to charge or receive any greater 
    compensation as a through rate than the aggregate of the 
    intermediate rates subject to the provisions of this act: Provided, 
    That the Commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to 
    which common carriers may be relieved from the operation of this 
    section: And provided further, That rates . . . existing at the 
    time of the passage of this amendatory act by virtue of orders of 
    the Commission . . . shall not be required to be changed by reason 
    of the provisions of this section until the further order of . . . 
    the Commission. . . .

    To this bill an amendment was offered, as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 3484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Schuyler O.] Bland [of Virginia]: 
    Page 2, line 17, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
        No application for any increase in rates . . . or charges shall 
    be . . . considered by the Interstate Commerce Commission unless 
    and until the applicant . . . shall show to the Commission that at 
    least 30 days prior to making said application the applicant has 
    filed with the Governor of each State in which said increase will 
    apply a copy of the tariff schedule showing all increases sought . 
    . . with a memorandum . . . explaining each . . . increase 
    requested. . . .

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

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    paragraph under consideration. This amendment applies to all fares 
    and rates. The bill relates only to the long-and-short-haul clause.

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

        Mr. Bland: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is in accord with the 
    Interstate Commerce Act and with the particular section under 
    consideration. The amendment relates to any rates, fares, or 
    charges that may involve a greater or shorter distance. It is not 
    limited to any particular point. It is rates, fares, and charges 
    generally, and the amendment deals with the procedure for the 
    protection of the public, so that they shall know that increases 
    are sought.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James M. Wilcox (Fla.).

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

[[Page 7548]]

        The bill now before the Committee, in line 10, page 1, provides 
    that the Commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to 
    which common carriers may be relieved from the operation of this 
    section; that is, relative to compensation, freight rates, or 
    freight charges.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia deals with 
    the establishment of rates and the posting of notice in connection 
    therewith, and, in the opinion of the Chair, is germane. The point 
    of order is therefore overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Bland explained the ``long-and-short 
haul'' provision and the effect of the bill as follows:

        The long-and-short haul provision is the simple, equitable 
    provision that you shall not charge less for the haul from terminus 
    to terminus than the aggregate of the charges for the intermediate 
    hauls. This bill would do away with this provision.

Bill Amending Act Relating to Apportionment--Amendment Changing Total 
    Number of Representatives

Sec. 3.66 To a bill proposing to amend an act in several particulars, 
    an amendment proposing to modify the act in a respect not related 
    to the terms of the bill is not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
relating to the time for transmission of a census report to Congress 
under an act providing for apportionment of 
Representatives.(4) An amendment was offered by Mr. James W. 
Mott, of Oregon, for purposes of reducing the total number of 
Representatives. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as 
follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. 2505 (Committee on the Census).
 4. See 86 Cong. Rec. 4382, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 11, 1940.
 5. Id. at p. 4383.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: . . . [S]ection 1 
    merely provides for the time that the President shall report to 
    Congress. The act of 1929, which this bill today seeks to amend, 
    provides for an apportionment based on a House membership of 435. 
    The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Mott], of 
    course, would change the entire procedure of the act of 1929, and 
    it is certainly not germane to this bill. . . .

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

        Mr. Mott: . . . The act of June 18, 1929, sets up the formula 
    and the machinery for apportionment. It provides in that connection 
    that the President within 1 week thereafter of the second regular 
    session, and so forth, shall file a statement showing the whole 
    number of persons in each State, as ascertained under the fifteenth 
    and each subsequent decennial census of the population, and the 
    number of Representatives to which each State would be entitled 
    under an apportionment of the then existing number of 
    Representatives.

[[Page 7549]]

        The act provides that the representation shall be apportioned 
    on a basis of the then existing number of 435 Members. This 
    amendment simply changes that basis from 435 to 300. This is 
    offered as an amendment to the act of 1929. The bill the committee 
    now has under consideration is also offered as an amendment to the 
    act of 1929. They are both amendments to the same act, and both 
    amendments relate to the same subject. I feel, therefore, that an 
    amendment along this line would be perfectly germane. . . .

    The Chairman, John M. Jones, of Texas, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at pp. 4383, 4384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The precedents . . . seem to be very definite on the 
    proposition that when a bill proposes to amend an act in several 
    particulars an amendment proposing to modify the act but not 
    related to the bill is not germane. . . .
        The pending section of the bill does not in any way affect the 
    total number of Members of the House but only proposes to change 
    the time when the statement of the President must be transmitted to 
    Congress. The Chair is of the opinion therefore that the amendment 
    is not germane and sustains the point of order.

Resolution to Reform Structure and Procedures of Committees--Amendment 
    Affecting Procedures in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 3.67 To a proposition reorganizing House committees and dealing 
    with the committee stage of the legislative process, amended to 
    delete reference to consideration of legislation in Committee of 
    the Whole, an amendment relating to voting procedures in the 
    Committee of the Whole was held to be not germane.

    On Oct. 8, 1974,(7) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration House Resolution 988, to reform the structure, 
jurisdiction and procedures of House committees. Pending was an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute amending Rules X and XI and 
making conforming changes in other rules to reform the structure, 
jurisdiction and procedures of committees, and containing miscellaneous 
provisions reorganizing certain institutional facilities of the House. 
The amendment had been perfected by amendment to eliminate a revision 
of Rule XVI which had proposed changes in Committee of the Whole 
procedure. Pursuant to a point of order, the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute was held not to be sufficiently broad in scope to admit as 
germane an amendment to Rule VIII to permit

[[Page 7550]]

pairs on recorded votes in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7.  120 Cong. Rec. 34415, 34416, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bingham to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington: On 
        page 53, after line 2, insert the following:

                       ``pairs in committee of the whole

            ``Sec. 209. The first sentence of clause 2 of rule VIII of 
        the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
        inserting `by the House or Committee of the Whole' immediately 
        before the first comma.'' . . .

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment for the reason that it is an amendment to 
    rule VIII, whereas the principal resolution under consideration 
    here, House Resolution 988, attempts to amend rules X and XI only. 
    Therefore, the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Bingham: . . . This would amend title II of the resolution, 
    which is headed, ``Miscellaneous and Conforming Provisions.'' That 
    title of the resolution is not limited to changes in rules X and 
    XI. It affects other rules, section 207, for example, amendment to 
    rule XVI, and under the heading of ``Miscellaneous and Conforming 
    Provisions,'' it would seem to me that a simple amendment to rule 
    VIII would clearly be in order.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On hearing the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) and the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham), the Chair is of the opinion 
    that there is nothing in the Hansen amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as perfected, relating to voting procedures in the 
    Committee of the Whole. The miscellaneous provisions in the Hansen 
    amendment, as perfected by the Waggonner amendment, do not broaden 
    the Hansen amendment to the extent suggested by the gentleman from 
    New York.
        Therefore, the point of order must be sustained, and the point 
    of order is sustained.

--Amendment Relating to Committee Reports on Appropriation Bills 
    Offered to Amendment in Nature of Substitute Addressing Content of 
    Committee Reports

Sec. 3.68 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute amending Rules 
    X and XI and making conforming and miscellaneous changes in other 
    rules to reorganize House committees, and including requirements as 
    to content and filing of committee reports, an amendment to Rule 
    XXI (which relates to appropriation bills and reports) to require 
    the committee report accompanying any bill containing an 
    appropriation to state the direct or indirect changes in

[[Page 7551]]

    law made by the bill and to prohibit such report from containing 
    any directive or limitation affecting the appropriation that was 
    not also contained in the bill was held germane, since the issue of 
    the content of committee reports was within the purview of the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    During consideration of House Resolution 988 (to reform the 
structure, jurisdiction and procedures of House committees) it was held 
that to a proposition amending two House rules relating to the 
interrelation of House committees and imposing requirements for filing 
and content of committee reports, an amendment to another House rule 
but dealing with the content of reports from the Committee on 
Appropriations and having as a fundamental purpose a separation of 
jurisdictional responsibility between that committee and legislative 
committees was germane. The proceedings of Oct. 8, 1974,(9) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 120 Cong. Rec. 34416, 34417, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington: 
        Page 37, immediately following line 20, insert the following 
        new section and redesignate ensuing sections accordingly:

                             ``appropriations bills

            ``Sec. 201. Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended by inserting the following new 
        Clause, and renumbering ensuing Clauses accordingly:
            `` `3. A committee report accompanying any bill making an 
        appropriation for any purpose--
            `` `(a) shall not contain any directive or limitation with 
        respect to such appropriation unless such directive or 
        limitation is set forth in the accompanying bill, and
            `` `(b) shall contain a concise statement describing fully 
        the effect of any provision of the accompanying bill which 
        directly or indirectly changes the application of existing 
        law.' ''. . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    the resolution before us amends rules X and XI. I am told the 
    Hansen provision by a special rule was permitted to include a 
    provision that would affect rule XVI. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) goes, according to its 
    wording, to rule XXI and I respectfully submit that it is not 
    germane to the matter before us. There are many, many reasons why 
    this should be, Mr. Chairman, because a reading of the gentleman's 
    amendment would mean that no longer would there be any reports 
    submitted by any committee in connection with any bill because of 
    having to be included in the bill there would be no need for the 
    report.
        For example, in the case of the Subcommittee on Defense 
    Appropriations I

[[Page 7552]]

    suspect the bill would be about as thick as three Sears Roebuck 
    catalogs, and that of the public works would be probably as big a 
    one.
        The fact is that the matter before us which limits it to rules 
    X and XI, with the special exception of rule XVI, which was 
    stricken, but which was included by reason of a special rule, so 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) directed as the gentleman would in that amendment to rule 
    No. XXI, is nongermane to the matter before us, the subject matter, 
    and therefore should be ruled out of order. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: . . . Mr. Chairman, I have before me House 
    Resolution 988, and House Resolution 1248. The question before the 
    body is whether or not the amendment would be germane either to 
    House Resolution 1248 or House Resolution 988. The question which 
    must be considered in establishing the germaneness of the amendment 
    is . . . whether [the] amendment [is] germane either to the 
    amendment, or to the resolution?
        The question of germaneness is not related simply to the 
    particular rules to which either House Resolution 988 would address 
    itself, or House Resolution 1248 would address itself, but rather 
    to whether on a fair reading of the entirety of the two proposals 
    that the proposal would be germane to the amendment to House 
    Resolution 988 and House Resolution 1248, which is at this moment 
    before the House. . . .
        If the Chair will look at the language of the amendment it 
    first of all deals with appropriation bills, the work product of 
    the Committee on Appropriations, and the powers and prerogatives of 
    the Committee on Appropriations under the rules. If the Chair will 
    consult both House Resolution 988 and House Resolution 1248 the 
    Chair will find that there is a miscellaneous section there too. 
    This amendment is directed at the miscellaneous section. I would 
    inform the Chair that word ``miscellaneous'' means broad, diverse, 
    and manyfold.
        I would point out that not only do the provisions of both the 
    miscellaneous section and the rest of the bill deal not only 
    specifically with rules X and XI, and with other portions of the 
    rule not enumerated or named, but treated in a general fashion, but 
    that the miscellaneous section deals with a large number of items 
    within the rules of the House.
        More specifically, both of the resolutions deal with the powers 
    and prerogatives of the Committee on Appropriations as well as the 
    duties and the responsibilities. And so a section to be added 
    relating to the powers and the prerogatives of the Committee on 
    Appropriations would at least in my view, therefore, be fully 
    appropriate and germane, because the function of the amendment as 
    offered is to deal with the powers and prerogatives of the 
    Committee on Appropriations and, Mr. Chairman, in contrast to what 
    my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi said, not just the 
    powers of all the committees, but only the powers of the Committee 
    on Appropriations since the amendment relates to the question of 
    how appropriation bills shall be reported to the House, and the 
    main rule is the one relating to the powers of the Committee on 
    Appropriations in legislating.
        So I think it ought to be clearly ascertained that we put, 
    through the

[[Page 7553]]

    proposed amendment--or the proposed amendment would put--further 
    restrictions on the powers of the Committee on Appropriations to 
    legislate. I would address myself to that in the appropriate 
    fashion when the Chair has disposed of the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . Rule XXI is a rule which 
    prevents the circumventing of jurisdiction of all the committees. 
    Rule XXI cannot be divorced from the general question of assignment 
    of jurisdictional responsibility to the major committees of this 
    House. If it were not for rule XXI, the Committee on Appropriations 
    would be in a position, because it deals with so many bills from so 
    many committees, to insert new material at the appropriations 
    level. All of the bills before us deal with the Committee on 
    Appropriations, but, more importantly, all of the bills before us 
    deal with the question of protecting and establishing jurisdiction 
    of the major committees of the House. In addition to that, all of 
    the bills before us deal with the assignment of jurisdictional 
    authority by the Speaker and in the case of the Bolling bill, by 
    the Committee on Rules--and ultimately by the House--of bills to 
    committees.
        It is utterly impossible to separate this web of provisions, 
    including the rules covered by these three bills and rule XXI.
        Therefore, it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    amendment is germane. Most of the arguments made against it seem to 
    me to be arguments on the merits. . . .
        Mr. [David T.] Martin of Nebraska: . . . I should like to point 
    out that in the original resolution, House Resolution 132, which 
    was adopted by the House on January 31, 1973, the second paragraph 
    stated as follows:

            The Select Committee is authorized and directed to conduct 
        a thorough and complete study with respect to the operation and 
        implementation of Rules X and XI of the Rules of the House.

        This amendment is directed to rule XXI. The select committee 
    was not instructed to make any changes in rule XXI. Therefore, I 
    raise a point of order also in regard to the gentleman's amendment.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) is drafted to the miscellaneous portion of the amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen). That 
    portion of the amendment refers to several rules of the House, even 
    though the Waggonner amendment deleted all reference to rule XVI. 
    The amendment as offered, relates to the content of reports filed 
    by the standing Committee on Appropriations, a matter within the 
    scope of the Hansen amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
    Chair has carefully considered the point of order and the arguments 
    of those who have spoken on the point of order, and it is the 
    opinion of the Chair that the point of order must be overruled, and 
    that the amendment is in order to the Hansen amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

[[Page 7554]]

--Proposal to Study Needs for Facilities for Congress; Amendment 
    Directing Speaker To Set Aside Office Space in New Library Building

Sec. 3.69 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute proposing 
    changes in the structure, jurisdiction and procedures of House 
    committees, and containing miscellaneous provisions to improve the 
    institutional operations of the House, including a Commission to 
    study facility and space requirements of Members and committees, an 
    amendment directing the Speaker to ensure that a portion of a newly 
    constructed Library of Congress building would be utilized for 
    House office space until other additional space could be provided 
    was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of House Resolution 988 in the Committee of 
the Whole, it was held that to a proposition establishing a commission 
to study a matter, an amendment directing an official to undertake and 
accomplish that matter is not germane. The proceedings of Oct. 8, 
1974,(11) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 11. 120 Cong. Rec. 34458, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gibbons to the amendment offered 
        as a substitute by Mr. Martin of Nebraska: On page 92 after 
        line 5, insert the following:
            Sec. --. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is 
        authorized and directed to take whatever steps necessary to 
        insure that a portion of the James Madison Memorial Library 
        Building that is now under construction be utilized by the 
        House of Representatives for additional office space until the 
        House can acquire sufficient additional space for its orderly 
        function.

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        The point of order is based on the fact that none of the 
    resolutions deal with the acquisition of space in any buildings but 
    only the study of the needs of the House of Representatives for 
    space. Therefore, it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: . . . Mr. Chairman, we are 
    amending the rules of the House to provide for the procedures of 
    the House and for the operation of the House. All three of the 
    amendments that have been offered are proposals, of course, that 
    are very broad. They go to staffing and to allowances and to 
    travel, and they go to the entire operation of the House. This 
    amendment is just directed toward that purpose. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Gibbons) directs the Speaker to take action toward

[[Page 7555]]

    the acquisition of committee and office space. The substitute 
    before this Committee at this time does not contain any provision 
    allocating office space although it establishes a commission to 
    study the problem. There is no provision in any of the amendments 
    directing the allocation of space for committees or space for 
    offices. Therefore, the amendment is not germane, and the Chair 
    will have to sustain the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.

--Provision To Restrict Use of Funds for Committee Expenses Outside 
    U.S.; Amendment To Restrict Use of Funds for Travel Expenses of 
    Retiring Members

Sec. 3.70 To a portion of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    providing that use of the contingent fund for committee 
    investigations be confined to travel in the United States and that 
    no appropriated funds be expended for committee expenses outside 
    the United States where local currencies are available, an 
    amendment providing that ``notwithstanding any other provision of 
    law, no part of any appropriation and no local currency . . .'' 
    shall be available to pay any expenses in connection with travel 
    outside the United States of retiring Members was held to be not 
    germane, since it waived provisions of law not necessarily related 
    to House committee travel.

    On Oct. 8, 1974,(13) during consideration of House 
Resolution 988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction and procedures of 
House committees) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 34463, 34464, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington:
            Page 28, line 20, strike out ``committee''.
            Page 28, line 21, insert ``(1)'' after ``(n)''.
            Page 29, line 7, strike out ``(1)'' and insert ``(A)''.
            Page 29, line 11, strike out ``(2)'' and insert ``(B)''.
            Page 29, after line 21, insert the following new 
        subparagraph:
            ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no part 
        of any appropriation and no local currency owned by the United 
        States shall be available for payment of any expenses, nor 
        shall transportation be provided by the United States, in 
        connection with travel outside the fifty States (including the 
        District of Columbia) of the United States of--

            ``(A) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after he has been defeated as a candidate for nomination, 
        or election, to a seat in the House in any primary

[[Page 7556]]

        or regular election until such time as he shall thereafter 
        again become a Member; or
            ``(B) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after the adjournment sine die of the last session of a 
        Congress if he is not a candidate for reelection in the next 
        Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment. . . .
        As I heard the amendment, I believe it is directed at some 
    general laws of the United States, not just at the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I think the 
    point of order should be sustained, because it goes far beyond the 
    Rules of the House and it deals with appropriations. It puts 
    jurisdictions on agencies. It puts additional duties on the 
    Department of State. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has carefully examined the second amendment read by 
    the Clerk. At the bottom of the page the paragraph starts out:

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . no part of 
        any appropriation shall be available--
    and so forth.

        This prefatory provision itself makes the amendment subject to 
    a point of order. Therefore, the point of order is sustained, and 
    the amendment is not in order.

Sec. 3.71 To a provision in an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    restricting the use of the House contingent fund for committee 
    expenses to travel in the United States and providing that no 
    appropriated funds be used for committee expenses outside the 
    country, where local currencies are available, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds ``authorized for a committee'' for 
    expenses of retiring Members was held germane as a further 
    restriction on the availability of committee funds.

    During consideration of House Resolution 988 (to reform the 
structure, jurisdiction and procedures of House committees) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings of Oct. 8, 
1974,(15) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 34465, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Duncan [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington: 
        Page 28, line 20, strike out ``committee''. . . .
            Page 29, after line 21, insert the following new 
        subparagraph:

[[Page 7557]]

            ``(2) No funds authorized for a committee shall be 
        available for payment of any expenses, nor shall transportation 
        be provided by the United States, in connection with travel 
        outside the fifty States (including the District of Columbia) 
        of the United States of--
            ``(A) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after he has been defeated as a candidate for nomination, 
        or election, to a seat in the House in any primary or regular 
        election until such time as he shall thereafter again become a 
        Member; or
            ``(B) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after the adjournment sine die of the last session of a 
        Congress if he is not a candidate for reelection in the next 
        Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. It changes the Constitution of the 
    United States wherein it reduces the term of office of a Member and 
    takes away some of his prerogatives and privileges that he has for 
    a 2-year term equal to other Members, and it in effect makes a 
    second-class citizen of a Member who may decide to retire. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair cannot pass upon constitutional questions. The Chair 
    can only pass upon the germaneness of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Tennessee.
        The Chair notes that the amendment is directed to the portion 
    of the Hansen amendment relating to funds for committee travel and 
    unlike the language in the prior amendment against which the point 
    of order was sustained, does not appear to be broader in effect 
    than the language in the Hansen amendment. The Chair holds the 
    amendment germane and overrules the point of order.

General Rule as to Germaneness of Amendment Expressing Sense of 
    Congress

Sec. 3.72 An amendment expressing the sense of Congress on a subject 
    must relate to the subject matter of the bill under consideration 
    to the same extent as a substantive amendment on that subject.

    The proceedings of Aug. 1, 1990, relating to H.R. 1180, the Housing 
and Community Development Act, are discussed in Sec. 4.59, infra.

Bill Addressing Intelligence Activities--Amendment Addressing 
    Relationship Between Executive and Congress With Respect to Such 
    Activities

Sec. 3.73 To a bill addressing diverse subjects relating to 
    intelligence activities of the government (including congressional 
    oversight of certain intelligence activities), an amendment 
    addressing the relationship between the Executive branch and the 
    Congress with respect to in

[[Page 7558]]

    telligence activities is germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 17, 1990, relating to H.R. 5422, the 
Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991, are discussed in Sec. 35.102, 
infra.

Proposition To Require Disclosure by Lobbyists--Amendment To Require 
    Reference to Committee of Information on Contributions

Sec. 3.74 To a proposition having as its fundamental purpose 
    registration and public disclosure by lobbyists of their activities 
    and affiliations, but not the regulation or prohibition of those 
    activities, an amendment requiring the Comptroller General to refer 
    to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct information on 
    contributions by lobbyists to House Members and employees for 
    possible investigation by that committee, but not requiring an 
    investigation and not regulating such contributions, was held 
    germane as a further disclosure requirement.

    During consideration of the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 
1976 (17) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 28, 
1976,(18) Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, overruled a 
point of order against an amendment to the pending amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 15.
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 33085, 33086, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mikva to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: On page 10, 
        lines 8 and 9, strike out ``, but not including' and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following: '': Provided, That the Comptroller 
        General shall refer to the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct for investigation of any expenditures by an 
        organization reportable under this subsection to or for the 
        benefit of any federal officer or employee (under the 
        jurisdiction of said Committee) that exceed $100 in value in 
        the aggregate in any calendar year to determine if the receipt 
        of such expenditure is acceptance of a gift of substantial 
        value, directly or indirectly, from an organization having a 
        direct interest in legislation before the Congress as 
        prohibited under the Rules of the House of Representatives; but 
        such expenditures shall not include'''. . . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I should 
    like to interpose a point of order on this amendment . . . . I 
    think that the point of order would lie, Mr. Chairman, in that 
    there are duties here that are

[[Page 7559]]

    not contemplated in the purposes of the legislation, in that the 
    gentleman from Illinois would require additional duties of the 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, to which there are none 
    within the purview of the legislation of either the Committee on 
    the Judiciary or the Standards Committee. . . .
        Mr. Mikva: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this 
    amendment that I have just offered imposes no prohibitions or 
    anything else. The statute has been referred to over and over again 
    by the distinguished gentleman from Alabama as a disclosure 
    statute. It seems to me that the people are entitled to know why we 
    are disclosing these things. We have rules in the House. One of the 
    rules of the House says that no Member or other employee shall 
    receive a gift of substantial value.
        All this amendment suggests is that where gifts of substantial 
    value are given, they ought to be referred to the appropriate 
    committee for investigation. If we are not doing that, I think the 
    people are entitled to inquire just what it is we propose to do 
    with all of this information.
        This does not impose any prohibitions or any criminal sanctions 
    on anybody. It does not add to the breadth of the bill in any 
    manner, shape, or form. It merely says any gifts over a certain 
    amount which are required to be reported under the bill should be 
    referred to the committee to see whether they violate the rule. If 
    they do not, there is no requirement that they do anything except 
    to look to see if the rules of the House of Representatives are 
    being enforced.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Illinois, the 
    Chair believes that the point of order is not good and therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

--Amendment To Require Wearing of Name Tags

Sec. 3.75 To a proposition having as its fundamental purpose 
    registration and public disclosure by lobbyists but not the 
    regulation of their activities, an amendment requiring lobbyists 
    within a certain distance of the House and Senate Chambers to wear 
    tags displaying their names and affiliations was construed as a 
    further information disclosure requirement and was held germane.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(19) during consideration of the 
Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976 (H.R. 15) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the following amendment to the pending amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was held germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 33082, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Michigan to the amendment 
        in the

[[Page 7560]]

        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: On page 5 line 
        20 strike the period and insert a colon. On page 5 following 
        line 20, insert the following: Provided however, That any 
        officer, agent or employee of an organization regulated as a 
        lobbyist by this Act who influences, or attempts to influence, 
        any Member of Congress with respect to any legislative matter, 
        shall prominently display on his or her person an 
        identification name tag, stating in clearly discernible print, 
        his or her full name and the organization he or she represents; 
        said name tag shall be printed in not less than 24 point type; 
        Provided further however, This requirement shall only be 
        applicable to those persons who influence, or attempt to 
        influence, Members within 50 feet of any entrance to either 
        Chamber of the Congress while such is in session. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment because I do not think it has 
    any relevancy to the bill.
        The distance of how far away one is or whether he or she is 
    wearing a badge of 24-point type has nothing to do with the bill. 
    There are a lot of things it is pertinent to, but not that. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: . . . I respectfully disagree with the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett).
        This is a disclosure bill. We require people to register and to 
    identify themselves. It seems to me that if we are going to have a 
    piece of disclosure legislation that is effective, we ought to be 
    able to associate names and faces; and that is all that this 
    amendment does. It just implements the disclosure requirements of 
    this legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined this amendment, and it is not the same 
    as the one on which the Chair ruled before.
        The Chair would have to say that this amendment would seem to 
    have as its purpose the disclosure of information by lobbyists and 
    to come within the fundamental purposes of the amendment to which 
    it has been offered.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

--Amendment Placing Ceiling on Contributions

Sec. 3.76 To an amendment requiring registration and public disclosure 
    by lobbyists but not regulating or prohibiting their activities, an 
    amendment placing a ceiling on their monetary contributions to 
    federal officials is not germane.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(1) during consideration of the Public 
Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976 (2) in the Committee of 
the Whole, it was demonstrated that the fundamental purpose of an 
amendment must relate to the fundamental purpose of the proposition to 
which it is offered when a point of order against the following 
amendment was sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 122 Cong. Rec. 33085, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H.R. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 7561]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mikva to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: On page 20, 
        immediately after line 13, insert the following new subsection:
            ``(e)(1) No organization shall make expenditures reportable 
        under section 6 to or for the benefit of any Federal officer or 
        employee that exceed $100 in value in the aggregate in any 
        calendar year: Provided That, for the purposes of this 
        limitation all reimbursed expenditures made by persons employed 
        or retained by the organization shall be considered to have 
        been made by the organization: Provided further, That this 
        limitation shall not apply to any loan of money in the ordinary 
        course of business on terms and conditions that are no more 
        favorable than are generally available or to any honorarium 
        within the meaning of section 328 of the Federal Election 
        Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441(i)).
            ``(2) Any organization which knowingly and willfully 
        violates this subsection shall be fined not more than $10,000 
        for each such violation.''. . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order against the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Mikva), lies, I think, because the gentleman's 
    amendment violates the central purpose of the proposed legislation 
    and that is to provide a method of lobbying disclosure and not in 
    any wise, Mr. Chairman, regulating amounts or providing any ceiling 
    or floor or anything else but disclosure.
        The amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Mikva), clearly violates the intent of the statute in that it 
    imposes duties upon the Comptroller General that would not 
    otherwise be imposed by this statute, or duties of a different 
    kind.
        It imposes a different penalty that would be imposed than 
    otherwise in this statute. It is not clear whether it is a civil or 
    a criminal penalty.
        For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Mikva: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what my distinguished 
    colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary is referring to, but 
    there is nothing in this amendment that talks about the Comptroller 
    General. He may be a little precipitous about something else. What 
    this says, very simply, is that there ought to be a $100 limitation 
    on the amount lobbyists can give as gifts. It excludes honoraria; 
    it excludes political contributions; it excludes all of the 
    nonreportable items. The rules now existing in this House of 
    Representatives--already the Rules of this House--make it clear 
    that no gifts of any substantial value shall be given by a lobbyist 
    to a Member. What this does is define that substantial interest in 
    terms of $100. It is put in the sanctions section, and it deals 
    with the other sanctions that are already in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Flowers: Mr. Chairman, might I be heard one moment further 
    here on the point of order?
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman extends the bill much further than 
    it is already intended, in that he says:

            That, for the purposes of this limitation--
            And again a limitation which is not a part of the purpose 
        of the bill--
            --all reimbursed expenditures made by persons employed or 
        retained by the organization shall be considered to have been 
        made by the organization.

[[Page 7562]]

        This is a concept not within the proposed legislation, and we 
    think, Mr. Chairman, clearly that this does extend the purpose of 
    the legislation far beyond that of the substitute or H.R. 15, as 
    amended. We feel that the point of order ought to be sustained.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reason first stated by the gentleman from Alabama and 
    by the Chair in an earlier ruling on the Ashbrook amendment, the 
    point of order is sustained.

Bill Authorizing President to Allocate Funds Among Agencies--Amendment 
    Allocating Funds to Specific Agency

Sec. 3.77 To a bill appropriating a sum of money and authorizing the 
    President to make allocations therefrom among certain agencies of 
    the government, an amendment proposing that a certain part of such 
    sum be allocated to another agency of the government was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a relief 
appropriations bill (4) as described above, the following 
amendment was offered: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.J. Res. 361 (Committee on Appropriations).
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 5012, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of Florida]: On 
    page 2, line 20, after the semicolon, add: ``Provided, That from 
    the amount specified for the foregoing classes $300,000,000 shall 
    be allocated to the Federal Emergency Administration of Public 
    Works.''

    Mr. John Taber, of New York, having raised a point of order against 
the amendment, the Chairman (6) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In this bill it is provided that the President may make 
    allocations to certain agencies of the Government.
        The amendment . . . provides that part of the appropriation in 
    this bill shall be allocated to one of the agencies of government, 
    the Federal Administration of Public Works.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is germane to 
    the bill, and therefore overrules the point of order.

Grants for Purchase of Photographic and Fingerprint Equipment--
    Amendment Adding Funds To Purchase Bulletproof Vests

Sec. 3.78 To an amendment authorizing law enforcement administration 
    grants to states and localities for the purchase of photographic 
    and fingerprint equipment for law enforcement purposes, an 
    amendment including assistance for the purchase of bulletproof 
    vests

[[Page 7563]]

    was held to be directed toward a different category of law 
    enforcement equipment concerned with physical protection rather 
    than information-gathering and was therefore beyond the scope of 
    the amendment and not germane; the decision of the Chairman on the 
    germaneness of the amendment was upheld on appeal by a voice vote.

    On Oct. 12, 1979,(7) during consideration of the Justice 
System Improvement Act of 1979 (8) in the Committee of the 
Whole, Chairman Mike McCormack, of Washington, held that to an 
amendment providing financial assistance for a certain class of law 
enforcement equipment (for informational purposes), the following 
amendment adding financial assistance for another class (for protection 
of law enforcement officers) was not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 28123, 28124, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 2061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer: Page 164, lines 24 and 
        25, amend the bill by adding the following after the word 
        ``project,'' ``including photographic equipment, and 
        fingerprint equipment, for law enforcement purposes.''.

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Volkmer: Insert after the word ``including'' ``bullet-
        proof vests,''. . .

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: . . . When we previously 
    discussed this with the Parliamentarian the point was made that it 
    could not be amended on the other side by having the bulletproof 
    vest amendment amended by adding cameras and other equipment. It is 
    not a germane fact to this issue and the type of equipment we are 
    dealing with and discussing, and for that reason it should be ruled 
    out of order. . . .
        Mr. Volkmer: . . . I would like to speak on the point of order. 
    As to the question of germaneness, as I understand it my amendment 
    says, ``including photographic equipment, fingerprint equipment,'' 
    and then the words ``for law enforcement purposes.''
        Therefore, in my opinion anything that would be in there for 
    law enforcement purposes would be germane. In other words, if 
    somebody would offer an amendment for pistols, or offer an 
    amendment for bullets, or offer an amendment for police caps or 
    cars or anything else for law enforcement purposes, it is germane. 
    This is not restricted just to a certain type of equipment. We have 
    photographic equipment and fingerprint equipment. They are not 
    related at all. Bulletproof vests are for law enforcement purposes.

[[Page 7564]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The question really comes down to how to define and segregate 
    categories of law enforcement equipment. The Chair is persuaded 
    that the term, ``photographic equipment and fingerprint equipment'' 
    is a generic category that deals with information rather than 
    protection of law enforcement officers.
        Bulletproof vests are within the different category of 
    equipment for the protection of law enforcement officers. The Chair 
    recognizes that this is a fine line, but rules that under the 
    precedents the amendment is not germane to the pending amendment 
    and the point of order is sustained. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the Chair's ruling stand 
    as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
    pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Chairman: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair 
    announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period 
    of time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will 
    be taken on the pending question following the quorum call. Members 
    will record their presence by electronic device.

        The call was taken by electronic device. . . .
        The Chairman: Three hundred and twelve Members have answered to 
    their names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its 
    business.
        The pending business is the demand of the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Ashbrook) for a recorded vote appealing the decision of the 
    Chair.
        Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) insist upon his 
    demand for a recorded vote?
        Mr. Ashbrook: I do not, Mr. Chairman.

Bill Restricting Antitrust Remedies Against Local Governments--Senate 
    Amendment Relating to Funds for Antitrust Activities of Federal 
    Agency

Sec. 3.79 To a House bill restricting remedies under existing antitrust 
    law against local governments, but not addressing authority of a 
    federal agency to prosecute antitrust actions or the availability 
    of appropriated funds to that agency for that purpose, a Senate 
    amendment included in a conference report repealing a limitation in 
    an appropriation law for that year on the use of funds by that 
    agency to conduct antitrust actions against local governments was 
    held not germane, since the amendment related to agency ac

[[Page 7565]]

    tivities and funds not addressed in the House bill.

    The proceedings of Oct. 11, 1984, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 6027, to clarify the application of the federal antitrust laws 
to the official conduct of local governments, are discussed in 
Sec. 26.25, infra.

Imposition of Different Classes of Penalties

Sec. 3.80 To a bill relating to the imposition of penalties of a 
    certain class, all falling within the jurisdiction of one 
    committee, an amendment relating to another class of penalties 
    falling within the jurisdiction of another committee is not 
    germane.

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

Bill Relating to Acquisition of Buildings by Federal Government--
    Amendment To Provide Grants to Public and Private Agencies for 
    Hospital Facilities

Sec. 3.81 To a bill relating to acquisition of buildings for use by the 
    federal government, an amendment relating to grants to public and 
    private agencies for hospital facilities was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
granting certain powers to the Federal Works Administration. The 
following amendment was offered: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 5407 (Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds).
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 2373, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 18, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendment offered by Mr. [Fritz G.] Lanham [of 
    Texas]: At the end of the bill add the following new section:
        Sec. 13. In order to alleviate the acute shortage of hospital 
    facilities outside the District of Columbia, the Federal Works 
    Administrator is hereby authorized to make grants to public and 
    private agencies for hospital facilities. . . .

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

        Mr. [James W.] Wadsworth [Jr., of New York]: . . . It is 
    apparent that this bill as reported by the Committee on Public 
    Buildings and Grounds relates solely to the acquisition of 
    buildings or facilities needed by the Federal Government, and for 
    the use of the Federal Government alone. . . . This amendment, 
    however, goes far beyond the field occupied by the bill and 
    proposes that the Federal Government embark upon the building of 
    hospitals by grants to the States . . . .

[[Page 7566]]

        The Chairman, William F. Cravens, of Arkansas, in ruling on the 
    point of order, stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 2374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The original bill deals solely with Federal Government 
    construction for exclusive Government uses. The amendment is a 
    departure and would bring in new matter not covered by the original 
    bill.
        Therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, it is not germane. The 
    point of order is sustained.

Bill Authorizing Military Assistance for Israel and Funds for UN 
    Forces--Amendment Expressing Sense of Congress With Respect to 
    Peace Negotiations in Middle East

Sec. 3.82 To a bill authorizing military assistance for Israel and 
    funds for the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which sought to express the 
    sense of Congress that the President should make every effort to 
    bring about negotiations leading to a treaty of peace in the Middle 
    East and to a resumption of diplomatic and trade relations between 
    Israel and the Arab countries, and between the United States and 
    the Arab countries.

    During consideration of H.R. 11088 (12) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Dec. 11, 1973,(13) a point of order was 
sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. A bill providing for emergency military assistance to Israel and 
        Cambodia.
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 40842, 40843, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sikes: On page 4, after line 10, 
        add a new Section 7:
            It is the sense of Congress that every reasonable effort be 
        made by the President to bring about meaningful negotiations 
        between Israel and the Arab states directly concerned leading 
        to a treaty of peace in the Middle East and to a resumption of 
        diplomatic and trade relations between the United States and 
        the Arab countries, and between Israel and the Arab 
        countries.''

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
    order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Iowa 
    insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: I do, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is window 
    dressing. It calls upon the President to resume diplomatic and 
    trade relations between certain nations and clearly goes beyond the 
    scope of this bill.
        Mr. Sikes: Mr. Chairman, this amendment expresses the hope and

[[Page 7567]]

    asks the President to move to bring to the Middle East. It 
    expresses the hope that we will be able to resume normal trade 
    relations with all nations, and that other nations, the Arabs and 
    the Israelis, will be able to resume diplomatic and normal trade 
    relations. I feel that it does not impose additional requirements. 
    I feel that it adds to and supplements the language of the bill, 
    and that the point of order should not be sustained.
        The Chairman: The Chair has studied the amendment and will 
    state that the amendment goes to the question of negotiations 
    involving Arab and United States trade and diplomatic relations and 
    is not within the purview of this legislation. The Chair sustains 
    the point of order of the gentleman from Iowa. Are there further 
    amendments? If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.

Bill Establishing Price Supports for Agricultural Commodities--
    Amendment Relating to Acreage Allotments and Marketing Quotas

Sec. 3.83 To a bill establishing one year price support levels for 
    several agricultural commodities, an amendment relating to acreage 
    allotments and marketing quotas, as well as price supports, of 
    another commodity for that year was held to go beyond the scope of 
    the bill and was held to be not germane.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(15) during consideration of a bill 
concerning emergency price supports for 1975 crops,(16) a 
point of order was sustained against the following amendment offered in 
the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 7666, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 4296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            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 acreage allotment, marketing quota or price support 
        for rice effective with the 1975 crop of such commodity.'' . . 
        .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . The amendment is 
    not germane to the bill, and violates rule XVI, clause 7.
        H.R. 4296 deals with price supports, established prices, and 
    loan rates for wheat, feed grains, cotton, and milk under sections 
    103, 105, 107, and 201 of the Agricultural Act of 1949.
        The bill does not relate to acreage allotments, or marketing 
    quotas on any commodity. The amendment offered would affect the 
    provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
        Accordingly, the amendment is not germane to the bill, and I 
    therefore press my point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Peyser: . . . The reason I offered the amendment was 
    because of

[[Page 7568]]

    the ruling of the Chair dealing with the Conte amendment some hour 
    or so ago, where we were discussing it, and the Chair ruled in 
    favor of nuts and fruits, and some other items, and I therefore 
    felt that introducing the question of rice would be substantially 
    within the germaneness of this bill as the other items that have 
    been offered, and that the Chair had ruled in favor of.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has heard the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Washington (Mr. Foley), and has listened to the response made 
    by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser).
        The Chair would observe in respect of its earlier ruling on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts that the 
    earlier amendment was a price support amendment. The purpose of the 
    bill under consideration, as the gentleman from Washington has 
    already pointed out, runs to price supports. Acreage and allotments 
    and marketing quotas are not within the scope of the bill, and the 
    Chair rules, therefore, that the amendment is not germane, and 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill Prohibiting Certain Kinds of Interference With Elections--
    Amendment To Prohibit Poll Taxes

Sec. 3.84 To a bill seeking to prevent pernicious political activities 
    by making it unlawful for certain individuals to use their 
    authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the 
    election or nomination of any candidate for certain public offices, 
    an amendment making it unlawful to require the payment of state 
    poll taxes as a prerequisite for voting was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration which sought to prevent ``pernicious political 
activities.'' The bill included a committee amendment (19) 
making it unlawful for certain federal and state employees to use their 
official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the 
election or nomination of candidates for designated public offices. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. S. 3046 (Committee on the Judiciary).
19. See 86 Cong. Rec. 9446, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., July 10, 1940.
20. Id. at p. 9455. The amendment was offered by Mr. Lee E. Geyer 
        (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 1. (a) It is unlawful for any person, whether or not 
    acting under the authority of the laws of a State or subdivision 
    thereof, to require the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite for 
    voting or registering to vote at any election for a President or 
    Vice President or Presidential elector or Member of the Senate or 
    Member of the House of Representatives of the United States.

[[Page 7569]]

    With respect to such amendment, the following proceedings took 
place: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at pp. 9455, 9456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment that it is not germane to that section 
    of the bill or those sections of the bill to which it is addressed 
    nor to any section of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) . . . The Chair is of the opinion 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California is in 
    no way related to the provisions of the pending bill; that is, in 
    no way related so as to make the amendment germane in accordance 
    with and under the rules of the House. The amendment relates to the 
    franchise of the voters in the several States, and the bill under 
    consideration so far as the Chair can observe, and the Chair has 
    read it carefully, in no way enters that field. For the reasons 
    stated, and principally and wholly upon the ground that the 
    amendment is not related to the bill under consideration, and 
    wholly eliminating the constitutional question or any other 
    question, the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane, and 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 4. Committee Jurisdiction of Subject Matter as Test

    In ruling on the germaneness of amendments to bills, the Chair has 
frequently considered whether the subject matter of the amendment falls 
within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill. Thus, in 
some cases, lack of such committee jurisdiction may at the outset cause 
the Chair to uphold a point of order against the amendment. On the 
other hand, in other cases, even the fact that a subject has in fact 
been considered by a committee during its markup of a particular bill 
does not determine the germaneness of an amendment concerning such 
subject when offered on the House floor.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 8.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that an amendment is offered in conjunction with a motion 
to recommit the bill with instructions does not affect the requirement 
that the subject matter of the amendment be within the jurisdiction of 
the committee reporting the bill.(4)) Committee jurisdiction 
of a subject is not necessarily determinative on questions of 
germaneness, however; the modern tendency seems to be to view such 
jurisdiction as but one factor in the determination of the germaneness 
of amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 23.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, Committee jurisdiction is not determinative as a 
test of germaneness of an amendment, where the text to which it is

[[Page 7570]]

offered already contains matter that overlaps the jurisdiction of 
several committees, particularly where the amendment does not 
demonstrably affect a law within another committee's 
jurisdiction.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sec. 4.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Besides the germaneness rule, amendments on the House floor may 
    be precluded by Rule XXI, clauses 5(a) and 5(b). The first of these 
    clauses prohibits the offering of appropriations to bills reported 
    by committees other than the Committee on Appropriations. Rule XXI, 
    clause 5(b), as added in the 98th Congress, prohibits a tax or 
    tariff measure from being offered as an amendment to a bill 
    reported from a committee not having jurisdiction over those 
    measures.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.  See Sec. 4.61, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may determine the 
    germaneness of an amendment based upon the discernible committee 
    jurisdictions over the subject of the bill and amendment without 
    infringing upon the Speaker's prerogatives under Rule X to 
    determine committee jurisdiction over introduced 
    legislation.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See the remarks of Chairman McHugh, of New York, during proceedings 
        relating to H.R. 3603, the Food and Agriculture Act of 1981, 
        discussed in Sec. 4.71, infra. A point of order arising from 
        apparent lack of committee jurisdiction over the subject matter 
        of the provisions in question should be based explicitly on the 
        issue of germaneness, rather than on the mere existence of the 
        possible jurisdictional defect, which without more may be 
        deemed not to state a proper point of order. See Sec. 43.8, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Authorizing Environmental Research and Development by 
    Environmental Protection Agency--Amendment Granting Permanent 
    Regulatory Authority to Agency

Sec. 4.1 To a bill authorizing environmental research and development 
    by an agency for two years, an amendment granting 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,(8) 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

[[Page 7571]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 133 Cong. Rec. 14739, 14753-55, 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 $56,611,900 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 the 
        following new part 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 
        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, made a point of order:

[[Page 7572]]

        Mr. Roe: . . . 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: (9) . . . [T]he Chair is prepared to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 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 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.

Bill Authorizing Environmental Research by Agency--Amendment Expressing 
    Sense of Congress as to Agency's Enforcement Activities

Sec. 4.2 To a bill reported from the Committee on Science and 
    Technology authorizing environmental research and development 
    activities of an agency for two years, an amendment expressing the 
    sense of Congress with respect to that agency's regulatory and 
    enforcement activity--a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Energy and Commerce--was held not germane.

[[Page 7573]]

    On Feb. 9, 1984,(10) during consideration of H.R. 2899, 
the Chair sustained a point of order against an amendment as not being 
germane to the bill. The section of the bill, the amendment which was 
offered and the proceedings attendant thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 130 Cong. Rec. 2421, 2427, 2428, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2 (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
    Environmental Protection Agency for environmental research, 
    development, and demonstration activities:
        (1) $61,380,000 for fiscal year 1984 and $64,449,000 for fiscal 
    year 1985 for activities authorized under the Clean Air Act . . .
        (g) No funds authorized for appropriation pursuant to this Act 
    may be used for any activities other than those authorized by this 
    Act. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 7, after line 15, 
        insert the following new subsection:
            Sec.  It is the sense of the Congress that, in the process 
        of selecting hazardous waste sites and the placement of 
        hazardous waste materials, the Environmental Protection Agency 
        shall give priority to full cooperation with local citizens 
        groups who are trying to protect and preserve the environmental 
        quality of their communities.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . The amendment is a 
    sense-of-Congress resolution, in a sense, that the Environmental 
    Protection Agency will give priority to full cooperation with local 
    citizen groups who are trying to protect and preserve the 
    environmental quality of their communities.
        Now, this is an unexceptionable section. . . .
        But I observe that it does not belong in this particular 
    legislation, nor does it belong in the particular place where it is 
    offered.
        Provisions relative to Superfund research were just stricken, 
    but those were provisions relative to Superfund research and not 
    with regard to any sense of Congress or sense of Congress 
    instruction to the Environmental Protection Agency.
        The rules of the House require that the language of the 
    amendment must be germane to the bill and germane to the portion of 
    the bill to which it is offered. It must seek to do the same thing 
    by the same purposes.
        One of the tests of the amendment for germaneness, but only 
    one, is that the rules of the House require or, rather, have as a 
    test that the jurisdiction to which the measure would be referred 
    is one of the criterion that is used by the Chairman in determining 
    whether or not the matter is germane. . . .
        I observe that the fundamental purposes of the bill are 
    different than the fundamental purposes of the amendment, as are 
    the fundamental purposes of the sections immediately before or 
    immediately after that.
        It is clear that were this language offered to the bill it 
    might conceivably go to quite a different committee than that which 
    is now handling the legisla

[[Page 7574]]

    tion on the floor. And for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I do insist 
    on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . The gentleman from Pennsylvania would be 
    loath to interfere in the jurisdictional areas of the gentleman 
    from Michigan, but I would suggest to the Chair that this amendment 
    does not at all. This amendment is, in fact, directed at the 
    Environmental Protection Agency, the exact agency which is covered 
    by this bill.
        It is merely a sense of Congress resolution. It requires no new 
    duties of the Environmental Protection Agency. It has no 
    obligations upon this Congress or upon the House.
        It is strictly a matter of expressing our will with regard to a 
    matter of some importance in the whole matter of hazardous waste, 
    and I suggest to the Chair that the matter is entirely germane in 
    this bill that speaks purely to the agency to which the amendment 
    is directed.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair has heard both the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carroll Hubbard, Jr. (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        However, the Chair is going to rule that because this bill, 
    although open to amendment at any point, is limited to authorizing 
    appropriations to environmental research, development, and 
    demonstration for the fiscal years 1984 and 1985 regarding the 
    Environmental Protection Agency, that the particular amendment 
    introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Walker) has to do with the selection of hazardous waste sites and 
    their regulation, indicating that it is the sense of Congress that 
    in the process of selecting hazardous waste sites and the placement 
    of hazardous waste waters, the EPA shall give certain priorities. 
    The Chair does sustain the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Michigan that the particular amendment by the distinguished 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania is not indeed germane to this bill.

Bill Amending Federal Water Pollution Control Act--Amendment To Amend 
    Clean Air Act

Sec. 4.3 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,(12) during consideration of the Water 
Quality Renewal Act of 1985,(13) the Chair sustained a point 
of order against

[[Page 7575]]

the amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 20041, 20050-52, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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, 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.

[[Page 7576]]

        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: (14) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Harry M. Reid (Nev.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For that reason, the amendment is not german.

Bill Authorizing National Standards for Drinking Water--Amendment To 
    Require International Agreements Relating to Drinking Water

Sec. 4.4 To a bill reported from the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce, authorizing the promulgation of national drinking 
    water standards to protect public health from contaminants, an 
    amendment requiring the negotiation and enforcement of 
    international agreements to accomplish that purpose was held to be 
    not germane, since it proposed a method not closely related to that 
    prescribed in the bill and involved a subject within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee.

    The proceedings of Nov. 19, 1974, relating to H.R. 13002, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, are discussed in Sec. 6.25, infra.

Provisions Temporarily Suspending Requirements of Clean Air Act--
    Amendment Prohibiting Federal Assistance Under Water Pollution 
    Control Act

Sec. 4.5 To a proposition temporarily suspending certain requirements 
    of the Clean Air Act, an amendment prohibiting federal assistance 
    under that Act or under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
    (within the jurisdiction of a different House committee) where 
    there has been failure to comply with

[[Page 7577]]

    standards imposed by the amendment was held to be not germane.

    On May 1, 1974,(15) 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 in the nature of a 
substitute, and the proposed amendment thereto, stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 12520, 12522-24, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 4. Motor Vehicle Emissions.

        (a) Section 202(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act is amended by 
    striking out ``1975'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``1977''; and 
    by inserting after ``(A)'' the following: ``The regulations under 
    subsection (a) applicable to emissions of carbon monoxide and 
    hydrocarbons from light-duty vehicles and engines manufactured 
    during model years 1975 and 1976 shall contain standards which are 
    identical to the interim standards which were prescribed (as for 
    December 1, 1973) under paragraph (5)(A) of this subsection for 
    light-duty vehicles and engines manufactured during model year 
    1975.''
        (b) Section 202(b)(1)(B) of such Act is amended by striking out 
    ``1976'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``1978''; and by inserting 
    after ``(B)'' the following . . . . The regulations under 
    subsection (a) applicable to emissions of oxides of nitrogen from 
    light-duty vehicles and engines manufactured during model year 1977 
    shall contain standards which provide that emissions of such 
    vehicles and engines may not exceed 2.0 grams per vehicle mile.''
        (c) Section 202(b)(5)(A) of such Act is amended to read as 
    follows:
        ``(5)(A) At any time after January 1, 1975, any manufacturer 
    may file with the Administrator an application requesting the 
    suspension for one year only of the effective date of any emission 
    standard required by paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such 
    manufacturer for light-duty vehicles and engines manufactured in 
    model year 1977. The Administrator shall make his determination 
    with respect to any such application within sixty days. . . .
        Mr. [Louis C.] Wyman [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.

[[Page 7578]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wyman: On page 59 insert 
        immediately after line 13 the following: i. temporary 
        suspension in designated areas
            (a) Section 203 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857f-2) is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        subsection:
            ``(d)(1) During and after the period of partial suspension 
        of emission standards (as defined in paragraph (3)(A)--
            ``(A) it shall be unlawful for any person to register 
        within an area designated in paragraph (3)(B) a new motor 
        vehicle or new motor vehicle engine which is manufactured 
        during the period of partial suspension of emission standards 
        and which is not labeled or tagged as covered by a certificate 
        of conformity under this part; and
            ``(B) no State shall permit any person to register a motor 
        vehicle in violation of subparagraph (A).
            ``(2) During the period of partial suspension of emission 
        standards . . .
            ``(B) it shall be unlawful for any manufacturer to sell . . 
        . any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine which is 
        labeled or tagged as covered by a certificate of conformity 
        unless such new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine is 
        covered by a certificate of conformity issued (and in effect) 
        under this part, or unless such new motor vehicle or new motor 
        vehicle engine was manufactured prior to the period of partial 
        suspension. . . .
            ``(E) it shall be unlawful for any dealer to sell any new 
        motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine which is not labeled 
        or tagged as covered by a certificate of conformity to an 
        ultimate purchaser unless such purchaser provides such dealer 
        with a signed statement that such purchaser will not register 
        such vehicle in an area designated under paragraph (3)(B) . . . 
        .
            ``(B) Within sixty days after the date of enactment of this 
        subsection and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall 
        designate, subject to the limitations set forth in this 
        subparagraph, geographic areas of the United States in which 
        there is significant auto emissions related air pollution. The 
        Administrator shall not designate as such area without 
        subsequent legislative authorization, any part of the United 
        States outside the following air quality control regions as 
        defined by the Administrator as of the date of enactment of 
        this paragraph:
            ``(i) Phoenix-Tucson, intrastate.
            ``(ii) Metropolitan Los Angeles, intrastate.
            ``(iii) San Francisco Bay Area, intrastate. . . .
            ``(C) For purposes of this subsection and section 209(c) a 
        motor vehicle shall be considered to be registered in a 
        geographic area--
            ``(i) in the case of a motor vehicle registered by an 
        individual if the individual's principal place of abode is in 
        that area, or
            ``(ii) in the case of a motor vehicle registered by a 
        person other than an individual, if the State of registration 
        determines that such vehicle will be principally operated in 
        such area.
            ``(D) Each State shall not later than sixty days following 
        enactment of this Act, submit to the Administrator a plan for 
        implementing subsection (d)(1)(B) of this section. Such plan 
        shall contain provisions which give assurance that such State 
        has one or more adequately financed agencies with sufficient 
        legal authority to enforce such subsection (d)(1)(B) as 
        determined in accordance with regulations of the 
        Administrator.''. . .
            ``(b) If a State fails to submit a plan under section 
        203(d) or if the Administrator determines (after no

[[Page 7579]]

        tice and opportunity for hearing) that such State is not 
        adequately enforcing such a plan, then such State (including 
        any political subdivision thereof) shall lose its entitlement 
        to and may not thereafter receive any Federal grant or loan 
        assistance under this Act or under the Federal Water Pollution 
        Control Act.''

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment. . . . The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Wyman) is not 
    germane because:
        First, it amends sections 203, 204, 205, 206, and 209 of the 
    Clean Air Act, provisions which are nowhere else amended by this 
    bill (H.R. 14368).
        Second, it, in effect, amends the Federal Water Pollution 
    Control Act, by providing for termination of State grant 
    eligibility under that act, if the State fails to take certain 
    actions under this amendment. Clearly this is not germane. 
    Moreover, it discusses a subject matter clearly within the 
    jurisdiction of the Public Works Committee.
        Third, the bill would limit State authority to register motor 
    vehicles, a subject which is not addressed in this bill in any way. 
    It also deals with Federal and State authority to adopt and enforce 
    provisions relating to in-use vehicles, a subject which is not 
    addressed in this bill in any way. It also deals with grant 
    provisions which are not amended in any way by H.R. 14368. It 
    subjects ultimate purchasers to regulation for the first time under 
    the Clean Air Act and no provision of this bill refers to ultimate 
    purchasers of motor vehicles.
        Mr. Wyman: The gentleman is essentially trying to say that an 
    amendment that relates to the standards or emissions controls on 
    automobiles in a time and under a title that relates to clean air 
    is not germane. I think it is so obvious that it is germane that 
    the point of order should be overruled.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William Jennings Bryan Dorn (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) makes the point 
    of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Hampshire (Mr. Wyman) is not germane to the committee substitute 
    for H.R. 14368.
        The Chair has examined the amendment and is aware that it 
    provides that States shall lose their entitlements to Federal 
    grants under the Clean Air Act and under the Water Pollution 
    Control Act for failure to comply with the provisions of the 
    amendment.
        While the committee substitute does amend several sections of 
    the Clean Air Act to permit defined and limited variances from 
    certain diverse provisions of that act, in order to coordinate the 
    questions of energy supplies and environmental protection, the 
    committee substitute does not affect entitlements under the Water 
    Pollution Control Act, a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Public Works.
        As recently as December 14, 1973, when the Committee of the 
    Whole was considering the Energy Emergency Act, Chairman Bolling 
    ruled that to a proposition temporarily suspending certain 
    requirements of the Clean Air Act, an amendment suspending other 
    provisions of all other environmental protection laws was not 
    germane.

[[Page 7580]]

        For these reasons, the Chair feels that the amendment is not 
    germane to the committee substitute and sustains the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from West Virginia. .

Bill Authorizing Secretary of Interior To Investigate Water 
    Conservation Projects--Amendments Substituting Corps of Army 
    Engineers as Investigating Agency

Sec. 4.6 To a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 
    investigate projects for the conservation and utilization of the 
    water resources of Alaska, an amendment proposing that such 
    investigations be made by the Corps of Army Engineers was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(17) concerned with conservation, development and 
utilization of the water resources of Alaska, an amendment was offered 
(18) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 3990 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
16. 101 Cong. Rec. 7403, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 1, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clair] Engle [of California]: The point of order is that 
    the amendment is not in order inasmuch as it seeks to insert an 
    entirely different agency into this legislation which deals 
    exclusively with the Department of the Interior.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Hamer H. Budge, of 
Idaho, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the amendment is germane. . 
    . . It carries out the stated purposes of the legislation simply by 
    a substitution of the agency to do the things which are called for 
    in the legislation.

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman's amendment substitutes a department of the 
    Government which does not come under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and therefore the Chair 
    must rule that it is out of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: There are many rulings to the effect that 
the substitution of one agency for another, to administer the terms of 
a bill, may be germane, depending on whether the actual methods 
prescribed in the amendment for achieving the intended purpose are 
closely related to those contemplated by the bill. See Sec. 7, infra, 
for further discussion.

[[Page 7581]]

Effect of Incidental Provisions Within Jurisdiction of Another 
    Committee--Bill Authorizing Alaska Pipeline; Judicial Review of 
    Specified Claims Related to Construction as Permitted or Prohibited

Sec. 4.7 Committee jurisdiction is not the exclusive or absolute test 
    of germaneness but is only one of the factors considered by the 
    Chair when ruling on a point of order that an amendment is not 
    germane; thus, the germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill depends on its relationship to the bill as a 
    whole, and is not necessarily determined by the content of an 
    incidental portion of the amendment which, if considered 
    separately, might be within the jurisdiction of another committee.

    On Aug. 2, 1973,(20) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 9130, a bill authorizing the construction of a 
trans-Alaska oil and gas pipeline under the authority of the Secretary 
of the Interior, and pursuant to procedural safeguards promulgated by 
the Secretary. The bill included a prohibition against judicial review 
on environmental impact grounds of any right-of-way or permit which 
might be granted. A committee in the nature of a substitute was 
reported as an original bill for purposes
of amendment. The committee amendment contained procedures and 
safeguards similar to those in the bill, and included an exception from 
the prohibition against judicial review, to provide a mechanism for 
expediting other types of actions challenging pipeline permits. The 
amendment also included the condition that all persons participating in 
construction or use of the pipeline be assured rights against 
discrimination as set forth in the Civil Rights Act. Points of order 
were raised against the amendment on the grounds that its provisions 
were not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 27673-5, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk 
    will now read by title the substitute committee amendment printed 
    in the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I wish 
    to reserve a point of order to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

                                    Title I

            Section 1. Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 
        (41 Stat.

[[Page 7582]]

        449), as amended (30 U.S.C. 185), is further amended by 
        striking out the following: ``, to the extent of the ground 
        occupied by the said pipeline and twenty-five feet on each side 
        of the same under such regulations and conditions as to survey, 
        location, application, and use as may be prescribed by the 
        Secretary of the Interior and upon,'' and by inserting in lieu 
        thereof the following ``: Provided, That--
            ``(a) the width of a right-of-way shall not exceed fifty 
        feet plus the ground occupied by the pipeline (that is, the 
        pipe and its related facilities) unless the Secretary finds, 
        and records the reasons for his finding, that in limited areas 
        a wider right-of-way is necessary for operation and maintenance 
        after construction, or to protect the environment or public 
        safety. . . .
            Sec. 4. (a) Pipelines on public lands subject to this Act 
        are subject to the provisions of the Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 
        1968. . . .
            (c) The Secretary of the Interior shall report annually to 
        the President, the Congress, the Secretary of Transportation 
        and the Interstate Commerce Commission any potential dangers of 
        or actual explosions or potential or actual spillage on public 
        lands and shall include in such report a statement of 
        corrective action taken to prevent such explosion or spillage.

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order 
    against the committee amendment just read.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman on his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I note first that the rule did not 
    waive points of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I cite now rule XVI, clause 7, and I note 
    particularly section 794 relating to germaneness which reads as 
    follows:

            And no motion or proposition on a subject different from 
        that under consideration shall be admitted under color of 
        amendment.

        I note as follows, Mr. Chairman, that the committee amendment 
    provides for the establishment of a three-judge court and 
    establishes certain conditions with regard to review which are not 
    found in the original bill.
        I note for the assistance of the Chair, that that language is 
    not only not found in the bill, but that language, in my view, at 
    least under the Rules of the House of Representatives, had it been 
    introduced as a separate piece of legislation, would have been 
    referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        I note further, Mr. Chairman, that the committee amendment as 
    presented to us today provides also language relating to conditions 
    of employment and civil rights of persons, and the duty of the 
    pipeline company to hire without discrimination as to race or creed 
    or color.
        I note, Mr. Chairman, that legislation relating to that matter, 
    were it introduced as separate legislation, would have properly 
    under the Rules of the House of Representatives have been referred 
    to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        I make the further comment with regard to the point of order 
    just raised, Mr. Chairman, citing now Cannon's Precedents, page 203 
    2(b), and I quote:

            A specific subject may not be amended by a general 
        provision even when of the same class.

        Section 203 of the bill addresses itself to the relationship of 
    NEPA to the bill and judicial review of the Sec

[[Page 7583]]

    retary of the Interior's actions for compliance with NEPA. 
    Specifically 203(d) of the bill limits judicial review on the basis 
    of NEPA noncompliance.
        Section 203(f) which was added by amendment, referred to 
    earlier, is far broader in scope than section 203 as contained in 
    the original bill.
        Section 203(f) sets forth a unique procedure for judicial 
    review of non-NEPA-related challenges.
        Keeping in mind the fact that section 203(d) is itself part of 
    an amendment and section 203(f) is a new provision as part of the 
    same amendment it becomes clear that judicial review dealt with by 
    section 203 of the original bill was limited to judicial review on 
    the basis of NEPA.
        The amendment, by incorporating the provisions found in section 
    203(f), deals with all forms of judicial review. Thus NEPA-related 
    review is handled by the specific provision of section 203(d) and 
    all other judicial review by section 203(f).
        Therefore, the amendment is a general provision; that is, it 
    deals with all forms of judicial review and is not germane to the 
    specific provision found in the original bill which deals solely 
    with judicial review on the basis of the National Environmental 
    Policy Act.
        I cite again Cannon's Precedents at page 203. I cite further 
    with regard to the germaneness, now referring to page 202 in 
    Cannon's Precedents that--

            One individual proposition may not be amended by another 
        individual proposition even though the two may belong to the 
        same class.

        The individual proposition in the original bill was that the 
    Secretary of the Interior's actions were exempted from judicial 
    review under NEPA.

        The individual proposition contained in the amendment goes on 
    to add that any other challenge to the right-of-way to which the 
    United States is a party must be brought, according to subsection 
    (f), to a three-judge district court referred to in the amendment.
        These propositions are of the same class because both relate to 
    judicial review.
        The first proposition may be viewed as a negative proposition 
    in that it exempts certain action from Judicial review on the basis 
    of NEPA.
        The second is a positive proposition; it establishes a special 
    tribunal and special procedures for non-NEPA-based court 
    challenges.
        I again refer the Chair to Cannon's Precedents on page 202.
        I cite further, Mr. Chairman--

            If a portion of an amendment is out of order because not 
        germane, then all must be ruled out.

        I would cite Cannon's Precedents at page 201. I would point out 
    that--

            The burden of proof as to the germaneness of a proposition 
        has been held to rest upon its proponents. . . .

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: . . . The gentleman from 
    Michigan is raising a point of order on the basis of the 
    germaneness of . . . the entire committee amendment, but he refers 
    to specific sections and his point of order should be limited to 
    his reference to those sections. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) makes the point of 
    order the

[[Page 7584]]

    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs printed in the bill is 
    not germane to the original bill on several grounds, one of which 
    is that 203(f) of the committee amendment provides a procedure for 
    expediting litigation of right-of-way, permit, or other 
    authorization disputes in Federal courts which is not contained in 
    the original bill.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the original bill 
    and the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and 
    notes that the original bill and the committee amendment both 
    provide comprehensive schemes for the construction of the Alaska 
    pipeline under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. Both 
    the bill and the committee amendment provide a series of safeguards 
    to be followed by the Secretary in the issuance of permits and 
    grants of rights-of-way. Included in the original bill--in section 
    203, is the prohibition against judicial review of any 
    authorization granted by any Federal agency with respect to rights-
    of-way, construction, public land use, or highway or airfield 
    construction on the basis of the National Environmental Policy Act 
    of 1969.
        This restriction against judicial review on the basis of 
    environmental impact is also contained in section 203(d) of the 
    committee amendment in a more limited form. Section 203(f) of the 
    committee amendment then provides, in litigation not barred by 
    section 203(d), a mechanism for expediting other actions 
    challenging pipeline permits or authorizations.
        On March 8, 1932, Chairman O'Connor ruled that to a bill 
    restricting Federal court jurisdiction in certain cases, an 
    amendment providing an exception from that prohibition was 
    germane--Cannon's volume VIII, section 3024.
        The Chair has also examined the decision of the present 
    occupant of the Chair on October 20, 1971 (Congressional Record, 
    page H37079) on the Alaska Native land claims bill, where, to a 
    committee amendment seeking to accomplish a broad purpose by a 
    method less detailed in its provisions, an amendment more 
    definitive but relating to the same purpose implicit in the 
    committee's approach was held germane.
        For these reasons, and because committee jurisdiction is not 
    the exclusive or absolute test of germaneness, the Chair is of the 
    opinion that the provision in the committee amendment relating to 
    the expediting of litigation involving the pipeline permits or 
    authorizations is merely incidental to the purpose of the original 
    bill and is indeed directly related to the concept of judicial 
    review contained in the bill. With respect to the other provisions 
    of the committee amendment to which the gentleman from Michigan has 
    made reference, the Chair is of the opinion that they, too, are 
    incidental to the overall purpose of the bill. The Chair holds that 
    the committee amendment is germane and overrules the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a further point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, citing again the language used by 
    myself with regard to the earlier point of order, I would point now 
    to the specific language of the committee amendment

[[Page 7585]]

    at page 15, line 23(e), and all that follows through page 16, line 
    11, at the conclusion of the words ``the Civil Rights Act of 
    1964.''
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out again the same arguments are 
    available to me with regard to the first jurisdiction of 
    committees. Second, with regard to the other matters cited by me 
    earlier under the rules of germaneness as embodied in the rules and 
    the precedents of this body, I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that 
    where the language referred to in the amendment is part of a 
    separate piece of legislation, it would have been referred again to 
    the Judiciary Committee and not to the Committee on Interior.
        I would point out further, Mr. Chairman, that this language is 
    not found in the original bill, although it is found in the 
    amendment. I would point out that again the failure of the 
    committee to have that language in both the original bill and in 
    the committee amendment renders the committee amendment subject to 
    a point of order.
        I would call particular attention of the Chair to the fact that 
    the rule of germaneness was established by the wise men of this 
    body throughout the years, that all Members of this body might have 
    full notice of matters coming to the floor of the House and would 
    not be surprised by matters which might be irrelevant to the 
    jurisdiction of the committee which authored the legislation.
        The rule of germaneness applies, Mr. Chairman, with equal 
    validity to proceedings on the floor as well as to proceedings 
    within the committee.
        I again reiterate my point of order on the basis not only of 
    matters cited by me now but cited by me in connection with the 
    earlier point of order made by me. . . .
        Mr. Melcher: . . . The title and section of the committee's 
    amendment which the gentleman from Michigan refers to deals with 
    construction of the Alaskan pipeline. Employment of people for that 
    purpose is, indeed, part and parcel of the construction of the 
    pipeline. The incidental feature of our committee handling and 
    including such language in our amendment is only incidental to the 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has just ruled that the committee amendment is 
    germane, and the ruling that was given by the Chair is broad enough 
    to now cover the point of order just made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.
        Therefore, the Chair for the reasons previously stated 
    overrules the point of order.

Bill Designating Wilderness Areas--Amendment Providing Unemployment 
    Benefits to Persons Affected by Bill

Sec. 4.8 To a bill reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular 
    Affairs designating certain wilderness areas in Oregon, an 
    amendment adding a new title to provide a program of unemployment 
    benefits to persons affected by such wilderness designations was 
    held to be not germane as addressing a

[[Page 7586]]

    subject not contained in the bill and one within the jurisdiction 
    of other committees of the House.

    On Mar. 21, 1983,(2) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 1149 (Oregon wilderness designations), a 
point of order was raised and sustained as indicated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong Rec. 6339, 6340, 6341, 6343, 6344, 6346, 6347, 98th Cong. 
        1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill was read as follows:

        Sec. 2. (a) In furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness 
    Act, the following lands, as generally depicted on maps, 
    appropriately referenced, dated December 1982 (except as otherwise 
    dated), are hereby designated as wilderness and therefore, as 
    components of the National Wilderness Preservation System--
        (1) certain lands in the Mount Hood National Forest, which 
    comprise approximately forty thousand nine hundred acres, are 
    generally depicted on a map entitled ``Columbia Gorge Wilderness--
    Proposed'', and shall be known as the Columbia Gorge Wilderness . . 
    .
        Sec. 6. (a) The Congress finds that--
        (1) the Department of Agriculture has completed the second 
    roadless area review and evaluation program (RARE II); and
        (2) the Congress has made its own review and examination of 
    national forest system roadless areas in the State of Oregon and of 
    the environmental impacts associated with alternative allocations 
    of such areas.

        (b) On the basis of such review, the Congress hereby determines 
    and directs that--
        (1) without passing on the question of the legal and factual 
    sufficiency of the RARE II final environmental statement (dated 
    January 1979) with respect to national forest system lands in 
    States other than Oregon, such statement shall not be subject to 
    judicial review with respect to national forest system lands in the 
    State of Oregon. . . .

    The Clerk read as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska: Insert before section 
    2 the heading ``TITLE I--DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS''.
        ``Sec. 2. Add after section 6 the following:

                          ``TITLE II--DEFINITIONS

        ``Sec. 20. As used in this title, the term--
        ``(1) `Secretary' unless otherwise indicated, means the 
    Secretary of the Department of Labor;
        ``(2) `expansion area' means the Mount Hood, Willamette, 
    Siuslaw, Umpqua, Rogue River, Siskiyou, Deschutes, Winema, Fremont, 
    Ochoco, Wallowa-Whitman, Malheur, and Umatilla National Forests, 
    and the Salem District of the Bureau of Land Management;
        ``(3) `employee' means a person employed by an affected 
    employer and, with such exceptions as the Secretary may determine, 
    in an occupation not described by section 13(a)(1) of the Fair 
    Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1)) . . .
        ``Sec. 22. The total or partial layoff of a covered employee 
    employed by an af

[[Page 7587]]

    fected employer during the period beginning the date of enactment 
    and ending September 30, 1986, other than for a cause that would 
    disqualify an employee for unemployment compensation, except as 
    provided in section 24, is conclusively presumed to be attributable 
    to the expansion of the Oregon portion of the National Wilderness 
    preservation system. . . .
        ``Sec. 23. (a) The Secretary shall provide, to the maximum 
    extent feasible, for retention and accrual of all rights and 
    benefits which affected employees would have had in an employment 
    with affected employers during the period in which they are 
    affected employees. The Secretary is authorized and shall seek to 
    enter into such agreements as he may deem to be appropriate with 
    affected employees and employers, labor organizations representing 
    covered employees, and trustees of applicable pension and welfare 
    funds, or to take such other actions as he deems appropriate to 
    provide for affected employees (including the benefits provided for 
    in section 26(d)) the following rights and benefits:
        ``(1) retention and accrual of seniority rights, including 
    recall rights (or, in the case of employees not covered by 
    collective-bargaining agreements, application of the same 
    preferences and privileges based upon length of continuous service 
    as are applied under the affected employer's usual practices) under 
    conditions no more burdensome to said employees than to those 
    actively employed; and
        ``(2) continuing entitlement to health and welfare benefits and 
    accrual of pension rights and credits based upon length of 
    employment and/or amounts of earnings to the same extent as and at 
    no greater cost to said employees than would have been applicable 
    had they been actively employed. . . .
        ``Sec. 31. (a) A relocation allowance shall be paid upon 
    application by an affected employee during the applicable period of 
    protection if--
        ``(1) the Secretary determines that said employee cannot 
    reasonably be expected to obtain suitable work in the commuting 
    area in which said employee resides; and
        ``(2) the employee has obtained--
        ``(A) suitable employment affording a reasonable expectation of 
    long-term duration in the area in which said employee wishes to 
    relocate. . . .
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane, and also that it 
    violates the provisions of the Budget Act. . . .
        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: . . . Mr. Chairman, I argue that the 
    amendment is germane. It has been heard before and has passed on 
    previous actions of this body. I want to state that if the 
    Parliamentarian will go back to the history of the House, this 
    House has acted on the same exact amendment on a similar type bill 
    in previous years. . . .
        So my argument is that the amendment is germane to the bill, 
    and it is relevant to the subject and the topic we are discussing 
    today. We should give an opportunity to this body to decide, if the 
    eastern establishment is going to have this wilderness, they are 
    going to pay for it through their tax dollars to those who will be 
    unemployed. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James L. Oberstar (Minn.).

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

[[Page 7588]]

        The Chair has reviewed the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Alaska.
        H.R. 1149 does not relate to the question of unemployment 
    relief to employees impacted by the wilderness designations in the 
    bill.
        The amendment contains matter not addressed on the bill and 
    within the jurisdiction of other committees of the House and, 
    therefore, is not germane to H.R. 1149.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since the Chair sustained the point of 
order under the germaneness rule, he was not obliged to rule on the 
point of order under the Budget Act. The amendment provided new 
entitlement authority effective in fiscal year 1984 and thus violated 
sec. 303(a)(4) of the Budget Act, no budget resolution for that year 
having yet been adopted.

Bill Authorizing Appropriations for Nuclear Regulatory Commission--
    Amendment Prohibiting Use of Funds To Process Exports of Uranium

Sec. 4.9 Where a bill authorizing appropriations for an agency is 
    reported from committees having jurisdiction over that agency, an 
    amendment is germane which prohibits the use of such funds for any 
    specified purpose to which the funds could otherwise be applied by 
    that agency, notwithstanding an argument that the activities for 
    which the use of funds is sought to be prohibited impinge on the 
    jurisdiction of another committee; thus, to a bill reported from 
    the Committees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and Interior and 
    Insular Affairs authorizing appropriations for all the annual 
    activities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including review 
    and approval of exports of uranium, an amendment prohibiting the 
    use of funds authorized in the bill to review, process or approve 
    exports of certain uranium was held germane.

    The proceedings of Nov. 5, 1981, relating to H.R. 4255, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission authorization for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, are 
discussed in Sec. 34.31, infra.

Bill Containing Diverse Titles Relating to Hazardous Waste Disposal--
    Amendment Creating Cause of Action for Victims of Improper 
    Hazardous Waste Disposal

Sec. 4.10 Committee jurisdiction over the subject of an

[[Page 7589]]

    amendment is not the exclusive test of germaneness where the 
    proposition being amended contains provisions so comprehensive as 
    to overlap several committees' jurisdictions; thus, where a bill 
    contained diverse titles relating to hazardous waste cleanup, 
    including provisions relating to new uses of a trust fund to 
    finance removal and remedial actions, compensatory relief through 
    private suits, relocation costs, replacement of drinking water 
    supplies and other disaster relief, and had been amended to include 
    a provision relating to deed covenants in government surplus 
    property conveyances (several of such provisions containing subject 
    matter within the jurisdiction of committees other than the 
    reporting Committee on Energy and Commerce), an amendment in the 
    form of a new title creating a new federal cause of action for 
    victims of improper disposal of hazardous waste, with amounts 
    recovered from the liable private parties to go toward 
    reimbursement of the trust fund for remedial expenses was held 
    germane as within the general diverse class of remedies covered by 
    the bill as a whole, where some of those remedies already were 
    within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, which had 
    jurisdiction over the subject of the amendment.

    On Aug. 10, 1984,(4) during consideration of H.R. 5640 
(superfund authorization), it was demonstrated that the test of 
germaneness of an amendment adding a new title to a bill is its 
relationship to the portion of the bill read, as perfected by 
amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 130 Cong. Rec. 23958, 23967, 23968, 23974-78, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (OF THE BILL)

                                 citizens suits

        Sec. 301. Title I is amended by adding the following new 
    section at the end thereof:

                                ``citizens suits

        ``Sec. 116. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) or (c) of 
    this section, any person may commence a civil action on his own 
    behalf . . .
        Sec. 402, (a)(1) Whenever any person has (during the applicable 
    period) supplied any hazardous substance to 100 or more sites at 
    which there is located an underground storage tank which is, or has 
    been used for the storage of any

[[Page 7590]]

    hazardous substance, the person supplying such hazardous substance 
    shall notify the State or local agency or department designated 
    pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of the existence of any tank located 
    at such site which is, or has been used for the storage of any 
    hazardous substance. For purposes of this paragraph, the applicable 
    period shall be the calendar year immediately preceding the 
    calendar year in which this title was enacted.
        (2) The Administrator shall promulgate regulations not later 
    than 8 months after the date of the enactment of this title 
    regarding the providing of notice under this section which is 
    sufficient to obtain information concerning underground storage 
    tanks which are, or have been, used for the storage of any 
    hazardous substance and which are not located at a site referred to 
    in paragraph (1). . . .
        Mr. [Guy V.] Molinari [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Molinari: Page 50, after line 5, 
        insert:

                           notice by federal agencies

            Sec. 303. Section 107(g) is amended by inserting ``(1)'' 
        after ``(g)'' and by adding the following new paragraph at the 
        end thereof:
            ``(2)(A) After the effective date of regulations under this 
        paragraph, whenever any agency or instrumentality of the United 
        States enters into any contract for the sale of real property 
        which is owned by the United States and on which any Federally 
        regulated hazardous waste was disposed of or stored for one 
        year or more, the head of such agency or instrumentality shall 
        include in such contract notice of the type and quantity of 
        such hazardous waste and notice of the time at which such 
        storage, or disposal took place. . . .
            ``(B) In the case of any real property owned by the United 
        States on which any hazardous waste was stored for one year or 
        more or disposed of, each deed entered into for the transfer of 
        such property by the United States to any other person or 
        entity shall contain a convenant warranting that all remedial 
        action necessary to protect human health and the environment 
        with respect to any such waste remaining on the property has 
        been taken prior to the date of such transfer. . . .

        The Chairman: (5) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Molinari].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Joseph G. Minish (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .

    Following consideration of Title IV, an amendment was offered:

        Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: page 66, 
        after line 9, insert:

                         liability for certain damages

            Sec. 501. (a) If an individual is exposed to a hazardous 
        substance from a facility where disposal of such hazardous 
        substance occurred, the following persons shall be liable to 
        such individual (or his dependent) for damages which are 
        compensable under this section and which are caused by such 
        exposure.
            (1) any person who owned or operated the facility at the 
        time of such disposal or thereafter (other than a person who 
        owned or operated the facility only after termination of such 
        exposure);

[[Page 7591]]

            (2) any person who generated the hazardous substance to 
        which the injury individual was exposed . . .
            (i) If a plaintiff who recovers any amount in an action 
        under this section by reason of exposure to a hazardous 
        substance has obtained any emergency relief under section 
        104(l) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
        Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 by reason of the same 
        exposure . . . the plaintiff shall be required to reimburse the 
        Hazardous Substance Superfund for any amount reflecting the 
        costs of such relief, relocation, or drinking water supplies 
        which the plaintiff recovered in the action under this section. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Harold S.] Sawyer [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment which is now being offered is not 
    germane to the purpose of the bill as it now stands, and under 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 1.2, it is the bill, as 
    amended.
        The amendment and the bill which it is amending is aimed at 
    cleaning up dumpsites, and this, on the other hand, attempts to 
    create an entirely new Federal action on behalf of persons seeking 
    damages and create various Federal tort liabilities for individuals 
    seeking damages.
        Also in considering the point of germaneness of this amendment, 
    the jurisdiction of committees should also be one of the 
    considerations, and obviously this section is exclusively within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Under section 
    1.4 of chapter 28 of Deschler's Procedure, that is another 
    consideration. . . .
        Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds 
    a new title to the bill. The amendment is designed to do several 
    things. First, it is designed to protect human health and the 
    environment by establishing liability where improper disposal of 
    hazardous waste has injured an individual. When there is liability, 
    those who are in charge of disposal will do so properly to avoid 
    the liability.
        Second, the amendment is designed to provide actual relief 
    where people are harmed by hazardous waste. The amendment builds on 
    the cleanup program we have in place, which is designed to force 
    private parties to pay for the cleanup, and forces the same private 
    parties to pay for the injuries they have caused.
        Third, the amendment is designed to recover amounts that have 
    been paid out from Superfund. . . .
        The test of germaneness of a new title is whether the amendment 
    is germane to the bill as a whole. The bill in this case has many 
    provisions which accomplish the same purpose as this amendment by 
    the same method.
        There is no question that this amendment relates to the subject 
    under consideration. The subject of this bill is hazardous waste, 
    how we deal with it, and the liability of those who have improperly 
    disposed of it. The whole purpose of the Superfund is to clean up 
    hazardous waste sites to eliminate the threat they pose to people 
    and the environment. The bill contains provisions giving 
    individuals the right to go against private parties to ensure safe 
    disposal of waste. Where people are harmed under Superfund, they 
    have a right to get money from the fund to eliminate the harm.
        The amendment clearly relates to the same subject. People are 
    being

[[Page 7592]]

    harmed by hazardous waste and we are providing a recourse in this 
    amendment.
        The clearest test of germaneness is whether the fundamental 
    purpose of an amendment relates to the fundamental purpose of the 
    bill to which it is offered. Under the precedents, in ruling on 
    this question the Chair must compare the stated purpose of the bill 
    with the purpose of the amendment. (106 Cong. Rec. 5655, 86th Cong. 
    2d Sess., Mar. 15, 1960.)
        Section 3 of the bill, the findings and objectives section, 
    states very clearly what the fundamental purpose of the bill is. It 
    says in subsection (5), ``establish new Federal liability standards 
    for injuries suffered by exposed individuals.'' This explicit 
    statement of purpose is demonstrated throughout the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The test of germaneness of an amendment adding a separate or 
    new title to the bill is its relationship to the portion of the 
    bill read, as perfected by amendments.
        The bill title I provides several new uses of the Superfund for 
    removal and remedial actions and titles I and III of the bill 
    together contemplate in more general terms compensatory forms of 
    relief, either through private suits or under section 101 of CERCLA 
    through a broad definition of remedial actions which under existing 
    law cover potential compensation for relocation cost, to replace 
    drinking water supplies and any emergency assistance under the 
    Disaster Relief Act of 1974.
        Title III of the bill has already been broadened by the 
    amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Molinari] which 
    relates to deed covenants in surplus property conveyances. Other 
    aspects of the text before the Committee relate to the jurisdiction 
    of other committees.
        The Chair might say that even as modified, there are provisions 
    in title 3 that deal with other committee jurisdiction including 
    the Judiciary Committee. As amended there are other provisions in 
    the text before us that deal with other than cleanup issues.
        Both the proponents and the opponents of the point of order 
    have made some valid points, but the Chair feels the bill is still 
    broad enough to support the germaneness of the amendment.
        The Chair rules that the point of order will be overruled.

Bill Prescribing Functions of New Federal Energy Administration, 
    Limited in Their Exercise in Accordance With Other Sections of Bill 
    or Existing Law--Amendment Modifying Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
    Act by Establishing Ceiling Prices for Petroleum Products

Sec. 4.11 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

[[Page 7593]]

    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 not germane.

    On Mar. 5, 1974,(6) during consideration of the Federal 
Energy Administration Act (7) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 5306-09, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. H.R. 11793.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        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. . . .
            ``(5)(A) The President may, in accordance with the 
        procedures and standards provided in this paragraph, amend the 
        regulation under subsection (a) of this section to specify a 
        different price for domestic crude oil, residual fuel oil, or 
        refined petroleum products, or a different manner for 
        determining the price, other than that provided in paragraph 
        (2) or (3) of this subsection, if he finds that such different 
        price or such different manner for determining such price is 
        necessary to permit the attainment of the objectives of this 
        Act. . . .
            ``(10) The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all 
        crude oil notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (e)(2) 
        of this section and section 406 of Public Law 93-153 (87 Stat. 
        590). . . .

        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

[[Page 7594]]

    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 section 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:

            (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. . 
    . .
        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.

            While the committee may report a bill embracing different 
        subjects, it is not in order during consideration in the House 
        to introduce a new subject by way of amendment. (Hinds, Vol. V, 
        sec. 5825).

        Also, as is to be found in Cannon, volume VIII, section 2912, 
    one of the functions of the rule requires that germaneness is to 
    preclude consideration of legislation which has not been considered 
    in committee. Other committees have considered or are considering

[[Page 7595]]

    the subject of this amendment, and this amendment is germane to 
    their legislation. The Chair has in the past stated that amendments 
    dealing with subject matter in the jurisdiction of another 
    committee are not germane--Record, June 7, 1972, at page H5347; 
    April 20, 1972, at page H3377; May 22, 1972, at page H4764-65. 
    While I can sympathize with those who feel obliged to respond to 
    the energy crisis by offering substantive energy policy and program 
    amendments, these amendments are not appropriate to this 
    organizational bill.

        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 purpose 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(i) amends and revises a Federal conflict of interest 
    statute--section 208 of title 18, United States Code--technically 
    within the jurisdiction of the Post Office and Civil Service 
    Committee.
        Another provision, section 17, authorizes a study of and report 
    on oil and gas reserves not now required by law--probably a subject 
    within the jurisdiction of the Interior or Commerce Committee.
        The point here is that the committee has already seen fit, in 
    H.R. 11793, to

[[Page 7596]]

    create new policies the subject matter of which might properly be 
    said to belong in other committees.
        Moreover, the Government Operations Committee has a long 
    history of establishing new policies and creating new powers that 
    technically infringe on the jurisdiction of other committees.
    For example:

        The Department of Transportation Act, reported by the committee 
    in 1966, dealt with: First, the safety compliance records of 
    applicants seeking operating authority from the Interstate Commerce 
    Commission--technically, Commerce Committee jurisdiction; second, 
    authority over the formulation and economic evaluation of proposals 
    for the investment of Federal funds in transportation facilities or 
    equipment--technically, Banking and Currency jurisdiction; third, 
    standards for economic evaluation of waste resource projects--
    technically, Public Works Committee jurisdiction.
        It is simply impossible as well as unwise to attempt to 
    separate organizational provisions on the one hand, from so-called 
    policy provisions, on the other. In the past, the committee has 
    never hesitated to legislate policy when those provisions were 
    directly relevant to the functions of the agency created. It should 
    not now attempt to do so. Organization and policy are inextricably 
    bound together.
        When the House entrusted to the Government Operations Committee 
    the power to legislate the existence of new agencies, it also gave 
    to the committee, of necessity, leeway to establish new policies 
    and powers essential to the purposes of an agency. Examples of what 
    might be characterized as policy as opposed to organizational 
    provisions can be found in many other agency bills reported out of 
    the Government Operations 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.
        It is also relevant to the parliamentary challenge that section 
    6 of the bill transfers to the Federal Energy Administrator all 
    functions of the Cost of Living Council over energy prices. A 
    concomitant of the Government Operations Committee's authority to 
    transfer functions from one agency to another is its right to 
    condition that transfer. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, though I 
    agree with the commendable restraint of the Chairman of this 
    Committee in not entering into functional areas of the bill, that 
    it came beyond the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
    nevertheless I cannot fail to agree with the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Rosenthal), that it is utterly impossible in a bill this 
    complex to separate procedural operations and functions from a 
    subject matter with respect to which that official is designed to 
    control.
        This bill by the very amendment that was passed a minute ago by 
    an overwhelming vote, referred to other sections of this act as 
    giving sub

[[Page 7597]]

    stantive authority to the agency, so that the bill now reads: ``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,'' and then it says what 
    he shall do.
        Mr. Chairman, there are other sections of this bill which give 
    substantive authority for transfer. This agency has no authority, 
    as the gentleman from New York stated before, to deal with the 
    question of prices except by virtue of the section on transfer on 
    page 20 whereby transfers provide for this agency to exercise a 
    broad area of authority.
        Now, why may not this House choose, in determining what 
    authorities are granted to the agency, whether this House desires 
    to limit this authority to transferred authorities or to new ones? 
    . . .
        Further, the provisions of the act provide administrative 
    procedures which have considerable influence on substance. The act 
    in section 15 provides for information gathering power, which of 
    course leads to the question of whether or not that information 
    gathering power would ultimately be utilized for the purpose of 
    extending or contracting the authority of the agency. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 
    argument 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

[[Page 7598]]

    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.

Overlapping Jurisdiction--Bill To Extend Federal Energy Administration; 
    Amendment Terminating Agency and Transferring Functions to Other 
    Agencies

Sec. 4.12 While committee jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment 
    is a relevant test of germaneness, it is not the exclusive test 
    where there is an overlap in jurisdiction between the committee 
    reporting the bill and another committee.

    On June 1, 1976,(9) during consideration of a bill (H.R. 
12169) to extend the existence of the Federal Energy Administration 
(which would otherwise terminate), an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute abolishing the agency and some of its functions and 
transferring other functions to existing agencies was held germane as 
another reorganization proposal closely related to that contained in 
the law being amended. The amendment provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 16021-25, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7599]]

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

            That the Federal Energy Administration is abolished.

                             abolition of functions

            Sec. 2. The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be abolished: the functions 
        of the Office of Management and Administration (other than the 
        Office of Private Grievances and Redress); the functions of the 
        Office of Intergovernmental, Regional, and Special Programs; 
        the functions of the Office of Congressional Affairs; the 
        functions of the Office of Communications and Public Affairs. . 
        . .
            Sec. 3. (a) The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be transferred to other 
        agencies as directed in this section:
            (1) The functions of the Offices of Energy Policy and 
        Analysis, Energy Conservation and Environment, and 
        International Energy Affairs shall be transferred to the Energy 
        Research and Development Administration.
            (2) The functions of the Office of Energy Resource 
        Development (including the Office of Strategic Petroleum 
        Reserve) shall be transferred to the Department of the 
        Interior. . . .
            Sec. 4. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and 
        Budget shall take such action as may be necessary to insure the 
        abolition of functions under section 2(a), in accordance with 
        applicable laws and regulations relating to the abolition of 
        functions.
            (b) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is 
        hereby directed to take such action as may be necessary to 
        insure that the transfer of functions does not result in any 
        unnecessary duplication. . . .

    Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, having reserved a point of order 
against the amendment, the following exchange occurred:

        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: I do insist upon my point of order, Mr. Chairman. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House require that the amendment 
    be germane to the bill which is before the House both as to the 
    place in the bill to which the germaneness question arises, and the 
    amendment is offered, and also as to the bill as a whole.
        The first grounds for the point of order are that the amendment 
    goes beyond the requirements of the place in the bill to which the 
    amendment is offered; the second is that it fails to meet the test 
    of germaneness in several particulars. First, that it is a matter 
    which would have been referred to a diversity of committees other 
    than the committee which presently has the responsibility therefor.
        If you will read the amendment, you will find that it transfers 
    functions to the Energy Research and Development Administration, 
    the Department of the Interior, and the Federal Power Commission. 
    Nowhere in the bill before us or in the basic FEA statute are any 
    of these agencies referred to. Furthermore, the amendment sets up a 
    whole series of other responsibilities. It, first of all, transfers 
    jurisdiction over litigation and has a lengthy savings clause which 
    should have properly been referred to the Committee on the Judici

[[Page 7600]]

    ary. As the Chairman will note, that is the committee which has 
    general jurisdiction over those areas of the Federal Constitution, 
    both in the Constitution, and so forth. Beyond that, Mr. Chairman, 
    the amendment imposes upon the Director of the Office of Management 
    and Budget in at least two places certain responsibilities. For 
    example, in the case of oversight responsibility under section 
    4(a), to insuring the abolition of the functions under section 
    2(a), something which is not in the original FEA statute and 
    something which is not in the bill before us.
        I would point out that the Director of the Office of Management 
    and Budget is not here mentioned.
        In addition to this, the Director of the Office of Management 
    and Budget is required to make lengthy reports to special 
    committees of the Congress which are not mentioned either in the 
    bill, Government operation committees of the House and Senate, or 
    in the basic FEA statute.
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there are several tests of 
    germaneness, the first being the test of committee jurisdiction. 
    Obviously, none of the matters referred to in the amendment are 
    properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce.
        The second test is that they must be pertinent to the matters 
    before the House. It is clearly obvious that such broad transfer of 
    responsibilities to diverse agencies and also the imposition of 
    responsibilities on the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget, are far beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and that the responsibility for 
    the establishing of a savings clause with respect to litigation is 
    not within the jurisdiction of that committee.
        Another test of germaneness is the fact that the amendment 
    should give notice to the Members as to what they could reasonably 
    anticipate in the sense of amendments which might be presented to 
    them. It is clearly obvious that no Member might have anticipated 
    the removal of the FEA responsibilities to the Interior Department, 
    the Federal Power Commission, or to ERDA, under the rules of the 
    House or the language of the legislation which is brought to the 
    floor; nor could any Member anticipate savings clauses with regard 
    to litigation, or that there should be the transfer of matters 
    relating to oversight to the Director of the Office of Management 
    and Budget.
        Lastly, to meet the test of germaneness, it is required that 
    the subject matter relate to the subject matter of the bill, and 
    the amendment which is before us clearly seeks to transfer these 
    responsibilities broadly throughout the Federal Government; the 
    establishment of savings clauses and the oversight responsibilities 
    which are imposed go far beyond the requirements of the rules of 
    the House. So that for all of these reasons I respectfully insist 
    upon my point of order. . . .
        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: . . . There are equal 
    precedents pro and con on the germaneness of my substitute. It is a 
    unique question.
        I therefore believe that the policy must come into play. 
    Upholding this point of order will create the following problems 
    down the road.
        First, the Senate, which has a bill, S. 2872, soon to be before 
    it, is consid

[[Page 7601]]

    ering an entirely different FEA bill than H.R. 12169. This bill 
    comes from its Government Operations Committee. It contains 
    sections which parcel out the FEA like my amendment. So, if my 
    substitute is found non-germane, then considering the usual 
    conference committee procedures, the conference report on the FEA 
    bill will probably also later be found non-germane--since it will 
    still parcel out the FEA and thus be non-germane to what the House 
    has passed.
        Second, rule XVI, clause 7 of germaneness is of high value to 
    the House. But, should it defeat a proposition which is merely an 
    innovation on what would happen if the bill to be amended by it is 
    defeated. Is the value of the rule of germaneness great when it 
    negates for the House a chance to consider a sound alternative to a 
    likely possibility?
        Third, much ado has been made of the proposal for sunset 
    legislation for Federal agencies. The Federal Energy Administration 
    Act of 1974 contains, for all intent and purposes, a variety of 
    this legislation unique to itself. Indeed, this is why the problem 
    we are today facing even exists. Therefore, if my amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is rejected on a point of order, we in the 
    House will have a tremendously counterproductive precedent to work 
    with if and when sunset legislation for Federal agencies is 
    enacted.

                                jurisdiction

        Committee jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment and the 
    original bill is not the exclusive test of germaneness--August 2, 
    1973.
        The bill H.R. 12169 incorporates by reference the entire 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, a bill which was 
    reported by the House Government Operations Committee. It does so 
    by, in essence, reenacting the entire act.
        Amendments to the entire act are in order and therefore the 
    substitute, which, if outside of Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    Committee jurisdiction, strays no farther than into Government 
    Operations Committee jurisdiction, is undeniably germane. And the 
    germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a substitute is its 
    relationship to the bill as a whole, and is not necessarily 
    determined by the content of an incidental portion of the amendment 
    which, if considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction 
    of another committee--August 2, 1973. Furthermore, to a bill 
    continuing and reenacting an existing law an amendment germane to 
    the existing act sought to be continued was held to be germane to 
    the pending bill--VIII, 2940, 2941, 2950, 3028; October 31, 1963. 
    To a bill extending an existing law in modified form, an amendment 
    proposing further modifications of that law may be germane--April 
    23, 1969; February 19, 1975.

                                  purpose

        The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill--VIII, 2911--the purposes of both 
    H.R. 12169 and the substitute are to continue the functions of the 
    Federal Energy Administration. The differences are simply: First, 
    to what extent the functions will be continued; and second, what 
    bodies of Government will be responsible for continuing the 
    functions.
        If a larger interpretation is placed on the bill--or the 
    substitute--then defeat

[[Page 7602]]

    itself of it would certainly be contrary to the rules and not 
    permitted by the rules.
        Other precedents to this point are numerous.
        In order to be germane, an amendment must not only have the 
    same end as the matter sought to be amended, but must contemplate a 
    method of achieving that end that is closely allied to the method 
    encompassed in the bill--August 2, 1973. Both H.R. 12169 and the 
    substitute propose to continue the functions of the FEA by Federal 
    agencies. See very particularly the precedents of December 15, 
    1937, June 9, 1941, December 19, 1973. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Several days ago the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) 
    placed her amendment in the Record. The attention of the Chair was 
    called to the amendment at that time.
        Generally speaking, as far as germaneness is concerned, since 
    the committee proposal before the Committee at this time extends 
    the term of the original act, amendments that would be considered 
    as germane to the original act being reenacted would be considered 
    as germane at this time.
        This principle, in part, was the basis of the decision in 
    Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 2941, that a bill 
    continuing and reenacting the present law is subject to an 
    amendment modifying the provisions of the law carried in that bill.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) is not germane to 
    the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 
    12169.
        The committee amendment extends the term of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act until September 30, 1979, and provides specific 
    authorizations for appropriations for that agency through fiscal 
    year 1977.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish the 
    Federal Energy Administration and some of its functions, and would 
    transfer other functions currently performed by the agency to other 
    Departments and agencies in the executive branch, and would 
    authorize appropriations for the next fiscal year for the 
    performance of those functions transferred by the amendment.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the committee bill, 
    the law--Public Law 93-275--being continued and reenacted by the 
    bill, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute against which 
    the point of order has been raised. While it is true that the basic 
    law which created the Federal Energy Administration was reported as 
    a reorganization proposal from the Committee on Government 
    Operations in the last Congress, and while it is also true that a 
    bill containing the substance of the amendment has been jointly 
    referred to that committee and to the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce in this Congress, the Chair would point out that 
    committee jurisdiction is not the sole or exclusive test of 
    germaneness.
        The Chair would call the attention of the Committee to 
    extensive precedent contained in Cannon's volume VIII,

[[Page 7603]]

    section 2941, which the Chair has already cited, where an amendment 
    germane to an existing law was held germane to a bill proposing its 
    reenactment. The Chair feels that this precedent is especially 
    pertinent in the limited context where, as here, the pending bill 
    proposes to extend the existence of an organizational entity which 
    would otherwise be terminated by failure to reenact the law.
        In such a situation, the proper test of germaneness is the 
    relationship between the basic law being reenacted and the 
    amendment, and not merely the relationship between the pending bill 
    and the amendment.

        It is important to note that the law being extended was itself 
    an extensive reorganization of various executive branch energy-
    related functions. Not only did Public Law 93-275 transfer several 
    functions from the Interior Department and the Cost of Living 
    Council to the FEA, but that law also authorized the Administrator 
    of FEA to perform all functions subsequently delegated to him by 
    Congress or by the President pursuant to other law. Section 28 of 
    that law provides that upon its termination, which would result if 
    the pending bill is not enacted, all functions exercised by FEA 
    would revert to the department or agency from which they were 
    originally transferred.
        It appears to the Chair from an examination of the committee 
    report, that all of the functions which the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute proposes to abolish or to transfer are being 
    extended and authorized by the committee bill.
        Since the basic law which created the FEA is before the 
    committee for germane modification, since changes in that law 
    relating to the delegation of authority to perform functions from 
    or to the FEA are germane to that law, and since the pending 
    committee bill authorizes the FEA to perform all of the functions 
    which the amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish or 
    transfer, the Chair holds that the amendment is germane to the 
    committee proposal and overrules the point of order.

Provisions To Regulate Production and Allocation of Energy Resources--
    Amendment To Reduce Energy Consumption by Reducing Federal Workweek

Sec. 4.13 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill 
    reported from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to 
    conserve energy resources by regulating the production, allocation 
    and use of those resources, an amendment to reduce energy 
    consumption by the federal government through the implementation of 
    a reduced workweek for federal civilian employees was held to go 
    beyond the scope of the bill and to contain matters within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, and 
    was held to be not germane.

[[Page 7604]]

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (11) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 14, 1973,(12) the Chair 
sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 11450.
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 41756, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: 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. Conte to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: On page 44, 
        immediately below line 21, insert the following:
            (c) In order to assist the effective implementation of the 
        purposes of this Act by the Federal Government in the area of 
        Federal employment, the President, through such authority or 
        authorities in the executive branch as he considers 
        appropriate, shall prepare and submit to the Congress within 
        ninety days after the date of enactment of this act a detailed 
        and comprehensive plan for the establishment and institution, 
        to the extent practicable, of a new basic administrative 
        workweek of forty hours for Federal civilian employees in the 
        executive branch . . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment offered by my good friend from 
    Massachusetts is not germane. The reasons, I think, are apparent to 
    the Chair.
        The amendment offered by my good friend would set up a 4-day 
    workweek. I would be, I think, as surprised as the Chair if he were 
    to find elsewhere in the bill and, indeed, on the basis referred to 
    any reference to a 4-day, 40-hour workweek.
        Obviously this matter is not within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, but rather in the 
    rules of Congress under the hands of the Committee on Post Office 
    and Civil Service, if that committee has not voted away that power. 
    I am not sure they did that some time back.
        In any event, the amendment seeks to go far beyond the purpose 
    and scope of the bill and deals with a whole new question, the 
    workweek of Federal employees lying within the jurisdiction of a 
    totally different committee. . . .
        Mr. Conte: . . . Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendment is 
    germane. If we look at section 122, which is the Employment Impact 
    and Worker Assistance section, the first point of that section, (a) 
    says that carrying out his responsibilities under this act, the 
    President shall take into consideration and shall minimize, to the 
    fullest extent practicable, any adverse impact of actions taken 
    pursuant to this act upon employment.
        I certainly feel this is germane. It takes that into 
    consideration. It provides for a 40-hour workweek, 10 hours a day, 
    keeping in mind the Civil Service laws and the overtime laws. If it 
    does not go into effect and there is a shortage of energy, it is 
    very, very possible, that a lot of Federal employees will be out of 
    work much less than 40 hours a week.
        Therefore, I hope the Chair will rule in my favor.

[[Page 7605]]

        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    Despite the eloquent argument of the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
    the fact of the matter is that the amendment goes well beyond the 
    purposes of the section of the bill and the bill itself and the 
    matter contained in the amendment surely comes within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Therefore, the point of order of the gentleman from Michigan is 
    sustained.

Provisions Authorizing Secretary of Interior To Establish Petroleum 
    Reserves--Amendment Giving President Authority Over Reserves 
    Conditional Upon Subsequent Congressional Authorization

Sec. 4.14 To a proposition reported from the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 
    establish national petroleum reserves, including naval petroleum 
    reserves, on certain public lands, an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute containing similar provisions and authorizing the 
    president to place petroleum reserves in strategic storage 
    facilities ``pursuant to any program subsequently authorized by 
    Congress'' was held germane, as not itself establishing a strategic 
    storage facility (a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Armed Services) but as merely conditioning the president's 
    authority upon separate enactment of such program.

    During consideration of H.R. 49 (relating to national petroleum 
reserves on public lands) in the Committee of the Whole on July 8, 
1975,(14) Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, overruled a point of 
order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 21631-33, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Melcher: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

        That in order to develop petroleum reserves of the United 
    States which need to be regulated in a manner to meet the total 
    energy needs of the Nation, including but not limited to national 
    defense, the Secretary of the Interior, with the approval of the 
    President, is authorized to establish national petroleum reserves 
    on any reserved or unreserved public lands of the United States . . 
    . .

            Sec. 2. No national petroleum reserve that includes all or 
        part of an existing naval petroleum reserve shall be 
        established without prior

[[Page 7606]]

        consultation with the Secretary of Defense, and when so 
        established, the portion of such naval reserve included shall 
        be deemed to be excluded from the naval petroleum reserve. . . 
        .
            (d) Pursuant to any program hereafter authorized by the 
        Congress, the President may, in his discretion, direct that not 
        more than 25 percentum of the oil produced from such national 
        petroleum reserves shall be placed in strategic storage 
        facilities or exchanged for oil and gas products of equal value 
        which shall be placed in such strategic storage facilities. . . 
        .

        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order against the amendment on the basis that the 
    amendment offered includes a sentence relating to strategic 
    defense. The original bill, H.R. 49, had no such reference.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman specify the language he refers 
    to?
        Mr. Hebert: The language which I read, from section (d):

            Pursuant to any program hereafter authorized by the 
        Congress, the President may, in his discretion, direct that no 
        more than 25 percentum of the oil produced from such national 
        petroleum reserves shall be placed in strategic storage 
        facilities or exchanged for oil and gas products of equal value 
        which shall be placed in such strategic storage facilities.

        I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the original bill, as presented 
    to the Committee on Rules, did not contain any such reference at 
    all. Therefore, it is not germane. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on this point of 
    order.
        The Chair would note that the language of the Melcher amendment 
    referred to states ``pursuant to any program hereafter authorized 
    by the Congress.''
        The Melcher amendment does not set up a program nor authorize a 
    program for strategic storage of petroleum; it merely refers to a 
    program which may hereafter be authorized. If it did attempt to 
    authorize a program not related to the committee amendment, then 
    the decision on the point of order would be different.
        However, since it does not, the point of order is overruled.

Provisions For Allocation of Petroleum Products and Coal--Amendment 
    Waiving Provisions of Law in Order To Encourage Coal Production

Sec. 4.15 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute seeking to 
    allocate petroleum products in order to stimulate exploration for 
    and production of essential energy minerals, and containing a 
    section intended to encourage the conversion to coal as an energy 
    source and to require the proper allocation of coal to users 
    thereof, an amendment proposing to expand domestic coal production 
    by waiving certain provisions of law, not within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee which had reported the bill, which inhibit coal 
    production was held germane.

[[Page 7607]]

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (H.R. 11450) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 14, 1973, (15) the Chair 
held that to an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the following 
amendment was germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 41748, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [LaMar] Baker [of Tennessee]: 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. Baker to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: On page 15, 
        strike lines 13 and 14 and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            ``(d) Coal Production Authority.--The Administrator may 
        take such actions as are necessary to assure an adequate supply 
        of coal to attain the objectives of this section, including, 
        but not limited to, the granting of exemptions from provisions 
        of the Economic Stabilization Act which inhibit the ability of 
        coal producers to obtain the necessary equipment and personnel 
        for production and distribution of coal; and the granting of 
        exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, from provisions of the 
        Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, in such cases as mines 
        located above the water table or in which methane has not been 
        detected as prescribed in section 303(h) of such Act, where it 
        has been determined (1) that such provisions substantially 
        reduce the ability of the producer to provide necessary 
        supplies of coal in an economical manner, and (2) that the 
        exemption will not materially affect the health and safety of 
        employees of that producer.''. . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
    order against the amendment on these grounds. The amendment is not 
    germane in that it deals with the subject matter of another 
    committee, the Committee on Education and Labor; in that it 
    purports to amend the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act under 
    the exclusive jurisdiction of that committee; and it proposes to 
    assign to the Administrator the ability to grant exemptions under 
    that act, which is in no wise amended or altered by this provision. 
    . . .
        Mr. Baker: Mr. Chairman, on page 5 of the bill under 
    consideration, line 22, the President is urged to take such action 
    consistent with the provisions of this act and is authorized to 
    take under this act and any other act action to encourage full 
    production by the domestic energy industry at levels which make 
    possible the expansion of facilities required to insure against a 
    protraction in any such increased levels of unemployment. The 
    amendment would increase employment in its implementation.
        On page 7, line 22, and on to page 8, the act calls for the 
    production and extraction of minerals essential to the requirements 
    of the United States. This would further enhance employment in the 
    Nation.
        Then on page 14 it says nothing in the paragraph should be 
    interpreted as requiring such source to use a particular grade of 
    coal of any particular type, grade, or pollution characteristic if 
    such coal is available to such source. Many of the small mines here 
    would come under the provisions of this amendment.
        I ask that the point of order be overruled.

[[Page 7608]]

        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language that appears on page 7, beginning at line 22, 
    cited by the gentleman from Tennessee, says:

            (b) Section 4(b)(1)(G) of the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(G) allocation of residual fuel oil and refined petroleum 
        products in such amounts and in such manner as may be necessary 
        for the maintenance of exploration for, and production or 
        extraction of--
            ``(1) fuels, and
            ``(2) minerals essential to the requirements of the United 
        States,
        and for required transportation related thereto;'.

        The Chair believes that that language, together with the 
    language cited on page 5 urging full production by the domestic 
    energy industry, justifies the offering of this amendment which 
    deals with coal production despite the point made by the gentleman 
    from Texas with regard to the narrow construction of the section to 
    which it is offered and, therefore, overrules the point of order.
        The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes in 
    support of his amendment under clause 6 of rule XXIII.

Authorization to President To Ration Gasoline--Amendment Imposing User 
    Charge as Part of Rationing Plan

Sec. 4.16 To a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    which amended section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act 
    of 1973 to authorize the President to establish priorities, 
    including rationing of gasoline, among users of petroleum products, 
    an amendment providing that any rationing proposal for individual 
    users of gasoline should include payment of a user charge to 
    qualify for additional allocations was held to constitute a tax 
    which was not within the category of rationing authority in the 
    substitute and was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (H.R. 11450) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 14, 1973, (17) the Chair 
ruled that an amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 41750, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 103. Amendments to the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 
    1973.

        (a) Section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 
    is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsections:
        ``(h)(1) If the President finds that, without such action, the 
    objectives of subsection (b) cannot be attained, he

[[Page 7609]]

    may promulgate a rule which shall be deemed a part of the 
    regulation under subsection (a) and which shall provide, consistent 
    with the objectives of subsection (b), an ordering of priorities 
    among users of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any refined 
    petroleum product, and for the assignment to such users of rights 
    entitling them to obtain any such oil or product in precedence to 
    other users not similarly entitled. A top priority in such ordering 
    shall be the maintenance of vital services (including, but not 
    limited to new housing construction, education, health care, 
    hospitals, public safety, energy production, agriculture, and 
    transportation services, which are necessary to the preservation of 
    health, safety, and the public welfare). . . .
        ``(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `allocation' 
    shall not be construed to exclude the end-use allocation of 
    gasoline to individual consumers.
        Mr. [James G.] Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Martin of North Carolina to the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Staggers: On page 6, at line 6, strike the period, and add: ``; 
        Provided, however, That any proposal by the President for the 
        rationing of fuel for personal automobiles and recreational 
        vehicles should, in addition to the basic non-discriminatory 
        ration, include provisions under which the individual consumer 
        may qualify for additional allocations of fuel upon payment of 
        a free or user charge on a per unit basis to the Federal Energy 
        Administration.''

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    is not germane. . . .
        I make the point of order on the amendment on the ground that 
    it authorizes a user's fee in the nature of a tax and that is not 
    supposed to come within the jurisdiction of our committee. That 
    authority is delegated to the Ways and Means Committee.
        Mr. Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the 
    amendment is germane and pertinent to the section dealing with 
    gasoline rationing. . . .
        This amendment does not propose a tax as such and so does not 
    run afoul of the prerogatives of the honorable Committee on Ways 
    and Means. Instead it proposes an administrative fee to be charged, 
    much as fees are charged by the National Park Service under the 
    Golden Eagle plan for use of our park resources. This fee as I 
    propose it would be charged for preferential use of any extra 
    limited fuel resources.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order on the ground that this amendment in 
    effect would result in a tax not directly related to the rationing 
    authority conferred by the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tidelands Bill--Substitute Relating to Lease of Off-shore Lands

Sec. 4.17 To a bill relating to oil leases and seeking to estab

[[Page 7610]]

    lish the title of the states to lands beneath navigable waters 
    within state boundaries, a substitute authorizing the Secretary of 
    the Interior to lease off-shore lands, and establishing an agency 
    to advise on the disposition of revenues from such leases was held 
    to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the tidelands 
bill,(19) the following amendment was offered: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 4484 (Committee on the Judiciary).
20. 97 Cong. Rec. 9193, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Michael J.] Mansfield [of Montana]: 
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof 
    the following: . . .
        Sec. 2. All moneys received by the Secretary of the Interior 
    from leases issued pursuant to this act shall be held in a special 
    account. . . .
        Sec. 3. There is hereby created a National Advisory Council on 
    Grants-in-Aid of Education. . . . It shall be the function of the 
    Council to formulate . . . a plan for the equitable allocation of 
    the moneys available under section 2 for use as grants-in-aid of 
    primary, secondary, and higher education.

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

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill 
    under consideration. It provides a system of aid to education, 
    which is not within the contemplation or purview of this bill.

    The Chairman, (1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana not only 
    deals with oil leases, but undertakes to set up a new agency of 
    Government and to divert the fund for educational grants and 
    educational purposes, a subject which is within the exclusive 
    jurisdiction of another committee of the House, namely the 
    Committee on Education and Labor. In view of that fact the Chair is 
    constrained to sustain the point of order.

Bill Relating to Development of Outer Continental Shelf Energy 
    Resources--``Buy-American'' Amendment Affecting Equipment Used

Sec. 4.18 To a title of a proposition reported from the Select Ad Hoc 
    Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf comprehensively amending 
    the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to impose diverse 
    restrictions and conditions on the management and development of 
    energy resources on the outer continental shelf, an amendment to 
    require that vessels, rigs

[[Page 7611]]

    and platforms used in such development be built and operated by 
    domestic concerns was held germane as a further restriction similar 
    in nature to those already contained in the title.

    On July 21, 1976,(2) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 6218, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
Amendments, which contained restrictions and conditions on the 
management and development of energy resources on the outer continental 
shelf, including safety regulations pertaining to the design and use of 
all equipment on the shelf, requirements for the federal purchase of 
resources extracted from the shelf, and limitations on export of such 
resources. An amendment was offered, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 23167, 23168, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York: Page 123, line 
        9, strike out the quotation marks and the period following such 
        quotation marks and insert immediately after line 9 the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 29. Domestic Construction and Operation.--(a) Within 
        six months of the date of the enactment of this section, the 
        Secretary shall by regulation require that any vessel, rig, 
        platform, or other vehicle or structure used more than one year 
        after such date of enactment in the exploration, development, 
        or production of the mineral resources located on or under the 
        seabed and subsoil of the outer Continental Shelf be manned or 
        crewed by citizens of the United States, unless specific 
        contractual provisions or national registry manning 
        requirements in effect on such date of enactment provide to the 
        contrary. The Secretary shall also by regulation require that 
        any vessel, rig, platform, or other vehicle or structure used 
        more than one year after such date of enactment in the 
        exploration, development, or production of the mineral 
        resources located on or under the seabed and subsoil of the 
        outer Continental Shelf and built or rebuilt more than one year 
        after such date of enactment (1) be built or rebuilt in the 
        United States, (2) be owned by citizens of the United States, 
        (3) be operated by citizens of the United States, (4) be manned 
        or crewed by citizens of the United States, and (5) when 
        required to be documented, be documented under the laws of the 
        United States. . . .

        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Gibbons) insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Yes, sir, I do. . . .
        This amendment is not germane to that. This amendment is a 
    naked buy national requirement. This bill deals with the production 
    of oil and resources of the Outer Continental Shelf. This amendment 
    restricts where people can buy the material that goes into it for 
    its ordinary production.
        Another important reason why this amendment is out of order is 
    that the

[[Page 7612]]

    jurisdiction of this ad hoc committee is severely limited by the 
    rules of the House and by the resolution establishing the 
    committee.
        The rules of the House, rule X, clause 3, authorizes the 
    Speaker to refer matters to a special ad hoc committee, such as 
    this, with the approval of the House membership. An ad hoc 
    committee is to be made up of members of the legislative committees 
    that have jurisdiction over the matter.
        This amendment is wholly within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means. It is not within the jurisdiction of 
    any of the three subcommittees that deal with this matter. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the Murphy amendment. The basis for my point of 
    order is that the amendment violates rule XVI because it is not 
    germane.
        Cannon's Precedents--VII--states that committees are all 
    creatures of the House and exercise no authority or jurisdiction 
    beyond that specifically conferred by the rules or by the special 
    delegation of the House itself. House Resolution 412, passed last 
    year, which created the select committee strictly limited its 
    jurisdiction to that of the Committees on Interior, Judiciary, and 
    Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
        The Murphy amendment is a so-called Buy American provision 
    requiring vessels, rigs, and platforms be built in the United 
    States. These protectionist restrictions of trade clearly fall 
    within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee and 
    obviously exceeds the jurisdiction given to the select committee 
    under House Resolution 412.
        Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 33.1 covers the 
    example of an Education and Labor bill in the 90th Congress 
    amending the Fair Labor Standards Act. An amendment proposing to 
    modify the Tariff Act of 1930 which was within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Ways and Means was held to be nongermane. The same 
    chapter, section 4.8 cites another bill amending the Fair Labor 
    Standards Act. An amendment modifying provisions with respect to 
    the importation of merchandise was ruled nongermane.
        Mr. Chairman, Deschler, chapter 28, section 4.16 states that 
    committee jurisdiction over the subject of the amendment and of the 
    original bill is not the exclusive test of germaneness, but in this 
    case the amendment clearly invades another jurisdiction and is not 
    integral to the purpose or effect of the bill according to our 
    rules. The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to 
    the fundamental purpose of the bill. The fundamental purpose of 
    this bill is not protectionism or restriction of trade. . . .
        Mr. Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is clearly 
    germane. One major purpose of the bill H.R. 6218 is to establish a 
    policy for the management of oil and natural gas development in the 
    Outer Continental Shelf. This goal is accomplished through numerous 
    provisions which direct Secretary of the Interior and other Federal 
    officials to assert regulatory authority over the individuals and 
    mechanical equipment and devices involved in the exploration, 
    development, and production of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas. 
    . . .
        Simply put, the subject before the House is the broad issue of 
    policy to

[[Page 7613]]

    regulate the development of OCS oil and gas. The subject before the 
    House is who will develop OCS resources, under what environmental, 
    social, and economic controls. My amendment addresses this subject 
    and is thus germane. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I primarily rise 
    because I think it is extremely important that we not establish a 
    precedent respecting any jurisdiction which is too narrow in an ad 
    hoc committee of this nature.
        The very reason for appointing ad hoc committees is to give a 
    certain flexibility and a certain scope to deal with the specific 
    problem.
        Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) has 
    very well pointed out, his amendment is a restriction on terms and 
    conditions provided for in this bill which has been designated to 
    this ad hoc committee.
        It would seem to me that this is a ruling of vast importance 
    because there may well be a time in this body when a number of ad 
    hoc committees may be appointed as a necessary instrument for 
    putting into effect the will of this body; and a narrow 
    construction with respect to germaneness on the basis of the 
    delegation of the jurisdiction of those committees would, in my 
    opinion, be a very, very bad thing from the standpoint of future 
    precedent.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York on the 
    grounds that it is not germane to title II of the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The amendment would add a new section to the Outer Continental 
    Shelf Lands Act to require that vessels, rigs and platforms used 
    for the exploration and production of resources on the Outer 
    Continental Shelf be built in the United States, operated by United 
    States citizens, and documented under the laws of the United 
    States. Section 208 of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute to H.R. 6218 adds a variety of new sections to the Outer 
    Continental Shelf Lands Act to impose requirements on and to offer 
    guidelines for the development and production of the resources on 
    the shelf. The committee amendment requires management of the shelf 
    to consider all economic, social, and environmental values of such 
    resources, imposes safety regulations on the design and use of all 
    equipment on the shelf, requires leasing plans, subject to the 
    approval of the Secretary, to detail the equipment and facilities 
    to be used in development, and provides for the gathering of all 
    information relative to the facilities and equipment to be used in 
    such development. Additionally, section 208 adds sections to the 
    existing act to insure the availability of domestic energy from 
    shelf development by providing for Federal purchase of the 
    resources and limiting export of such resources. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York would add a further 
    direction and restriction to those contained in section 208 of the 
    committee amendment. For the reasons stated, the Chair feels that 
    the amendment in this context is germane to the portion of the bill 
    to which it is offered and therefore overrules the point of order.

[[Page 7614]]

Energy Conservation--Import Quotas

Sec. 4.19 To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce containing diverse petroleum 
    conservation and allocation provisions, an amendment imposing 
    quotas on the importation of petroleum products from certain 
    countries was held to be a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means and was ruled out as not germane.

    On Sept. 17, 1975,(4) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 
1975,(5) a point of order against an amendment to a title of 
the bill was sustained. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 28905, 28924, 28925, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   TITLE IV--ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES

      Part A--Allocation Act Amendments and Other Energy Conservation 
                                  Measures

        Sec. 401. Restructuring of Allocation Act.
        Sec. 402. Conversion to standby authorities.
        Sec. 403. Definitions in Allocation Act.
        Sec. 404. Amendments to section 4 of the Allocation Act.

        Sec. 405. Mandatory gasoline allocation savings program.
        Sec. 406. Retail distribution control measures.
        Sec. 407. Direct controls on refinery operations.
        Sec. 408. Inventory controls.
        Sec. 409. Hoarding prohibitions. . . .
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: Page 282, after line 16 
        insert the following:

        Import Quotas on Petroleum Products From Certain OPEC Countries

            Sec. 456. During calendar year 1976, and each calendar year 
        thereafter, the aggregate quantity of petroleum products which 
        may be imported into the United States from each country which 
        is a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting 
        Countries (other than Venezuela, Iran, Ecuador, Indonesia, 
        Nigeria and any other member who did not participate in the 
        petroleum products boycott of 1973) may not exceed an amount 
        equal to the daily average of petroleum products imported into 
        the United States from that country during the first six months 
        of calendar year 1975, multiplied by 365.
            Redesignate the succeeding sections of title IV 
        accordingly.

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

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the title of the amendment is 
    ``Import

[[Page 7615]]

    Quotas on Petroleum Products From Certain OPEC Countries.'' The 
    bill does not provide import quotas. The bill does direct the 
    President to use, however, certain authorities which he has in 
    connection with other statutes under subparagraph (b) in line 17 of 
    page 249, but, as the Chair will observe, that is only a direction 
    to the President to use certain powers which he has in connection 
    with controlling domestic consumption of petroleum products. . . .
        First of all, (the amendment) is offered I believe at the wrong 
    place in the bill and, second of all, it is a proposal which is not 
    properly in the bill since the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce has no jurisdiction to impose import quotas, that lying 
    under the rules of the House in the Ways and Means Committee.
        Also, since this is an amendment of which the Members could not 
    reasonably and logically have been apprised as required by the 
    rules of the House from the title of the legislation now before the 
    House and although I have some sympathy for the purposes and goals 
    of the gentleman, I have to point out, nevertheless, the question 
    is not a question which could or should properly be decided by the 
    Committee at this time under the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Gonzalez: . . . I would like to call the attention of the 
    Chair to Deschler's Procedure, on page 374, citation 5.17, in which 
    it is held very clearly and most emphatically:

            To a text seeking to accomplish a broad purpose by a method 
        less detailed in its provisions, an amendment more definitive 
        but relating to the same purpose implicit in the committee's 
        approach was held germane.

        The purpose of the bill is to increase domestic supply, 
    conserving and managing energy demand, and to establish standby 
    programs for minimizing this Nation's vulnerability to major 
    interruptions in the supply of petroleum imports.
        My amendment is more definitive in that it provides through 
    import quotas a means to encourage conservation, which is directly 
    related to the broad purpose of this bill.
        Now, in addition, the gentleman is arguing what I think is 
    improper in his point of order. The gentleman is raising the point 
    of committee jurisdiction. The gentleman says that this is not a 
    matter within the jurisdiction of the gentleman's committee that 
    has this bill here.
        Well, I want to refer the Chair to page 369 of Deschler's 
    Procedures, citation 416, which states that committee jurisdiction 
    is not the exclusive or the absolute test of germaneness.
        So I feel that based on Deschler's bible of procedure in our 
    House, my amendment is not only germane, it is timely. It is proper 
    and it is in order with what we are debating as the general scope 
    and purpose of the legislation pending.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Ohio have made 
    points of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas on the ground that it is not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas replies with two citations from 
    Deschler's Pro

[[Page 7616]]

    cedures, which appear to be to the point, but in the opinion of the 
    Chair are not precisely on the specific point. There is not in this 
    title of the bill, at least the Chair is unable to find a specific 
    imposition of general import quotas on all petroleum products. 
    There is not any specific imposition of general import quotas.
        Furthermore, the Chair is of the opinion that in this 
    particular case it is pertinent that the matter in the gentleman's 
    amendment would properly be within the purview of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means, rather than the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce.
        Therefore, on these grounds, relatively narrow grounds, the 
    Chair rules that the points of order are valid and rules that the 
    amendment is not in order.

Provisions Conferring Discretionary Authority To Restrict Exports of 
    Energy Resources--Amendment To Prohibit Exportation of Petroleum 
    Products for Particular Uses

Sec. 4.20 To a proposition conferring broad discretionary authority on 
    an executive official, an amendment directing that official to take 
    certain actions in the exercise of that authority is germane; thus, 
    to an amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizing the 
    Federal Energy Administrator to restrict exports of certain energy 
    resources, an amendment directing that official to prohibit the 
    exportation of petroleum products for use in military operations in 
    Indochina was held germane as a delineation of the broad authority 
    conferred by that substitute.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(7) during consideration of H.R. 11450 
(the Energy Emergency Act), the Chair held the following amendment to 
be germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to which it 
was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 41753, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: 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 Ms. Holtzman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 45, insert 
        after line 9:
        ``sec. 124. prohibition of petroleum exports for military 
        operations in indochina.

            ``In the exercise of his jurisdiction under the preceding 
        section, and in order to conserve petroleum products for use in 
        the United States, the Administrator shall prohibit the 
        exportation of petroleum products for use, directly or 
        indirectly, in military operations in South Vietnam, Cambodia 
        or Laos.''. . .

[[Page 7617]]

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that this amendment is not germane to the bill 
    since it deals with a subject matter that is under the jurisdiction 
    of other committees of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
    on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as an 
    example. . . .
        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, I do desire to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, certainly the subject of petroleum products seems 
    to be within the jurisdiction of this committee since we have been 
    debating this matter for at least 3 days. So I would urge that that 
    subject is germane, and that my amendment is germane to the bill.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    which appears at the bottom of page 44 reads in part as follows:

            To the extent necessary to carry out the purpose of this 
        Act, the Administrator may under authority of this Act, by 
        rule, restrict exports of coal, petroleum products. . . .

        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
    Holtzman) is a further delineation of that type of authority. 
    Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill).

Bill Providing for Tax Incentives To Conserve Energy--Amendment 
    Prohibiting Purchase of Fuel Inefficient Automobiles by Federal 
    Government

Sec. 4.21 To a bill reported from the Committee on Ways and Means 
    providing for taxes and tax incentives to conserve energy, an 
    amendment prohibiting the purchase or leasing of fuel inefficient 
    autos by the federal government was held to be not germane, as 
    being beyond the scope of the bill and as dealing with a subject 
    (that of government purchases) properly within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee.

    During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Conversion Act 
of 1975 (9) in the Committee of the Whole on June 13, 1975, 
(10) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 6860.
10. 121Cong. Rec. 18816, 18817, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Tsongas: Page 71 insert after line 20 
    the following:
    Sec. 312. Prohibition of Purchase of Fuel Inefficient Automobiles 
    by the Federal Government.

[[Page 7618]]

        (a) Prohibition of Purchase of Fuel Inefficient Automobiles.--
    No agency of the Federal Government may purchase or lease any 1977 
    or later model year automobile if the fuel mileage rating of such 
    automobile is less than the minimum fuel mileage standard 
    applicable to such automobile.
        (b) Minimum Fuel Mileage Standard.--For purposes of subsection 
    (a)--the fuel mileage standard for a 1977 model year automobile 
    shall be 17; for a 1978 automobile, 18; for a 1979 automobile, 19; 
    for a 1980 or later model year automobile, 20.
        (4) Fuel Mileage Rating.--The fuel mileage rating of any 
    automobile shall be the fuel mileage rating determined for such 
    automobile under section 4084(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
    1954 or, if such section does not apply with respect to such 
    automobile, the fuel mileage rating of such automobile shall be 
    determined under such section as if such section did apply to such 
    automobile. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: . . . I make the point of order 
    that this amendment is not germane to the bill, on two counts.
        First, there is nothing in either this title or the bill 
    relating to Government purchases. Second, the matter contained in 
    the amendment is not properly under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means. It is not a tax matter, and therefore, 
    it is nongermane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Paul E.] Tsongas [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to make three points in response to the point of order.
        First, quite obviously, the thrust of my amendment is fuel 
    efficiency. It refers to the same standards that we discussed on 
    the floor and voted on with respect to the Sharp amendment, the 
    Fisher amendment, and the Ottinger amendment among others.
        My amendment applies to the standards of the U.S. Government as 
    those amendments applied to the U.S. public and to automobile 
    manufacturers, but the thrust of my amendment is fuel efficiency. 
    That, indeed, is what this bill is all about.
        Second, it does not authorize the Government purchase of 
    automobiles, which would be the proper jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Government Operations. It simply sets standards of 
    efficiency for Government vehicles as an aid to encourage 
    conservation, which is the function of this bill and the function 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        Third, it is, in a sense, a revenue amendment in that it refers 
    to savings, both in terms of the purchase of automobiles and of 
    gasoline by the U.S. Government, and thus does come properly under 
    the domain of the Committee on Ways and Means and in that 
    committee's jurisdiction. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Tsongas) provides in part as follows:

            Prohibition of Purchase of Fuel Inefficient Automobiles.--
        No agency of the Federal Government may purchase or lease any 
        1977 or later model year automobile if the fuel mileage rating 
        of such automobile is less than the minimum fuel mileage 
        standard application to such automobile.

[[Page 7619]]

        There is nothing in the bill that deals with purchasing and 
    leasing authority, the Chair would have to advise the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. Tsongas); and in addition, the subject 
    matter of Government purchases is not within the jurisdiction of 
    the committee in charge of the bill on the floor, the Committee on 
    Ways and Means.
        Therefore, the point of order must be sustained.

Energy Conservation--Fusion Research

Sec. 4.22 To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce entitled ``Conversion from Oil or 
    Gas to other fuels,'' but referring only to industrial conversion 
    from oil or gas to coal, an amendment adding a new section 
    increasing the authorization of the Energy Research and Development 
    Administration to promote the practical application of fusion 
    energy (a matter within the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on 
    Atomic Energy and not within the scope of the title of the bill), 
    was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 18, 1975,(12) during consideration of the 
Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (13) 13 in 
the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
sustained a point of order against an amendment to the pending title of 
the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 29333-35, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            title vi--conversion from oil or gas to other fuels

        Sec. 601. Extension of authority to issue orders.
        Sec. 602. Extension of enforcement authority. . . .
        Sec. 606. Incentives to open new underground mines producing 
    low sulfur coal. . . .
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: On page 338, after line 
        25, insert a new section.
            ``Sec. 607. An additional $100,000,000 is authorized for 
        the Energy Research and Development Administration for a high 
        priority program exclusively geared to the practical 
        application of fusion energy.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan reserves a point of 
    order.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington reserves a point of 
    order. . . .

[[Page 7620]]

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the 
    amendment comes to the wrong bill and to the wrong committee. The 
    authorization for nuclear research should come to the Joint 
    Committee on Atomic Energy and the Energy Research and Development 
    Administration. . . .
        I make my point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the ground that this 
    amendment is out of order because the jurisdiction falls 
    exclusively with the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and the 
    Energy Research and Development Administration.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) also 
    reserved a point of order against the amendment.
        Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point of order?
        Mr. Dingell: . . . I would like to commend my good friend, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for offering what I think is a 
    very well written amendment. Unfortunately, no hearings have been 
    held on it, and it has not been considered.
        I would point out to the body that the germaneness rule 
    requires that the character of the amendment be such that the 
    membership would have reasonably been apprised that amendments of 
    that sort might be placed before the body. Unfortunately, the 
    character of the amendment is such that it provides certain 
    authorities for ERDA, the Energy Research and Development Agency.
        Unfortunately, I do not think there is any way that anyone here 
    could have anticipated amendments dealing with adding authorities 
    or changing authorities within ERDA. . . .
        Mr. Gonzalez: . . . In arguing the point of germaneness, I will 
    address myself first to the remarks of the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. McCormack). . . .
        If we are going to debate on a point of order the merits of the 
    amendment, it is contrary to the clear indication in Deschler's 
    Procedure, one of which decisions I quoted yesterday, on page 73, 
    which says that one does not look to the material content of the 
    general purposes of the bill to determine the specificity--there is 
    a good Watergate word--the specificity of the pending amendment.
        The gentleman says, ``This is the wrong church, the wrong pew. 
    It ought to go over here into another bill.''. . .
        Facetiously, let me say that we can make that comment about the 
    last 6 months and say that this bill before the committee has been 
    in the wrong committee and in the wrong place for the last 6 
    months.
        Let me say, however, that in Deschler's Procedure, both cases 
    that I cited yesterday in the Record clearly control the situation 
    here.
        I cannot think of anything more germane than this amendment to 
    the section of the bill that is talking about research and 
    development. It is actually authorizing moneys for that purpose. . 
    . .
        As to the point of the second gentleman, the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell), his contention again comes repetitiously as 
    yesterday. He talks about the sanctity of committee jurisdiction. 
    Deschler's Procedure and particularly that citation I quoted 
    yesterday clearly says that that shall not be a governing factor in 
    determining whether or not an amendment is germane to a pending 
    bill. The jurisdic

[[Page 7621]]

    tion of a committee is not the controlling factor with respect to 
    germaneness. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The title of title VI is exceptionally broad, in the opinion of 
    the Chair.
        If the content of title VI were as broad as the title, the 
    Chair believes that the arguments of the eloquent gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) might bear more weight. But it is the content 
    of the pending title and not its heading against which the 
    germaneness of the amendment must be weighed.
        The Chair has had the opportunity to examine with some care all 
    of title VI and also language on pages 17 and 18 of the committee 
    report which deals with title VI. The Chair will not read from 
    those words except to say that the Chair only refers to those words 
    in that they support his view that title VI actually deals with the 
    conversion from oil or gas to coal and thus the scope of the title 
    is quite narrow. The amendment therefore does not fit the rule of 
    germaneness despite the eloquence of the gentleman from Texas and 
    the Chair feels compelled to rule that the amendment is not germane 
    to title VI and therefore sustains the various points of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As the Chair indicates above, the scope of 
a title of a bill is determined by the provisions contained therein, 
not by the phraseology of the formal heading of the title.

Provisions Establishing Procedures for Designating Priority Projects 
    Within Synthetic Fuels Program--Amendment Authorizing Temporary 
    Waivers of Laws Inconsistent With Projects

Sec. 4.23 For an amendment establishing procedures for designating 
    priority projects within a federally financed synthetic fuels 
    program and expediting procedural decision-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,(14) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration an amendment to

[[Page 7622]]

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 held to be not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 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 
        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: (15) Does the gentleman from Oregon 
    (Mr. Weaver) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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. . . 
    .

[[Page 7623]]

        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 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 law which 
    otherwise would interfere with the construction of any facility 
    financed by this bill, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7624]]

Bill Providing for Synthetic Fuel Program for Defense Purposes--
    Amendment Requiring Commercial Fuels To Contain Certain Percentage 
    of Synthetic Fuel

Sec. 4.24 Where a bill pending before the Committee of the Whole 
    amended the Defense Production Act to direct the President to 
    achieve a national production goal of synthetic fuels to meet 
    defense purposes, and there was pending an amendment only to 
    increase the amount of that goal and to provide funding to meet 
    that goal, a substitute for the amendment requiring that any fuel 
    sold in commerce contain a certain percentage of synthetic fuel, 
    and requiring the Secretary of Energy to promulgate regulations 
    setting such percentage, was held not germane as going beyond the 
    scope of the amendment and containing matter not within the 
    jurisdiction of the reporting committee (Banking, Finance and Urban 
    Affairs).

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (H.R. 3930) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 
1979,(16) amendments offered as a substitute for pending 
amendments were ruled out as going beyond the scope of the pending 
amendment and therefore not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 16663, 16668, 16673, 16674, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                  expansion of productive capacity and supply

            Sec. 3. (a) Section 301(a) of the Defense Production Act of 
        1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2091) . . . .
            (e) Title III of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 
        U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 305. (a) The President, utilizing the provisions of 
        this Act and any other applicable provision of law, shall 
        attempt to achieve a national production goal of at least 
        500,000 barrels per day crude oil equivalent of synthetic fuels 
        and synthetic chemical feedstocks not later than five years 
        after the effective date of this section. The President is 
        authorized and directed to require fuel and chemical feedstock 
        suppliers to provide synthetic fuels and synthetic chemical 
        feedstocks in any case in which the President deems it 
        practicable and necessary to meet the national defense needs of 
        the United States. . . .
            (c) Not later than July 1, 1981, the Secretary shall 
        prescribe, by rule, the minimum percentage replacement fuel, by 
        volume, required to be contained in the total quantity of 
        gasoline and diesel fuel sold each year in commerce in the 
        United

[[Page 7625]]

        States in calendar years 1982 through 1986 by any refiner for 
        use as a motor fuel. Such percentage shall apply to each 
        refiner, and shall be set for each such calendar year at a 
        level which the Secretary determines--
            (1) is technically and economically feasible, and
            (2) will result in steady progress toward meeting the 
        requirements under this section for calendar year 1987. . . .

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Wright: Page 5, line 2, strike 
        out the period after ``section'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``and at least 2,000,000 barrels per day crude oil equivalent 
        of synthetic fuels and synthetic chemical feedstocks not later 
        than ten years after the effective date of this section.''
            Page 10, line 23, strike ``appropriated $2,000,000,000'' 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``appropriated from general funds of 
        the Treasury not otherwise appropriated or from any fund 
        hereafter established by Congress after the date of enactment 
        of this sentence not to exceed $3,000,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments as a substitute for the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Jeffords as a substitute for the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Wright: Page 5, line 8, add new 
        subsections ``(b)'' through ``(f)''.
            (b) Of the total quantity of gasoline and diesel fuel sold 
        in commerce during any of the following years by any refiner 
        (including sales to the Federal Government), replacement fuel 
        shall constitute the minimum percentage determined in 
        accordance with the following table: . . .
            [In calendar years 1982 through 1986, the percentage 
        determined by the Secretary under subsection (b) of this 
        section; 1987, 1988, and 1989, 10 per cent (etc.)]

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, as 
    much as I support the concept of the substitute of the gentleman 
    from Vermont--I believe I am a cosponsor of his bill--I do not 
    believe it is a proper part of this legislation in that it is not 
    germane.
        First, it is not germane to the Wright amendment which is a 
    production amendment and a defense production amendment.
        This amendment is a regulatory amendment dealing with 
    ``replacement fuels sold in commerce.'' It is not a production 
    bill.
        The same language is contained further down. It regulates the 
    amount of synthetic fuel and diesel fuel sold each year in commerce 
    in the United States and the guts of the bill are regulatory, 
    rather than production aimed. Therefore, this amendment is not 
    germane to the Wright amendment or to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that once the Wright 
    amendment has been agreed to as being part of the bill, then a 
    substitute which goes well beyond the original concept of the bill 
    is also germane and in order.
        I would point out that the Wright amendment, as I have said 
    before, takes us totally out of just the needs for the Federal 
    Government and goes

[[Page 7626]]

    out into the area of sales in commerce. I think because the Wright 
    amendment is being considered as germane, the substitute should 
    also.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas goes to goals 
    for defense production of synthetic fuels and to the funds to 
    achieve those goals. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Vermont, for reasons stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, is 
    not solely related to defense production but rather goes to all 
    diesel fuel and gasoline sold in commerce whether defense related 
    or not and does not speak solely to the production of synthetic 
    fuels for defense purposes. It is therefore beyond the scope of the 
    Wright amendment and is not germane, and the Chair is also 
    constrained to point out the subject matter of the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Vermont does not lie within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
    Affairs.
        For the foregoing reasons the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill To Provide Financial Assistance for Synthetic Fuel Development for 
    Defense Needs--Amendment Providing for Expedited Approval of 
    Designated Projects Under Bill

Sec. 4.25 To a section of a bill amending the Defense Production Act 
    providing financial assistance for synthetic fuel development to 
    meet national defense needs, an amendment providing expedited 
    review and approval of certain designated priority projects to be 
    financed by the bill, thereby affecting time periods for procedural 
    review specified in other laws, but not waiving provisions of 
    substantive law which might prohibit completion of such projects, 
    was held germane as not affecting substantive environmental or 
    energy laws within the jurisdiction of other committees.

    On June 26, 1979,(18) during consideration of the 
Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979 (19) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Gerry E. Studds, of Massachusetts, 
overruled a point of order and held the following amendment to be 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681-83, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 3930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new subsection and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly:
        (g)(1)) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a pro

[[Page 7627]]

    posed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a priority synthetic 
    project pursuant to the procedures and criteria provided in this 
    section. . . .
        (h)(1) Any person planning or proposing a synthetic fuel or 
    feedstock facility may apply to the Secretary of Energy for an 
    order designating such facility as a priority synthetic project. . 
    . .
        (i) Not later than forty-five days after receipt of an 
    application authorized under the previous section, the Secretary 
    shall determine whether the proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock 
    facility is of sufficient national interest to be designated a 
    priority synthetic project. Upon reaching a determination the 
    Secretary shall publish his decision in the Federal Register and 
    shall notify the applicant and the agencies identified in 
    subsection (h)(3). In making such a determination the Secretary 
    shall consider--
        (1) the extent to which the facility would reduce the Nation's 
    dependence upon imported oil;
        (2) the magnitude of any adverse environmental impacts 
    associated with the facility and the existence of alternatives that 
    would have fewer adverse impacts; . . .
        (7) the extent to which the applicant is prepared to complete 
    or has already completed the significant actions which the 
    applicant in consultation with the Deputy Secretary anticipate will 
    be identified under subsection (l) as required from the applicant; 
    and
        (8) the public comments received concerning such facility. . . 
    .
        (l) Not later than thirty days after notice appears in the 
    Federal Register of an order designating a proposed synthetic fuel 
    or feedstock facility as a priority synthetic project, any Federal 
    agency with authority to grant or deny any approval or to perform 
    any action necessary to the completion of such project or any part 
    thereof, shall transmit to the Secretary of Energy and to the 
    priority energy project--
        (1) a compilation of all significant actions required by such 
    agency before a final decision or any necessary approval(s) can be 
    rendered;
        (2) a compilation of all significant actions and information 
    required of the applicant before a final decision by such agency 
    can be made;
        (3) a tentative schedule for completing actions and obtaining 
    the information listed in subsections (1) and (2) of this 
    subsection;
        (4) all necessary application forms that must be completed by 
    the priority energy project before such approval can be granted; 
    and
        (5) the amounts of funds and personnel available to such agency 
    to conduct such actions and the impact of such schedule on other 
    applications pending before such agency.
        (m)(1) Not later than sixty days after notice appears in the 
    Federal Register of an order designating a synthetic fuel or 
    feedstock facility as a priority synthetic project, the Secretary, 
    in consultation with the appropriate Federal, State and local 
    agencies shall publish in the Federal Register a Project Decision 
    Schedule containing deadlines for all Federal actions relating to 
    such project. . . .
        (3) All deadlines in the Project Decision Schedule shall be 
    consistent with the statutory obligations of Federal agencies 
    governed by such Schedule.

[[Page 7628]]

        (4) Except as provided in subparagraph (3) above and in 
    subsection (p) no deadline established under this section or 
    extension granted under subparagraph (5) of the section may result 
    in the total time for agency action exceeding nine months beginning 
    from the date on which notice appears in the Federal Register of an 
    order designating the proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility 
    as a priority synthetic project.
        (5) Notwithstanding any deadline or other provision of Federal 
    law, the deadlines imposed by the Project Decision Schedule shall 
    constitute the lawful decisionmaking deadlines for reviewing 
    applications filed by the priority synthetic project. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment offered by my good friend from 
    Arizona is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, it is well settled the amendment must be germane 
    not only to the section but also to the bill.

        Mr. Chairman, the bill relates to the Defense Production Act.
        Mr. Chairman, under the amendment, a lengthy process is 
    established whereunder the Secretary of Energy, who is not 
    mentioned elsewhere in the bill, is authorized to designate 
    synthetic fuel or feedstocks facilities as priority synthetic 
    projects, pursuant to lengthy criteria which are set forth at the 
    first and second pages and following.
        So, Mr. Chairman, there is a whole range of broad new 
    responsibilities imposed on the Secretary of Energy not found 
    elsewhere, either in the Defense Production Act or in the bill 
    before us, which are quite complex, very obvious, and which involve 
    a lengthy amount of work and which involve amendment either 
    directly or indirectly of a large number of Federal, State, and 
    local statutes dealing with the project and permitting the project.
        There is also an extensive procedural responsibility on both 
    the Secretary and one which is imposed on the Governor of the State 
    in which the action would occur.
        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, a Member of this body could not 
    very well anticipate as would be required by the rules of 
    germaneness that an amendment of this sweep and breadth could be 
    visited upon us. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    point of order. . . .
        I make a point of order against the amendment for the following 
    reasons: The bill before us, H.R. 3930, amends the Defense 
    Production Act of 1950 and it does so by extending the authority of 
    the act and also providing for the purchase of synthetic fuels and 
    synthetic chemical feed stock and for other purposes. An 
    examination of the other purposes reveals nothing akin to the 
    amendment before us. The amendment before us in effect seeks to 
    apply the National Environmental and Policy Act of 1969, 
    specifically on page 5 in subparagraph (d) to the facilities that 
    would contract with the Government.
        It appears to me that by attempting to do this, this is beyond 
    the scope of the jurisdiction of this committee. It is within the 
    scope of other committees' jurisdictions and certainly beyond the 
    scope of the bill, which simply deals with contracts and purchases 
    and not

[[Page 7629]]

    the environmental qualities or activities of the people who seek to 
    contract with the Government.
        Therefore, the amendment is not germane and beyond the scope of 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The pending bill 
    creates authority to finance directly and indirectly synthetic fuel 
    and chemical feed stocks, feedstock projects. . . .
        What my amendment does is not to change any of the existing 
    laws. It does not change any environmental protection laws or 
    anything else, but it says we are going to have decisions. Within 
    nine months after this is put on the fast track, we are going to 
    get a yes or no decision on it. . . .
        This amendment simply supplements the existing statutory 
    procedures to achieve expedited approval or disapproval of various 
    authorities necessary for the completion of synfuel projects 
    created under the authority of the legislation; so the subject 
    matter of the amendment is germane to the subject of the pending 
    legislation. The point of order ought to be rejected, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The bill before the committee bestows authority for loan 
    guarantees to finance synthetic fuel or feedstock facility 
    construction. The amendment of the gentleman from Arizona 
    establishes a complex mechanism for expediting procedures for 
    projects financed by loan guarantees under the bill.
        The Chair is unable in response to the gentleman from Maryland 
    to find any respect in which the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Arizona would amend the National Environmental Protection Act, but 
    merely provides that determinations made as to priority of 
    synthetic projects eligible for expeditious review shall not be 
    considered major Federal actions under that law.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the totality of the Udall 
    amendment constitutes essentially an expediting of procedures under 
    authorities provided for in the bill and is, therefore, germane.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Relating to Military and National Defense Policy--Amendment 
    Directing President To Submit Reports on Soviet Union's Compliance 
    With Arms Control Agreements

Sec. 4.26 To a title of a bill containing matters within the 
    jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill, an amendment 
    dealing solely with a matter within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee is not germane; thus, to a title of a bill reported from 
    the Committee on Armed Services, containing diverse provisions 
    relating to national defense policy, military procurement and 
    personnel, and amended to include conditions and restrictions on 
    procurement funds in the bill that had reference to certain

[[Page 7630]]

    considerations of foreign policy, an amendment directing the 
    President to submit reports on the Soviet Union's compliance with 
    its arms control commitments, a matter exclusively within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, was held not 
    germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 1872 (the Defense Authorization, 
fiscal 1986) in the Committee of the Whole on June 27, 
1985,(20) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 17810, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Courter: At the end of part C of 
        title X (page 176, after line 8) insert the following new 
        section:
        sec. 1024. annual report on soviet compliance with arms control 
        commitments.

            Not later than December 1, 1985, and not later than 
        December 1 of each year thereafter, the President shall submit 
        to the Congress a report containing an update (since the most 
        recent report to the Congress on the subject) of the 
        President's findings regarding the Soviet Union's compliance 
        with its arms control commitments, together with such 
        additional information regarding the Soviet Union's compliance 
        with its arms control commitments as may be necessary to keep 
        the Congress currently informed on such matter. The President 
        shall submit classified and unclassified versions of such 
        report to the Congress each year. . . .

        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    think this amendment is not germane to this particular piece of 
    legislation and falls within the purview of the Foreign Affairs 
    Committee.
        Therefore, I would make my point of order and ask that it be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Courter: There was, Mr. Chairman, an amendment by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] that was passed by this 
    body. That amendment was concerning strategic defense initiatives. 
    The last couple lines of that amendment, which is now part of the 
    bill that we are considering says: ``in a manner inconsistent with 
    the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the 
    Outer Space Treaty, or the ABM Treaty.''
        Therefore, since the bill has been opened up with regard to 
    treaties, I think that my amendment is valid and no point of order 
    lies. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that the gentleman's amendment directs 
    that the President make findings on the Soviet Union's compliance 
    with its arms control commitments. That is not within the 
    jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. It is solely within 
    the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Com

[[Page 7631]]

    mittee, and the Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman 
    from Washington. . . .

    After the ruling, the Chair responded to parliamentary inquiries:

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will entertain a 
    parliamentary inquiry from the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
    Courter].
        Mr. Courter: I thank the Chair.
        The parliamentary inquiry is whether this has been now 
    broadened to include arms control agreements because an amendment 
    has been adopted that in fact refers to arms control agreements, 
    thus making my amendment permissible.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from New Jersey [Mr. Courter] that the Foglietta amendment to title 
    II did not legislate on another country's commitment to its 
    treaties; it merely made a linkage between funding for certain 
    weapons systems in space in a manner consistent with U.S. treaty 
    obligations and, therefore, the Chair felt that the Courter 
    Amendment did not deal with the issues within the jurisdiction of 
    the Armed Services Committee and sustained the point of order.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, as the Chair knows, the bill was 
    broadened to include areas within the jurisdiction of the Foreign 
    Affairs Committee several amendments ago when we had an amendment 
    passed relating to Afghanistan. Given the fact that the bill has 
    already been broadened, would that not also play a role in making 
    the gentleman's particular amendment germane?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] the Chair is not aware of the fact 
    that title X of the bill has been broadened to such an extent. That 
    amendment referred to Defense Department equipment and its 
    availability to Afghan refugees.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment to title II, which was the 
subject of Mr. Courter's inquiry, technically had no bearing on the 
germaneness of amendments to title X, but in any event none of the 
amendments cited contained matters exclusively within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, but were conditions on military 
funding.

Bill Requiring Information on Weapons Systems From Director of Arms 
    Control Disarmament Agency--Amendment Prohibiting Agreements for 
    Export of Any Nuclear Material Prior to Report to Congress

Sec. 4.27 To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    International Relations directing the Director of the Arms Control 
    Disarmament

[[Page 7632]]

    Agency to collect and transmit to Congress information on weapons 
    systems, including certain military uses of nuclear material, an 
    amendment prohibiting agreements for export of any nuclear material 
    prior to a report to Congress on the impact of such transfers on 
    arms control and disarmament policies was held to be a matter 
    within the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and 
    to go beyond the scope of the section by including material with 
    nonmilitary uses, and was held to be not germane.

    On July 9, 1975,(2) during consideration of the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Act Amendments of 1975 (3) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order in the 
circumstances described above. The pending section of the bill and the 
amendment offered thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 21853, 21854, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               arms control and disarmament impact statement

        Sec. 103. Title III of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act (22 
    U.S.C. 2571-2575) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
    following:

                arms control impact information and analysis

        ``Sec. 36. (a) In order to assist the Director in the 
    performance of his duties with respect to arms control and 
    disarmament policy and negotiations, any Government agency 
    preparing any legislative or budgetary proposal for--
        ``(1) any program of research, development, testing, 
    engineering, construction, deployment, or modernization with 
    respect to armaments, ammunition, implements of war, or military 
    facilities, having--
        ``(A) an estimated total program cost in excess of 
    $250,000,000, or
        ``(B) an estimated annual program cost in excess of 
    $50,000,000, or
        ``(2) any other program involving weapons systems or technology 
    which such Government agency or the Director believes may have a 
    significant impact on arms control and disarmament policy or 
    negotiations, shall, on a continuing basis, provide the Director 
    with full and timely access to detailed information, in accordance 
    with the procedures established pursuant to section 35 of this Act, 
    with respect to the nature, scope, and purpose of such proposal.

        ``(b)(1) The Director, as he deems appropriate, shall assess 
    and analyze each program described in subsection (a) with respect 
    to its impact on arms control and disarmament policy and 
    negotiations, and shall advise and make recommendations, on the 
    basis of such assessment and analysis, to the National Security 
    Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Government 
    agency proposing such program.
        ``(2) Any request to the Congress for authorization or 
    appropriations for--

[[Page 7633]]

        ``(A) any program described in subsection (a)(1), or
        ``(B) any program described in subsection (a)(2) and found by 
    the National Security Council, on the basis of the advice and 
    recommendations received from the Director, to have a significant 
    impact on arms control and disarmament policy or negotiations, 
    shall include a complete statement analyzing the impact of such 
    program on arms control and disarmament policy and negotiations.
        ``(3) Upon the request of any appropriate committee of either 
    House of Congress, the Director shall, after informing the 
    Secretary of State, advise the Congress on the arms control and 
    disarmament implications of any program with respect to which a 
    statement has been submitted to the Congress pursuant to paragraph 
    (2). . . .
        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Simon: Page 4, strike out the 
        close quotation mark and the final period at the end of line 18 
        and insert immediately after such line the following:

          ``reports on sales to foreign countries of nuclear materials

            ``Sec. 37. No agreement between the United States and any 
        foreign country providing for the sale or other transfer to 
        such country of any nuclear material may be entered into, and 
        no license for the sale or other transfer to any foreign 
        country of any nuclear material may be issued, unless the 
        Director had submitted a report analyzing the impact of such 
        sale or other transfer on arms control and disarmament policies 
        and negotiations to the National Security Council, and the 
        Congress.''. . . .

        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Madam Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. The amendment deals with 
    agreements that provide for the transfer of nuclear materials to 
    foreign countries. This subject is under the jurisdiction of the 
    Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. In terms of legislation, such 
    transfers come within the purview of the Atomic Energy Act.
        H.R. 7567 deals with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 
    whose main purpose is to authorize appropriations for that agency 
    for the fiscal years 1976 and 1977.
        In addition, the bill deals with the functions of the Director 
    of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, requires various 
    executive agencies to submit information about weapons systems to 
    the Director, and requires the Director to submit certain 
    information to the Congress.
        The bill, H.R. 7567, which is now before us, does not deal with 
    nuclear energy or the transfer of nuclear materials to other 
    countries.
        The words ``nuclear materials,'' Madam Chairman, includes not 
    only weapons material, it includes all isotopes, all pacing 
    materials for people's hearts, and military and research material, 
    all industrial and agricultural isotopes, all fuel for nuclear 
    reactors of the Western European countries, and Japan.
        Thus the amendment is much broader in scope than the bill.
        Finally, section 123(d) of the Atomic Energy Act requires that 
    all major agreements made by ERDA go to the

[[Page 7634]]

    State Department and to the President, and then come to the 
    Congress for 60 days for approval. They come directly to the Joint 
    Committee on Atomic Energy. They lay on the House table for 30 
    days, and there is an automatic vote required on them within the 
    last 5 days of that 30-day period. . . .
        Mr. Simon: . . . This bill sets forth certain responsibilities 
    for the Director of this Agency. In any bill setting forth 
    responsibilities there will be overlaps, and there are overlaps 
    with other agencies, as in section 36(a) in this bill. But clearly, 
    we are defining the responsibilities of the Director of this 
    agency. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois goes to an 
    issue which is peculiarly and specifically within the jurisdiction 
    of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The question of agreements 
    on export sales of nuclear material is not within the purview of 
    this bill and is not germane to section 103 of this bill. Section 
    103 merely requires the furnishing of information regarding the 
    development of defense systems, and it does not extend in any 
    manner to a prohibition of exportation of all nuclear materials.
        Some nuclear materials may be in different classes, as was 
    pointed out by the gentleman from Washington. There may be some 
    nuclear material exported for peaceful purposes. In that regard the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois is not germane to 
    section 103, is much too all inclusive in its effect, and the point 
    of order is sustained.

Bill Authorizing Funds for Weapons Development--Amendment Prohibiting 
    Use of Funds Until President Resumes Arms Control Initiatives

Sec. 4.28 It is not germane to make the effectiveness of an 
    authorization contingent upon an unrelated determination involving 
    issues within the jurisdiction of agencies and committees outside 
    the purview of the pending bill; thus, to a title of a bill 
    authorizing appropriations for research on and development of 
    military weapons, an amendment prohibiting the use of those funds 
    for development of a certain weapon until the President resumes 
    treaty initiatives toward arms control was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for 
fiscal year 1982 (5) in the Committee of the Whole on July 
9, 1981,(6) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 3519.
 6. 127 Cong. Rec. 15218, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bedell: After section 203 insert the 
    following new section:

[[Page 7635]]

                     limitation on funds for mx missile

        Sec. 204. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by 
    section 201 may be obligated or expended for the full-scale 
    development of an operational basing mode for the MX missile until 
    the President--
        (1) has completed his review of previous strategic arms 
    limitation (SALT) negotiations;
        (2) is prepared to resume strategic arms limitation 
    negotiations with the Soviet Union, one of the principal aims of 
    such negotiations being to establish a limit on the number of 
    intercontinental ballistic missile launchers and deployable 
    warheads available to both sides; and
        (3) formally transmitted to the Soviet Union his desire to 
    resume such negotiations.
        Mr. Melvin Price (of Illinois): Madam Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        It is a violation of House rule 16 regarding germaneness. That 
    rule requires instructions, qualifications, and limitations to be 
    germane to the provisions of the bill.
        It is my contention that the condition here is totally 
    unrelated to the provisions of the bill and in fact lies within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
        Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: . . . Madam Chairman, I am not 
    a specialist on rules, but it would appear to me very clearly that 
    for us to say that we are not going to spend money on a system 
    which would not be of value unless something else happens is 
    perfectly germane and perfectly proper for us to do.
        We do it in our small business disaster loans when we say small 
    business disaster loans will not be made unless the Governor of the 
    State declares there has been a disaster therein.
        We do the same thing in regard to disaster payments for 
    agriculture when we say that the people will not be eligible unless 
    Federal crop insurance is there.
        It appears to me that we have clearly pointed out in the debate 
    that we have had that without SALT II it is at least questionable 
    as to whether MX makes any sense at all, and if we do have rules in 
    the House which say that we cannot have amendments which say that 
    we will not spend money on something that is going to be valueless 
    unless something occurs, if we have amendments that say that we 
    cannot make the spending contingent upon that action which would be 
    necessary to make the expenditure of any value, then I submit that 
    we had better look at the rules of the House. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (7) . . . [T]he Chair is 
    prepared to rule on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment makes use of funds for the MX missile dependent 
    upon certain actions by the President relative to the SALT 
    negotiations. Since arms control issues are within the jurisdiction 
    of the Foreign Affairs Committee and not the Armed Services 
    Committee, and for same reasons stated by the Chair yesterday, in 
    sustaining a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Washington, the Chair sustains the point of order of 
    the gentleman from Illinois.

[[Page 7636]]

Bill Amending Laws on Military Procurement--Amendment Relating to 
    Contracts Entered Into by Defense Department and Other Agencies

Sec. 4.29 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,(8) during consideration of the Defense 
Department Authorization, fiscal 1986,(9) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 131 Cong. Rec. 17417-19, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H.R. 1872.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. 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.

[[Page 7637]]

        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: (10) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule on the gentleman's point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 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.

Defense Production Act--Amendment Establishing Committee To Consult 
    With President on Administration of Act

Sec. 4.30 To the Defense Production Act of 1950, establishing a system 
    of priorities and allocations for materials and facilities, an 
    amendment proposing the establishment of a joint committee to 
    consult with the President with respect to the administration of 
    the act, was held not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of the Defense 
Production Act of 1950,(11) the following amendment was 
offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 9176 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 11740, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Katharine P. C.] St. George [of New 
    York] to the amendment offered by Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: 
    On page 48, line 20, of the Spence amendment, add the following new 
    section:
        Sec. --. (a) There is hereby established a Joint Economic 
    Security Committee. . . .
        (b) The joint committee is authorized and directed to make a 
    continuing study and investigation of, and advise and consult with 
    the President with respect to, the administration of this act. . . 
    .

[[Page 7638]]

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 11741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: . . . This is an attempt to set 
    up in this bill a joint committee. I do not believe the amendment 
    is germane or that it is in order.
        The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
    undertakes to set up a joint committee of the two Houses of 
    Congress, which is a subject that is not within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Banking and Currency.
        The Chair holds that the amendment is not germane, and, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.

Bill To Amend Defense Production Act--Amendment To Amend Internal 
    Revenue Code

Sec. 4.31 To a bill to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950, a 
    committee amendment which would amend the Internal Revenue Code was 
    held to be not germane. The rule of germaneness applies to 
    committee amendments.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (15) was under consideration 
amending the Defense Production Act of 1950. The following committee 
amendment was read by the Clerk: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 3871 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 7978, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 11, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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, 
    factories, 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) . . . 
    unless the President shall have determined that the proposed 
    location of such construction . . . is consistent . . . with a 
    sound policy of (1) utilizing fully the . . . resources of the 
    Nation. . . .

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

        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.

    In support of the point of order, Mr. Foster Furcolo, of 
Massachusetts, stated:

[[Page 7639]]

        . . . There is nothing in the Defense Production Act of 1950 
    relating to amortization for tax purposes.

    The following exchange (17) related to the point of 
order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 7978, 7979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. It relates to 
    amortization for taxation purposes, the so-called 5-year 
    amortization program. . . .
        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Supplementing what the 
    gentleman has said with regard to the certification under this 
    section of the Internal Revenue Code any legislation in that 
    respect, of course, would have to come from the Committee on Ways 
    and Means. . . .
        The very fact that in this amendment are included matters which 
    are properly under the cognizance of other committees of the House, 
    in my judgment, makes it not germane to this bill.
        Mr. [Albert M.] 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. . . .

    The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To [the committee] amendment the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Wolcott], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Furcolo], and 
    several others raise a point of order and have advised the Chair as 
    to why the point of order should be sustained.
        The Chair . . . desires to read one paragraph from Cannon's 
    Procedure in the House of Representatives:

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

Bill Authorizing Military Expenditures--Amendment Prohibiting Use of 
    Funds Except in Accordance With Congressional Policy Declaration

Sec. 4.32 To a bill authorizing military expenditures, an amendment 
    providing that ``none of the funds authorized herein'' be used 
    except

[[Page 7640]]

    in accordance with certain congressional declarations as to our 
    foreign policy with respect to Southeast Asia was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of supplemental military 
authorizations for fiscal 1967,(19) the following amendment 
was offered: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 4515 (Committee on Armed Services).
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 5139, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: On 
    page 4, line 10, after ``$624,500,000'', insert:

              Title IV--Statement of Congressional Policy

        Sec. 401. None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be 
    used except in accordance with the following declaration by 
    Congress. . . .
        . . . (2) its support of efforts being made by the President of 
    the United States and other men of good will throughout the world 
    to prevent an expansion of the war in Vietnam. . . .
        . . . (3) its support of the Geneva accords of 1954 and 1962. . 
    . .

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

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    rise to a point of order on the ground that the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill. The bill before the House is a supplemental 
    authorization bill. The amendment contains no limitation. It 
    declares a matter of policy which obviously is under the 
    jurisdiction of another committee. . . .

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Reuss, stated: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 5140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        By stating the circumstances under which the authorization may 
    be pursued, [the amendment] is well within the precedents of this 
    body, and the mere fact that a portion of the language relates to 
    the foreign policy specialty of the House Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs is entirely irrelevant.

    The Chairman, Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, in ruling on the 
point of order, stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 5141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the subject matter of the 
    amendment comes within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs, and not the Committee on Armed Services which reported the 
    bill now before the Committee. . . .
        The Chair, applying one of the accepted tests for germaneness, 
    is of the opinion that the amendment is essentially on a ``subject 
    other than that under consideration'' and is not germane to the 
    bill under consideration.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Substantially the same amendment was later ruled out of order when 
        sought to be offered by Mr. Reuss as part of a motion to 
        recommit the bill with instructions. See Sec. 23.3, infra.
            For another amendment in the form of a statement of 
        congressional policy, held to be germane because placing 
        certain restrictions on the use of funds authorized in the 
        bill, see Sec. 32.1, infra.

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

[[Page 7641]]

    A similar ruling was subsequently made with respect to an amendment 
offered by Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 5141, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Authorizing President To Arm Vessels--Amendment Relating to 
    Insurance for Men Serving on Vessels

Sec. 4.33 To a bill authorizing the President to arm American vessels, 
    an amendment relating to insurance for men of the armed forces who 
    might serve on such vessels was held to be not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, a joint resolution (5) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.J. Res. 237 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 6. See 87 Cong. Rec. 8026, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 17, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That section 6 of the Neutrality Act of 1939 
    (relating to the arming of American vessels) is hereby repealed; 
    and, during the unlimited national emergency proclaimed by the 
    President on May 27, 1941, the President is authorized, through 
    such agency as he may designate, to arm, or to permit or cause to 
    be armed, any American vessel as defined in such act. The 
    provisions of section 16 of the Criminal Code (relating to bonds 
    from armed vessels on clearing), shall not apply to any such 
    vessel.

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edouard V. M.] Izac [of California]: 
    In line 11, after period, add the following: ``For life insurance 
    protection to the families of armed guard detachment detailed as 
    guns' crews on American vessels so armed, all personnel on active 
    duty in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard on the date of 
    enactment of this joint resolution, shall be granted insurance 
    under sections 602 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the National Service 
    Life Insurance Act of 1940, without further medical examination if 
    application therefor is filed within 120 days after the date of 
    enactment of this joint resolution.''

    Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, having made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane, the Chairman, Clifton A. Woodrum, of 
Virginia, ruled as follows: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 8027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The amendment] relates to a provision for insurance for men 
    who arm these vessels, a provision fairly within the jurisdiction 
    of committees other than the Foreign Affairs Committee. 
    Unquestionably the amendment is not germane to this resolution and 
    the Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7642]]

Bill Authorizing Construction of Ships for Navy--Amendment Requiring 
    Information to Taxpayers as to Proportion of Tax Spent on Military

Sec. 4.34 To that section of a bill authorizing an appropriation for 
    the construction of ships for the Navy, an amendment requiring the 
    Secretary of the Treasury annually to inform each federal taxpayer 
    what proportion of his tax payment is spent in military and naval 
    expenditures was held not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a naval authorization bill (8) was 
under consideration which stated in part: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
 9. 83 Cong. Rec. 3672, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 5. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated out of 
    any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
    appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to effectuate the 
    purposes of this act.

    A committee amendment was read as follows:

        Page 3, line 20, after the word ``act'', insert the following: 
    ``which purposes shall include essential equipment and facilities 
    at navy yards for building any ship or ships herein or heretofore 
    authorized.''

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 3674.

        Amendment by Mr. [Herman P.] Kopplemann [of Connecticut]: Page 
    3, line 22, at the end of section 5, strike out the period, insert 
    a comma and the following: ``and each Federal income-tax payer 
    shall be informed annually by the Treasury of the United States of 
    the proportion of every dollar of his tax which is spent on all 
    military and naval expenditures including disbursements of every 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    nature resulting from past wars, military and naval engagements.''

    The Chairman,(11) ruling on a point of order raised by 
Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, stated:

11. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman's amendment introduces an entirely new subject 
    and refers more to taxes or revenues, over which another committee 
    of the House has jurisdiction, so that the matter would not be 
    within the jurisdiction of the Naval Affairs Committee at all. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman is not germane to the section, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order.

Provisions Establishing Study of Use of Merchant Marine for Defense 
    Purposes--Amendment Waiving Coastwise Trade Laws for Commercial 
    Vessels

Sec. 4.35 To a title of a bill containing diverse provisions re

[[Page 7643]]

    lating to the authority of the Secretary of Defense, amended to 
    establish a study of the use of the merchant marine for defense 
    purposes, an amendment waiving the coastwise trade laws (a matter 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries) for not more than two undesignated commercial passenger 
    vessels was held germane, where the amendment was not in the form 
    of a private bill and was related to national security issues.

    The proceedings of May 30, 1984, relating to H.R. 5167, the Defense 
Department authorization for fiscal 1985, are discussed in Sec. 3.45, 
supra.

Bill Authorizing Appropriations for Armed Forces--Amendment Imposing 
    Permanent Restrictions on Withdrawals of Troops From Korea

Sec. 4.36 Where a bill reported from the Committee on Armed Services 
    authorized appropriations and personnel strengths for the armed 
    forces for one fiscal year and contained minor conforming changes 
    to existing law, a section of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute imposing permanent restrictions on troop withdrawals 
    from the Republic of Korea, in part making reduction of troop 
    strength contingent upon conclusion of a peace agreement on the 
    Korean peninsula, was held to be not germane (pursuant to a special 
    order allowing such a point of order) since proposing permanent law 
    to a one-year authorization and containing statements of policy 
    contingent on the enactment and administration of laws within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations.

    On May 24, 1978,(12) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (H.R. 10929) reported from the Committee on 
Armed Services authorizing appropriations and personnel strength for 
the armed forces for one fiscal year and containing minor conforming 
changes to existing law. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was, pursuant to a special rule, to be read as original text for 
amendment. A section of the amendment imposed permanent restrictions on 
troop withdrawals from the Republic of

[[Page 7644]]

Korea, in part making reductions in troop strength contingent upon the 
conclusion of a peace agreement with North Korea. The terms of the 
special rule permitted a point of order based on the germaneness rule 
to be made against that section of the amendment. The special rule (H. 
Res. 1188) stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 15293-95, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. See 124 Cong. Rec. 15094, 15095, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., May 23, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 . . . and 
    other weapons . . . and to prescribe the authorized personnel 
    strength for each active duty component . . . of the Armed Forces 
    and of civilian personnel of the Department of Defense . . . and 
    for other purposes. After general debate . . . 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 consider 
    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. . . .

    The proceedings of May 24, 1978, were as follows:

        The Chairman: (14) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, May 23, 1978, all time for general debate on the bill had 
    expired. Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles 
    the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the reported bill 
    as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 ``Department of Defense Appropriation 
        Authorization Act, 1979''.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    accordance with the rule, House Resolution 1188, I make a point of 
    order that section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute, if offered as

[[Page 7645]]

    a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as introduced, would be in 
    violation of clause 7 of House Rule XVI regarding germaneness. This 
    provision which deals with the withdrawal of troops from Korea, and 
    section 805 which deals with the withdrawal of troops from Korea, 
    is not germane to the Department of Defense authorization bill.
        Mr. Chairman, a key criterion in determining germaneness is a 
    committee's jurisdiction over a matter. The Korean troop withdrawal 
    issue falls clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations. Both sections 805(a) and 805(b) fall 
    clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations, pursuant to clause 1, subparagraph (k) of House Rule X.
        Compelling evidence of the primary jurisdiction of the 
    International Relations Committee over the issue of troop 
    withdrawal from Korea is found in the fact that all legislation, 
    the President's arms transfer request, and related reports have 
    been referred solely to the International Relations Committee.
        Thus, there can be no doubt that the issue of the Korean troop 
    withdrawal lies within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations, and accordingly section 805 is not germane 
    to this bill.
        In addition, the issue of U.S. troop withdrawal from Korea is 
    not relevant to either the subject matter or to the purpose of H.R. 
    10929, as introduced. As introduced, H.R. 10929 consists entirely 
    of provisions relating to the annual authorizations for the 
    Department of Defense. It contains no general policy provisions for 
    the Department of Defense. It contains no general policy provisions 
    of any type, let alone any policy provisions relevant to the 
    withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea. It is well established that 
    an amendment of a general and permanent nature is not germane to a 
    bill containing only temporary authorizations.
        Thus, by what ever test of germaneness one examines, section 
    805 is not germane to H.R. 10929. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki), makes the point of order 
    that section 805 is not germane on the ground that it deals with a 
    matter that is related to something that has been before his 
    committee. As he indicated before the Committee on Rules, if this 
    had been introduced as an original bill, it would have been 
    referred sequentially to the Committee on International Relations 
    as well as to the Committee on Armed Services.
        I submit, Mr. Chairman, that, first of all, the question of 
    germaneness does not depend on what committee it might be referred 
    to sequentially. In fact, the whole idea of sequential referral is 
    a relatively new concept. I believe, in fact, that it has only been 
    practiced in this House during this present Congress, and perhaps a 
    few times previously.
        H.R. 10929, is the annual authorization bill for the Department 
    of Defense. It traditionally covers a wide variety of topics 
    relating to defense. I would point out that the title of the bill 
    after it lists the various items that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    has already referred to concludes, ``and for other purposes.''
        Traditionally, matters related to the defense of our country 
    which the Com

[[Page 7646]]

    mittee on Armed Services has regarded as being of importance have 
    been included in this annual legislation year after year. Section 
    805 is no different from any of the other matters we have 
    traditionally handled under ``general provisions.''
        It is true that the gentleman's committee has had legislation 
    before it regarding the transfer of American equipment to Korean 
    forces; but section 805 refers to the stationing and positioning of 
    U.S. ground forces; ``no ground combat units of the 2d Infantry 
    Division,'' and so on and so forth. It makes no reference to any 
    transfer of equipment to Korean forces. We are providing here for 
    the stationing of troops in an area that is of great importance to 
    our national security. If that is not something which is within the 
    concern of the Committee on Armed Services, then I do not know what 
    our proper area of responsibility is.
        Subsection (b) of section 805 spells out the recommendations of 
    the committee as to what the minimum ground combat strength of our 
    Armed Forces stationed in the Republic of Korea should be based on 
    information we gleaned in an on-the-spot visit to Korea in January; 
    so it is clearly within the province of the Committee on Armed 
    Services. The gentleman from Wisconsin does not dispute that. The 
    gentleman could not dispute it; but to suggest that because if it 
    were introduced as a bill under today's procedures it might have 
    been referred sequentially to the gentleman's committee or to some 
    other committee, completely misses the point. If the size and 
    location of Armed Forces of the United States are not a 
    responsibility of the Committee on Armed Services, and are instead 
    the responsibility of the Committee on International Relations, 
    then something is very drastically wrong in this House.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, the authority to determine where 
    American Forces shall be stationed is clearly within the province 
    of the Congress. The Constitution provides that Congress shall not 
    only ``raise and support armies,'' but that we shall provide for 
    the ``regulation and governing of the land and naval forces,'' in 
    section 8 of article I.
        Congress has previously enacted the war powers bill, which 
    limits the authority of the President as far as the stationing of 
    troops abroad is concerned. The Constitution does not give a broad 
    grant of power to the Commander in Chief alone in stationing troops 
    abroad. He has no constitutional power to put troops wherever he 
    wants to, because Congress has determined that he cannot put troops 
    abroad under certain conditions without the expressed approval of 
    the Congress of the United States.
        Well, if we can limit the President's ability to send troops 
    overseas, it follows that we can also limit his ability to bring 
    those troops back home, if in the opinion of the Congress, we 
    determine that that withdrawal action, which certainly is the case 
    of Korea, would increase the risks of war.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that the point of order be overruled. 
    Section 805 is clearly within the authority of the committee. It is 
    clearly germane to the broad purposes of the bill and the House 
    should have the right to vote on this important question.

[[Page 7647]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    Wisconsin makes a point of order against section 805 of the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Armed Services, on the grounds that section 805 of 
    said amendment would not have been germane if offered to the bill 
    H.R. 10929, as introduced.
        As indicated by the gentleman from Wisconsin, the special order 
    providing for consideration of this measure, House Resolution 1188, 
    allows the Chair to entertain a point of order on the basis stated 
    by the gentleman, that section 805 of the committee amendment would 
    not have been germane as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 in its 
    introduced form.
        The bill as introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed 
    Services contains authorizations of appropriations and personnel 
    strengths of the Armed Services for fiscal year 1979. It contains 
    no permanent changes in law or statements of policy except for 
    minor conforming changes to existing law relating to troop and 
    personnel strengths.
        Section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute prohibits: First the withdrawal of ground combat units 
    from the Republic of Korea until the enactment of legislation 
    allowing the retention in Korea of the equipment of such units, and 
    second, the reduction of combat units below a certain level in the 
    Republic of Korea until a peace settlement is reached between said 
    Republic and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea ending the 
    state of war on the Korean peninsula.
        The subject matter of section 805 of the committee amendment is 
    unrelated to H.R. 10929 as introduced. The strength levels 
    prescribed in the bill are for 1 fiscal year only and deal with the 
    overall strength of the Armed Forces, not with the location of 
    Armed Forces personnel. As indicated in the argument of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin, the withdrawal of American Forces 
    stationed abroad pursuant to an international agreement, and the 
    relationship of that withdrawal to peace agreements between foreign 
    nations and to the transfer of American military equipment to 
    foreign powers, are issues not only beyond the scope of the bill 
    but also within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations. Although committee jurisdiction over an amendment is not 
    the sole test of germaneness, the Chair feels that it is a 
    convincing argument in a case such as the present one where the 
    test of germaneness is between a limited 1-year authorization bill 
    and a permanent statement of policy contingent upon the 
    administration of laws within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the Chair may have just stated a 
    novel concept which has never before been heard in a ruling. That 
    is that the sequential referral rule somehow serves as the basis 
    for jurisdiction, and thus can support a point of order dealing 
    with a section in a bill such as the one before us.
        The parliamentary inquiry I have is this: Simply because under 
    the new

[[Page 7648]]

    procedure adopted for the first time in this Congress the rules 
    allow sequential referral at the discretion of the Speaker, does 
    that mean that a committee that has primary jurisdiction, such as 
    the Committee on Armed Services, may be challenged on the floor and 
    have a point of order sustained removing a provision that might be 
    partially under the jurisdiction of another committee on a 
    sequential referral?
        The Chairman: The ruling of the Chair does not stand for that 
    proposition.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland 
    understood the Chair to say that the argument of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin was persuasive to the Chair regarding jurisdiction. If 
    that is the case, it seems to me every committee of this House is 
    somehow going to be challenged on the floor henceforth if its 
    jurisdiction is shared to the slightest degree by another 
    committee.
        The Chairman: All the Chair has stated is that section 805 is 
    not germane to the introduced bill, and the rule provides that the 
    point of order would lie on that ground.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I have this further parliamentary 
    inquiry:
        Then the ruling of the Chair is based on germaneness of this 
    amendment to this bill and does not go to any effect the sequential 
    jurisdiction would have on the provision?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    The point of order having been sustained against the nongermane 
portion of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, the 
Chair directed the Clerk to read the substitute without the nongermane 
portion as original text for amendment, pursuant to the special rule.

Bill Increasing Armed Forces--Amendment Creating Committee To Study 
    Military Policy

Sec. 4.37 To a bill to provide for the common defense by increasing the 
    strength of the armed forces, an amendment proposing the creation 
    of a joint congressional committee to make a study of the military 
    policy of the United States, was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948,(15) the following amendment was offered: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
16. 94 Cong. Rec. 8710, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Page 
    48, line 24, insert the following new section and renumber the 
    succeeding sections accordingly:
        Sec. 21. (a) There is hereby established a joint congressional 
    committee to be known as the Joint Committee on Military Policy. . 
    . .

[[Page 7649]]

        (b) It shall be the function of the committee to make a 
    continuous study of the military policy of the United States with 
    respect to (1) its capability to enable the United States to 
    discharge its international responsibilities; (2) the dominance of 
    civilian control in the military policy; (3) the training and 
    orientation in citizenship of the personnel of the armed forces; 
    and (4) the participation of personnel of the armed forces in the 
    foreign and domestic affairs of the United States. . . .

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

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane and not in order 
    on this bill.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated:

        Mr. Javits: . . . It is germane . . . because it seeks to 
    provide for the coordination of the military and the foreign policy 
    of the United States, and for the training of selectees not alone 
    in military matters, but in citizenship and the purposes for which 
    they are being called upon to serve.

    The Chairman, (17) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has examined the 
    amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York. The subject 
    matter of the gentleman's amendment proposing the creation of a 
    special congressional committee comes under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Rules which, of course, makes the amendment not 
    germane and not in order.

Bill Increasing Armed Forces--Amendment to Internal Revenue Code

Sec. 4.38 To a bill to provide for the common defense by increasing the 
    strength of the armed forces, an amendment seeking to amend the 
    Internal Revenue Code is not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948,(18) the following amendment was offered: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 8701, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of 
    Pennsylvania]: 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, 1951'. . . .''

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

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, it is with 
    great

[[Page 7650]]

    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 may be very meritorious but 
    it is clearly out of order on this legislation.

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

        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard for a 
    minute or two on the point of order.
        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,(20) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the text of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Eberharter]. 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.

Provision To Subject Retired Military Officers Who Sell Products to 
    Defense Department to Court Martial--Amendment Making Conduct 
    Federal Penal Offense

Sec. 4.39 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute, providing in 
    part that retired military officers who engage in selling products 
    to the Department of Defense within two years after their 
    retirement should be subject to court martial, a substitute 
    amendment making such conduct a penal offense under a federal 
    statute was held to be not germane.

    On Apr. 7, 1960, a bill was under consideration relating to the 
employment of retired officers by defense contractors.(1) 
The following amendment was offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 7679-82, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10959 (Committee on Armed Services).
 2. 106 Cong. Rec. 7680, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It shall be unlawful for a commissioned officer . . . 
    within two years after release from active duty . . . to engage in 
    any transaction, the purpose of which is to sell or to aid or 
    assist in the selling of anything to the Department of Defense . . 
    . and such officer shall not be entitled to receive any retired pay 
    . . . for a two-year period from the date he engages in any such 
    transaction. . . .
        . . . Any retired commissioned officer subject to the Uniform 
    Code of Military Justice who violates any provision of this Act 
    shall be tried by a court-martial and shall, upon conviction be 
    punished as a court-martial shall direct.

[[Page 7651]]

    A substitute amendment, subsequently offered, stated: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 7681.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That chapter 15 of title 18, United States Code is amended by 
    adding at the end thereof the following new section: . . .
        Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be fined 
    not more than $10,000.00 or imprisoned for not more than one year, 
    or both.

    The following point of order was made against the substitute 
amendment: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul J.] Kilday [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that (the substitute amendment) is not germane to the 
    amendment or the pending bill; that [it] attempts to create a new 
    penal offense, whereas the amendment and the pending bill do not 
    create any criminal offenses. I make the additional point of order 
    that the committee reporting the bill does not have jurisdiction to 
    consider the matter contained in this substitute.

    The proponent of the substitute amendment, Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of 
Louisiana, defended the amendment as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The amendment] is relevant to the subject matter. It proposes 
    to deal with the subject matter, which is the relationship between 
    retired officers and defense contractors. . . .

    The Chairman (6) ruled that the substitute amendment was 
not germane, stating the reasons for such ruling as follows: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 7682, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The] Kilday amendment deals with retired officers of the Armed 
    Forces, whereas the Hebert substitute goes much further and deals 
    with criminal penalties; deals with the Criminal Code and which, if 
    offered as a separate bill would have to be referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary. It is clearly outside the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Armed Services.
        For those reasons, the Chair sustains the point of order.

--Amendment To Prohibit Contractors From Hiring Retired Officers

Sec. 4.40 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute prohibiting 
    retired military officers from engaging in selling any product to 
    the Department of Defense within two years after their retirement, 
    and making violations of this restriction punishable by court 
    martial, an amendment making it unlawful for contractors to hire 
    retired officers within the two-year period and providing a fine 
    for violations of this provision was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of a proposition, discussed 
above,(8) making

[[Page 7652]]

retired military officers subject to court martial, in certain 
circumstances, for participating in the sale of products to the 
Department of Defense,(9) the following amendment was 
offered to such proposition: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 4.39, supra.
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 7680, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 10959 (Committee on Armed Services).
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 7682, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It shall be unlawful for any person to employ such a 
    retired commissioned officer . . . for the purpose of . . . 
    assisting in the selling of anything of value to the Department of 
    Defense. . . .
        Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be fined 
    not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or 
    both.

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling that the proposed amendment 
was not germane, referred to a previous ruling (12) and 
stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
12. See Sec. 4.39, supra.
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 7682, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The same basis for the ruling that was made previously would 
    apply here, in view of the fact that criminal penalties are 
    involved.

Bill Amending Universal Military Training and Service Act--Amendment 
    Providing for Right of Those Covered To Vote Regardless of Age

Sec. 4.41 To a bill amending the Universal Military Training and 
    Service Act, an amendment providing that all persons included 
    within the scope of the bill be entitled to vote regardless of age, 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (14) was under consideration 
which amended the Universal Military Training and Service Act. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. S. 1-1951 (Committee on Armed Services).
15. 97 Cong. Rec. 3780, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall [of New York] to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: On 
    page 19, line 25, insert a new section to read as follows:
        Sec. 2. All persons included within the scope of this act shall 
    be entitled to vote regardless of age.

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

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

[[Page 7653]]

    The Chair (16) sustained the point of order and said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    amendment . . . deals with a subject matter which is not dealt with 
    in the pending bill nor by the act which the pending bill seeks to 
    amend. The amendment . . . embraces a subject matter coming under 
    the jurisdiction of another standing committee of the House and 
    would seek to affect legislation which has been enacted, having 
    been reported by another standing committee of the House and which 
    does not come under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
    Services which has reported the pending bill.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    The following exchange then occurred, concerning a unanimous-
consent request that the amendment be voted upon:

        Mr. [William S.] Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, in connection 
    with the amendment which the Chair has just ruled out of order, in 
    the discussion with reference to it, a possible inference has been 
    created involving the integrity of every Member of the House. I ask 
    unanimous consent that the committee may pass upon the amendment 
    irrespective of the fact that it is not germane. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.

Bill To Provide Allowances for Military Dependents--Amendment To Amend 
    National Service Life Insurance Act To Grant Further Benefits

Sec. 4.42 To a bill to provide family allowances for dependents of 
    enlisted men of the Army, Navy and Coast Guard, an amendment 
    proposing to amend the National Service Life Insurance Act to grant 
    further benefits to such enlisted men, was held to be not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, a bill (17) was under 
consideration to provide family allowances for dependents of enlisted 
men of the armed forces. An amendment was offered (18) as 
described above. Mr. Robert E. Thomason, of Texas, made the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane. The bill under consideration 
had been reported by the Committee on Military Affairs. The 
Chairman,(19) in sustaining the point of order, noted that, 
``The amendment . . . deals with national service life insurance, which 
is a

[[Page 7654]]

creature of the Ways and Means Committee. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 7119 (Committee on Military Affairs).
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 5029, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 8, 1942.
19. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Increasing Veterans' Home Loan Guarantees--Amendment Requiring 
    Federal Reserve Banks To Purchase Loans at Par

Sec. 4.43 To a bill to increase the amount that the Veterans' 
    Administration might guarantee on a home loan, an amendment 
    requiring the Federal Reserve banks to purchase all such loans at 
    par from the Administrator was held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(20) relating to veterans' housing loans, the following 
amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 10477 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 7628, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 26, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: On page 2, 
    immediately after line 5, insert: . . .
        (4) The Federal Reserve bank within whose district the property 
    securing any loan made under this section is located shall, at the 
    request of the Administrator, purchase such loan at par from the 
    Administrator.

    Mr. Edwin R. Adair, of Indiana, made a point of order against the 
amendment on the ground that it was not germane.
    The Chairman, Charles E. Bennett, of Florida, in ruling on the 
point of order, stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 7629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is no reference in this bill to the Federal Reserve 
    Board. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has no jurisdiction over 
    the Federal Reserve Board. Therefore the Chair rules that the 
    amendment is not germane to this bill and sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Providing Federal Aid to Returning Veterans--Amendment To Amend 
    Servicemen's Dependents Allowance Act

Sec. 4.44 To a bill providing federal aid to returning war veterans to 
    facilitate readjustment to civilian life, an amendment seeking to 
    amend the Servicemen's Dependents Allowance Act was held not 
    germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
providing aid to veterans as described above, an amendment was offered 
(3) which sought to amend the Servicemen's Dependents 
Allowance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. 1767 (World War Veterans' Legislation).
 4. 90 Cong. Rec. 4535, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., May 16, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In ruling on a point of order raised by Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, against the amend

[[Page 7655]]

ment, the Chairman, Mr. Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, stated: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 4536.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the present occupant of the chair, there is 
    one very definite criterion with reference to determining whether 
    or not an amendment is germane to a pending measure. It inheres in 
    the jurisdiction of the committees of the House of Representatives. 
    Its purpose is to prevent the House or the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union from being taken by surprise by 
    amendments which could not have been anticipated by the committee 
    reporting the bill within the borders of its jurisdiction.
        The measure to which the particular amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri relates emanated from the Committee on 
    Military Affairs and deals with allowances and allotments. That 
    could not well have been anticipated by the Committee on World War 
    Veterans' Legislation in its consideration of the pending measure. 
    . . . The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Increasing Maximum for Veterans' Housing Loans--Amendment 
    Excluding Certain Interest From Gross Income

Sec. 4.45 To a bill to encourage new residential construction for 
    veterans' housing by increasing the authorized maximum for direct 
    loans, an amendment to exclude interest on certain guaranteed loans 
    from gross income was held to be not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (6) 
to encourage new residential construction for veterans' housing, the 
following amendment was offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 4602 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 4311, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 25, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: On 
    page 9 after line 20 insert a new section as follows:
        Interest on veterans' loans: Interest upon any loan which bears 
    interest at a rate not exceeding 3\1/2\ percent per annum, and any 
    part of which is guaranteed under title 3 of the Servicemen's 
    Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, shall not be considered gross 
    income for purposes of taxation.

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

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to the pending bill. It seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code, a 
    subject matter not covered by the pending bill, a subject matter 
    under the jurisdiction of another standing committee of the House, 
    the Committee on Ways and Means.

    The Chairman, Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida, sustained the point 
of order.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 4311, 4312.

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

[[Page 7656]]

Bill Authorizing Activities of Coast Guard--Amendment Urging 
    Consultation Between Secretary of State and Coast Guard Respecting 
    Joint International Effort

Sec. 4.46 To a bill reported from the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries authorizing various activities of the Coast Guard, an 
    amendment urging the Secretary of State in consultation with the 
    Coast Guard to elicit cooperation from other nations in an area 
    where there were Coast Guard and other military operations, a 
    matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
    was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 2342 (Coast Guard authorization for 
fiscal 1988) in the Committee of the Whole on July 8, 
1987,(9) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 133 Cong. Rec. 19011-13, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Ms. Snowe: Page 22, after line 11, add the 
    following new section:

                         international cooperation

        Sec. 26. (a) The Congress finds that--
        (1) the President, at the June 1987 Venice economic summit and 
    in other international forums, has requested and is continuing to 
    request additional support of United States allies in the Persian 
    Gulf . . .
        (3) attacks on neutral shipping in the Persian Gulf threaten to 
    limit the access of the United States and its allies to oil 
    supplies from the region . . .
        (7) there have been reports, which the Congress notes with 
    approval, that some allied governments are giving serious 
    consideration to possible actions in support of Western interests 
    in the Gulf;
        (8) a Western multilateral effort can best protect the 
    interests of the United States and its friends and allies in the 
    Persian Gulf;
        (9) an international effort can best sustain a long-term 
    diplomatic commitment in support of a negotiated settlement to the 
    Iran-Iraq war;
        (10) those United States allies whose military forces are 
    constitutionally restricted to self-defense should share in the 
    financial burden of protecting their interests in the Persian Gulf 
    . . .
        (b) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary 
    of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, shall urge 
    our European allies and Japan to join the United States in 
    intensifying efforts to bring about a speedy and just solution to 
    the Iran-Iraq war and in defending our mutual interests in the 
    Persian Gulf. . . .
        Mr. [Earl] Hutto [of Florida]: . . . I make a point of order on 
    this amendment. . . . I say this is not a foreign affairs bill. It 
    is not made in order by the rule, it is not germane so I made a 
    point of order. . . .

[[Page 7657]]

        Ms. [Olympia J.] Snowe [of Maine]: . . . I think the subsequent 
    amendment that would be offered will expand the scope of this 
    initiative. This amendment is similar and comparable to the 
    attempts that will be made by similar amendments. So although the 
    other amendments were not germane they were made in order by the 
    Rules Committee. Therefore, given the fact that we are expanding 
    ultimately the scope of this legislation, it seems to me only 
    practical that we would include allied support in terms of the 
    policy that might be developed by the House in the next few hours.

    The Chairman: (10) If there are no further arguments on 
the point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Robert W. Kastenmeier (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The primary purpose of the bill as amended is to authorize 
    funds for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 1988 as well as to 
    address other provisions within the purview of the Coast Guard and 
    its operations. As the Chair reads the amendment of the gentlewoman 
    from Maine, the operative purpose is to have the Secretary of State 
    urge our European allies and Japan to join the United States in 
    intensifying efforts to bring about a speedy and just solution to 
    the Iran-Iraq war and defending our mutual interests in the Persian 
    Gulf. Those are purposes outside the purview of this bill and the 
    Chair would further state that the linkage to possible amendments 
    which may hereinafter be adopted with reference to reflagging does 
    not support the germaneness of this amendment. Those amendments are 
    not yet adopted and do not prospectively justify an amendment of 
    this sort. The Chair is constrained to sustain the point of order 
    and rule the amendment of the gentlewoman from Maine out of order.

Bill Amending Mutual Security Act--Amendment To Provide Submarine 
    Patrols in Caribbean

Sec. 4.47 To a bill authorizing appropriations for military assistance 
    under the Mutual Security Act, an amendment authorizing and 
    directing the transfer of ships and supplies for purposes of 
    providing submarine patrols in certain Caribbean areas was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (11) was under 
consideration to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 12181 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
12. 104 Cong. Rec. 8620, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., May 13, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Gardner R.] Withrow [of Wisconsin]: 
    On page 2, line 7, add the following new section:
        There is hereby authorized and directed the transfer of such 
    ships, arms, and supplies as may be necessary to provide adequate 
    and comprehensive submarine patrols in the Caribbean areas embraced 
    by bilateral agree

[[Page 7658]]

    ments between the United States and the Republics of Dominican 
    Republic, Haiti, and Cuba in furtherance of military assistance 
    agreements, but not limited to such agreements. . . .

    The Chairman, Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, ruling on the point of 
order raised by Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill, stated:(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 8621.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment is obviously not germane. It comes within the 
    exclusive purview of the Committee on Armed Services. Without 
    elaboration the Chair will sustain the point of order.

Bill Amending Mutual Security Act--Amendment Establishing Joint 
    Committee on Mutual Security

Sec. 4.48 To a bill amending the Mutual Security Act of 1954, an 
    amendment to establish a joint committee on mutual security was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) to amend the Mutual Security Act, the following 
amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 11510 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 8536, 8537, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 21, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Marguerite S.] Church: On page 14, 
    after line 23, insert the following:
        . . . Sec. 701. (a) There is hereby established the Joint 
    Committee on Mutual Security. . . .
        (b) The committee shall conduct a full and complete 
    investigation and study of the policies and purpose of, and 
    operations under, the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended. . . 
    .

    Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of Wisconsin, made a point of order on the 
grounds that the amendment ``provides . . . for the creation of a Joint 
Committee on Mutual Security and such a proposal, under the rules of 
this House, should receive appropriate consideration by the Committee 
on Rules.'' (16) Mrs. Church having conceded the point of 
order, the Chairman (17) stated, ``The point of order is 
sustained.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 8537.
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Control Subversive Activities--Amendment To Modify Immigration 
    Laws

Sec. 4.49 To a bill comprising measures to control subversive 
    activities, an amendment proposing modification of the immigration 
    and naturalization laws was held not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill(18) 
as described above, an amendment was

[[Page 7659]]

offered(19) which related to deportation proceedings and 
which proposed an amendment to the Immigration Act of 1917. Mr. Karl E. 
Mundt, of South Dakota, having raised a point of order against the 
amendment, the Chairman (20) ruled as follows: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 5852 (Committee on Un-American Activities).
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 6139, 6140, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 19, 1948.
20. James W. Wadsworth, Jr. (N.Y.).
 1. 94 Cong. Rec. 6140, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 19, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The bill] comes from the Committee on Un-American Activities. 
    That committee has no jurisdiction over legislation having to do 
    with immigration and naturalization laws. Therefore, the Chair 
    holds that the amendment is not germane.

Bill Regarding Payment of Claims Against Enemy Governments and 
    Nationals--Amendment Regarding Court Jurisdiction and Procedures in 
    Respect of Such Claims

Sec. 4.50 To a bill relating to the payment of claims against enemy 
    governments and their nationals and to the disposition of property 
    from which such claims were to be satisfied, an amendment was held 
    to be not germane which related to the jurisdiction of courts over 
    such claims and to procedures for adjudication.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
which provided: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 4044 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
 3. See 94 Cong. Rec. 567, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 26, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc.--

                                  Title I

        Section 1. The Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 
    (40 Stat. 411), as amended, is hereby amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following new section:
        Sec. 39. No property or interest therein of Germany, Japan, or 
    any national of either such country vested in or transferred to any 
    officer or agency of the Government at any time after December 17, 
    1941, pursuant to the provisions of this act, shall be returned to 
    former owners thereof. . . .
        With the following committee amendment:
        On page 2, line 13, insert as follows:
        Sec. 2. No property or interest therein shall be applied to the 
    payment of debts, under the provisions of section 34 of the Trading 
    With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 411), as amended 
    during the period . . . ending 6 months after the date on which the 
    report of the War Claims Commission . . . is received by the 
    Congress.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Bertrand W.) Gearhart [of California] 
    as a substitute for the committee

[[Page 7660]]

    amendment in the bill: Insert a new section . . . as follows:
        Sec. 2. (A) No property . . . shall be applied to the payment 
    of debts, under the provisions of section 34 of the Trading With 
    the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 411) as amended, nor 
    shall any part or any portion of the proceeds from the sale . . . 
    of property . . . of Germany or Japan or any national of either of 
    such countries . . . be applied to the satisfaction . . . of any 
    claims of American nationals . . . except pursuant to a judgment . 
    . . obtained in the manner . . . as in this title provided.
        (B) The United States district court for the district wherein 
    the claimant is resident . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction to 
    . . . render judgment on claims of American nationals . . . in 
    respect of damage . . . inflicted . . . by measures of enemy 
    governments. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Hale [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    not germane to the subject matter of the bill.
        . . . Neither the title of the bill nor the language of title 
    II purports to make any provision at all for the adjudication of 
    claims.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas A. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the substance of the matter set forth in the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gearhart] were 
    introduced as a separate bill in the House of Representatives, it 
    would . . . be immediately referred by the proper authority to the 
    Judiciary Committee for consideration. . . . The gentleman seeks to 
    place the material of this bill under the jurisdiction of the 
    Federal courts, which would be a matter not within the jurisdiction 
    of the committee having charge of this bill.

Foreign Aid Bill Provisions Establishing Committee To Advise on 
    Inflation Control--Amendment Affecting Postage on Packages Sent 
    Abroad

Sec. 4.51 To that section of a foreign aid bill establishing a 
    committee to advise, in part, on means of avoiding inflationary 
    pressures, an amendment seeking to amend the postal laws with 
    respect to postage on packages sent abroad was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
to promote world peace and the foreign policy of the United States by 
providing aid to certain foreign countries. The bill stated in part: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 4604 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 8. See 93 Cong. Rec. 11258, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 11. There shall be established and maintained, out of the 
    funds au

[[Page 7661]]

    thorized under this act, a National Food Conservation Committee . . 
    . for the purpose of advising on ways and means to conserve foods 
    and foodstuffs, to avoid inflationary pressures on domestic food 
    prices and food supplies, and generally to facilitate the purposes 
    and objectives of this act.

    An amendment was offered by Mr. George G. Sadowski, of Michigan, 
who stated in the course of ensuing discussion:

        [The amendment] has to do with relief. It provides that a 
    certain amount of this money that is being appropriated in this 
    bill will be set aside to pay the postage on some of these relief 
    packages that are going to Europe, being sent by private 
    individuals. . . .

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

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    which has been added either as a new section or as an amendment to 
    section 11, which has just been read, is not germane to this bill, 
    in that it has to do with the postal rates and the Post Office 
    Department.

    The Chairman, Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, in ruling on the point 
of order, stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 11259.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he gentleman's amendment is in effect an amendment to the 
    postal laws of the United States and has had no committee 
    consideration. The Committee on Foreign Affairs has no jurisdiction 
    over the post office. Again, the section to which the amendment is 
    offered deals with the establishment and maintenance of the funds 
    authorized under the act, and so forth.
        The Chair feels that the amendment is not germane to the 
    particular section to which offered. . . .

Bill Relating to Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance out of South 
    Vietnam--Amendment Providing for Costs of Settlement of Evacuees in 
    United States

Sec. 4.52 To a bill reported from the Committee on International 
    Relations dealing with humanitarian and evacuation assistance out 
    of South Vietnam, an amendment providing for payment of costs of 
    immigration and settlement of evacuees in the United States was 
    held to raise issues within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary 
    Committee and was held to be not germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(10) during consideration of H.R. 6096 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 11534, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 7662]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of California: On page 2, 
        after line 2, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 3. The Federal Government shall provide funds for 
        all necessary expenses incurred in the immigration and 
        settlement of Vietnamese nationals in the United States of 
        America, and all necessary costs incurred thereof, for a period 
        of not less than five years under the provisions of Public Law 
        87-510, Sec. 2(b)(2).''
            And renumber subsequents accordingly.

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not germane. It deals mostly 
    with matters completely outside the scope of the bill.
        The bill deals only with humanitarian aid and evacuation from 
    South Vietnam. It does not deal with U.S. domestic programs or 
    agencies or conditions. It is far more subject to a point of order 
    than the previous amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California.
        The amendment imposes duties on the Secretary of State, of HEW 
    and the Attorney General, which are not contemplated in the bill. . 
    . .
        Mr. Anderson of California: . . . My amendment really adds 
    nothing new to what we are talking about here today. It says that 
    the Federal Government shall provide funds for all necessary 
    expenses incurred in the immigration and settlement of Vietnamese 
    nationals in the United States. That is what we are talking about 
    here today.
        Now, most of us feel or hope, at least, that it is covered 
    already in Public Law 87-510, section 2(b)(2), which is the 
    Migration Refugee Act of 1962; but we are not sure about that. We 
    are not clear about that.
        What my amendment does is make clear what we are going to do 
    with these refugees, that it is the responsibility of the Federal 
    Government and not of State and local government.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule. In 
    the opinion of the Chair the legislation before us pertains to 
    evacuation and humanitarian aid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment of the gentleman from California does go beyond 
    that into the question of immigration and settlement. It is not 
    within the purview of the Committee on International Relations. In 
    the opinion of the Chair it is not germane and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Humanitarian Aid--Military Assistance

Sec. 4.53 To a bill reported from the Committee on International 
    Relations authorizing funds to provide humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance and authorizing the use of United States troops to 
    provide that assistance, an amendment authorizing funds for 
    military aid to a foreign country (generally a subject within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services) to be used by that 
    country to fur

[[Page 7663]]

    ther the fundamental purpose of the bill was held germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(12) during consideration of the 
Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act (13) in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order 
against an amendment as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 11509, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 6096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton to the substitute 
        amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt for the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar:
            Page 1, line 6; strike out ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
        ``$300,000,000''.
            Page 2, line 2; delete the period at the end of the line, 
        insert a semicolon and add the following: ``Provided that 
        $150,000,000 of such sum shall be available to the President 
        solely for military aid to South Vietnam to provide such 
        protection as he may deem necessary to insure the delivery of 
        the humanitarian assistance and evacuation programs authorized 
        in this section.''

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, military aid to Vietnam is not included in the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. It is under the 
    MACV account and DAV account, and the attempt has been made in the 
    past to vest this jurisdiction in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
    The committee does not have jurisdiction over this subject matter 
    and cannot give military aid. As a result, the amendment is not 
    germane, and I make that point of order. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: . . . This amendment is perfectly in order. This 
    would provide additional funds to the President to use, in his 
    discretion, to provide protection for the humanitarian assistance 
    and evacuation provided in the bill.
        I would invite the Chair's attention to the fact that section 3 
    of the amendment refers in considerable detail to the military 
    appropriations and to military actions, and that section 2 of the 
    substitute provides funds to the President to be used 
    notwithstanding any other provision of law on such terms and 
    conditions as the President may deem appropriate.
        The basic legislation and the Eckhardt substitute both refer to 
    legislation that deals with military assistance to Vietnam, and 
    therefore, this amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is within the bill the provision for humanitarian 
    assistance and evacuation assistance. The amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) goes to aid, to provide for 
    the delivery of military aid, to be sure, but it is to insure the 
    delivery

[[Page 7664]]

    of humanitarian assistance and the evacuation programs, and in that 
    form the amendment is germane to the substitute, and the point of 
    order is overruled.

Bill Providing Foreign Assistance Authorizations, Amended to Include 
    Import Restrictions--Amendment Adding Further Import Restrictions

Sec. 4.54 While committee jurisdiction may be an appropriate test of 
    germaneness where the bill as reported contains matter only within 
    the jurisdiction of the reporting committee, where the bill is 
    amended in Committee of the Whole to include matters within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee, further similar amendments may 
    be germane; thus, where a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs providing foreign assistance authorizations had 
    been amended in Committee of the Whole to include diverse import 
    restrictions (a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means), a further amendment adding a new title to provide 
    a similar import prohibition against products from another 
    designated country was held germane to the bill in its amended 
    form.

    On July 11, 1985,(15) during consideration of the 
International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Les AuCoin, of 
Oregon, in overruling a point of order held the following amendment to 
be germane to the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 131 Cong. Rec. 18601, 18602, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 1555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William B.] Richardson [of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment that would create a new title, title XIV. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Richardson: Page 154, after line 
        24, insert the following new section: . . .

           title xiii.--ban on importing uranium and coal from south 
                               africa and namibia

            (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law, the following products of South Africa and Namibia may not 
        be imported into the customs territory of the United States: 
        coal, uranium ore, and uranium oxide.
            (b) Effective Date.--The prohibition contained in 
        subsection (a) shall not apply to a contract or agreement 
        entered into before the date of the enactment of this Act. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Mexico [Mr. Richardson] on the ground that it violates

[[Page 7665]]

    clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House and is not germane 
    to the bill. Clause 7 of rule XVI provides that no motion or 
    proposition on a subject different from that under consideration 
    shall be considered under color of amendment. One test of 
    germaneness is whether the fundamental purpose of the amendment is 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill or title.
        Another test of germaneness (is) whether the amendment is 
    within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill.
        The sole purpose of the amendment is to prohibit the 
    importation of uranium and coal from South Africa. Clearly this is 
    a measure within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
        The bill as reported amends various acts within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The fundamental 
    purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations for foreign 
    development and security assistance programs for the fiscal year 
    1986.
        The bill as reported contains no provisions to impose import 
    prohibitions or other restrictions or sanctions on any product from 
    South Africa or from any other country.
        There were two amendments added yesterday which have already 
    been referenced.
        The only limitations in the bill as reported, however, relate 
    to the use of foreign aid funds.
        The amendment clearly does not relate to the subject matter or 
    to the fundamental purpose of the bill or the title, since there is 
    no fundamental purpose of the title pending.
        The subject matter of the amendment, or rather the current 
    title, now includes a matter relating to Mozambique, not to any 
    import restrictions.
        The subject matter of the amendment is also not within the 
    jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, for all these reasons, the 
    amendment fails every test of germaneness and I urge that the point 
    of order be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Richardson: . . . First of all, let me state that this is 
    an issue of foreign relations between the Governments of the United 
    States and South Africa.
        Second, in this bill there have been import restrictions 
    imposed on terrorist countries; Libya, Ethiopia, the Gilman 
    amendment, the Hunter amendment.
        Let me also make the case that this bill does not affect any 
    tariffs, any duties or import fees, according to the tariff 
    schedules of the United States for 1985.
        This is a foreign relations matter. It is an important foreign 
    policy statement between the United States and South Africa and it 
    does not affect the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The pending amendment is not an amendment to the Mozambique 
    amendment which just inserted a new title XIII, but rather a new 
    title XIV. As a new title to the bill at the end of the bill, the 
    test of germaneness is whether it is germane to the bill as a 
    whole.
        Title IV of the bill has been amended to include several import 
    restrictions, specifically the Hunter amendment re

[[Page 7666]]

    garding imports from countries which harbor terrorists, and the 
    Gilman amendment to the Miller amendment relating to imports from 
    Libya.
        Therefore, the Chair finds that the amendment is germane to the 
    bill as a whole in its amended form and the point of order is 
    overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It might be argued that a point of order 
could be made under Rule XXI, clause 5(b), that the amendment was a 
tariff amendment, as a total prohibition on imports. But as Mr. 
Richardson observed, there was no tariff under existing tariff law 
against uranium and coal imported from South Africa, so that a 
restriction on imports would not have affected the tariff schedules or 
revenue levels under existing law. Probably, an import prohibition 
amendment could only be considered a tariff measure within the meaning 
of Rule XXI, clause 5(b), where an effect on tariff schedules could be 
shown.

Different Classes of Penalties for Violation of Export Controls

Sec. 4.55 To a bill relating to the imposition of penalties of a 
    certain class, all falling within the jurisdiction of one 
    committee, an amendment relating to another class of penalties 
    falling within the jurisdiction of another committee, is not 
    germane; thus, to a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs comprehensively amending the Export Administration 
    Act, and addressing penalties for violating export controls within 
    that committee's jurisdiction, such as revocation of export 
    licenses and forfeiture of property interests and proceeds related 
    to exports, an amendment authorizing the President to control 
    imports by persons violating export controls was held non-germane, 
    as a penalty not within the class covered by the title and by the 
    Export Administration Act, and as a matter within the jurisdiction 
    of another committee (Ways and Means).

    During consideration of the Export Administration Amendments Act of 
1983 (17) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 29, 
1983,(18) the Chair sustained a point of order in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 3231.
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 26467, 26484, 26485, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of title I reads as follows:

[[Page 7667]]

          TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979

                              reference to the act

            Sec. 101. For purposes of this title, the Export 
        Administration Act of 1979 shall be referred to as ``the Act''.

                                   violations

            Sec. 102. (a) Section 11(b) of the Act (50 U.S.C. App. 
        2410(b)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (2) the 
        following new paragraphs:
            ``(3) Any person who conspires or attempts to export 
        anything contrary to any provision of this Act or any 
        regulation, order, or license issued under this Act shall be 
        subject to the penalties set forth in subsection (a), except 
        that in the case of a violation of an export control imposed 
        under section 5 of this Act, such person shall be subject to 
        the penalties set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection. . 
        . .
            (b) Section 11(c) of the Act is amended by adding at the 
        end thereof the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) An exception to any order issued under this Act which 
        revokes the authority of a United States person to export goods 
        or technology may not be made unless the Committee on Foreign 
        Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate are first 
        consulted concerning the exception.''. . . .
            ``(f) Forfeiture of Property Interest and Proceeds.--Any 
        person who is convicted of a violation of an export control 
        imposed under section 5 of this Act shall, in addition to any 
        other penalty, forfeit to the United States (1) any property 
        interest that person has in the goods or technology that were 
        the subject of the violation or that were used to facilitate 
        the commission of the violation, and (2) any proceeds derived 
        directly or indirectly by that person from the transaction from 
        which the violation arose.''. . . .

        Ms. [Olympia J.] Snowe [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Snowe: . . . Page 3, insert the 
        following after line 21:
            ``(4) Any individual or business concern that violates any 
        national security control imposed under section 5 of this Act 
        which the United States maintains cooperatively with other 
        countries, or any regulation, order, or license related 
        thereto, may be subject to such controls on the importing of 
        its goods or technology into the United States or its 
        territories and possessions as the President may prescribe.''. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI, 
    and is not germane to the bill.
        The tests of germaneness include whether the fundamental 
    purpose of an amendment is germane to the fundamental purpose of 
    the bill or title and whether an amendment contemplates a method of 
    achieving that end that is closely allied to the method encompassed 
    in the bill.
        Another test of germaneness is whether an amendment, when 
    considered as a whole, is within the jurisdiction of the committee 
    reporting the bill and whether the amendment demonstrably affects a 
    law within another committee's jurisdiction.
        The Ways and Means Committee is the committee with jurisdiction 
    over

[[Page 7668]]

    restrictions on the importation of goods and services. Also, 
    section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 governs the control 
    of imports that have an effect on national security. The 
    gentlewoman's amendment clearly seeks to establish a separate 
    mechanism and authority for controlling imports if the effect on 
    the national security is related to high technology exports and, 
    therefore, demonstrably affects a law within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Ways and Means.
        Mr. Chairman, because I believe the amendment violates both of 
    those tests of germaneness, I make a point of order that the 
    amendment violates clause 7, rule XVI. . . .
        Ms. Snowe: . . . First of all, let me indicate that the 
    amendment I have offered meets the test of germaneness, I believe, 
    as outlined in rule XVI, clause 7:

            No motion or proposition on a subject different from that 
        under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

        The subject that we have under consideration is a bill that 
    modifies the Export Administration Act. This act deals with the 
    flow of goods between the United States and foreign countries, and 
    with an organization we maintain cooperatively with other countries 
    to regulate the flow of goods and technology between all countries 
    of the world. Specifically, the report of the Foreign Affairs 
    Committee states as the purpose of the act:

            The Export Administration Act of 1979 provides broad 
        authority for controlling the export from the United States to 
        potential adversary nations of civilian goods and technology.

        The report goes on to state:

            The broad policy provision of the act allows considerable 
        latitude to the executive branch to implement national security 
        and trade policies.

        The subject of my amendment, similarly, deals with the flow of 
    goods between the United States and foreign countries. My amendment 
    allows the executive branch authority to protect national security 
    and to conduct a coherent trade policy.
        My amendment provides the President certain powers, namely, the 
    imposition of import controls, as a means of enforcing the 
    cooperative agreements we maintain with other countries.
        The amendment is offered to the violations section of the bill 
    and, as such, merely extends the already existing powers available 
    to punish violations under the Export Administration Act.
        My amendment also meets the fundamental purpose test of 
    germaneness. The Rules of the House under rule 16 indicate that the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill. In this instance, the fundamental 
    purpose of both the bill and the amendment is to allow the United 
    States to effectively regulate the flow of goods between countries. 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section A6.1 indicates:

            In order to be germane, an amendment must not only have the 
        same end as the matter sought to be amended, but must 
        contemplate a method of achieving that end that is closely 
        allied to the method encompassed in the bill . . .

        I would point out to the Chair that the bill we are considering 
    contains language in section 322 of title III pro

[[Page 7669]]

    hibiting the import into the United States of South African 
    Krugerrands or other gold coins minted in South Africa. Thus, the 
    bill already contains specific language imposing import 
    restrictions. The import control language in my amendment follows 
    the purpose of the bill as reported by the Foreign Affairs 
    Committee--that of controlling sensitive technology which is vital 
    to our national security.
        The House rules further indicate that a general subject may be 
    amended by specific propositions of the same class. As elaboration, 
    I cite section A9.21 of chapter 28 of Deschler's Procedure:

            Where a bill seeks to accomplish a general purpose by 
        diverse methods, an amendment which adds a specific method to 
        accomplish that result may be germane.

        In this instance, the general purpose of the bill is to 
    authorize U.S. participation in Cocom and to regulate the flow of 
    sensitive technology between countries. My amendment sets forth a 
    specific method, that of import control authority, as a means to 
    accomplish the general purpose of the bill.
        Deschler's Procedure further states in chapter 28, section 
    A5.1:

            In determining the fundamental purpose of a bill and of an 
        amendment offered thereto, the Chair may examine the broad 
        scope of the bill and the stated purpose of the amendment and 
        need not be bound by ancillary purposes that are merely 
        suggested by the amendment.

        I would point out to the Chair that my amendment has as its 
    broad purpose the strengthening of our export policy and our 
    relationship with our Cocom partners. That, as well, is what is 
    addressed in the scope of the bill before us.
        My amendment also meets the test of committee jurisdiction in 
    determining germaneness. The Foreign Affairs Committee, under rule 
    X, is given jurisdiction over:

            (1) Relations of the United States with foreign nations 
        generally,
            (2) Measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign 
        nations and to safeguard American business interests abroad, 
        and
            (3) Measures relating to international economic policy.

        My amendment falls generally under these jurisdictional grants, 
    and specifically is covered by the authority of the Foreign Affairs 
    Committee ``to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations 
    and to safeguard American business interests abroad.'' . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John F. Seiberling (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the sanctions contained in the Export 
    Administration Act and is satisfied that the act as amended by the 
    pending bill does not contain authority to impose import sanctions, 
    that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 
    and Means.

        The gentlewoman has cited a general jurisdictional claim of the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs; however, the specific jurisdiction 
    over imports is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 
    and Means.
        The Chair would cite the precedent appearing at chapter 28, 
    subsection 4.34 of Deschler's Procedure:

            To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
        Interstate and

[[Page 7670]]

        Foreign Commerce containing diverse petroleum conservation and 
        allocation provisions, an amendment imposing quotas on the 
        importation of petroleum products from certain countries was 
        held to be a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
        Ways and Means and was ruled out as not germane.

        The Chair would also cite chapter 28, subsection 4.30 of 
    Deschler's Procedure wherein:

            To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on 
        Agriculture providing a 1-year price support for milk, an 
        amendment expressing the sense of the Congress that the 
        President shall impose certain tariff duties on imported dairy 
        products was held to go beyond the purview of the pending 
        section and to involve a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
        Committee on Ways and Means, and was ruled out as not germane.

        There are other similar precedents, but it seems to the Chair 
    those are sufficient for purposes of supporting this ruling.
        Accordingly, the Chair rules that the amendment of the 
    gentlewoman is not germane to title I and, therefore, it is ruled 
    out of order. The point of order is sustained.

Bill Imposing Penalties for Desecration of Flag--Amendment Placing 
    Restrictions on Exporting Flag

Sec. 4.56 To a bill establishing penalties for desecration of the 
    American flag, an amendment establishing certain restrictions upon 
    exporting the flag was held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(20) to prohibit desecration of the flag, the following 
amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 10480 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 16495, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 20, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. (John M.) Murphy of New York: On 
        page 3, after line 19, insert the following new sections: . . .
            Sec. 5. (a) The President of the United States shall 
        prohibit the exportation from the United States of the flag of 
        the United States in any case in which he determines that the 
        use for which such flag is intended after such exportation is 
        inconsistent with the respect which should be accorded the flag 
        of the United States.

    Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, contended that the amendment was 
not germane.
    The bill, it may be noted, had been reported by the Committee on 
the Judiciary, while the amendment relating to the exportation of the 
flag was a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.
    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William M. Colmer (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending bill deals with the desecration of the flag. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is not germane 
    because it deals with the question of the issuance of orders by the 
    President relative to the exportation of goods, et cetera. The 
    Chair

[[Page 7671]]

    holds that the amendment is not germane, and sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Relating to Elections in Puerto Rico--Amendment Affecting Tax Laws 
    Applicable to Puerto Rico

Sec. 4.57 To a bill relating to election of the Governor and members of 
    the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, an amendment relating to tax laws 
    applicable to Puerto Rico was held not germane.

    On June 16, 1947, a bill as described above was being considered 
under consent calendar procedure. The following amendment was offered 
to the bill: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 93 Cong. Rec. 7079, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Fred L.] Crawford [of Michigan] 
        to the committee amendment:
            On page 7, line 20, after section 6, insert:
            Sec. 7. Section 3360(c) of the Internal Revenue Code is 
        amended to read as follows:
            (c) Deposit of internal-revenue collections: Not to exceed 
        75 percent of all taxes collected under internal-revenue laws 
        of the United States on articles produced in Puerto Rico . . . 
        shall be deposited in a special fund . . . to be available for 
        appropriation by Congress for the construction of public works 
        . . . and for public relief and other public purposes in Puerto 
        Rico.

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

        Mr. [Antonio M.] Fernandez [of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane. The amendment 
    is with respect to the collection of customs. The bill is limited 
    solely to the political aspects of Puerto Rico and solely for the 
    election of a governor and members of the Supreme Court. 
    Furthermore, this amendment is one another committee of the House 
    has jurisdiction over and our committee has not had anything to do 
    with this amendment.

    The Speaker,(4) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Unquestionably the amendment proposed is a matter that comes 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
    therefore not germane to the pending amendment or to the bill. The 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Amending Law To Reauthorize Rural Housing Loan and Grant 
    Programs--Amendment Authorizing Pooling of Guaranteed Rural Housing 
    Loans Under Another Law

Sec. 4.58 Committee jurisdiction is a relevant test of germaneness 
    where the pending portion of the bill amends a law entirely within 
    one committee's jurisdiction and the proposed amendment amends a 
    law within another

[[Page 7672]]

    committee's jurisdiction; thus, to a title of an omnibus housing 
    bill amending a law within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs to reauthorize rural housing 
    loan and grant programs, an amendment to another law within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture authorizing the 
    pooling of federally guaranteed rural housing loans was held not 
    germane as amending a law not amended by the pending title and 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee.

    On July 31, 1990,(5) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration title VI of the Housing and Community Development 
Act (6) when the amendment described above was offered. A 
point of order against the amendment was sustained, demonstrating that 
the test of germaneness to a pending title of a bill is the 
relationship of the amendment to the law being amended by that title, 
and not to other portions of the bill not then pending for amendment. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 136 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. H.R. 1180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of title VI is as follows:

                            TITLE VI--RURAL HOUSING
        sec. 601. program authorizations.

            (a) Insurance and Guarantee Authority.--Section 513(a)(1) 
        of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1483(a)(1) is amended to 
        read as follows:
            ``(a)(1) The Secretary may, to the extent approved in 
        appropriation Acts, insure and guarantee loans under this title 
        during fiscal years 1990 and 1991 in aggregate amounts not to 
        exceed $1,906,220,000 and $2,091,200,000, respectively, as 
        follows: . . .

        Mr. [Doug] Bereuter [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter: Page 358, lines 12 and 
        13, strike ``this section'' and insert ``subsections (b) and 
        (c)''. . . .
            Page 359, after line 18, insert the following new 
        subsection:
            (e) Agricultural Mortgage Secondary Market.--
            (1) Expansion of Secondary Market Authority.--Section 8.0 
        of the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. 2279a) is amended--
            (A) in paragraph (1)--
            (i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (ii) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking the period at the 
        end and inserting ``; or''; and
            (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(C) a principle residence eligible for a loan that is 
        guaranteed pursuant to or meets the requirements of subsection 
        (f) of section 502 of the Housing Act 1949.'';
            (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting after the period at the 
        end the following new sentence: ``With respect to qualified 
        loans described in the last sentence of paragraph (9), the

[[Page 7673]]

        term includes the Corporation and any affiliate of the 
        Corporation.''; and
            (C) in paragraph (9), by inserting after the period at the 
        end the following new undesignated paragraph:
            ``With respect to loans on agricultural real estate 
        described in paragraph (1)(C), the term means the portion of a 
        loan guaranteed by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to 
        section 502(f) of the Housing Act of 1949, except that (A) 
        subsections (b) through (f) of section 8.6 and sections 8.7, 
        8.8, and 8.9 shall not apply to the portion of a loan 
        guaranteed by the Secretary. . . .

        Mr. [Glenn] English [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I object to the amendment on the grounds that it 
    is nongermane to the bill under rule 16, clause 7 of the rules of 
    the House, because the amendment seeks to make substantial and 
    fundamental changes in a statute and subject matter not 
    contemplated by the underlying bill, and because the amendment 
    addresses a subject matter different from that under consideration 
    by the House.
        The amendment is nongermane because it proposes to amend a 
    subject matter outside the scope of the underlying bill by altering 
    the fundamental purpose of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage 
    Corporation. The Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation was 
    established under the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 to act as a 
    guarantor of certain agricultural real estate mortgage loans. The 
    amendment would alter the fundamental purpose of the Corporation to 
    allow it to act as a pooler of housing loans guaranteed by the 
    Federal Government.
        The amendment proposes to amend the Farm Credit Act of 1971, a 
    statute not addressed in the underlying bill. The Farm Credit Act 
    has as its fundamental purpose the governance of the extension of 
    credit to farmers and ranchers. By contrast, H.R. 1108 has as its 
    fundamental purpose the authorization of Federal housing programs.
        Finally, the amendment addresses a subject matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, the amendment has not 
    been considered by this committee, and relevant precedents of the 
    House hold that committee jurisdiction is a relevant test of 
    germaneness when the pending text of the bill is entirely in one 
    committee's jurisdiction and the amendment falls within another 
    committee's purview. . . .
        Mr. Bereuter: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the 
    rural housing and housing generally is in the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
        Title VII is a rural housing title. The amendment offered by 
    this gentleman would enhance credit opportunities for rural 
    housing.
        Second, title VI, specifically section 608 of the bill, 
    requires that the Agricultural Secretary consult with Farmer Mac 
    when promulgating regulations to implement the Farmers Home 
    Administration guarantee program.
        Third, title VII, section 741, already discusses secondary 
    markets in that it reauthorizes Ginnie Mae for 1 year.
        Fourth, title VII, section 754, includes other secondary-market 
    entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regarding mortgage 
    servicing transfer disclosures.
        Finally, title I would create a housing trust. The title also 
    requires estab

[[Page 7674]]

    lishment of a board to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to 
    oversee the trust.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John P. Muntha (Pa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair concedes that there is some relationship between the 
    housing and credit jurisdiction of the two committees, but title VI 
    of the bill does not amend the Farm Credit Act, and the amendment 
    amends that law which is within the primary jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Agriculture. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to title VI.

--Amendment Offered as New Title Expressing Sense of Congress That 
    Congress Should Enact Legislation Providing for Enterprise Zone 
    Program and Tax Incentives Affecting Housing

Sec. 4.59 To a bill broadly addressing the subjects of housing and 
    community development within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, an amendment expressing the 
    sense of the Congress that certain legislation, including an 
    extension of the low-income housing tax credit, should be enacted, 
    is not germane since the amendment deals with tax policy, a matter 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

    During consideration of the Housing and Community Development Act 
(8) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 1, 
1990,(9) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 1180.
 9. 136 Cong. Rec. p.--, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett: Page 594, after line 2, 
        insert the following new title (and conform the table of 
        contents, accordingly):

                          TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS
        sec. 901. sense of congress regarding housing tax policy.

            (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that tax 
        policy is an integral component of effective housing and 
        neighborhood revitalization policy.
            (b) Sense of Congress.--It is, therefore, the sense of the 
        Congress that the Congress should enact legislation during the 
        101st Congress providing a viable enterprise zone program, an 
        individual retirement account program for homeownership, and an 
        extension of the low-income housing tax credit. . . .

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman . . . I make 
    the point of order on the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the legislation and is in violation of clause 7 of House 
    rule XVI.

[[Page 7675]]

        This amendment, like the previous amendment, would express the 
    sense of the Congress on matters not within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. I therefore make a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, as I said on the last point of 
    order on the sense of Congress, housing policy is germane to a 
    housing bill, and it is within the jurisdiction of the Committee of 
    the Whole, which is the Committee that is considering this bill.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        An expression of the sense of Congress that there should be 
    enacted in this Congress a viable enterprise zone program, 
    individual retirement accounts, and extension of low income housing 
    tax credits addresses matter of tax policy under the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means, and, therefore, the Chair 
    sustains the point of order based on the prior ruling. The 
    germaneness rule applies in the Committee of the Whole.

Bill Providing for Grant and Credit Programs for Housing and Community 
    Development--Amendment Expressing Sense of Congress as to Tax 
    Policies Affecting Housing

Sec. 4.60 The Committee of the Whole may not consider amendments 
    expressing the sense of Congress on a subject unrelated to the 
    pending bill and within the jurisdiction of a committee other than 
    that reporting the bill; thus, to a bill dealing with housing and 
    community development grant and credit programs (a matter within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
    Affairs), an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that other 
    federal law should reflect a stated tax policy with respect to 
    housing was held not germane as within the jurisdiction of another 
    House committee (the Committee on Ways and Means) and dealing with 
    the subject of housing by an unrelated method.

    On Aug. 1, 1990,(11) during consideration of the Housing 
and Community Development Act (12) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the amendment 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 136 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
12. H.R. 1180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 7676]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett:
            Page 594, after line 2, insert the following new section 
        (and conform the table of contents, accordingly):
        sec. 902. sense of congress regarding mortgage interest 
        deduction.

            (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
            (1) homeownership is a fundamental American ideal, which 
        promotes social and economic benefits beyond the benefits that 
        accrue to the occupant of the home . . .
            (3) it is proper that the policy of the Federal Government 
        is, and should continue to be, to encourage homeownership . . .
            (6) the current Federal income tax deduction for interest 
        paid on debt secured by first and second homes is of crucial 
        importance to the economies of many communities; and
            (7) the continued deductibility of interest paid on debt 
        secured by a first or second home has particular importance in 
        promoting other desirable social goals, such as education of 
        young people.
            (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress, 
        therefore, that the current Federal income tax deduction for 
        interest paid on debt secured by a first or second home should 
        be preserved. . . .

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    is not germane to the legislation and is in violation of clause 7 
    of House rule XVI. This amendment would express the sense of 
    Congress on matters not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and I therefore make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: . . . First, this amendment, a sense of the 
    Congress with regard to housing, is clearly germane to a housing 
    bill. It is germane under clause 6, rule XVI in that the housing 
    bill itself would seek to extend and amend certain laws related to 
    housing, community and neighborhood development and preservation 
    and related programs. . . .
        The home mortgage deduction relates to housing. It is clearly 
    germane to the bill.
        It is clearly within the jurisdiction of the full House to 
    consider a sense of the Congress on virtually any subject. It is 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee of the Whole to consider a 
    sense of the Congress amendment as an amendment to a housing bill 
    if the amendment relates to housing.
        So first, it is germane. It does not direct another committee 
    to do anything at all. It states that this Committee of the Whole 
    believes that a mortgage interest deduction is an essential part of 
    housing, and this is a housing bill.
        Second, while an argument was made at the committee level in 
    the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs that it was not 
    germane to it, that it was not within the jurisdiction of the 
    Banking Committee, and I think that at least has some validity to 
    it, although I do not think it is correct with regard to a sense of 
    the Congress. The fact is that this is not the Banking Committee. 
    Mr. Chairman, we are convened as a Committee of the Whole House. 
    Four hundred thirty-five Members of this Committee of the Whole 
    House has jurisdiction over a sense of the Congress with regard to 
    this particular housing policy.

[[Page 7677]]

        This is not the Committee on Ways and Means and it is not the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. It is the 
    Committee of the Whole House.
        Third, the bill, this sense of Congress does not provide for a 
    tax or tariff measure. It is a sense of Congress. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment which has just been raised by the gentleman from Texas is 
    a sense-of-Congress resolution which relates to material under 
    jurisdiction of another committee. It expresses a pious hope which 
    many of us may share, but it has nothing to do with the bill in 
    question. It is as if the House should make a resolution or a 
    sense-of-Congress resolution that would say the Agriculture 
    Department should plant more trees. That too would relate to 
    housing, but in a very--in a manner such as is not acceptable under 
    our rules. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) . . . The Chair is prepared to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas is not germane to the 
    bill. The bill comprehensively addresses the general subject of 
    public housing and community development. The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas adds to the bill an expression of the 
    sense of Congress concerning tax deductions.
        Although the topic is conceptually related to the topic of 
    public housing, it addresses questions of tax policy, matters 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Chair is guided by the precedent of February 9, 1984, cited 
    in Deschler-Brown Procedure, Chapter 28, section 4.47 to a bill 
    reported from the Committee on Science and Technology, authorizing 
    environmental research and development activities of an agency, an 
    amendment expressing the sense of Congress with respect to that 
    agency's regulatory and enforcement authority, matters within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce was held not 
    germane.
        Likewise to the pending bill addressing public housing and 
    community development within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, an amendment expressing the 
    sense of Congress on matters of tax policy is not germane. The 
    point of order is, therefore, sustained.

Bill To Provide Employment Opportunities Through Proj-
    ects To Renovate Community Facilities--Amendment Providing Tax 
    Incentives for Enterprise Zones

Sec. 4.61 To a bill reported from the Committee on Education and Labor 
    authorizing a program of financial assistance to provide employment 
    opportunities to unemployed individuals in areas of high 
    unemployment, in projects to repair and renovate community 
    facilities, an amendment in the nature of a substitute proposed in 
    a motion to recommit providing instead for

[[Page 7678]]

    federal income tax incentives for enterprise zones through 
    amendments to the Internal Revenue Code (and for other forms of 
    special treatment for enterprise zones through amendment of other 
    acts), was held not germane as unrelated to the subject matter of 
    the bill and beyond the jurisdiction of the reporting committee, 
    and was held to be a tax measure offered to a bill not reported by 
    a committee with jurisdiction over tax measures, in violation of 
    clause 5(b) of Rule XXI.

    During consideration of the Community Renewal Employment Act 
(14) in the House on Sept. 21, 1983,(15) Speaker 
Thomas P. O'Neill, of Massachusetts, sustained a point of order against 
a motion to recommit with instructions to re-report the bill with an 
amendment. The text of the bill provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 1036.
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 25111, 25138-45, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 201. (a) Eligible participants shall be employed in 
    community improvement projects under this title in one or more of 
    the following activities:
        (1) activities to repair, rehabilitate, or improve public 
    facilities, including (A) road and street repair, (B) bridge 
    painting and repair, (C) repair and rehabilitation of public 
    buildings and other community facilities, including public 
    libraries, (D) repair, modernization, and moderate rehabilitation 
    of public housing units, (E) repair and rehabilitation of water 
    systems and water development projects, (F) repair and 
    rehabilitation of public mass transportation systems, (G) erecting 
    or replacing traffic control signs and removing road sign 
    obstructions . . .
        (2) activities to conserve, rehabilitate, or improve public 
    lands, including (A) erosion, flood, drought, and storm damage 
    assistance and control . . .
        (3) public safety, health, social service, and other activities 
    necessary to the public welfare, including (A) repairing or 
    replacing fire hydrants and assisting in fire hazard inspections . 
    . . (R) rodent and insect control activities, (S) hazardous 
    materials surveys, and (T) employment counseling and placement 
    services. . . .
        (d) Projects to be carried out under subsection (a)(2) shall be 
    limited to projects on public lands or Indian lands except where a 
    project involving other lands will provide a documented public 
    benefit and reimbursement will be provided to the recipient for 
    that portion of the total costs of the project which does not 
    provide a public benefit. . . .
        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Erlenborn moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1036, to the 
        Committee on Education and Labor with instructions that the 
        Committee re-re

[[Page 7679]]

        port the bill back to the House forthwith with the following 
        amendment:
            Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
        section 1. short title; amendments of 1954 code.

            (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the 
        ``Enterprise Zone Act of 1983''.
            (b) Amendment of 1954 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
        provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
        expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section 
        or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be 
        made to a section or other provision of the Internal Revenue 
        Code of 1954.
        sec. 2. purposes.

            It is the purpose of this Act to provide for the 
        establishment of enterprise zones in order to stimulate the 
        creation of new jobs, particularly for disadvantaged workers 
        and long-term unemployed individuals, and to promote 
        revitalization of economically distressed areas primarily by 
        providing or encouraging--
            (a) tax relief at the Federal, State, and local levels;
            (b) regulatory relief at the Federal, State, and local 
        levels; and
            (c) improved local services and an increase in the economic 
        stake of enterprise zone residents in their own community and 
        its development, particularly through the increased involvement 
        of private, local, and neighborhood organizations. . . .

                    TITLE II--FEDERAL INCOME TAX INCENTIVES

                Subtitle A--Credits for Employers and Employees
        sec. 201. credit for enterprise zone employers.

            (a) Credit for Increased Enterprise Zone Employment and 
        Employment of Disadvantaged Workers.--Subpart A of part IV of 
        subchapter A of chapter 1 (relating to credits allowable) is 
        amended by inserting immediately before section 45 the 
        following new section:
        ``sec. 44h. credit for enterprise zone employment.

            ``(a) In General.--There shall be allowed as a credit 
        against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an 
        amount equal to the sum of--
            ``(1) 10 percent of the qualified increased employment 
        expenditures of the taxpayer for the taxable year, and
            ``(2) the economically disadvantaged credit amount of the 
        taxpayer for such taxable year. . . .

         TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF FOREIGN-TRADE ZONES IN ENTERPRISE 
                                     ZONES
        sec. 401. foreign-trade zone preferences.

            (a) Preference in Establishment of Foreign-Trade Zones in 
        Revitalization Areas.--In processing applications for the 
        establishment of foreign-trade zones pursuant to an Act 
        entitled ``To provide for the establishment, operation, and 
        maintenance of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
        United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and 
        for other purposes,'' approved June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 998), 
        the Foreign-Trade Zone Board shall consider on a priority basis 
        and expedite, to the maximum extent possible, the processing of 
        any application involving the establishment of a foreign-trade 
        zone within an enterprise zone designated pursuant to section 
        7871 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
            (b) Application Procedure.--In processing applications for 
        the establishment of ports of entry pursuant to an Act entitled 
        ``An Act making

[[Page 7680]]

        appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for 
        the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and 
        fifteen, and for other purposes,'' approved August 1, 1914 (38 
        Stat. 609), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consider on a 
        priority basis and expedite, to the maximum extent possible, 
        the processing of any application involving the establishment 
        of a port of entry which is necessary to permit the 
        establishment of a foreign-trade zone within an enterprise 
        zone.
            (c) Application Evaluation.--In evaluating applications for 
        the establishment of foreign-trade zones and ports of entry in 
        connection with enterprise zones, the Foreign-Trade Zone Board 
        and the Secretary of Treasury shall approve the applications to 
        the maximum extent practicable, consistent with their 
        respective statutory responsibilities. . . .

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, my 
    point of order is on the grounds that the motion to recommit 
    contains language of a tax bill which cannot be put on a nontax 
    bill; and, second, the amendment is not germane to the bill under 
    consideration. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Hawkins) is correct in that there is language relative to tax law 
    in the motion to recommit. I submit that the purpose of the motion 
    to recommit and the purpose of the amendment would be to enact the 
    enterprise zone proposal that has been supported very broadly in 
    both Houses of the Congress, and that it would reduce unemployment 
    in the communities across the country where we have high levels of 
    unemployment, though I admit it would do so in a somewhat different 
    manner. It would do so through tax incentives and the creation of 
    real meaningful jobs in the private sector rather than public 
    service type jobs.
        Mr. Speaker, I hope it would be considered germane since the 
    purposes are the same. We just have a better way of doing it.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        It is very obvious to the Chair that the motion to recommit 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) is not 
    germane. This is a tax amendment, and the Committee on Education 
    and Labor has no jurisdiction over it.
        So the point of order is well taken under clause 7 rule XVI and 
    under clause 5(b) rule XXI, and the point of order is sustained.

Conference Report on House Bill Authorizing Funds for Public Works 
    Jobs--Senate Amendment Mandating Already Appropriated Funds for 
    Public Works and Reclamation

Sec. 4.62 In a conference report on a House bill (originally reported 
    from the Committee on Public Works and Transportation) authorizing 
    funds for state and local governments to create new public works 
    jobs, a Senate amendment adding a new title to mandate the 
    expenditure of already appropriated funds for public works and rec

[[Page 7681]]

    lamation (as a purported disapproval of the deferral of such funds 
    under the Impoundment Control Act) and to set a discount rate for 
    reclamation and public works projects--matters within the 
    respective jurisdictions of the Committees on Appropriations and 
    Interior and Insular Affairs--was conceded to be nongermane and 
    subject to a point of order under clause 4 of Rule XXVIII and to a 
    motion to reject that portion.

    On May 3, 1977,(16) the House had under consideration 
the conference report on H.R. 11 when the situation described above 
occurred; the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 13242, 13243, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 11) to increase the 
    authorization for the Local Public Works Capital Development and 
    Investment Act of 1976, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Robert A.] Young of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the inclusion of title II 
    of the conference report on H.R. 11 is in violation of clause 4 of 
    rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
        Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious to my colleagues that this 
    bill--H.R. 11--has come back from conference with an unrelated, 
    nongermane amendment.
        Title 1 of this bill authorizes $4 billion to be channeled to 
    State and local governments throughout the country to create new 
    public works jobs. The goal is to reduce the Nation's high 
    unemployment rate.
        In contrast, title 2 concerns previously approved water 
    projects, with a principal goal of providing new flood control, 
    water management and recreational benefits.
        The jurisdiction over title 2 currently rests with the 
    Appropriations Committee, and no longer involves the Public Works 
    Committee. Therefore, title 2 should be excluded from consideration 
    now and allowed to be handled by the appropriate committee.
        My argument of nongermaneness is based on several precedents 
    cited in Deschler's Procedure. May I call your attention to 4.25 of 
    Deschler's chapter 28 which reads:

            To a bill reported by the Committee on Public Works 
        authorizing funds for highway construction and for mass 
        transportation systems which use motor vehicles on highways, an 
        amendment relating to urban mass transit (a subject within the 
        jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency) and to 
        rapid rail transportation and assistance to the railroad 
        industry (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce) was ruled out as not germane. 
        118 Con

[[Page 7682]]

        gressional Record 34111, 34115, 92d Congress, 2nd Session, Oct. 
        5, 1972.

        I would also like to cite [4.9] reading:

            An amendment relating to railroads generally, which was 
        offered to a bill pertaining solely to urban transportation, 
        was ruled out as not germane. 116 Congressional Record 34191, 
        91st Congress, 1st Session, Sept. 29, 1970.

        Finally I ask you to refer to 4.12 which reads:

            To a bill establishing penalties for desecration of the 
        American flag, an amendment establishing certain restrictions 
        upon exporting the flag was ruled out as not germane. 113 
        Congressional Record 16495, 90th Congress, 1st Session, June 
        20, 1967.

        These precedents form the basis of my point of order--that 
    title 2 is simply not germane to the local public works bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    (Mr. Roe) wish to be heard in debate on the point of order?
        Mr. Roe: No, Mr. Speaker. We concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
    Roe) concedes the point of order. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move, in conformity with 
    the matter involved in the point of order, that the House reject 
    title II of the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Young) is recognized for 20 minutes on his motion.

Bill Amending Laws Relating to Housing and Urban Renewal--Amendment 
    Delaying Effectiveness Pending Revenue Legislation

Sec. 4.63 To a bill extending and amending laws relating to housing and 
    the renewal of urban communities, an amendment providing that no 
    funds could be appropriated or withdrawn from the Treasury for the 
    purposes of the bill until enactment of legislation raising 
    additional revenue, was held to be not germane.

    The proceedings of May 21, 1959, relating to the Housing Act of 
1959, are discussed in Sec. 31.11, infra.

Housing Bill Authorizing Urban Property Insurance--Amendment 
    Inaugurating Urban Insurance for District of Columbia

Sec. 4.64 To an omnibus housing bill, in part authorizing urban 
    property protection and reinsurance and establishing a National 
    Insurance Development Corporation, an amendment which sought to 
    inaugurate a new program of urban insurance for the

[[Page 7683]]

    District of Columbia was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Housing and Urban 
Development Act of 1968,(18) the following amendment was 
offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 17989 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 20526, 20527, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 10, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward J.] Patten [of New Jersey]: On 
    page 211, immediately after line 14, insert the following:

           Title XI--District of Columbia Insurance Placement Act

                           declaration of purpose

        Sec. 1102. The purposes of this title are--
        (1) to assure stability in the property insurance market for 
    property located in the District of Columbia;
        (2) to assure the availability of basic property insurance as 
    defined by this title. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 20528.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Brock [III, of Tennessee]: I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane, 
    it would create a special class of beneficiary, and it would invade 
    the jurisdiction of another committee.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Patten, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, as far as our having a right to amend this bill 
    at this point without referring it to the District of Columbia 
    Committee, I am pretty sure our rules permit such action. . . .

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair has examined title X closely. The name of title 
    X is ``Urban Property Protection and Reinsurance''. On page 189, 
    under ``Definitions,'' it is stated that--

            (11) ``State'' means the several States, the District of 
        Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American 
        Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific;

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey deals 
    with a matter of insurance, which the Chair feels is within the 
    scope of the pending bill. The District of Columbia is included in 
    the pending bill. Therefore, the Chair holds that the amendment is 
    germane and overrules the point of order.

Bill Relating to Urban Mass Transportation--Amendment Relating to 
    Railroads

Sec. 4.65 An amendment relating to railroads generally, which was 
    offered to a bill pertaining solely to urban mass transportation, 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill(2) was under consideration 
which

[[Page 7684]]

had been reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency and which 
sought in part to direct the Secretary of Transportation to study the 
feasibility of federal assistance to defray operating costs of urban 
mass transportation companies. An amendment was offered(3) 
directing the Secretary of Transportation to study the feasibility of 
federal acquisition and maintenance of all fixed railroad facilities, a 
subject within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 18125 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 34191, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 29, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: The amendment relates to a type 
    of transportation that is not under the Secretary of 
    Transportation. The railroads are not under the Secretary of 
    Transportation. They are not included in the bill. Therefore the 
    amendment is not germane.

    The Chairman(4) noted that the amendment contained 
matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce. Stating further that, ``The amendment does go beyond 
the scope of the pending bill and is not germane,'' the Chairman 
sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Reorganize Amtrak--Amendment Providing for Tax Incentives To 
    Improve Amtrak

Sec. 4.66 While committee jurisdiction is not the sole test of the 
    germaneness of an amendment, it is an appropriate test where the 
    pending text is entirely within one committee's jurisdiction and 
    the amendment falls entirely within that of another committee; 
    thus, to a bill within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce reorganizing Amtrak through 
    financial assistance and other methods, to improve rail passenger 
    services, an amendment to achieve track improvements solely through 
    tax incentives by amending the Internal Revenue Code, is not a 
    related method and is not germane, since it would fall within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

    On July 25, 1979,(5) a point of order was sustained 
against an amendment to the Amtrak Reorganization Act of 
1979(6) during

[[Page 7685]]

consideration in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Leon E. Panetta, 
of California, holding that the amendment was not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 20601, 20602, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. H.R. 3996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Madigan: Page 102, after line 8, 
    insert the following new title:

                          TITLE V--TAX INCENTIVES

                      certification of qualified track

        Sec. 501. (a) Application.--Any rail carrier which makes 
    improvements in railroad track which it owns and which is used by 
    the National Railroad Passenger Corporation pursuant to an 
    agreement entered into under section 402 of the Rail Passenger 
    Service Act may apply to the Secretary of Transportation for 
    certification of such track as qualified track for purposes of 
    section 48 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Any such 
    application shall be submitted in such form and contain such 
    information as the Secretary may by regulation require. . . .
        Sec. 502. (a) Additional 10-Percent Credit for Railroad Energy 
    Property.--(1) Subparagraph (A) of section 46(a)(2) of the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to amount of investment tax credit) 
    is amended by striking out ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
    striking out the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting in 
    lieu thereof ``, and'', and by adding at the end thereof the 
    following new clause:
        ``(iv) in the case of railroad energy property, the railroad 
    energy percentage.''
        (2) Paragraph (2) of section 46(a) of such Code is amended by 
    adding at the end thereof the following new subparagraphs:
        ``(F) Railroad Energy Percentage.--For purposes of this 
    paragraph, the railroad energy percentage is--
        ``(i) 10 percent with respect to the period beginning on 
    January 1, 1980, and ending on December 31, 1984, or
        ``(ii) zero with respect to any other period. . . .
        (c) Credits With Respect to Railroad Energy Property To Be 
    Refundable.--(1) Subsection (a) of section 46 of such Code is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
        ``(11) Refundable Credits for Railroad Energy Property.--
        ``(A) In General.--Under regulations prescribed by the 
    Secretary, in the case of so much of the credit allowed by section 
    38 as is described in subparagraph (B)--
        ``(i) paragraph (3) shall not apply, and
        ``(ii) for purposes of this title (other than section 38, this 
    subpart, and chapter 63), such credit shall be treated as if it 
    were allowed by section 39 and not by section 38. . . .
        Mr. [Edgar L.] Jenkins [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against this amendment.
        The bill that is now under consideration, H.R. 3996, is a bill 
    which restructures the Nation's rail passenger system. The 
    amendment which is being offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Madigan) very expressly amends the Internal Revenue Code. The 
    amendment is clearly an income tax provision. It adds to the 
    Internal Revenue Code, if I understand the amendment correctly, an 
    additional income tax credit for investment in railway energy 
    property.

        The amendment is clearly not germane to the subject matter of 
    the bill

[[Page 7686]]

    before us which revises the Amtrak system. It is plainly 
    inconsistent with the germaneness rule of the House.
        I am going to also say, Mr. Chairman, that this new tax credit, 
    which would be provided by the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Madigan), is refundable. It would be available 
    despite the taxpayers' lack of tax liability. This is a concept 
    which the jurisdictional committee, the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, should consider and review very carefully before enactment. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Georgia argues that my amendment is not consistent 
    with the purpose of the bill and, therefore, for that reason not in 
    order. As a matter of fact, my amendment is in order because it is 
    consistent with the fundamental purpose of this bill. It is 
    compatible and closely allied with the method of assisting Amtrak 
    as provided in the bill and it does not become disqualified by the 
    application of a committee jurisdiction test.
        A basic test of germaneness is that the fundamental purpose of 
    an amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill 
    (VIII 2911; Deschler's Procedure 28.5). In determining this 
    purpose, one must look to the text of the bill as the principal 
    tool in determining purpose. The fundamental purpose of both the 
    bill and the amendment is to provide Amtrak with the ability to 
    provide safe, reliable, and comfortable intercity rail passenger 
    service. . . .
        While the purpose to be accomplished by my amendment is through 
    a method not specifically contemplated by the bill in its present 
    form, the result that is desired and the method to achieve that 
    result are compatible and closely allied. The basic method set 
    forth in the bill to strengthen Amtrak and the method set forth in 
    my amendment are similar. . . .
        Finally, it could be argued that committee jurisdiction is an 
    obstacle to my amendment being considered. A parliamentary note in 
    Deschler's Procedure (28:4.16) applies to this situation:

            The fact that the subject matter of an amendment lies 
        within the jurisdiction of a committee other than that having 
        jurisdiction over the bill does not necessarily dictate the 
        conclusion that the amendment is not germane; for committee 
        jurisdiction is but one of the tests of germaneness and in 
        ruling on the question, the Chair must take into consideration 
        other factors.

        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I submit that my amendment is in 
    order because it has as its fundamental purpose a purpose which is 
    identical to that contained in the bill; the method proposed in the 
    amendment uses a method of achieving the end result of better 
    Amtrak performance in a way that is closely allied to the other 
    methods used in the bill and, finally, the purpose of the amendment 
    and the purpose of the bill are not only identical but use such 
    closely allied methods that any objection based on committee 
    jurisdiction is clearly outweighed when considering the germaneness 
    of my amendment. I ask the Chair to find the amendment to be 
    germane to H.R. 3996 and its consideration to be in order. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair is prepared to rule.

[[Page 7687]]

        The Chair agrees with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Madigan) 
    that there are several tests of germaneness. All of the tests which 
    may be relevant to the particular amendment must be satisfied. The 
    fact is that committee jurisdiction is one of those tests. Since 
    the amendment deals with taxing policy and falls within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, that appears to be 
    a relevant test of germaneness in this instance.
        Quoting in support of that ruling is rule XVI, section 798c of 
    the Rules of the House of Representatives, page 497, which states:

            Committee jurisdiction is not the sole test of germaneness 
        where the proposition to which the amendment is offered is so 
        comprehensive (overlapping several committees' jurisdictions) 
        as to diminish the pertinency of that test and the amendment as 
        offered does not demonstrably affect a law within another 
        committee's jurisdiction, or where the portion of the bill also 
        contains language, related to the amendment, not within the 
        jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill--
        But the text continues:
        But committee jurisdiction is a relevant test where the pending 
        text is entirely within one committee's jurisdiction and where 
        the amendment falls within another committee's purview.

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois does fall within the purview of the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Omnibus Agriculture Bill Amended To Include Provisions Within 
    Jurisdiction of Other Committees--Amendment To Make Eligibility for 
    Price Support Programs Conditional on Compliance With Labor 
    Standards

Sec. 4.67 To an omnibus agricultural bill authorizing a variety of 
    commodity price support and payment programs within the 
    jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee, but amended to include 
    provisions on subjects within the jurisdiction of other committees, 
    such as ethanol (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce) and cargo preference (the Committees on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries and Foreign Affairs), an amendment 
    conditioning eligibility in such price support and payment programs 
    upon the furnishing by agricultural employers of specified labor 
    protection (normally within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor) was held germane, as the bill had been amended 
    to include matter beyond the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Agriculture.

[[Page 7688]]

    On Oct. 8, 1985,(7) during consideration of the Food 
Security Act of 1985 (8) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
Chair, in overruling points of order against an amendment, reiterated 
the principle that committee jurisdiction is not the exclusive test of 
germaneness where the proposition being amended contains provisions so 
comprehensive as to overlap several committee's jurisdictions. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 131 Cong. Rec. 26548-51, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 2100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: At the end of 
    the bill add a new Title XXI.

    LIMITATION ON PARTICIPATION IN CERTAIN COMMODITY PRICE SUPPORT AND 
                              PAYMENT PROGRAMS

        Sec. 21. (a) Any person who violates subsection (b), (c), or 
    (d) shall be ineligible, as to any commodity produced by that 
    person during the crop year which follows the crop year in which 
    such violation occurs, for any type of price support, payment or 
    any other program or activity described in any of paragraphs 1 
    through 5 of section 1202(a).
        (b) Any agricultural employer shall provide the following to 
    agricultural employees engaged in hand-labor operations in the 
    field, without cost to such employees:
        (1) Potable drinking water. . . .
        (2) With respect to toilets and handwashing facilities--
        (A) one toilet and one handwashing facility provided for each 
    group of 20 employees, or any fraction thereof;
        (B) toilet facilities with doors which can be closed and 
    latched from the inside and constructed to ensure privacy. . . .
        Mr. [Arlen] Stangeland [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the Miller amendment is not germane to H.R. 
    2100. . . .
        One underlying rationale for the rule of germaneness is to 
    preclude the consideration of subjects that were not considered by 
    the appropriate committee when the bill was being considered by the 
    Agricultural Committee; this is H.R. 2100. No such hearings were 
    held by the Committee on Agriculture.
        The primary jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Miller 
    amendment is with the Committee on Education and Labor. A bill 
    similar to the Miller amendment, H.R. 3295, was cosponsored by my 
    colleague from California on September 12, 1985, and was only 
    referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
        This amendment is an attempt to circumvent the rules of the 
    House in the consideration of legislation by a major committee and 
    to introduce a new subject, labor standards, into the agricultural 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. [George] Miller of California: . . . Clearly, the amendment 
    is germane, because the amendment provides the conditions upon 
    which the benefits under this program shall be derived by farm 
    owners throughout

[[Page 7689]]

    this country. It is the conditions upon which the agricultural 
    benefits that are put together, the billions of dollars in this 
    program, shall be distributed.
        It is also germane because it does not expand the jurisdiction 
    of American labor law; it does not expand any existing law; it is 
    clearly stated and it is well-ordered point of law that the OSHA 
    Act, under which the Secretary of Labor has the ability to extend 
    the protection for health and safety benefits is well settled that 
    it already applies to the agricultural field.
        There are a number of provisions of OSHA which are already 
    settled in the law as provided to them, and this is one of them. 
    This is one of them. So clearly we have the ability to take already 
    existing law, with no extension of authority, and condition the 
    distribution of agricultural benefits and participations in this 
    program on that already-existing law. . . .
        This amendment simply says that those standards, which have 
    already been promulgated, which have already been settled, which 
    have already been published, shall be one of the conditioning of 
    the reasons for which there will be distribution of the benefits of 
    this program. . . .
        Mr. [Richard] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's 
    amendment imposes field sanitation regulations on certain 
    agricultural employers; mandates that the head of the Federal 
    Department, Secretary of Agriculture, delegate the making of 
    further rules and the investigation of violations to the head of 
    another Federal Department, the Secretary of Labor, and renders 
    violations of the regulations ineligible for the commodity price 
    support.
        First, the amendment does not meet the fundamental purpose of 
    germaneness. The general rule is that the fundamental purpose of an 
    amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill.
        The basic purpose of this bill is to reauthorize the Commodity 
    and Farm Credit Programs and the Food Stamp Programs. Regarding the 
    commodity price supports, the bill's objective is to bring crop 
    price supports closer to market prices in order to make U.S. crops 
    more competitive in the world market and additionally, as a result, 
    to continue to protect farm income in certain ways.
        There is no logical connection between the fundamental purpose 
    of this bill and the basic purpose behind the gentleman's 
    amendment. . . .
        In effect, his amendment's real purpose is to establish a new, 
    special occupational health and safety statute applicable to a 
    limited class of agricultural workplaces. His amendment does not 
    seek to further the legislative end of the matter sought to be 
    amended but, rather, he is using the vehicle of the Commodity Price 
    Support Program to simply enact his new agricultural field 
    sanitation law and to create a penalty device to enforce it. . . .
        Mr. Miller of California: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order 
    raised, let us talk about whether or not this amendment is 
    fundamental to this legislation that was raised by the gentleman 
    from Texas. The fact of the matter is, this is absolutely 
    fundamental to this legislation. The purposes of this legislation 
    are to determine the conditions and the basis on which the benefits 
    under this program,

[[Page 7690]]

    whether it is an allotment program that we just determined here or 
    whether it is the Commodity Program, whether it is support crisis, 
    crop insurance, loans that are made to the agricultural community, 
    the terms and conditions upon which these benefits will be made. . 
    . .
        This bill is riddled with conditions upon which those benefits 
    will be addressed or which those benefits will be distributed.
        So this adds nothing new in terms of new law. It simply 
    provides an additional benefit. If you read through this 
    legislation, throughout the legislation, there are conditions 
    placed upon the size of the farm, the wealth of the farmers, the 
    kind of land they till, the kind of land they set aside, whether or 
    not they participate, whether or not they ship their crops overseas 
    on American bottoms or not. All of those are conditions because we 
    do not allow billions and billions of dollars to be distributed 
    without some say so. So I suggest to you that is absolutely 
    germane, Mr. Chairman, to have this condition be made a part of 
    this legislation and a condition under the existing programs on 
    which the benefits are distributed. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the points of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlemen from Minnesota and Texas make a point of order 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Miller] is not germane to the bill. Since the amendment is in the 
    form of a new title to be inserted at the end of the bill, the 
    Chair must consider the relationship of the amendment to the bill 
    as a whole and as modified by the Committee of the Whole. The 
    amendment would condition the availability of price support and 
    payment programs authorized by the bill upon the furnishing by 
    certain agricultural employers of specified labor protections. 
    While it is true that jurisdiction over labor standards for 
    agricultural employees is a matter within the purview of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor and while the bill contains 
    subject matter primarily within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Agriculture, the bill, as amended, also includes provisions 
    within the jurisdiction of other committees including the Committee 
    on Energy and Commerce, on ethanol, the amendment of Mr. Leach, the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries which had the question 
    of cargo preference and also the Committees on Ways and Means and 
    Foreign Affairs. As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, 
    section 4.1, committee jurisdiction over the subject of an 
    amendment is not the exclusive test of germaneness where the 
    proposition being amended contains provisions so comprehensive as 
    to overlap several committees' jurisdictions.

        The Chair is also aware that regulations have been ordered to 
    be promulgated by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to existing law 
    to accomplish the purpose of the amendment. This situation is 
    similar to the precedent cited in Deschler's chapter 28, section 
    23.6, where, to an omnibus agricultural bill, an amendment 
    prohibiting any price support payments under the bill unless such 
    producers are certified by the Secretary of Labor to be in 
    compliance with applicable health and safety laws

[[Page 7691]]

    was held to be germane. For these reasons the question that was 
    raised by the gentlemen from Minnesota and Texas on germaneness 
    will not be sustained.

Provisions Amending Agriculture Act--Amendment Repealing Regulations 
    Under Occupational Safety and Health Act

Sec. 4.68 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute amending 
    several Acts within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Agriculture, an amendment directing the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    establish emergency temporary work standards for agricultural 
    workers exposed to pesticide chemicals, notwithstanding provisions 
    of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor), and 
    repealing certain work regulations promulgated under that Act, was 
    held to be not germane, despite inclusion of a similar provision in 
    the bill to which the amendment in the nature of a substitute had 
    been offered.

    On July 19, 1973,(10) during consideration of a bill to 
amend and extend the Agriculture Act of 1970 (11) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that the test of 
germaneness is the relationship between an amendment and the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to which it is offered, and not between 
the amendment and the bill for which the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute has been offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 24962, 24963, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 8860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilmer] Mizell [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mizell to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Foley: On page 53, line 
        3, insert the following:
            Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding section 6(c) of the 
        Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 654(c)) 
        or any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture 
        shall provide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5, 
        title 5, United States Code, for an emergency temporary 
        standard prohibiting agricultural workers from entering areas 
        where crops are produced or grown (such emergency standard to 
        take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register) 
        if he determines (1) that such agricultural workers are exposed 
        to grave danger from exposure to pesticide chemicals, as 
        defined in section 201(q) of the Federal Food, Drug and 
        Cosmetic

[[Page 7692]]

        Act (21 U.S.C. 321(q)), and (2) that such emergency standard is 
        necessary to protect such agricultural workers from such 
        danger.
            (b) Such temporary standard shall be effective until 
        superseded by a standard prescribed by the Secretary of 
        Agriculture by rule, no later than six months after publication 
        of such temporary standard. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
    order against the amendment in that it is not germane because it 
    would have the effect of amending the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act which is under the jurisdiction of the Education and 
    Labor Committee. . . .
        Mr. Mizell: Mr. Chairman, this language was in the committee 
    bill that was reported to the House, and the Foley substitute 
    eliminated this section of the bill, and so for that reason, I 
    offer the amendment at this time, and I think it is germane to the 
    bill since this bill does cover a number of subjects. . . .
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, the rule 
    under which this legislation came to us precluded a point of order 
    being raised against the Mizell amendment, the one that was 
    contained in the original Agriculture Committee bill since this 
    bill was a clean bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture.
        What we are now dealing with is a situation in which this is an 
    amendment to a substitute.
        The subject matter covered by the amendment is clearly not 
    germane to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, since 
    it is covered by the Committee on Education and Labor, and thus I 
    believe the point of order ought to be sustained by the Chair. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair advises the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Mizell) that as far as the rule is concerned, it has no relevance 
    concerning the point of order at this time. It is true that the 
    content is the amendment as offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Mizell) on the original bill, but the amendment 
    before the House at this time is in the nature of a substitute.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that the point of order must be 
    sustained.

Appropriation To Supply Farm Labor--Amendment Changing Selective 
    Training and Service Act Relating To Induction of Farm Labor

Sec. 4.69 To a joint resolution providing an appropriation for 
    supplying and distributing farm labor, an amendment seeking to 
    amend provisions of the Selective Training and Service Act relating 
    to induction of farm labor was held to be not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(13) providing an appropriation as above described, an 
amendment was of

[[Page 7693]]

fered (14) relating to induction of farm labor. Mr. John 
Taber, of New York, made the point of order against the amendment that 
it was not germane to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.J. Res. 96 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. 89 Cong. Rec. 2165, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 17, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Robert L. F. Sikes (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        House Joint Resolution 96 provides an appropriation for 
    supplying and distributing farm labor. The amendment . . . in 
    effect amends the Selective Training and Service Act by providing 
    for certain deferments. Legislation affecting the Draft Act 
    automatically comes under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Military Affairs, not the Committee on Appropriations or the 
    Committee on Agriculture. Therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
    Fulmer] is not germane to the pending resolution, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill Providing for Loans to Farmers--Amendment To Provide for Loans to 
    Commercial Fishermen

Sec. 4.70 To a bill providing financial relief for one class 
    (agricultural producers), an amendment extending such relief to 
    another class (commercial fishermen), particularly where relief to 
    the latter class is within the jurisdiction of another committee, 
    is not germane.

    During consideration of the Agriculture Credit Act of 1978 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 24, 
1978,(17) Chairman Don Fuqua, of Florida, sustained a point 
of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 11504.
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 11080, 11081, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Weaver: Page 20, line 7, insert 
        ``and Commercial Fishing'' after ``Agricultural.''
            Section 202:
            Page 20, line 11, strike out ``and ranchers'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``, ranchers, or commercial fishermen''.
            Page 20, line 12, strike out the comma and insert ``or 
        commercial fishing''.
            Page 20, line 14, insert ``or fishing'' before 
        ``cooperatives''. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order the amendment is not germane to title II of the 
    bill. I cite the title of title II which is ``Emergency 
    Agricultural Credit Adjustment Act of 1978.'' The purposes of title 
    II of the

[[Page 7694]]

    bill are to make insured and guaranteed loans to bona fide farmers 
    and ranchers who are primarily engaged in agricultural production, 
    and to farm cooperatives, private domestic corporations or 
    partnerships that are primarily and directly engaged in 
    agricultural production.
        No part of the bill deals with fishing activities or the 
    fishing industry or has to do with establishing any loans or 
    credits or otherwise providing financial assistance to any 
    fishermen or those engaged in any fishing activity.
        The whole structure and purpose of this title are limited to 
    provision of credit to farmers and ranchers. Therefore, Mr. 
    Chairman, I feel that the amendment is not germane to the title. . 
    . .
        Mr. Weaver: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say the Farmers Home 
    Administration makes fish loans presently. This is a Farmers Home 
    Administration bill. Certainly the fishermen should be given the 
    right to borrow under this Emergency Loan Act.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Weaver) would add commercial fishermen to the category of those 
    eligible under title II of the bill. Title II, as indicated in 
    section 202 on page 20, establishes a new emergency agricultural 
    credit adjustment program for bona fide farmers and ranchers who 
    are primarily engaged and directly engaged in agricultural 
    production and to other farming entities engaged in agricultural 
    production. While this program would be available to farmers and 
    ranchers, the Committee on Agriculture has chosen to treat them as 
    a generic class of persons engaged in the production of 
    agricultural commodities--a matter properly within the jurisdiction 
    of that committee.
        As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, in section 7.17 of 
    chapter 28--

            To a bill providing relief for one class, an amendment to 
        extend the relief to another class is not germane--

        Especially where, as here, the class of recipients who may 
    receive credit assistance is sought to be to commercial fishermen, 
    matters which are within the jurisdiction of another committee of 
    the House, as pointed out in the colloquy a few minutes ago. So, 
    therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order against the 
    amendment.

Provisions for Assistance to Agriculture Through Price Support 
    Payments--Amendment To Restrict Imports in Competition With 
    Domestic Agriculture

Sec. 4.71 To a proposal to provide financial assistance to domestic 
    agriculture through a system of price support payments, an 
    amendment seeking to protect that segment of domestic agriculture 
    by restricting imports in competition therewith is not germane, 
    since seeking to accomplish a purpose by an unrelated method within 
    the jurisdiction of another committee.

[[Page 7695]]

    During consideration of the Food and Agriculture Act of 
1981(18) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained 
a point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
of Oct. 14, 1981,(19) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 3603.
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 23896, 23898, 23899, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steven C.] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gunderson: Page 10, after line 13, 
        insert the following new section (and redesignate succeeding 
        sections accordingly):

                           CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS

            Sec. 107. (a) The Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446) 
        directs the Secretary of Agriculture to support the price of 
        milk so as to assure the domestic production of an adequate 
        supply of pure and wholesome milk to meet current needs, 
        reflect changes in the cost of production, and assure a level 
        of farm income adequate to maintain productive capacity 
        sufficient to meet future anticipated needs.
            (b) Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 
        624) provides that whenever the Secretary of Agriculture has 
        reason to believe that imports of any product render or tend to 
        render ineffective or materially interfere with the effective 
        operation of a price support or similar program of the United 
        States Department of Agriculture or that such imports reduce 
        substantially the amount of any product processed in the United 
        States from any agricultural commodity for which such price or 
        similar program is in effect, he shall so advise the President 
        who shall, if he agrees there is reason for such belief, cause 
        an immediate investigation by the United States International 
        Trade Commission to determine the facts. If on the basis of 
        such investigation, the President finds the existence of such 
        facts, he shall impose fees not to exceed 50 percent ad valorem 
        or quantitative limitations of not less than 50 percent of the 
        quantity entered during a representative period on such 
        imported products. . . .
            (e) Congress finds that the $300 million added cost of the 
        Dairy Price Support Program resulting from these imports does 
        represent material interference with the Dairy Price Support 
        Program and that the prospect of additional future costs will 
        further interfere with achievement of the purpose and intent of 
        the program.
            (f) To relieve such interference, the Congress further 
        finds that limitations on the import of milk protein products, 
        including but not limited to casein, mixtures of casein, 
        latalbumin, and whey protein concentrates or mixtures 
        containing 5 percent or more of these products that may enter 
        the customs territory of the Untied States in any calendar year 
        should be established in accordance with Section 22 of the 
        Agriculture Adjustment Act. Such annual limitation should be no 
        more than the average of such imports into the United States 
        during the five-year period preceding 1981. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the Gunderson amendment.
        Clause 7 of rule XVI requires that ``no motion or proposition 
    on a subject different from that under consideration shall be 
    admitted under color of amendment.''

[[Page 7696]]

        Section 795 of the rules of the House states that ``an 
    amendment inserting an additional section should be germane to the 
    portion of the bill to which it is offered.'' Section 798 states 
    that ``an amendment must relate to the subject matter under 
    consideration.''
        In my judgment, neither is true in the case of this amendment. 
    The amendment would seek to restrict the importation of casein, a 
    different subject matter altogether than that which is in title I 
    of this particular bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the Gunderson amendment tries to establish an 
    annual limitation on the importation of casein, and it directs 
    certain material to be sent to the U.S. International Trade 
    Commission and refers to section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment 
    Act. That agency and that particular section of the act is normally 
    the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. Bills relating to 
    that act and that agency are usually referred to the Ways and Means 
    Committee.
        Therefore, I submit that this amendment is not germane to title 
    I of this bill. . . .
        Mr. Gunderson: . . . There are three basic tests of germaneness 
    under clause 7 of rule XVI: Subject matter, fundamental purpose, 
    and committee jurisdiction. I believe that my amendment meets all 
    three tests.
        First of all, an amendment must relate to the subject matter 
    under consideration. Mr. Chairman, title I of H.R. 3603 deals with 
    the milk price support program. My amendment expresses a 
    congressional finding that casein imports materially interfere with 
    the dairy price support program and that a quota should be 
    established.
        In a similar situation involving a bill that would make 
    oleomargerine and other imitation dairy products subject to the 
    laws of the State or territory into which they are transported, the 
    Chair ruled that an amendment requiring the USDA to perform certain 
    inspections of plants producing imitation butter was, in fact, 
    germane. (5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5919.)
        Second, the fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane 
    to the fundamental purpose of the bill. H.R. 3603 is offered ``to 
    provide price and income protection for farmers and assure 
    consumers an abundance of food and fiber at reasonable prices.'' 
    Mr. Chairman, it is apparent from the text of my amendment that it 
    is designed to provide income protection for farmers by 
    discouraging an increasing number of imitation products. It is also 
    meant to assure that consumers have an abundance of wholesome and 
    nutritious dairy products at a reasonable price rather than having 
    those products forced out of the market by an increasing number of 
    imitation products.
        Finally, an amendment should be within the jurisdiction of the 
    committee reporting the bill. Mr. Chairman, my amendment deals with 
    the effect of casein on the domestic dairy price support program. 
    This subject certainly is within the jurisdiction of the House 
    Committee on Agriculture, who brought H.R. 3603 to the floor, since 
    a subcommittee of that committee held hearings on this very subject 
    in 1979.
        It is arguable that the Committee on Ways and Means should have 
    joint jurisdiction over the subject matter of this amendment. Yet, 
    such joint jurisdiction does not affect its germaneness.

[[Page 7697]]

    During the consideration of the farm bill in 1977, the Chair ruled 
    that an amendment to the food stamp portion of the farm bill 
    dealing with collections from certain food stamp recipients was 
    germane despite the fact that both the Agriculture Committee and 
    the Ways and Means Committee had possible jurisdiction over the 
    subject matter of the amendment--1977 Congressional Record, page 
    25252.
        Mr. Chairman, the past precedents suggest that my amendment is 
    germane. I, therefore, urge the Chair to overrule the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While the Chair is unclear whether the first part of the 
    amendment merely recites what is already contained in section 22 of 
    the Agricultural Adjustment Act, or whether it confers direct new 
    tariff authority, the Chair believes that any amendment suggesting 
    what the tariff levels on imported dairy products should be raises 
    an issue within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
        Indeed, the Speaker has consistently referred section 22 
    amendments to that committee.
        The Chair would also note that title I, to which this amendment 
    is addressed, does not impose any particular tariff limitations. 
    The Chair might also cite for purposes of precedent 121 
    Congressional Record, 7667, 94th Congress, 1st session, which 
    related to H.R. 4296, emergency price supports for the 1975 crops. 
    In that instance, to a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture providing price supports for milk, an amendment 
    expressing the sense of Congress that tariffs be imposed on 
    imported dairy products was ruled out as not germane.
        Therefore, for these reasons, the Chair is required to sustain 
    the point of order.

        Mr. [E] de la Garza [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I did want to 
    question one part of the ruling of the Chair in which the Chair 
    states that the Committee on Ways and Means has exclusive 
    jurisdiction over items such as casein. It has always been my 
    understanding that the Committee on Agriculture would have joint 
    jurisdiction with the Committee on Ways and Means, and I would not 
    like for the ruling of the Chair to be interpreted as dispossessing 
    the Agriculture Committee from joint jurisdiction, because the area 
    of concern involves both committees.
        The Chairman: The Chair would say to the gentleman that the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole would not make any ruling 
    with respect to future jurisdictional matters. That is a matter for 
    the Speaker to determine at the appropriate time. The Chair has 
    ruled with respect to this particular amendment and sustained the 
    point of order.
        Mr. de la Garza: To which I have no objection, Mr. Chairman.

Bill Establishing Agricultural Price Supports--Amendment Restricting 
    Authority of Secretary of Commerce Over Agricultural Exports

Sec. 4.72 To a bill reported from the Committee on Agri

[[Page 7698]]

    culture 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 (an emergency price support 
program for certain 1975 crops) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 
20, 1975, (21) the Chair sustained a point of order against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 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:

            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: (22) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The subject of export controls administered by the Secretary of 
    Commerce

[[Page 7699]]

    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.

Provisions Relating to Import Duties on Sugar--Amendment Eliminating 
    Price Support Payments for Sugar

Sec. 4.73 To an amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
    Means dealing only with import duties and quotas on sugar, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which provided that such 
    duties and quotas shall be the exclusive method of achieving a 
    price objective for sugar and which by its terms eliminated all 
    price support payments for sugar where such price supports were a 
    matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture and 
    a subject not dealt with in the Committee on Ways and Means' 
    amendment but merely mentioned in the accompanying report.

    On Oct. 6, 1978,(1) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 13750, the Sugar Stabilization Act of 1978. An 
amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means was reported:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 34108, 34109, 34111, 34112, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will now report the 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Dan Daniel (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment recommended by Committee on Ways and Means: Page 
        7, strike out line 1 and all that follows thereafter down 
        through line 24 on page 21 and insert the following:

                TITLE II--IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON SUGAR . . .
    Sec. 202. Price Objective and Average Daily Prices.

            (a) Price Objective.--(1) The price objective for each 
        sugar supply year beginning after September 30, 1978, is 15 
        cents per pound, raw value.
            (b) Average Daily Prices.--(1) The Secretary shall 
        determine on a continuing basis the average daily price for 
        United States raw sugar imports and shall monitor the prices of 
        sugar and sugar-containing products in the import trade of the 
        United States.
            (2) The Secretary shall publish the determinations made 
        under paragraph (1) in the Federal Register on such periodic 
        basis as he deems appropriate.
    Sec. 203. Secretarial Recommendations Regarding Special Import 
    Duties Backup Quotas.

[[Page 7700]]

            (a) Special Import Duties.--(1) Not later than 30 days 
        before the beginning of each sugar supply year which commences 
        after September 30, 1979, the Secretary shall--
            (A) on the basis of best available information, estimate 
        whether the average daily price for United States raw sugar 
        imports during such sugar supply year will be below the price 
        objective; and
            (B) if the estimation under subparagraph (A) is in the 
        affirmative, recommend to the President that he impose such 
        special import duties on the entry of such sugar (including, 
        but not limited to, refined sugar) and, if appropriate, such 
        sugar-containing products as the Secretary determines to be 
        necessary to assure that the average daily price for United 
        States raw sugar imports will result in the price objective for 
        such sugar supply year being achieved. . . .
            (b) Back-Up Quotas.--Whenever the Secretary has reason to 
        believe that the special import duties imposed on the entry of 
        any sugar or sugar-containing product on the basis of any 
        recommendation made by him under subsection (a), and adjusted 
        pursuant to subsection (c), are not resulting in the price 
        objective for the sugar supply year being achieved, the 
        Secretary shall recommend to the President, as a further 
        adjustment under subsection (c), that he impose in addition to 
        such special import duties, such quotas, on a supply year 
        quarter basis, on the articles concerned as the Secretary 
        determines to be necessary to achieve such price objective. . . 
        .
            (c) Review and Adjustments of Duties and Quotas.--The 
        Secretary shall review, on a supply year quarter basis, the 
        effect of all special import duties and quotas imposed as a 
        result of recommendations made by him under subsections (a) and 
        (b). On the basis of such review, the Secretary may recommend 
        to the President such adjustments with respect to the amount of 
        any such duty or quota, or with respect to sugar or sugar-
        containing products to which any such duty or quota should be 
        extended or removed, as the Secretary determines to be 
        necessary to achieve the price objective for the sugar supply 
        year concerned. . . .

    An amendment was offered by Mr. William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin:

        Mr. Steiger: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the Ways and 
    Means Committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Steiger to the Ways and Means 
        Committee amendment: Amend the section heading and subsection 
        (a) of section 202, as proposed by the Committee, to read as 
        follows:
    Sec. 202. Price Objectives and Average Daily Prices.

            (a) Price Objective--(1) The price objectives for sugar 
        supply years beginning after September 30, 1978, are as 
        follows:
            (A) The price objective for the 1978 sugar supply year is 
        15 cents per pound, raw value. . . .
            (e) Restrictions on Price Support Authority.--During such 
        time as this title has force and effect, except as provided in 
        section 310, the imposition under subsection (a) of special 
        import duties or quotas, as the case may be, with respect to 
        sugar or sugar containing products shall be the exclusive 
        method of achieving the price objective, and shall be in lieu 
        of any statutory or regulatory mechanism established for the 
        purpose of achieving, through direct payments, the price 
        support level for producers and processors of sugar cane and 
        sugar beets, notwith

[[Page 7701]]

        standing any other provision of law. . . .

    Mr. Charles A. Vanik, of Ohio, made the following point of order:

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, I oppose consideration of the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Steiger since it is clearly nongermane to 
    the substitute and title II before us.

        The annotations to the rules of the House state that 
    ``restrictions, qualifications, and limitations sought to be added 
    by way of amendment must be germane to the provisions of the 
    bill,'' (cite: rule XVI(7), Sec. 800, p. 539) and further, that 
    ``the burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to 
    establish its germaneness,'' (cite: rule XVI(7), Sec. 794, p. 528) 
    and where an amendment is equally susceptible to more than one 
    interpretation, one of which will render it not germane, the Chair 
    will rule it out of order. (June 20, 1975, p.-- )
        Mr. Steiger's amendment effectively prohibits the operation of 
    existing law--law which is not repealed, not amended, and not even 
    cited in the substitute before us.
        For these reasons, I ask that Mr. Steiger's amendment be ruled 
    nongermane to this substitute and title II. . . .
        Mr. Steiger: Mr. Chairman, the Members will notice that the 
    provision has been very carefully drawn so that it is an exclusive 
    remedy. It says, if I may direct the attention of the Chair to page 
    2, the following:

            During such time as this title has force and effect . . . 
        the imposition under subsection (a) of special import duties or 
        quotas with respect to sugar or sugar-containing products shall 
        be the exclusive method of achieving the price objective and 
        shall be in lieu of any statutory or regulatory mechanism 
        established otherwise, notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law.

        I would further, Mr. Chairman, direct attention to page 15 of 
    the committee report of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
    Members will note on page 15 of that committee report that the 
    Committee on Ways and Means says the following:

            The Department of Agriculture has pledged to the Committee 
        that direct payments will be made under the 1949 Agricultural 
        Act to guarantee processors/producers protection against any 
        increases in the cost of production, as calculated under the 
        1977 Food and Agriculture Act, above the 15-cent price 
        objective level. It is the committee's understanding and intent 
        that direct payments will not be used to bring the price of 
        sugar up to the 15-cent level; rather, the special import 
        duties and quotas will be used to obtain the 15-cent figure. . 
        . .

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, on my point of order I specifically 
    complain about the item that is included in the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger), subsection (e) on 
    page 2. I want to read the summary of H.R. 17350 in the report of 
    the Committee on Ways and Means on page 11 in the third paragraph, 
    second sentence:

            The Ways and Means Committee bill very clearly does not 
        legislate any new direct payments authority; rather, it relies 
        on existing law and commitment from the USDA to make direct 
        payments to processors. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.

[[Page 7702]]

        The Ways and Means Committee amendment very clearly does not 
    legislate any new direct support payments authority, a matter not 
    within that committee's jurisdiction; rather, as stated on page 11 
    of their report, it is intended to rely on existing law and 
    commitment from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to make direct 
    payments to processors/producers to reflect any changes in the cost 
    of production of sugar above the 15-cent price objective level.
        The language on page 15 of the report cited by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin is not in the amendment but simply states an intent, 
    and the Chair, therefore, holds the amendment not germane to the 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means and 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill Providing Price Support for Milk--Amendment Relating to Tariffs on 
    Imported Milk

Sec. 4.74 To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture providing a one year price support for milk, an 
    amendment expressing the sense of the Congress that the President 
    shall impose certain tariff duties on imported dairy products was 
    held to go beyond the purview of the pending section and to involve 
    a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, and was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the emergency price supports bill for 1975 
crops (3) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 20, 
1975,(4) a point of order was sustained against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 4296.
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 7667, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms:
            Page 3, line 16, after the words ``each quarter.'', insert 
        the following:
            ``It is the sense of Congress that the President shall 
        impose at the earliest practicable date countervailing duties 
        as proposed by the Department of Treasury on February 14, 1975, 
        for dairy products imported into the United States from the 
        European Economic Community.''.

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The amendment deals with duties which are not within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture and are within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, eliminating 
    various tariffs and trade acts authorized by the Congress and, 
    consequently, does not relate to legislation before the committee 
    at this time, and is in violation of rule XVI, clause 7. . . .
        Mr. Symms: . . . [T]he amount of dairy products purchased by 
    the Com

[[Page 7703]]

    modity Credit Corporation in the last fiscal year equaled exactly 
    the amount dumped on our markets, which were subsidized by foreign 
    dairy products dumped on our markets and undersold, in direct 
    competition to our producers, so I think the amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) makes a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho 
    (Mr. Symms) on the ground that it is not germane.
        The amendment relates to the subject of import restrictions and 
    tariffs on dairy products, which subject is not within the purview 
    of section 2 of the bill, nor is it within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Agriculture. The amendment is, therefore, not germane, 
    and the Chairman sustains the point of order.

Provisions Directing Commodity Credit Corporation To Sell Surplus Dry 
    Milk--Amendment Relating to Labeling Under Federal Food, Drug and 
    Cosmetic Act

Sec. 4.75 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 held to 
    be not germane.

    During consideration of the Food Security Act (H.R. 2100) in the 
Committee of the Whole on Sept. 26, 1985,(6) the Chair 
sustained a point of order against an amendment to the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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 domestic 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.

[[Page 7704]]

            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.

            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: (7) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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.

Bill Amending Law Relating to Registration of Pesticides--Amendment 
    Barring Award of Attorneys' Fees in Certain Civil Actions Brought 
    Under the Law

Sec. 4.76 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

[[Page 7705]]

    committee governing fees in federal civil actions generally, where 
    nothing in the pending title amended laws on that subject.

    On Sept. 19, 1986,(8) during consideration of the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act amendments of 1986 
(9) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 132 Cong. Rec. 24728-30, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. H.R. 2482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In lieu of amendments recommended by the Committee on Agriculture 
printed in the bill, the text of H.R. 5440 was being considered by 
titles as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and Title I of 
H.R. 5440 was open for amendment at any point. Title I stated in part: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 24149, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 18, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 106. administrator's authority to require data on inert 
    ingredients. . . .

        (b) Priority List and Data Requirements.--Section 3 (7 U.S.C. 
    136a) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsection:
        ``(g) Priority List and Data Requirements for Inert 
    Ingredients.--
        ``(1) Establishment of List.--Subject to paragraph (4), the 
    Administrator shall establish a priority list of inert ingredients 
    consisting of--. . .
        ``(B) inert ingredients (i) for which additional data are 
    reasonably necessary to assess the risk that the inert ingredient 
    may result in a pesticide causing an unreasonable adverse effect on 
    the environment, (ii) that are similar in molecular structure to a 
    chemical that is oncogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic or causes 
    another similarly significant adverse effect, and (iii) that have 
    significant use in pesticides or to which there is significant 
    exposure from pesticides. . . .
        (2) ``Publication of List.--Not later than 90 days after the 
    effective date of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
    Rodenticide Act Amendments of 1986, the Administrator shall publish 
    the priority list required under paragraph (1). The Administrator 
    shall publish revisions to such list at least annually. . . .
        ``(5) Additional Data.--
        ``(A) The Administrator shall determine whether additional data 
    are required for an inert ingredient in a registered pesticide not 
    later than 1 year after the inert ingredient is placed on the 
    priority list under paragraph (1). The Administrator shall require 
    submission of such data from each registrant of such pesticide 
    under this Act or from manufacturers and processors of the inert 
    ingredient under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Such data shall 
    be submitted within a reasonable time but not later than 4 years 
    after the date of the request. The Administrator may extend the 
    period for the submission of data by not more than 2

[[Page 7706]]

    years if extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the 
    registrant or producer prevent the submission of the necessary 
    data.
        ``(B) Data requirements imposed under subparagraph (A) or a 
    decision not to require data for an inert ingredient shall be 
    subject to judicial review under section 16(b).

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        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.
        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.''. . .

[[Page 7707]]

        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: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 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 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.

Bill Authorizing Secretary of Agriculture To Employ Grain Inspectors--
    Amendment Permitting Employees to Credit Private Service for Civil 
    Service Retirement Purposes

     Sec. 4.77 Committee jurisdiction over the subject of an

[[Page 7708]]

    amendment is not the exclusive test of germaneness where the 
    portion of the bill being amended contains language not within the 
    jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill, and the amendment 
    relates to such language.

    On Apr. 2, 1976,(12) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a section of a bill (13) reported from 
the Committee on Agriculture authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture 
to employ official grain inspectors without regard to civil service 
appointment statutes upon his finding of their good moral character and 
professional competence. An amendment was offered permitting those 
employees to credit their prior private service as grain inspectors to 
their Civil Service retirement. The amendment was held germane as 
merely stating a further condition upon their status as federal 
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 122 Cong. Rec. 9240-42, 9253, 9254, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. H.R. 12572, the Grain Standards Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            (c) By amending subsection (d) and adding new subsections 
        (e) . . . to read as follows:
            ``(d) Persons employed by an official inspection agency 
        (including persons employed by a State agency under a 
        delegation of authority pursuant to section 7(e), persons 
        performing official inspection functions under contract with 
        the Department of Agriculture, and persons employed by a State 
        or local agency or other person conducting functions relating 
        to weighing under section 7A shall not, unless otherwise 
        employed by the Federal Government, be determined to be 
        employees of the Federal Government of the United States: 
        Provided, however, That such persons shall be considered in the 
        performance of any official inspection functions or any 
        functions relating to weighing as prescribed by this Act or by 
        the rules and regulations of the Secretary, as persons acting 
        for or on behalf of the United States, for the purpose of 
        determining the application of section 201 of title 18, United 
        States Code, to such persons . . .
            ``(e) The Secretary of Agriculture may hire (without regard 
        to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
        appointments in the competitive service) as official inspection 
        personnel any individual who is licensed (on the date of 
        enactment of this Act) to perform functions of official 
        inspection under the United States Grain Standards Act and as 
        personnel to perform supervisory weighing or weighing functions 
        any individual who, on the date of enactment of this Act, was 
        performing similar functions: Provided, That the Secretary of 
        Agriculture determines that such individuals are of good moral 
        character and are technically and professionally qualified for 
        the duties to which they will be assigned.''

        Mrs. [Lindy] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Boggs: Page 19, line 11, insert 
        the following immediately after the first period: ``Any 
        individual who is hired by the

[[Page 7709]]

        Secretary pursuant to this subsection shall, for purposes of 
        the annuity computed under section 8339 of title 5, United 
        States Code, be credited (subject to the provisions of sections 
        8334(c) and 8339(i) of such title) with any service performed 
        by such individual before the date of enactment of this 
        subsection in connection with this Act.''. . .

        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Michel) insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Phil M. Landrum (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I do so because, in my opinion, the 
    amendment is not germane to this bill, which amends the U.S. Grain 
    Standards Act, and says, on page 18:

            The Secretary of Agriculture may hire (without regard to 
        the provisions of title V, United States Code, governing 
        appointments in the competitive service) . . . any individual 
        who is licensed to perform functions on the date of enactment.

        Then it is provided further that the individuals be of good 
    moral character and that they be professionally qualified, et 
    cetera.
        The amendment of the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Mrs. Boggs), 
    however, seeks to amend title 5, section 8339, 8334(c), and 
    8339(i).
        Mr. Chairman, an amendment to another statute does not make it 
    germane to this bill, and I would cite as my authority on that, the 
    Record of August 17, 1972, page 28913, as follows:

            Under rule 16, to a bill reported from the Committee on 
        Agriculture providing price support programs for various 
        agricultural commodities, an amendment repealing price-control 
        authority for all commodities under an Act reported from the 
        Committee on Banking and Currency is not germane. July 19, 
        1973, etc.

        If the amendment of the gentlewoman from Louisiana were in the 
    form of a bill, it would undoubtedly be referred to the Committee 
    on Post Office and Civil Service, because it has to do with the 
    retirement benefits of employees that would be selected by the 
    section. . . .
        Mrs. Boggs: . . . The language of section 6(e), I feel, is 
    sufficiently broad and certainly the committee report language is 
    sufficiently broad to insist that the workers who are of good moral 
    character, as the bill says, could be employed without regard to 
    various Civil Service regulations in order to quickly be able to 
    put into effect a service that will be highly necessary for the 
    Government if we indeed are going to take over the work of the 
    private agencies and the State agencies.
        Mr. Chairman, the language is sufficiently broad where it goes 
    on to suggest that positions of at least comparable responsibility 
    and rank to those enjoyed in the private and State systems be given 
    to them and that in setting their pay within the appropriate grade, 
    to the extent possible, cognizance should be taken in order to take 
    into consideration these rank and longevity benefits, so that the 
    employees had, under the system where employed, the benefits that 
    they had under longevity. The benefit system under which they were 
    employed certainly included an annuity provision, and I think that 
    this language that

[[Page 7710]]

    this amendment extends to the bill simply points that out.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has read the language on the page of the committee 
    report and section 6(e) of the bill already deals with the status 
    of the Civil Service requirements with respect to appointments of 
    Federal inspectors. The amendment does not directly amend title 5 
    U.S. Code, and it would further affect the status of those Federal 
    employees under the Civil Service law by permitting them to credit 
    the prior private service to their Civil Service retirement if they 
    become Federal employees. The amendment imposes a further condition 
    upon their hiring.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that as far as germaneness is 
    concerned, the amendment is germane to section 6(e) of the bill, 
    and overrules the point of order.

Bill Relating to Administration of Food Stamp Program--Amendment 
    Providing for Recovery of Benefits From Persons Having Specified 
    Income

Sec. 4.78 To a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture providing for benefits under, and administration of, 
    the food stamp program, an amendment which provided for recovery of 
    benefits from persons whose income exceeded specified levels was 
    held to be germane, even though it required the Secretary of the 
    Treasury and, impliedly, the Internal Revenue Service to collect 
    any liability imposed by the amendment's provisions.

    On July 27, 1977,(15) during consideration of H.R. 7171 
(the Agriculture Act of 1977), in ruling on a question of germaneness, 
the Chair confined his analysis to the text of the amendment and was 
not guided by conjecture as to other legislation or administrative 
actions which might have--but were not required to--result from the 
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 25249, 25252, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. Foley: In title XII, page 28, insert after line 8 the 
        following new section:

        ``recovery of benefits where individual's adjusted gross income 
                      for year exceeds twice poverty level

            ``Sec. 1210. (a)(1) If--
            ``(A) any individual receives food stamps during any 
        calendar year, and
            ``(B) such individual's adjusted gross income for such 
        calendar year exceeds the exempt amount,

        then such individual shall be liable to pay the United States 
        the amount

[[Page 7711]]

        determined under subsection (b) with respect to such individual 
        for such calendar year. Such amount shall be due and payable on 
        April 15 of the succeeding calendar year and shall be collected 
        in accordance with the procedures prescribed pursuant to 
        subsection (g). . . .

            ``(g) The Secretary of the Treasury shall collect any 
        liability imposed by this section in accordance with 
        regulations prescribed by him (after consultation with the 
        Secretary).

            ``(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
        in any (manner) the application of any provision of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1954.''. . .

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order. I would like to engage the author of the 
    amendment in colloquy. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman 
    from Vermont who or what branch of Government the gentleman feels 
    would collect this money from the people?
        Mr. Jeffords: Under the amendment, the Department of the 
    Treasury would be required to collect the money.
        Mr. Stark: It would be the Treasury Department and in no way 
    did the gentleman intend that the Internal Revenue Service 
    participate in any of the collection or in collecting the forms or 
    collecting revenue?
        Mr. Jeffords: No, on the contrary, it is my understanding and 
    belief that the Internal Revenue Service would be charged with and 
    do the collecting. . . .
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the 
    jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service lies wholly within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        This amendment, as the gentleman has stated it, would be 
    counting on the Internal Revenue Service to perform the functions 
    as put down under this amendment. The amendment would not be in 
    order and would not be within the jurisdiction of this committee. . 
    . .
        Mr. Jeffords: . . . As I understand the rules here, I can ask 
    for an amendment that can be proposed, as can anybody, to the 
    collection. We could make the State Department or anyone else do 
    the collection, but we cannot do what I have not done, and very 
    specifically have not done in this amendment, which is to change 
    any statute of the way it is done, which is under the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means. If I am wrong on this, there 
    are so many places in this bill where the same thing is done that I 
    do not know why a number of Members have not raised points of 
    order.
        We have asked the Postal Service to do something; we have asked 
    the social security office to do things; we have mandated different 
    agencies all over the place. We do not interfere with any statutes 
    which are under committee jurisdiction of other committees. I have 
    not done so here. The question is, do we change any statute which 
    is under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, and we 
    do not. They are the guardian over those statutes, but they are not 
    the guardian over any agency which happens to be involved with 
    those statutes.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that the 
    gentleman, in terms of both the committee report and in his 
    response to questions here, in his statement on the floor that this 
    amendment, although it really says

[[Page 7712]]

    that the Secretary of the Treasury shall collect any liability, 
    clearly the intention is that the Internal Revenue Service shall 
    collect W-2 forms, match them against income figures which are now 
    under the law not to be given even to the Secretary of Treasury, 
    but are for collecting income tax and Internal Revenue matters.
        Clearly, the intent of the amendment is to direct the Internal 
    Revenue Service to participate in that. The jurisdiction of the 
    Internal Revenue Service and all matters pertaining thereto is 
    under the Committee on Ways and Means. I would ask that this 
    amendment be ruled out of order on that basis.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is 
    not germane to the food stamp title of the pending bill. The thrust 
    of the gentleman's point of order is that the collection procedure 
    for overpayments of food stamp benefits to persons above the 
    poverty level involves responsibilities of the Treasury Department, 
    and in effect mandates the establishment of regulations which would 
    involve the disclosure of tax returns and tax information and 
    utilization of the Internal Revenue Service--all matters within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Chair notes that the amendment does contain the provision 
    that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to affect in any 
    manner the application of any provision of the Internal Revenue 
    Code of 1954,'' and it seems to the Chair to follow that, under the 
    explicit provisions of the amendment. Secretary of the Treasury 
    would therefore have to establish an independent collection 
    procedure separate and apart from the mandated use of the Internal 
    Revenue Service. The Chair does not have to judge the germaneness 
    of the amendment by contemplating possible future legislative 
    actions of the Congress not mandated by the amendment.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the authority of the Secretary of 
    the Treasury under the rules of the House as collector of 
    overpayments of any sort is not subject explicitly and exclusively 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means under 
    rule X, and even if this were true, committee jurisdiction is not 
    an exclusive test of germaneness where, as here, the basic thrust 
    of the amendment is to modify the food stamp program-a matter now 
    before the Committee of the Whole.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had the amendment altered the Internal 
Revenue Code or otherwise required the use of the Internal Revenue 
Service, in conjunction with the collection of federal income taxes, in 
recovering the value of benefits, the amendment would not have been 
germane. The Chair was persuaded that the Department of the Treasury 
performs a variety of functions, including payments and collections,

[[Page 7713]]

under laws and policies not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Ways and Means. As indicated in the Chair's ruling, the amendment 
disavowed any intent to affect any provision of the Internal Revenue 
Code.

Bill Making Appropriations for Relief--Amendment Allotting 
    Appropriations for Investigation of Effects of Relief

Sec. 4.79 To a bill making appropriations for relief and work relief, 
    an amendment proposing that part of the appropriation be allotted 
    to a nonpartisan commission to be appointed for the purpose of 
    investigating certain effects of relief was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(17) comprising relief appropriations, the following 
amendment was offered: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.J. Res. 544 (Committee on Appropriations).
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 6761, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 23, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Edwin A. Hall [of New York]: On page 
    33, after line 7, insert a new section, as follows:
        Sec. 37. One million dollars of the sums herein provided shall 
    be allotted to a nonpartisan commission. . . . The Commission shall 
    be . . . charged with a laboratory investigation of relief with 
    reference to its causes and its effects upon the economic and 
    sociological structure of the United States and particularly with 
    reference to its effects on the recipients of relief.

    Mr. Clarence A. Cannon, of Missouri, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill.(19) The 
Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 6762.
20. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Inasmuch as the Committee on Appropriations does not have 
    jurisdiction of the matter contained in the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Creating Consumer Protection Agency--Amendment Conferring on 
    Congressional Committees Authority To Direct Agency To Intervene in 
    Judicial or Administrative Proceedings

Sec. 4.80 To a bill creating an independent agency in the executive 
    branch to protect consumer interests, an amendment in the form of a 
    new section conferring upon Congressional committees with oversight 
    responsibility for consumer interests the authority to direct that 
    agen

[[Page 7714]]

    cy to intervene in administrative or judicial proceedings was held 
    not merely to reserve to Congress a disapproval authority over the 
    agency but to confer new power on Congressional committees, and was 
    ruled out as beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government 
    Operations and beyond the scope of the bill.

    The proceedings of Nov. 6, 1975, relating to H.R. 7575, the 
Consumer Protection Act of 1975, are discussed in Sec. 14.6, infra.

Bill To Facilitate Settlement of Strikes--Amendment Requiring Unions To 
    Incorporate and To File Reports

Sec. 4.81 To a bill proposed to facilitate the settlement of labor 
    disputes or strikes, an amendment to require labor unions to become 
    corporate bodies and file certain reports, including financial 
    statements, with the Recorder of Deeds was held germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill (1) 
relating to settlement of labor disputes, an amendment was offered: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 4908 (Committee on Labor).
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 851, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 4, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the Case bill.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews of New York to the Case 
        amendment: Page 12, after line 13, insert a new section to be 
        known as 12(a) entitled ``Incorporation of and Annual Financial 
        Reports by Labor Organizations'':
            ``Paragraph 1. Every labor organization in which the 
        employees are employed by an employer engaged in interstate 
        commerce within the meaning of the Wagner Act shall become a 
        body corporate as provided in this act. The officers of each 
        labor organization shall make, sign, and acknowledge, before 
        any officer competent to take acknowledgment of deeds, and file 
        in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of the District of 
        Columbia, to be recorded by him, a certificate in writing, in 
        which shall be stated--
            ``First. The name or title by which such labor organization 
        is to be known.
            ``Second. The term for which it is organized, which may be 
        perpetual.
            ``Third. The purposes and objects of the organization.
            ``Fourth. The names and addresses of its officers for the 
        first year of its corporate existence.
            ``Par. 2. When the certificate provided for in paragraph 1 
        has been filed, the labor organization shall be a body 
        corporate, and may, in its corporate name, sue and be sued, 
        grant and receive property, real, personal, and mixed, and use 
        such property, and the income thereof for the objects of the 
        corporation. Members of the corporation shall not be personally 
        liable for the acts, debts, or obligations of the corporation.
            ``Par. 3. A labor organization incorporated under this act 
        shall have the power to make and establish such

[[Page 7715]]

        constitution, rules, and bylaws (including rules and bylaws 
        defining the duties and powers of its officers and the time and 
        manner of their election) as its members may deem proper for 
        carrying out its lawful objects. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jennings] Randolph [of West Virginia]: I make a point of 
    order that the amendment, which I understand is offered as a new 
    section to the Case bill, is not in order. I believe the subject 
    matter goes far afield from the matter under consideration here.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When the committee bill was presented to the House, it was 
    under a rule making the Case bill in order. It was previously 
    stated during the debate on the rule, that the purpose was to open 
    up the entire field with reference to labor legislation. The House 
    voted affirmatively for the special rule bringing in the bill.
        This is an amendment to the Case amendment. In the Case 
    amendment there are provisions for financial and legal liability of 
    labor unions and employers, and the amendment of the gentleman from 
    New York, as offered, is merely a means of further bringing about 
    the legal responsibility of the union.
        The Chair therefore believes it is in order, and overrules the 
    point of order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Parliamentarian's Note: It is perhaps arguable whether a provision 
        relating narrowly to incorporation, or the processes pertaining 
        to incorporation, would lie within the jurisdiction of the 
        Committee on the Judiciary. The Chair in his ruling took a more 
        liberal view, emphasizing the purposes of the amendment as 
        relating to those of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Facilitate Settlement of Strikes--Amendment Relating To 
    Taxation and Disposition of Revenues

Sec. 4.82 To a bill having for its purpose the settlement of labor 
    disputes, an amendment relating to taxation and the disposition of 
    revenues was held to be not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (6) was under consideration 
relating to settlement of labor disputes. The following amendment was 
offered to an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 4908 (Committee on Labor).
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 854, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 4, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey, of West 
    Virginia, to the Case substitute for H.R. 4908: ``On page 3, line 
    18, after the word `arbitration', strike out the period, insert a 
    comma, and insert `And in this connection it is the declared intent 
    of the Congress that all subsidies now being paid out of the United 
    States Treasury in the form of tax refunds, tax rebates, and 
    ``carry back'' payments to individuals, companies, or corporations, 
    be

[[Page 7716]]

    suspended for the duration of any strike or strikes now existing or 
    that may occur during the calendar year that lead to industrial 
    unrest, delay reconversion, and otherwise impair our national 
    economy.' ''

    The following proceedings then took place (8) with 
respect to a point of order raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 854, 855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is clearly out of order. It is not germane to the bill. 
    There is nothing in this bill that has anything to do with the 
    carry-back. . . .
        This is a matter for the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. 
    Chairman. . . .
        Mr. Bailey: I am afraid of that. . . .

    The Chairman [Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky] held:

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Bailey] deals with both taxation 
    and the disposition of taxes, and is not germane to the pending 
    amendment.
        The point of order is sustained.

Bill Amending Fair Labor Standards Act To Mitigate Effects of Imports 
    on Labor Market--Amendment Modifying Tariff Act With Respect to 
    Imports From Communist Nations

Sec. 4.83 To a bill amending two sections of the Fair Labor Standards 
    Act for purposes of mitigating certain effects of imports on the 
    domestic labor market, an amendment modifying provisions of the 
    Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to 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 (9) was under consideration, which stated in part: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 478 (Committee on Education and Labor).
10. See 113 Cong. Rec. 27212, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 the production of goods for commerce, of labor 
    conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard 
    of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being 
    of workers and the unregulated importation of goods produced by 
    industries in foreign nations under such conditions (1) causes 
    commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be 
    used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the 
    workers of the several States. . . .''
        (b) Section 2 of such Act is further amended by adding the 
    following new subsection:
        ``(c) It is further declared to be the policy of this Act . . . 
    to provide for

[[Page 7717]]

    the regulation of imports of goods in such manner as will . . . 
    eliminate any serious . . . threat of impairment to the health, 
    efficiency, and general well-being of any group of workers in the 
    United States and the economic welfare of the communities in which 
    they are employed from conditions above referred to in the 
    industries providing them employment in which increased imports are 
    a substantially contributing factor. . . .''

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 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:

        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 subcommittee which it is my honor to chair.

    The bill amending the Fair Labor Standards Act had been reported 
from the Committee on Education and Labor. As indicated by Mr. Dent, 
the amendment proposing to modify the Tariff Act of 1930 was a matter 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
Chairman,(12) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Providing for Payment of Wages on Highway Projects at Prevailing 
    Rates as Determined by Secretary of Labor--Amendment Making Such 
    Determination a Subject of Administrative Hearings

Sec. 4.84 To that section of a bill providing for payment of wages at 
    prevailing rates, as determined by the Secretary of Labor in 
    accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, to employees on federal aid 
    highway construction projects, an amendment making such 
    determination a subject of administrative hearings and judicial 
    review was held to be not germane.

[[Page 7718]]

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of the Federal Highway 
and Highway Revenue Acts of 1956,(13) the following 
amendment was offered by Mr. Bruce R. Alger, of Texas: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 10660 (Committee on Public Works).
14. 102 Cong. Rec. 7206, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 27, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On page 25, immediately after line 9, insert:
        (b) Judicial review under Davis-Bacon Act: Section 7 of the 
    Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C., sec. 276a-6)) is amended to read as 
    follows:
        Sec. 7. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of section 4 of the 
    Administrative Procedure Act, such act shall be applicable in the 
    administration of section 2 and the first section of this act.
        (b) All wage determinations under the first section of this act 
    shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing. . . .
        (c) Notwithstanding the inclusion of any stipulations required 
    by any provision of this act, any interested person shall have the 
    right of judicial review of any legal question which might 
    otherwise be raised, including, but not limited to, wage 
    determinations and the territorial applicability of determinations 
    of the Secretary of Labor.

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

        Mr. [Thaddeus M.] Machrowicz [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, as I 
    read the amendment, it attempts to make new provisions in the 
    Davis-Bacon Act, an act which is not germane to the bill which we 
    are now considering.

    It was further stated, by Mr. John A. Blatnik, of Minnesota, that 
``. . . this amendment is completely out of order. It is an attempt to 
amend basic labor legislation which originated in the Labor 
Committee.''
    The Chairman, (15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The effect of the amendment would be to amend two acts of the 
    Congress, one reported by the Committee on Education and Labor, and 
    the other the Administrative Procedure Act which, it so happens, I 
    was responsible for. The Chair feels that the orderly, proper, and 
    legal way to amend this act is by an amendment to the act itself 
    and not indirectly by amending collaterally.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Another amendment was then offered by Mr. Bruce R. Alger, of Texas, 
as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Alger: . . . On page 25, immediately 
    after line 9, insert:
        (b) Procedure for wage determinations:
        (1) Applicability of Administrative Procedure Act: 
    Notwithstanding any provision of section 4 of the Administrative 
    Procedure Act, such Act shall be applicable to the wage 
    determinations by the Secretary of Labor under subsection (a) of 
    this section.

[[Page 7719]]

        (2) Hearings and judicial review: All wage determinations under 
    subsection (a) of this section shall be made on the record after an 
    opportunity for a hearing. . . .

        (3) Questions reviewable: Notwithstanding the inclusion of any 
    stipulations required by the Secretary of Commerce in any contract 
    subject to this section, any interested person shall have the right 
    of judicial review of any legal question which might otherwise be 
    raised, including . . . wage determinations. . . .

    Mr. Blatnik raised the following point of order:

        The amendment is out of order on the ground that it applies to 
    basic legislation which originated in another committee of the 
    House, the House Committee on Education and Labor. . . .

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Alger, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite different from the 
    preceding amendment in that the preceding amendment would have 
    amended the entire Davis-Bacon Act. This amendment is directed 
    solely at this bill and the wages paid on the Interstate System, 
    which is all the Davis-Bacon provision is to apply to.

    The Chairman ruled as follows:

        The Chair is of the same opinion with reference to this 
    proposed amendment as it was with respect to the last one, and 
    therefore the point of order is sustained.

Proposal To Suspend Wage and Employment Laws During Emergency--
    Amendment Providing for Study of Effects of Laws on War Production

Sec. 4.85 To an amendment proposing the suspension of certain laws 
    during the national emergency, an amendment offered as a substitute 
    providing for an investigation by the Committee on the Judiciary of 
    all laws now relating to wages and other conditions of employment 
    to determine the effects of such laws on war production was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Second War Powers 
Bill,(16) an amendment was pending, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. S. 2208 (Committee on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: On page 
    12, after line 11, insert a new title, as follows:

                                ``title iv-a

        ``That during the national emergency declared to exist by the 
    President on May 27, 1941, the following provisions of law, as 
    amended, are suspended, insofar as they--
        ``(a) Prescribe the maximum hours, days, or weeks of labor in 
    any specified period of time;

[[Page 7720]]

        ``(b) Require compensation at a rate higher than the usual rate 
    at which an employee is employed (1) for labor in excess of a 
    specified number of hours, days, or weeks in any specified period 
    of time, or (2) for labor on Sundays, holidays, or during the 
    night; or
        ``(c) Require stipulations in contracts which prescribe maximum 
    hours of labor or require compensation at a rate higher than the 
    usual rate at which an employee is employed for labor in excess of 
    a specified number of hours, days, or weeks in any specified period 
    of time, or for labor on Sundays, holidays, or during the night--
        ``(1) `An act to expedite the strengthening of the national 
    defense', approved July 2, 1940;
        ``(2) `An act establishing overtime rates for compensation for 
    employees of the field services of the War Department, and the 
    field services of the Panama Canal, and for other purposes', 
    approved October 21, 1940;
        ``(3) `An act authorizing overtime rates of compensation for 
    certain per annum employees of the field services of the War 
    Department, the Panama Canal, the Navy Department, and the Coast 
    Guard. . . .(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 88 Cong. Rec. 1708, 1709, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To such amendment, the following amendment was offered: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 1739, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John W.] Gwynne [of Iowa] as a 
    substitute for the Smith amendment: Page 12, after line 11, insert 
    a new title, as follows:

                                 Title IV-A

        The Judiciary Committee of the House is hereby directed to make 
    an immediate study of all laws now . . . relating to the hours . . 
    . compensation, and other conditions of employment . . . with a 
    view to determining which of such laws actually impede . . . the 
    production of . . . implements of war, and to make such 
    recommendations as may appear advisable to expedite the production 
    of . . . implements of war.

    Mr. Charles F. McLaughlin, of Nebraska, made the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane.
    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
    Smith] undertakes to enact certain substantive provisions of law. 
    The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa provides for an 
    investigation. Of course, the matter of ordering an investigation 
    would be a proper subject matter to address to the House Committee 
    on Rules. . . .
        [T]he amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa is not 
    germane to the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Virginia.

Organizational Bill Creating New Government Department--Amendment 
    Changing Substantive Programs Transferred to Department

Sec. 4.86 To a bill reported from the Committee on Govern

[[Page 7721]]

    ment Operations, establishing a new executive agency, transferring 
    to such agency administration of federal funding programs within 
    the jurisdiction of other committees, and containing an 
    authorization of appropriations to carry out the Act and 
    transferred functions, subject to existing laws limiting any 
    appropriations for the transferred functions, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds authorized by that Act to carry out 
    one of the funding programs being transferred to the new agency is 
    not germane, where the bill is organizational only in nature and 
    intended to transfer the administration of certain laws to that 
    agency without modifying those laws, and where the amendment would 
    impinge on the jurisdiction of other House committees having 
    jurisdiction over those basic laws.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although it is ordinarily germane by way of 
amendment to limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations 
carried in a bill may be applied, that principle normally applies to 
annual authorization bills reported by the committees having 
legislative and oversight jurisdiction over the statutes for which the 
funds are authorized; but where the Committee on Government Operations 
has reported an organizational bill to create a new department in the 
executive branch, which transfers the administration of existing 
statutes and programs to that department without modifying such 
statutes and programs, and which contains a general authorization of 
appropriations for the department to carry out its functions under the 
Act, such a bill is not necessarily open to amendments which change the 
substantive laws to be administered.
    On June 19, 1979, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 2444, reported from the Committee on Government 
Operations, to establish a new Department of Education, and 
transferring to such Department the administration of federally funded 
programs within the jurisdiction of other committees. The bill 
contained an authorization of appropriations to carry out its 
provisions and to enable the Department to perform the functions 
transferred to it, subject to existing laws limiting appropriations 
applicable to any of those functions.(20) An amendment was

[[Page 7722]]

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

                      authorization of appropriations

        Sec. 436. Subject to any limitation on appropriations 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    Department or the Secretary, there are authorized to be 
    appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions 
    of this Act and to enable the Department and the Secretary to 
    perform any function or conduct any office that may be vested in 
    the Department or the Secretary. Funds appropriated in accordance 
    with this section shall remain available until expended.
        Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 90, after line 6, insert 
    the following new section and redesignate the following sections 
    accordingly:

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

        Sec. 437. No funds appropriated under the authorization 
    contained in section 436 may be used to assign Department of 
    Education personnel to promote or to provide for the transportation 
    of students or teachers (or for the purchase of equipment for such 
    transportation) in order to establish racial or ethnic school 
    attendance quotas or guidelines in any school or school system, or 
    for the transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase 
    of equipment for such transportation) in order to carry out such a 
    plan in any school or school system.
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . . [T]he language of section 436 
    that says that this authorization is subject to any limitation 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    department, was added to the bill to negate any inference that this 
    section authorizes any funds for programs so transferred.
        Now, the section is designed to authorize only those additional 
    appropriations which are necessary to establish and operate the 
    department. Funds provided to public and private entities under the 
    programs of the department are not authorized by this section, but 
    by legislation subject to the jurisdiction of other committees and 
    not now before the House.
        An amendment to limit or constrain the use of those funds is, 
    therefore, not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    may be supporting the bill. I do not think this is a frivolous 
    amendment. I believe it is germane.
        So as not to waste the time of this body or of this committee, 
    I asked the

[[Page 7723]]

    parliamentarian last week to take an initial look at this. He said 
    that it might take some further study, but that it looked germane 
    at first view.
        What it attempts to do, if it appears slightly redundant, is to 
    make sure that the Department of Education is not crippled by the 
    burden of reverse discrimination dealing with quotas, busing or 
    teacher transfers. The teacher transfer problem is one to which my 
    own brother has been subjected after teaching in a Los Angeles 
    school system for 12 years.
        I will accept whatever ruling the Chair issues to this, since 
    they have already had a chance to take a look at it once.
        I just simply state that it is germane in more than one section 
    and not legislating in an appropriations bill, to point out areas 
    in which money cannot be spent and to allocate any personnel to 
    carry out someone else's school plan or to have a brand new 
    department of education suffering under the burden of coming up 
    with their own, I think would get the new department off to a bad 
    footing for this or what I expect to be a whole new administration 
    starting on January 20 of 1981. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 7724]]

    thorized by and subject to provisions of existing law.

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

Amendment To Create Employee Positions in Bureau of Public Roads in 
    Lieu of Positions Allocated Under Classification Act

Sec. 4.87 To a pending amendment in the nature of a substitute for a 
    bill to supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, an amendment 
    authorizing the creation of high level positions in the Bureau of 
    Public Roads in lieu of any positions allocated under the 
    Classification Act, was held to be not germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, the following 
amendment was offered (4) to a pending amendment in the 
nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 7474 (Committee on Public Works).
 4. 101 Cong. Rec. 11689, 11690, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Gordon H.] Scherer [of Ohio] to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. [George A.] Dondero [of Michigan]: On page 
    22, after line 20, insert a new section as follows:
        Sec. 209. (a) The Secretary of Commerce . . . is authorized to 
    place 2 positions in the Bureau of Public Roads in grade 18 and a 
    total of 20 positions in grades 16 and 17 of the General Schedule 
    established by the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. . . .

    A point of order was raised by Mr. Robert E. Jones, Jr., of 
Alabama, against the amendment. In support of the point of order, he 
stated:

        Mr. Chairman, I think I have stated the point of order that 
    this is a matter coming within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Post Office and Civil Service. It is a reclassification section, 
    and therefore it is not germane to the [amendment]. . . .

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment offered by 
    the gen

[[Page 7725]]

    tleman from Ohio does, in fact, create additional positions within 
    the general schedules established by the Classification Act of 
    1949, which is within the jurisdiction and authority of another 
    standing committee of the House.
        The Chair therefore is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Bill To Readjust Postal Rates--Amendment Directing Committee Chairmen 
    To Investigate Operation of Post Office

Sec. 4.88 To a bill proposing to readjust postal rates, an amendment 
    directing the Chairmen of the Committees on Post Office and Civil 
    Service of the two Houses jointly to employ a staff of experts to 
    investigate the operation of the Post Office Department was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a bill (6) 
to readjust postal rates, an amendment was offered (7) as 
described above. Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, made the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman, 
(8) in ruling on the point of order, stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 2982 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 7  97 Cong. Rec. 11677, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 19, 1951.
 8. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 11677, 11678, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 19, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee has before it a bill to readjust postal rates. 
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Corbett] has offered an 
    amendment which would direct the chairman of the Committee of the 
    House on the Post Office and Civil Service and of the Committee of 
    the Senate on Post Office and Civil Service to employ not less than 
    five individuals. The amendment goes further, and also fixes the 
    salaries of persons so employed. . . . It is evident that the 
    Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service would not have 
    jurisdiction of a proposal to increase the employees of the 
    committee or to create new positions in such committee. Therefore, 
    the amendment goes far beyond the scope of the bill, and beyond the 
    jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill. Therefore, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Budget Resolution Addressing Congressional Action--Amendment Expressing 
    Sense of Congress as to President's Authority Under Impoundment 
    Control Act

Sec. 4.89 To a second concurrent resolution on the budget containing 
    diverse provisions which addressed congressional actions on the 
    budget, an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that

[[Page 7726]]

    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,(10) a point of 
order was conceded and sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 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 7727]]

    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: (11) The point of order is conceded. 
    The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).

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

[[Page 7728]]

Bill To Increase Debt Ceiling--Amendment Affecting Budget and 
    Appropriations Procedures

Sec. 4.90 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 but 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.

    On Nov. 7, 1973,(12) it was demonstrated that to a bill 
proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment making other 
permanent changes in that law is not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 36240, 36241, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11104, providing for a temporary 
        increase in the public debt limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page 2, line 3, after 
        the period, insert the following: Provided further, that the 
        expenditures of the Government during each fiscal year, 
        including reduction of the public debt in accordance with the 
        provisions of section 3, shall not exceed its revenues for such 
        year except--
            (1) in time of war declared by the Congress . . .
            Sec. 3. Section 21 of the Second Liberty Bond Act, as 
        amended (31 U.S.C. 757b), is amended by inserting ``(a)'' after 
        ``Sec. 21.'', and by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(b) The public debt limit set forth in subsection (a) is 
        hereby reduced as follows:
            ``(1) Effective on July 1, 1974, by an amount equal to 2 
        percent of the net revenue of the United States for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1973;
            ``(2) Effective on July 1, 1975, by an amount equal to 3 
        percent of the net revenue of the United States for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1974;
            ``(3) Effective on July 1, 1976, by an amount equal to 4 
        percent of the net revenue of the United States for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1975;
            ``(4) Effective on July 1, 1977, and July 1 of each year 
        thereafter, by an amount equal to 5 percent of the net revenue 
        of the United States for the fiscal year ending on June 30, of 
        the preceding year.''
            Sec. 4. (a) The Budget submitted annually by the President 
        pursuant to section 201 of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, 
        as amended, shall be prepared, on the basis of the best 
        estimates then available, in such a manner as to insure 
        compliance with the first section of this Act.
            (b) Notwithstanding any obligational authority granted or 
        ap

[[Page 7729]]

        propriations made except such with respect to the legislative 
        and judicial branches of the Government, the President shall 
        from time to time during each fiscal year take such action as 
        may be necessary (by placing funds in reserve, by apportionment 
        of funds, or otherwise) to insure compliance with the first 
        section of this Act.
            Sec. 5. The Congress shall not pass appropriations measures 
        which will result in expenditures by the Government during any 
        fiscal year in excess of its estimated revenues for such year 
        (as revenues have been estimated in the budget submitted by the 
        President), except--
            (1) to the extent of any additional revenues of the 
        Government for such fiscal year resulting from tax legislation 
        enacted after the submission of the budget for such fiscal 
        year; or
            (2) in time of war declared by the Congress; or
            (3) during a period of grave national emergency declared in 
        accordance with the first section of this Act; but, subject to 
        paragraph (1) of this section, appropriations measures which 
        will so result in expenditures in excess of estimated revenues 
        may be passed by the Congress only during such a period of 
        grave national emergency.
            Sec. 6. This Act shall apply only in respect of fiscal 
        years beginning after June 30, 1974.

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us provides for a 
    temporary change in the debt ceiling in conformity with the Second 
    Liberty Bond Act. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
    makes a permanent change in the Second Liberty Bond Act, and 
    therefore is not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. Gross: . .  . Mr. Chairman, the entire thrust of the bill 
    before us is the national debt and the ceiling of that debt. The 
    main thrust of this amendment is to control the Federal debt and 
    reduce the ceiling.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The bill presently before the House provides for a temporary 
    change in the debt limit for this fiscal year, and the amendment 
    constitutes a permanent change in the law.
        In addition, the amendment also goes to the preparation of the 
    budget under the Budget and Accounting Act which is under the 
    jurisdiction of another committee. Volume 8 of the precedents of 
    the House provides under section 2914 the following:

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

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

General Appropriation Bill--Amendment To Modify Rules of Congress for 
    Consideration of Appropriations in Subsequent Years

Sec. 4.91 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for one 
    fiscal year, an amendment changing existing law

[[Page 7730]]

    by imposing restrictions on a permanent appropriation for 
    compensation for Members of Congress, and furthermore amending the 
    rules of the House and Senate to modify procedures for 
    consideration of appropriation bills in subsequent years, was ruled 
    out of order as legislation on an appropriation bill and as not 
    germane, in that such amendment enlarged the scope of the bill and 
    was partly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.

    On June 29, 1987,(14) during consideration of the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations, fiscal 1988,(15) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 133 Cong. Rec. 18082, 18083, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 2714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lungren: Page 31, after line 25, 
        insert the following new sections:
            Sec. 309. Subsection (c) of section 130 of the joint 
        resolution entitled ``Joint resolution making continuing 
        appropriations for the fiscal year 1982, and for other 
        purposes'' (approved October 1, 1981; Public Law 97-51) is 
        amended by striking out ``Effective'' and by inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``(1) Except to the extent provided by paragraph (2), 
        effective'' and by inserting at the end thereof the following 
        new paragraph:
            ``(2) If all general appropriation bills for any fiscal 
        year have not been presented to the President for signature 
        under section 7 of Article I of the Constitution before the 
        beginning of that fiscal year, then the appropriation contained 
        in paragraph (1) shall not be effective with respect to such 
        fiscal year.''.
            Sec. 2310. It shall not be in order in either the House of 
        Representatives or the Senate to consider the general 
        appropriation bill making appropriations for the legislative 
        branch for any fiscal year unless and until all other general 
        appropriation bills for such fiscal year have been presented to 
        the President for signature under section 7 of Article I of the 
        Constitution. . . .

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    violates the Rules of the House in several instances, as follows:
        First, it goes beyond the bill under consideration, amending 
    the continuing resolution, and as such is not germane. This is a 
    violation of rule XVI, clause 7.
        Second, the amendment constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriations bill and as such is in violation of clause 2 of rule 
    XXI.
        Third, in effect, this amendment amends the Rules of the House, 
    a subject which is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Rules. . . .
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, I would have to concede that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. Unfortunately, this is the 
    only manner in which this subject seems to be able to be raised. . 
    . .

[[Page 7731]]

        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California [Mr. Lungren] has conceded the 
    point of order raised by the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], and the point of order is 
    sustained.

Bill Authorizing Issuance of Bonds--Amendment Providing Bonds Be Tax 
    Exempt

Sec. 4.92 To that section of a bill authorizing the issuance of bonds, 
    an amendment providing that such bonds be exempt both as to 
    principal and interest from any taxes was held to be germane.

    The following exchange in the 74th Congress, (17) during 
consideration of a bill (18) to amend an act relating to 
flood control and industrial development in the Tennessee Valley, 
concerned a point of order raised against the amendment described 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 79 Cong. Rec. 10967, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 10, 1935. The 
        Chairman was William J. Driver (Ark.).
18. H.R. 8632 (Committee on Military Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. 
    . . .
        Is that germane to the bill? It relates to the taxing authority 
    of the Government, and that can only be considered when coming from 
    the Ways and Means Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair holds that the amendment is germane in 
    that it simply provides an exemption with respect to the bonds to 
    be issued by the Corporation.
        Mr. Taber: Will the Chair rule on the other part of the point 
    of order, that a bill coming from this committee cannot be 
    considered when it relates to the taxing power of the Government 
    and that the amendment does relate to the taxing power of the 
    Government, and therefore must come from the Ways and Means 
    Committee?
        The Chairman: The Chair holds that the amendment strikes at 
    that power in an incidental way, and therefore is not subject to 
    the point of order.
        The point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent has been effectively 
overruled by Sec. 4.45, infra.

Joint Resolution Directing Agencies To Make Information Available to 
    Committees--Amendment To Create Joint Committee

Sec. 4.93 To a joint resolution directing agencies of the government to 
    make certain information available to committees of Congress, an 
    amendment proposing creation of a joint committee that would 
    formulate ``rules . . . with respect to the powers, duties, and 
    procedures of all committees of either House under this joint reso

[[Page 7732]]

    lution'' was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(19) directing agencies of the government to make available 
to congressional committees certain information, an amendment was 
offered (20) as described above. In ruling on a point of 
order raised by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, the Chairman, Leo E. 
Allen, of Illinois, stated: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.J. Res. 342 (Committee on Expenditures in the Executive 
        Departments).
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 5811, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 13, 1948.
 1. Id. at p. 5812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]his amendment would create a joint standing committee. It 
    would take away the authority of the Rules Committee which under 
    the rules of the House has jurisdiction over this subject. The 
    Chair therefore holds that the amendment is not germane and 
    sustains the point of order.

Amendment Changing Method of Appointing Members of Civil Rights 
    Commission

Sec. 4.94 To a bill reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, 
    establishing a commission on civil rights with members to be 
    appointed by the President, an amendment requiring that the 
    commissioners be Members of Congress and that they be appointed by 
    the Speaker and President of the Senate was held to be not germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
which stated in part: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 627 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 3. 102 Cong. Rec. 13542, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Part I--Establishment of the Commission on Civil Rights

        Sec. 101. (a) There is created in the executive branch of the 
    Government a Commission on Civil Rights (hereinafter called the 
    ``Commission'').
        (b) The Commission shall be composed of six members who shall 
    be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of 
    the Senate. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 13548, 13549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Walter E.] Rogers of Texas: Amend 
    H.R. 627 by striking out all of section 101 beginning on line 21, 
    page 19, to and including all of line 14 on page 20, and all of 
    line 15 on page 20 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
        Sec. 101. . . .
        (b) The ``Commission'' shall be composed of six Members of the 
    Congress of the United States of America, 3 of which shall be duly 
    elected and qualified Members of the United States House of 
    Representatives and 3 shall

[[Page 7733]]

    be duly elected and qualified Members of the United States Senate. 
    The Members of the House of Representatives shall be appointed by 
    the Speaker of the House of Representatives. . . . The Members 
    representing the Senate shall be appointed by the President of the 
    Senate. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 13549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane. This 
    amendment seeks to set up a joint congressional committee. As such, 
    the jurisdiction over such procedure would come within the Rules 
    Committee.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he amendment would provide for the appointment of what is 
    tantamount to a joint committee composed of Members of the Senate 
    and the House of Representatives, which is clearly a deviation from 
    the original purpose of the legislation.
        For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Resolution Providing for Special Committee To Investigate Campaign 
    Expenditures--Amendment Directing Payment of Expenses From 
    Contingent Fund

Sec. 4.95 To a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules 
    providing for a special committee to investigate campaign 
    expenditures, a committee amendment providing in part that expenses 
    of such committee be paid from the contingent fund of the House was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a resolution 
(7) providing for a special committee, a committee amendment 
was reported which provided that the special committee's expenses be 
paid from the contingent fund of the House.(8) A point of 
order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 551 (Committee on Rules).
 8. 90 Cong. Rec. 6393, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that the Rules 
    Committee has exceeded its authority. . . .
        The following exchange ensued: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 6394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (10) It is a question of germaneness, 
    whether the amendment is germane to the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: The point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Missouri would strike out the entire 
    amendment because a part of it was not germane?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan . . . realizes that 
    one part of an amendment being deficient, the whole amendment is 
    vitiated.

[[Page 7734]]

    The Speaker then sustained the point of order. Citing precedents, 
the Speaker noted that the matter in question was within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Accounts.

Appropriations for Expense Allowances for Members--Amendment to Amend 
    Internal Revenue Code

Sec. 4.96 To a provision, in a general appropriation bill, 
    appropriating sums for expense allowances for Members, an amendment 
    seeking to amend the Internal Revenue Code was held to be not 
    germane.

    On May 10, 1945, the Legislative Appropriations Bill of 1946 
(11) was under consideration, stating in part: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3109 (Committee on Appropriations).
12. See 91 Cong. Rec. 4451, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There shall be paid to each Representative and Delegate, and to 
    the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, after January 2, 1945, 
    an expense allowance of $2,500 per annum to assist in defraying 
    expenses related to or resulting from the discharge of his official 
    duties. . . .

    The following amendment was offered:

        There shall be paid to each Representative and Delegate and to 
    the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico after January 2, 1945, 
    an additional annual salary of $1,500. . . .
        Section 23(a)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to 
    deductibility of trade and business expenses) is amended by 
    inserting at the end thereof a new sentence as follows: For the 
    purposes of this chapter, in the case of an individual holding an 
    office as a Member of the Congress . . . his home shall be 
    considered to be his place of residence within the State . . . from 
    which he is such a member, but the deduction allowable for the 
    taxable year by reason of this sentence shall in no event exceed 
    $2,500. . . .

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

        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment goes far beyond the provisions of 
    the bill. . . . Certainly the provision reading ``his home shall be 
    considered to be his place of residence within the State . . .'' 
    does not confine it to the purposes of taxation but would affect 
    many, many laws on the statute books today not in any way related 
    to taxation. . . .

    The Chairman, John J. Delaney, of New York, in ruling on the point 
of order, stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 4452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        One item in the bill is an expense allowance of $2,500 per 
    annum, which in no sense of the word is a raise of salary. The 
    gentleman from Mississippi includes in his amendment to that pro

[[Page 7735]]

    vision matter that evidently is not germane to the bill. Therefore, 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Subsequently, Mr. William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, offered 
an amendment containing language as above relating to the Internal 
Revenue Code. The Chairman, in again sustaining a point of order raised 
by Mr. O'Neal, stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 4453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending appropriation bill contains a provision that would 
    allow Members of Congress a sum not exceeding $2,500 to pay 
    expenses. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    would constitute legislation on an appropriation bill, legislation 
    which comes within the province of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
    The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is not germane to 
    the pending paragraph and, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Bill Containing Provisions Addressing Relationship Between Federal Laws 
    and Certain Industry--Amendment Proposing Study of Impact of 
    Possible Tax Law Changes

Sec. 4.97 Although a proposal for a change in the tax laws is not 
    ordinarily germane to a bill which has not been reported by the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, a proposal for a study of the impact 
    of possible tax law changes on a certain industry may be germane to 
    a bill with broad and diverse provisions on the subject of the 
    relationship between federal law and the industry in question.

    The proceedings of Sept. 5, 1980, relating to H.R. 7235, the Rail 
Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 3.24, supra.

Price Control Bill--Amendment Relating to Stamp Taxes and Repealing 
    Silver Purchase Act

Sec. 4.98 To a price control bill, an amendment repealing the Silver 
    Purchase Act of 1934 and containing provisions relating to stamp 
    taxes, matters within the jurisdiction of another committee, was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Price Control 
Bill,(15) Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, offered an 
amendment (16) as described above. The Chairman, Jere 
Cooper, of Tennessee, in ruling on a point of order raised by Mr. Henry 
B. Steagall, of Alabama, stated: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 5990 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 9223, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 28, 1941.
17. Id. at p. 9224.

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

[[Page 7736]]

        The gentleman from Alabama makes a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois on the ground that 
    it covers a subject matter clearly coming within the jurisdiction 
    of another standing committee of the House. The Chair is of the 
    opinion that the amendment is subject to this point of order and 
    therefore sustains the point of order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Subsequently, an amendment seeking to repeal certain provisions of 
        the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which was within the 
        jurisdiction of another committee, was also held not germane to 
        the Price Control Bill. Id. at p. 9225 (ruling of the Chairman 
        with respect to another amendment offered by Mr. Dirksen).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Works Construction Bill--Revenue-sharing Amendment

Sec. 4.99 While committee jurisdiction over the subject matter of an 
    amendment is not the exclusive test of germaneness in cases in 
    which the proposition being amended already contains comprehensive 
    provisions that overlap jurisdictional delineations, it is a 
    relevant test where the pending text is entirely within one 
    committee's jurisdiction and where the amendment falls within 
    another committee's purview.

    H.R. 5247, a bill reported from the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, consisted of one title relating to grants to state and 
local governments for local public works construction projects. A new 
title added by the Senate and contained in a conference report provided 
grants to state and local governments to assist them in providing 
public services. On Jan. 29, 1976,(19) a point of order was 
made in the House against the title added by the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones, Jr., of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5247) to authorize a local 
    public works capital development and investment program, and ask 
    unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in 
    lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order that title II of the conference report to H.R. 5247 
    constitutes a nongermane Senate amendment to the House-passed bill 
    and is in violation of clause 4 of rule XXVIII of the House rules. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 5247 was before the House in May, it was 
    for the sole purpose of authorizing appropriations for the 
    construction of public works projects to help alleviate 
    unemployment. Along with 312 other Members of the House, I 
    supported that legislation.
        However, when the bill was before the Senate, title II, an 
    entirely dif

[[Page 7737]]

    ferent and unrelated matter, was added. Title II is not a public 
    works provision. Title II simply authorizes appropriations for the 
    basic day-to-day support of the budgets of State and local 
    governments. It is, in short, a revenue sharing provision.
        Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, must have recognized this as 
    revenue sharing legislation when you referred identical legislation 
    introduced in the House exclusively to the Government Operations 
    Committee. Title II clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the 
    Government Operations Committee, not the Public Works Committee.
        Even in the Senate, this provision came out of the Government 
    Operations Committee, not the Public Works Committee. Perhaps if 
    the Senate had a rule on germaneness as we do, we would not be 
    facing this problem right now.
        Had title II been offered in the House when this bill was 
    before us on the floor, it would clearly have been subject to a 
    point of order as nongermane under clause 7 of rule XVI. It, 
    therefore, continues to be nongermane under clause 4 of House rule 
    XXVIII dealing with conference reports.
        Mr. Speaker, I recognize that committee jurisdiction is not the 
    exclusive test of germaneness. I do not base my point of order on 
    this issue alone. This provision simply has nothing to do with 
    public works, the only matter which was before the House in H.R. 
    5247. To the contrary, the use of title II funds for construction 
    purposes is specifically prohibited. Furthermore, there is not one 
    word in title II to guarantee that the funds will be used to 
    stimulate employment, the primary purpose of H.R. 5247.
        Mr. Speaker, title II does not come within the jurisdiction of 
    the Public Works Committee. It does not constitute public works or 
    emergency employment legislation, and it could not have been 
    incorporated into the bill when it was previously before the House. 
    For these reasons, I respectfully request that my point of order be 
    sustained. . . .
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: . . . There has been a 
    certain confusion presented here, and that is in the meaning of the 
    rule which this House passed and which my esteemed chairman, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) referred to. Clause 4, rule 
    XXVIII, was passed by this House in 1970 and 1972. This procedure 
    which the House adopted in 1972 was intended to do away with the 
    situation wherein the Senate . . . attached to a House-passed bill 
    matter that was wholly unrelated to the subject on which the House 
    had acted. . . .

        The bill as reported from the conference does not contain 
    provisions whose subject and substance is different. Title I of the 
    conference report version is almost identical with the House-passed 
    bill. Title II, upon which there is now brought a question of a 
    separate vote, is the conference version and is also directed, as 
    is title I, to the question of assistance in unemployment, and is 
    so aimed at correcting it at the local level. . . . The allocation 
    of funds is dependent on the extent to which unemployment in any 
    area exceeds the national average, so that both the public works, 
    title I, and title II, countercyclical assistance, have the same, 
    identical goal. That is, to ease the current recession. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: . . . The 
    fundamental

[[Page 7738]]

    method used in the original bill to stimulate the economy is to 
    provide for the construction of public works projects. The methods 
    used in the amendment provide for the stabilization of budgets of 
    general purpose governments, the maintenance of basic services 
    ordinarily provided by the State and local governments, emergency 
    support grants to State and local governments to coordinate budget-
    related actions with the Federal Government. Clearly, the methods 
    provided for in the Senate amendment are on their face so different 
    from those in the House bill as to preclude their being considered 
    as the same or closely allied. For this reason, then, the amendment 
    is in violation of clause 4, rule XVI.
        The Speaker: (20) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) makes the point of order 
    that title II of the conference report, which was contained in the 
    Senate amendment to H.R. 5247, would not have been germane if 
    offered as an amendment in the House and is thus subject to a point 
    of order under rule XXVIII, clause 4.
        The test of germaneness in this case is the relationship 
    between title II of the conference report and the provisions of 
    H.R. 5247 as it passed the House. The Chair believes that had title 
    II been offered as an amendment in the House it would have been 
    subject to a point of order on two grounds.
        First, one of the requirements of germaneness is that an 
    amendment must relate to the fundamental purpose of the matter 
    under consideration and must seek to accomplish the result of the 
    proposed legislation by a closely related means--Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 28, sections 5 and 6. The fundamental purpose of 
    the bill when considered by the House was to combat unemployment by 
    stimulating activity in the construction industry through grants to 
    States and local governments to be used for the construction of 
    local public works projects.
        While the fundamental purpose of title II of the conference 
    report is related to the economic problems caused by the recession, 
    specifically unemployment, the means proposed to alleviate that 
    problem are not confined to public works construction. Title II 
    authorizes grants to States and local governments to pay for 
    governmental services such as police and fire protection, trash 
    collection and public education. The managers, in their joint 
    statement, specifically state that the grants under title II are 
    for the ``maintenance of basic services [ordinarily] provided by 
    the State and local governments and that State and local 
    governments shall not use funds received under the act for the 
    acquisition of supplies or for construction unless essential to 
    maintain basic services.'' An additional purpose of this title is 
    to reduce the necessity of increases in State and local government 
    taxes which would have a negative effect on the national economy 
    and offset reductions in Federal taxes designed to stimulate the 
    economy. The Chair therefore finds that the program proposed by 
    title II of the report is not closely related to the method 
    suggested in the House version of the bill.
        Second, title II of the report proposes a revenue sharing 
    approach to the problems faced by State and local gov

[[Page 7739]]

    ernments during the present recession. General revenue sharing is a 
    matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government 
    Operations under rule X, clause 1(h)(4), and a bill, H.R. 6416, in 
    many respects identical to title II of the report, was introduced 
    in the House on April 28, 1975, and referred to that committee. 
    While committee jurisdiction is not the exclusive test of 
    germaneness--Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 4.16--it is 
    a relevant test where, as here, the scope of the House bill is 
    within one committee's jurisdiction. The precedents indicate that 
    as a bill becomes more comprehensive in scope the relevance of the 
    test is correspondingly reduced. The bill, as it passed the House, 
    was not a comprehensive antirecession measure overlapping other 
    committees' jurisdictions, but proposed a specific remedy, local 
    public works construction assistance, to a complex problem. Given 
    the limited scope of the bill as it passed the House, the Chair 
    finds the jurisdiction test quite persuasive in this instance.
        For the reasons just stated, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Provisions Making Support Fund Effective Upon Approval by Congressional 
    Committees (as Provided by Public Buildings Act) of Construction of 
    Eisenhower Civic Center--Amendment Changing Approval Procedures 
    Under Law

Sec. 4.100 While as a general rule an amendment to a law which had been 
    reported from one committee is not germane to a bill reported from 
    another committee, where the pending bill incorporates by reference 
    provisions of a law from another committee and conditions the 
    bill's effectiveness upon actions taken pursuant to a section of 
    that law, an amendment to alter that section of the law may be 
    germane; thus, to a section in a District of Columbia Committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute providing that a support 
    fund for the Eisenhower Civic Center would become effective upon 
    approval of construction of the Center by the House and Senate 
    Committees on the District of Columbia and Appropriations as 
    provided in section 18 of the Public Buildings Act (originally 
    reported from the Committee on Public Works), an amendment changing 
    the approval mechanism in that section of law (to eliminate the 
    Committees on Appropriations) was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 12473 in the Committee of the

[[Page 7740]]

Whole on Apr. 8, 1974,(1) the Chair overruled a point of 
order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 10108-10, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth J.] Gray [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gray to the committee amendment: 
        Page 21, strike out lines 4 through 8, inclusive, and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 16. (a) Subsection (b) of section 4 of the Dwight D. 
        Eisenhower Memorial Bicentennial Civic Center Act (P.L. 92-520) 
        is hereby repealed.
            (b) Paragraph (4) of subsection (d) of section 18 of the 
        Public Buildings Act of 1959 is amended by striking out the 
        following: ``, and the Senate and House Committees on 
        Appropriations,''. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Rees [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment to the committee amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rees: . . . The point of order is that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is not germane to the 
    Eisenhower Memorial Civic Center Sinking and Support Funds Act of 
    1974, which is the bill now before us. What the gentleman's 
    amendment does is amend the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as 
    amended, to create the Eisenhower Civic Center. What his amendment 
    would specifically do would be to delete two sections, one of them 
    with the congressional approval, and the other, section 4(b), 
    dealing with the authorization for $14 million.
        It is my contention, Mr. Chairman, that his amendments would 
    only be germane to specific legislation, which would be an 
    amendment to the Public Buildings Act of 1959. . . .
        Mr. Gray: Mr. Chairman, the parameters and the scope of my 
    amendment concern financing only. It is true that the Public 
    Buildings Amendments Act of 1959, as amended, was the authority for 
    the establishment of the authorization for this center. My 
    amendment only deals with the $14 million, which is part of the 
    financing similar to the purposes of H.R. 12473, which is to 
    establish and finance a sinking fund for the Dwight D. Eisenhower 
    Memorial Bicentennial Civic Center. Very simply put in Illinois 
    country language, one puts in; the other takes out. It is a very 
    simple amendment. . . .
        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: . . . I support the points 
    raised by the gentleman from California with regard to germaneness. 
    I take issue with the gentleman from Illinois that all this 
    amendment does is relate to financing. That is not accurate. This 
    amendment also takes away an oversight of the District of Columbia 
    and of both the House and the Senate. It attempts to amend the 
    provisions of law of the Committee on Public Works, rather than the 
    attempts of the District of Columbia relating to this legislation 
    concerning financing. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. Rees) makes 
    the point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr.

[[Page 7741]]

    Gray) is not germane to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for the bill H.R. 12473. The gentleman from Kentucky 
    (Mr. Snyder) also supports the point of order. The Chair has 
    listened to the arguments in support of and against the point of 
    order.
        The committee amendment establishes a support fund for the 
    Civic Center, into which will be deposited funds from operating 
    revenues, spinoff tax benefits, certain local income, real estate 
    and sales taxes and funds appropriated pursuant to the 
    authorization of $14 million contained in section 18 of the Public 
    Buildings Act as the Federal share for the construction costs of 
    the Eisenhower Civic Center.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois would repeal that 
    portion of the Eisenhower Civic Center Act--section 18 of the 
    Public Buildings Act which authorizes the $14 million share--and 
    repeal that portion of the ``approval'' provision contained in 
    section 18 which requires approval of the Senate and House 
    Committees on Appropriation. The amendment has been drafted as a 
    substitute for the language contained in section 16 of the 
    committee amendment, which provides that the provisions of H.R. 
    12473 become effective either on date of enactment or upon approval 
    by the House and Senate Committees on the District of Columbia and 
    Appropriations as provided in section 18 of the Public Buildings 
    Act, whichever is later.
        While under ordinary circumstances an amendment to a law 
    reported from committee B is not germane to a bill reported by 
    committee A, in this instance the Gray amendment would appear to be 
    germane to section 16 of the committee amendment to H.R. 12473.
        The Chair would cite two reasons for reaching this conclusion: 
    First, since section 16 of the committee amendment makes the act 
    contingent upon approval of construction plans as provided in 
    section 18 of the Public Buildings Act, an amendment to alter the 
    approval mechanism contained in that act is germane; and second, 
    since H.R. 12473 would transfer funds appropriated as the Federal 
    share into the support fund being established in the bill, the 
    concept of the extent of Federal participation in the project has 
    been injected into the committee amendment. Therefore an amendment 
    to eliminate the Federal share, thereby making the project one 
    which will be financed entirely by local revenues, in the opinion 
    of the Chair is germane.
        For these reasons the Chair holds that the amendment is germane 
    and overrules the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Appropriations for Expansion of Educational Programs--
    Amendment Providing Tax Deduction for Support of College Student

Sec. 4.101 To a bill authorizing appropriations to assist in the 
    expansion and improvement of educational programs, an amendment, in 
    the nature of a substitute, to provide for an income tax deduction 
    for anyone furnishing support to a student in college was held to 
    be not germane.

[[Page 7742]]

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
to assist in the expansion and improvement of education programs to 
meet critical national needs, the following amendment was offered: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 13247 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 4. 104 Cong. Rec. 16734, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 8, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John P.] Saylor (of Pennsylvania): 
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: ``That any 
    person who provides more than 50 percent of a student's support 
    while attending a college or institution of higher learning shall 
    be entitled to an additional exemption on his or her income tax for 
    any year beginning with 1958 of $1,000.''

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

        Mr. [Carl A.] Elliott [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. It involves a tax 
    question which falls within the jurisdiction of another committee 
    of the House, the House Committee on Ways and Means.

    The Chairman, John E. Fogarty, of Rhode Island, in ruling on the 
point of order, stated: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 16735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This is not an appropriation bill that we are considering 
    today. It is strictly an authorization bill. The Chair feels that 
    it does invade the jurisdiction of another committee, the Committee 
    on Ways and Means, and therefore sustains the point of order.

Provisions Prescribing Standards for Administration of Educational 
    Programs--Amendment Providing Remedies for Denial of Equal 
    Educational Opportunity

Sec. 4.102 To an Education and Labor Committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute extending and amending several laws relating to 
    federal assistance to state and local educational agencies and 
    prescribing standards to be followed by educational agencies in the 
    administration of federally funded educational programs, an 
    amendment proscribing educational agencies from denying equal 
    educational opportunity to public school students and providing 
    judicial and administrative remedies for denials of equal 
    educational opportunity and of equal protection of the laws was 
    held germane.

    The proceedings of Mar. 26, 1974, during consideration of H.R. 69, 
to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education

[[Page 7743]]

Act, are discussed in Sec. 3, supra.

Bill To Protect Civil Rights--Amendment to Provide Aid to Education on 
    Basis of Progress in Desegregation

Sec. 4.103 To a bill to protect political rights, reported from the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, an amendment to provide aid to 
    education in communities proceeding with desegregation was held to 
    be not germane, the subject of the amendment being a matter within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (6) was under consideration 
relating to enforcement of constitutional rights. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 8601 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 5479, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Insert 
    a new title VII and renumber the remaining titles and sections 
    accordingly:

                                  Title--

    GRANTS TO ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES TO EFFECTUATE 
                               DESEGREGATION

                      Authorization of Appropriations

        Sec.--. (a) For the purpose of assisting State and local 
    educational agencies which, on May 17, 1954, maintained segregated 
    public schools to effectuate desegregation in such schools in a 
    manner consistent with pertinent Federal court decisions, there are 
    hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums 
    as the Congress may determine. . . .

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

        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        As the Chair has just ruled, the basic purpose of the bill 
    under consideration has to do with protection of voting rights. 
    This amendment deals with a system of Federal aid to education. It 
    sets forth new procedures that are wholly unrelated to the basic 
    bill.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Celler, stated: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 5480.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment now before us concerns the right to 
    education, the right of certain people in certain localities to 
    have their children educated. This amendment merely adds another 
    proposition whereby a remedy is pro

[[Page 7744]]

    vided to enforce a constitutional right and therefore it is 
    germane. Here we are merely adding another proposition to a series 
    of individual propositions dealing with one class, namely: the 
    enforcement of constitutional rights.

    The Chairman, Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, in ruling on the 
point of order, stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 5481.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he Chair holds that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York is not germane because it seeks to 
    introduce a subject matter which would have been referred to a 
    committee other than the one reporting the pending bill. The Chair 
    is of the opinion that the matter contained in the amendment is a 
    subject within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and 
    Labor and not the Committee on the Judiciary. Therefore, the Chair 
    rules that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is 
    not germane.

Bill To Protect Mentally Ill--Amendment Prohibiting Use of Revenue-
    sharing Funds for Jurisdictions Permitting Operation of Homosexual 
    Bathhouses

Sec. 4.104 To an individual proposition relating to mental health, an 
    amendment addressing other public health hazards and funding 
    programs unrelated to mental health is not germane; thus, to a bill 
    reported from the Committee on Energy and Commerce relating to 
    mentally ill individuals, an amendment prohibiting the use of 
    general revenue-sharing funds (a matter within the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Government Operations) to jurisdictions permitting 
    the operation of homosexual male baths hazardous to the public 
    health was held to be not germane, because it was within another 
    committee's jurisdiction and not confined to the issue of mental 
    health.

    During consideration of H.R. 4055 (relating to protection and 
advocacy for mentally ill individuals) in the Committee of the Whole on 
Jan. 30, 1986,(10) the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 1052, 1053, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 18, insert after 
        line 7 the following:

                          TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS
    Sec. 301. Public Baths.

            That no city, town, or other political jurisdiction may 
        receive Federal revenue sharing funds under chapter 67 of title 
        31, United States Code, if it permits the operation of any 
        public bath which is owned or operated by an individual who 
        knows or has rea

[[Page 7745]]

        son to know that the bath is hazardous to the public health or 
        who knows or has reason to know is used for sexual relations 
        between males. . . .

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: The amendment is a 
    prohibition for the expenditures of revenues under the Revenue 
    Sharing Act. It is not germane to the legislation before us. . . .
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, since the bill before us now relates to a new program 
    relating to the expenditure of funds to reduce the suffering and 
    improve the care of the mentally ill, does it not seem logical that 
    we would add an amendment that would reduce the incidence of a 
    disease that is fatal?
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        General revenue sharing is a matter that is within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations. The bill in 
    question deals with mental health, not all public health.
        For the reasons advanced by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Waxman], the point of order is well taken and is sustained.

Bill Authorizing Daylight-Saving Time in District of Columbia--
    Amendment Relating to Daylight-Saving Time in Other Jurisdictions

Sec. 4.105 To a bill authorizing the commissioners of the District of 
    Columbia to establish daylight-saving time, an amendment relating 
    to daylight-saving time as affecting ``services in interstate 
    commerce'' was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(12) authorizing daylight-saving time in the District of 
Columbia, an amendment was offered providing that the establishment of 
such time for the District of Columbia should not be construed to 
require any change in time for services in interstate 
commerce.(13) A point of order was raised against the 
amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. S. 736 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 4164, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 28, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground it is not 
    germane and covers interstate commerce as distinguished from local 
    jurisdiction.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gordon Canfield (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota goes 
    beyond the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, and is not 
    germane. The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 7746]]

Bill Amending Small Business Act--Senate Amendment Providing for Legal 
    Fees for Parties Prevailing Against United States

Sec. 4.106 To a House bill narrowly amending the Small Business Act 
    reported from the Committee on Small Business, a Senate amendment 
    adding a new title providing for the payment of attorney fees and 
    other court expenses to parties prevailing against the United 
    States in court litigation and amending title 28 (within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary) was held not 
    germane (pending a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment including such provisions, after the 
    conference report on the bill had been ruled out of order).

    The proceedings of Oct. 1, 1980, relating to H.R. 5612 (addressing 
small business assistance and reimbursement for certain fees), are 
discussed in Sec. 26.26, infra.

House Bill Concerning Foreign Relations and Operation of State 
    Department and Other Agencies--Senate Amendment To Provide 
    Guidelines for Acceptance of Foreign Gifts

Sec. 4.107 To a House bill containing diverse amendments to existing 
    laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations, relating to foreign relations and the operation of the 
    Department of State and related agencies, a portion of a Senate 
    amendment thereto contained in a conference report, amending the 
    Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (within the jurisdiction of the 
    same committee) to provide guidelines and procedures for the 
    acceptance of foreign gifts by United States employees and to 
    provide that the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
    adopt regulations governing acceptance by Members and House 
    employees of foreign gifts, was held germane when a point of order 
    was raised against a portion of the conference report under Rule 
    XXVIII clause 4.

[[Page 7747]]

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 6689 
(15) in the House on Aug. 3, 1977,(16) the 
Speaker Pro Tempore overruled a point of order in the circumstances 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 1978.
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 26532, 26533, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       foreign gifts and decorations

        Sec. 515. (a)(1) Section 7342 of title 5, United States Code, 
    is amended to read as follows:
        Sec. 7342. Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and 
    decorations
        ``(a) For the purpose of this section--
        ``(1) `employee' means--
        ``(A) an employee as defined by section 2105 of this title and 
    an officer or employee of the United States Postal Service or of 
    the Postal Rate Commission . . .
        ``(F) a Member of Congress as defined by section 2106 of this 
    title (except the Vice President) and any Delegate to the Congress 
    . . .
        ``(6) `employing agency' means--
        ``(A) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the 
    House of Representatives, for Members and employees of the House of 
    Representatives, except that those responsibilities specified in 
    subsections (c)(2)(A), (e), and (g)(2)(B) shall be carried out by 
    the Clerk of the House . . .
        ``(D) the department, agency, office, or other entity in which 
    an employee is employed, for other legislative branch employees and 
    for all executive branch employees . . .
        ``(b) An employee may not--. . .
        ``(2) accept a gift or decoration, other than in accordance 
    with the provisions of subsections (c) and (d).
        ``(c)(1) The Congress consents to--
        ``(A) the accepting and retaining by an employee of a gift of 
    minimal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of 
    courtesy; and
        ``(B) the accepting by an employee of a gift of more than 
    minimal value when such gift is in the nature of an educational 
    scholarship or medical treatment or when it appears that to refuse 
    the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise 
    adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, except 
    that--
        ``(i) a tangible gift of more than minimal value is deemed to 
    have been accepted on behalf of the United States and, upon 
    acceptance, shall become the property of the United States. . . .
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Caputo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        I would like to make a point of order and I regret that it 
    comes at so late an hour and after the previous discussion. I make 
    the point of order that the matter contained in section 515 of the 
    conference report would not be germane to H.R. 6689 under clause 7 
    of rule XVI if offered in the House and is therefore subject to a 
    point of order under clause 4 of rule XXVIII.
        Let me state that the language in the conference report 
    substantially changes the terms under which the Members of Congress 
    can accept or authorize acceptance of things of value from foreign 
    governments.
        The Constitution clearly provides in article I that each House 
    shall write its own rules. The House has a rule of its

[[Page 7748]]

    own on this matter, rule 44, which we only recently modified, under 
    which Members of Congress could receive things of value from 
    foreign governments.
        The conference report changes that rule because it is a 
    subsequent act of this House and in direct conflict with that rule. 
    In Jefferson's Manual, section 335 and Deschler's Procedures, 
    chapter 5, that is clearly improper. We cannot change the rules of 
    the House in that manner. Let me read from Jefferson's Manual, 
    section 335 briefly. It says:

            But a committee may not report a recommendation which, if 
        carried into effect, would change a rule of the House unless a 
        measure proposing amendments to House rules has initially been 
        referred to the Committee of the Whole by the House.

        This has not been referred to the Committee of the Whole by the 
    House as required by the precedents. Indeed, this is the first time 
    the House has viewed this matter and it would have been impossible 
    for us to have referred it to the Committee of the Whole. It was 
    put in by the other body. We never considered it.
        If the Chair does not sustain my point of order, he will be in 
    effect sustaining the other body in writing the rules of this 
    House. . . .
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, clause 4 of 
    House rule 43 deals only with gifts to employees. It does not deal 
    with gifts of foreign governments, which is the subject of this 
    amendment.
        Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we have specifically provided that 
    nothing in this section shall be construed in derogation of any 
    regulations prescribed by any Member or agency, and in this 
    instance it would be the Congress or the Ethics Committee, which 
    provides for more stringent limitations on the receipt of gifts and 
    declarations by employees.
        We are dealing with this in this amendment, because it deals 
    with the foreign gifts and declarations section which affects other 
    members of the Government not having anything to do incidentally 
    with Members of the House and in no way changes the rules of the 
    House.
        Mr. Caputo: Mr. Speaker, on page 21 of the committee report, 
    section 515 says such act is amended and then it says, ``a Member 
    of Congress.'' It clearly applies to Members of Congress.
        Let me state what it does. It permits Members of Congress to 
    accept gifts of more than minimum value.
        Page 22, section (c)(1)(B) clearly changes rule 24.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order that the 
    conference report contains, in section 515, matter contained in the 
    Senate amendment which would not have been germane to the bill if 
    offered in the House.
        Section 515 amends the Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act to 
    provide new guidelines and procedures relating to the acceptance by 
    employees of the United States of gifts and awards from foreign 
    governments. The section provides that the Committee on Standards 
    of Official Conduct shall have the func

[[Page 7749]]

    tions of regulating the minimum value of an acceptable gift for 
    Members and employees of the House of Representatives, of 
    consenting to the acceptance by Members and employees of gifts in 
    certain circumstances, and of disposing of unacceptable gifts 
    through the General Services Administration. H.R. 6689, the Foreign 
    Relations Authorization Act, as passed by the House, contained a 
    wide variety of amendments to existing laws within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on International Relations relating generally to 
    the foreign relations of the United States and the operations of 
    the Department of State, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Board 
    for International Broadcasting. It thus appears to the Chair that 
    an amendment to the Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act, a law 
    within the jurisdiction of the committee and relative to our 
    foreign relations, would have been germane to the bill if offered 
    in the House, particularly since section 111 of the House bill 
    dealt with foreign employment by officers of the United States 
    notwithstanding article I, section 9 of the Constitution. The 
    Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act arose from the identical 
    constitutional provision. The fact that the Senate amendment placed 
    new responsibilities on a standing committee of the House does not 
    render the provision subject to a point of order, since no attempt 
    is made to amend the rules of the House or to otherwise exceed the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The point of order was based on the grounds 
that the provision had the effect of amending the Rules of the House, 
to allow the acceptance of gifts prohibited by House Rule 43, the Code 
of Official Conduct. The actual effect of the provision, however, was 
merely to assign the regulatory authority under the Act in relation to 
the House of Representatives, not to supersede a more restrictive 
standard imposed by the Rules or standards of the House of 
Representatives.

Increased Salaries for Members--Amendment Affecting Audits in House

Sec. 4.108 To a bill reported from the Committee on the 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).

[[Page 7750]]

    In the 88th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(18) relating to salary increases for federal officers and 
employees, the following amendment was offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 8986 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
19. 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: 
(20)

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

        The subject matter of the pending bill pertains to salaries of 
    various governmental 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.

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

Sec. 4.109 To a bill reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, 
    creating a new Office of Criminal Justice within the Department of 
    Justice, an

[[Page 7751]]

    amendment abolishing the Department and transferring its functions 
    to a new independent agency outside the Cabinet, a matter within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations, was 
    ruled out as not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Law Enforcement 
and Criminal Justice Assistance Act of 1967,(22) the 
following amendment was offered: (23)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. H.R. 5037 (Committee on the Judiciary).
23. 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 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 (24) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. 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.

[[Page 7752]]

        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.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 5. Fundamental Purpose of Amendment as Test

    In determining whether an amendment is germane, it is often 
useful--especially when the amendment is in the nature of a substitute 
for the pending text--to consider whether its fundamental purpose is 
related to the fundamental purpose of the bill to which offered.
    The Speaker or Chairman considers the stated purposes of a bill and 
the amendment, although not the motive or intent of the proponent of 
the amendment which circumstances might suggest, in ruling on the 
germaneness of a proposed amendment.(25) If the purpose or 
objective of an amendment is different from that of the bill to which 
it is offered, the amendment may be held not to be germane. For 
example, it is generally held that, to a proposal to authorize certain 
activities, an amendment proposing to investigate the advisability of 
undertaking such activities is not germane.(26) An amendment 
offered to a revenue bill is not germane if it proposes a tax for any 
other purpose than that of raising revenue.(27) Moreover, to 
a bill relating to the minting and issuance of public currency, 
amendments providing for minting a coin for a private purpose 
(28) or for a commemorative or collector's coin 
(29) have been held to be not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. See Sec. 3.45, supra, and Sec. 5.5, infra. See also, generally, 
        Sec. 6, infra, which discusses amendments that contemplate 
        methods different from those of the bill to be used in 
        achieving the objectives of the bill.
26. See Sec. 5.29, infra.
27. See Sec. 5.11, infra.
28. See Sec. 5.27, infra.
29. See Sec. 5.28, infra.
30. See Sec. 5.8, infra, and Sec. 6, generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, the fact that a provision in a bill and a 
proffered amendment to that provision have a common purpose or 
objective is not conclusive as to the amendment's germaneness, 
especially where the two approaches are dissimilar.(30)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. See Sec. 5.8, infra, and Sec. 6, generally.

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

[[Page 7753]]

                          -------------------Amendment Elaborating on 
    Methods of Accomplishing Results Contemplated by Bill, and Adding 
    Incidental Conditions or Exceptions

Sec. 5.1 For a bill proposing to accomplish a result by methods 
    comprehensive in scope, a committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute which was more detailed in its provisions but which 
    sought to achieve the same result was held germane, where the 
    additional provisions not contained in the original bill were 
    construed to be merely incidental conditions or exceptions that 
    were related to the fundamental purpose of the bill.

    The proceedings of Aug. 2, 1973, which related to H.R. 9130 (the 
trans-Alaska pipeline authorization) are discussed in Sec. 30.36, 
infra.

Bill Requiring Preservation of Election Returns--Amendment To Provide 
    for Court Appointment of Voting Referees

Sec. 5.2 To a bill to enforce constitutional voting rights by requiring 
    preservation of federal election returns, an amendment to provide 
    for court appointment of voting referees to insure protection of 
    voters' rights was held to be germane.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 45.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Enforce Right to Vote--Amendment To Protect First Amendment 
    Rights That Might Affect Voting Rights

Sec. 5.3 To a bill to enforce the right to vote as guaranteed by the 
    15th Amendment to the Constitution, an amendment to protect freedom 
    of speech and other First Amendment rights whose abridgment might 
    affect exercise of voting rights, was held germane.

    In the 89th Congress, during consideration of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965,(2) the following amendment was offered: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 6400 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 16263, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 9, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (b) Whenever any person acting under color of law has engaged . 
    . . in any . . . practice that . . . threatens . . . the exercise 
    by any other person, in connection with voting, of his right of 
    freedom of speech or of the press, or his right peaceably to 
    assemble . . . the Attorney General may institute . . . a civil 
    action . . . for preventive relief. . . .

[[Page 7754]]

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: . . . Mr. Speaker, the 
    subject matter of H.R. 6400 deals exclusively with voting rights. 
    The amendment proposed deals with rights under the first amendment 
    to the Constitution. . . . It is very obvious that this violates 
    the rule of germaneness. Although we are dealing with 
    constitutional rights, specifically the right to vote under H.R. 
    6400, the rule is that one individual proposition may not be 
    amended by another individual proposition even though the two may 
    belong to the same class.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard W. Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls attention to language in the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lindsay] under paragraph (b) 
    where it is made quite clear by the phrase ``in connection with 
    voting'' that the purpose of this amendment deals only with the 
    voting aspect. In other words, with the 15th amendment.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order. . . .

Bill Establishing Commission To Study Voting Rights--Amendment Creating 
    Human Resettlement Commission

Sec. 5.4 To a bill establishing a commission to study deprivation of 
    voting rights and granting authority to the Attorney General to 
    institute legal proceedings to protect such rights, an amendment 
    creating a Commission on Human Resettlement, with authority to aid 
    those who wish to emigrate from any state that practices 
    segregation, was held to be not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (5) 
as described above, the following amendment was offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary). See the proceedings at 103 
        Cong. Rec. 8838 et seq., 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1957.
 6. Id. at pp. 8860, 8861.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: On 
    page 1, strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the 
    following:

             Establishment of Commission on Human Resettlement

        Sec. 8. (a) The Commission is authorized, upon application 
    therefor, to grant a relocation loan in accordance with this Act to 
    any Negro living in any State in which racial segregation is 
    practiced, to enable such Negro to move to any State in which 
    racial segregation is not practiced.

    Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane.(7) The Chairman,(8) in 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 8861.
 8. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).

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

[[Page 7755]]

        The Chair finds that the bill under consideration provides for 
    the securing and protecting of the civil rights, whereas the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama provides for the 
    creation of a Commission on Human Resettlement which deals more 
    with economic benefits than with civil rights.
        The Chair holds that the amendment is not germane and, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.

Bill Extending Civil Rights Commission--Amendment Authorizing 
    Relocation Loans for Those Wishing To Emigrate From State 
    Practicing Secregation

Sec. Sec. 5.5 To that title of a civil rights bill extending the life 
    of the Civil Rights Commission and further delineating its duties 
    with respect to the investigation of violations of constitutional 
    rights, an amendment authorizing the Commission to make relocation 
    loans to those who wish to emigrate from any state that practices 
    segregation was held to be not germane.

    In the 88th Congress, during consideration of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1963,(9) Mr. George W. Andrews, of Alabama, offered an 
amendment whose purpose he explained as follows: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 7152 (Committee on the Judiciary).
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 2298, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill that I introduced which now is before us in the form 
    of an amendment to the Civil Rights Commission would simply provide 
    that if any Negro living in a State where local laws . . . and 
    traditions made him unhappy, he would be entitled to receive, from 
    a Human Resettlement Commission that my bill would have created, a 
    . . . Government loan, in an amount sufficient to permit him and 
    the members of his family to move to any State of his choice. And 
    it would be the duty of that Commission--and under my amendment the 
    duty of the Civil Rights Commission--to assist him. . . .

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment . . . is not germane to the title 
    under consideration. This title concerns the investigators, the 
    factfinding body called the Civil Rights Commission.

    The Chairman, Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, viewing the amendment 
as one ``that would have for its purpose the setting up of what might 
be described generally as a Human Resettlement Commission,'' sustained 
the point of order.(11) He relied in part on a

[[Page 7756]]

prior similar ruling,(12) which he described as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 2299.
12. See Sec. 5.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It has been called to the Chair's attention that on June 11, 
    1957, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Forand, of 
    Rhode Island, in ruling on a similar amendment to a bill providing 
    for establishing a Commission to study deprivation of voting rights 
    and granting authority to the Attorney General to institute or 
    intervene in legal proceedings to protect voting rights, an 
    amendment providing for creating a Commission on Human 
    Resettlement, similar to the pending amendment of the gentleman 
    from Alabama, with authority to make loans to Negro citizens for 
    emigration from any State practicing segregation, was held by that 
    chairman not to be germane.

Bill Requiring Balanced Budgets To Be Submitted by President and Voted 
    on by Congress--Amendment Requiring Joint Resolutions Rather Than 
    Concurrent Resolutions in Other Phases of Budget Process

Sec. 5.6 To a bill requiring balanced budgets to be submitted by the 
    President and voted upon by the Congress as alternatives to deficit 
    budget concurrent resolutions, a motion to recommit converting the 
    entire budget process from a concurrent resolution to a joint 
    resolution, thereby changing the Congressional budget resolution to 
    a law requiring the signature of the President for all purposes of 
    enforcement of the Budget Act was held not germane as having a 
    broader fundamental purpose, requiring Executive Branch approval of 
    all budget resolutions and not merely those submitted in balance.

    During consideration of the Balanced Budget Act of 1990 
(13) in the House on July 18, 1990,(14) it was 
held that to a proposition changing procedures relating to one aspect 
of the Congressional budget process to require consideration of 
balanced budgets, an amendment changing other procedures to require 
Presidential approval of any budget resolution, thereby involving the 
Executive Branch in enforcement of all Budget Act procedures and 
sanctions, went beyond the fundamental purpose of the proposition to 
which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 5258.
14. 136 Cong. Rec. p.--, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Butler] Derrick [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the bill (H.R. 5258) to require that the President transmit to 
    Congress, that

[[Page 7757]]

    the congressional Budget Committees report, and that the Congress 
    consider a balanced budget for each fiscal year, and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The text of H.R. 5258 is as follows:

                                   H.R. 5258

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

               TITLE I--AMENDMENT TO TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE
    sec. 101. submission of balanced budget by the president.

            Section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
        inserting at the end the following new subsection:
            ``(g)(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2), any budget 
        submitted to Congress pursuant to subsection (a) for the 
        ensuing fiscal year shall not be in deficit.
            ``(2) For any fiscal year with respect to which the 
        President determines that it is infeasible to submit a budget 
        in compliance with paragraph (1), the President shall submit on 
        the same day two budgets, one of which shall be in compliance 
        with paragraph (1), together with written reasons in support of 
        that determination.''.

            TITLE II--AMENDMENT TO CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974
    sec. 201. reporting of balanced budgets by committees on the budget 
    of the house of representatives and senate.

            Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
        amended by inserting at the end the following new subsection:
            ``(j) Reporting of Balanced Budgets.--
            ``(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2), the concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for a fiscal year referred to in 
        subsection (a) as reported by the Committee on the Budget of 
        each House shall not be in deficit. . . .
    sec. 202. procedure in the house of representatives.

            Section 305(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
        amended by inserting at the end the following:

            ``(8)(A) If the Committee on Rules of the House of 
        Representatives reports any rule or order providing for the 
        consideration of any concurrent resolution on the budget for a 
        fiscal year, then it shall also, within the same rule or order, 
        provide for--
            ``(i) the consideration of the text of any concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for that fiscal year reported by the 
        Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives 
        pursuant to section 301(j); and
            ``(ii) the consideration of the text of each concurrent 
        resolution on the budget as introduced by the Majority Leader 
        pursuant to subparagraph (B);
    and such rule or order shall assure that a separate vote occurs on 
    each such budget.

            ``(B) The Majority Leader of the House of Representatives 
        shall introduce a concurrent resolution on the budget 
        reflecting, without substantive revision, each budget submitted 
        by the President pursuant to section 1105(g) of title 31, 
        United States Code, as soon as practicable after its 
        submission.''.
    sec. 203. procedure in the senate.

        Section 305(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
    amended by inserting at the end the following:

[[Page 7758]]

            ``(7) Notwithstanding any other rule, it shall always be in 
        order in the Senate to consider an amendment to a concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for a fiscal year comprising the text 
        of any budget submitted by the President for that fiscal year 
        as described in section 1105(g)(1) of title 31, United States 
        Code, and, whenever applicable, an amendment comprising the 
        text of any other budget submitted by the President for that 
        fiscal year as described in section 1105(g)(2) of title 31, 
        United States Code.''. . . .

        Mr. [Willis D.] Gradison [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The Clerk will report 
    the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. David E. Skaggs (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Gradison moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 5258)) to the 
        Committee on Rules and the Committee on Government Operations 
        with instructions to report the same to the House forthwith 
        with the following amendment:
            Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
        following:
    sec. 101. amendments changing ``concurrent'' to ``joint'' 
    resolutions.

            (a) The table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the 
        Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is 
        amended by striking ``concurrent'' in the items relating to 
        sections 301, 303, and 304 and inserting ``joint''.
            (b) Paragraph (4) of section 3 of such Act is amended to 
        read as follows:
            ``(4) The term ``joint resolution on the budget'' means--
            ``(A) a joint resolution setting forth the congressional 
        budget for the United States Government for a fiscal year as 
        provided in section 301; and
            ``(B) any other joint resolution revising the congressional 
        budget for the United States Government for a fiscal year as 
        described in section 304.''.
            (c) Sections 300, 301, 302, 304, 305, 308, 310, 311, and 
        401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 631 et 
        seq.) are amended by striking ``concurrent resolution'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``joint resolution''. . . .

        Mr. Derrick: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the motion of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    Gradison] is out of order. It goes beyond the scope of the Budget 
    Act. It is entirely out of the scope of what we are dealing with. 
    It requires a complete revision of the Budget Act in that we ask 
    the President to sign it. . . .
        Mr. Gradison: . . . Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit the 
    bill, H.R. 5258 with instructions to amend the bill by striking out 
    all after the enacting clause and inserting language changing the 
    concurrent budget resolution to a joint resolution in the Budget 
    Act, is a germane amendment to the underlying bill. For an 
    amendment to be germane it must be akin to or relevant to the 
    subject matter of the bill. An amendment must not be on a subject 
    different from the bill under consideration.
        Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5258 amends the 1974 Congressional Budget Act 
    in several instances. The bill required reporting by the Committee 
    on the Budget of balanced budgets unless a report is made stating 
    why a balanced budget is not possible. The bill further changes

[[Page 7759]]

    the procedure by which budget resolutions are considered in the 
    House, requiring the Committee on Rules to make in order the 
    President's budget for a vote in the same rule providing for 
    consideration of the budget resolution reported by the Committee on 
    the Budget.
        Mr. Speaker, amending the Budget Act to require that the 
    concurrent budget resolution be made a joint resolution, as 
    provided in this motion to recommit, is relevant to the Budget Act 
    changes made by the underlying bill. The bill itself changes 
    consideration of the budget resolution to include a vote on the 
    President's budget. The amendment made in my motion to recommit 
    with instructions would provide additional changes to the Budget 
    Act to further bring the President into the existing procedures. . 
    . .
        Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, if I may be 
    heard on my point of order, I believe that the motion of the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gradison) is not germane because it amends 
    the table of contents to make it a joint resolution. This is the 
    only way it can be done, and in effect it affects all budget 
    resolutions, not just the Balanced Budget Act, H.R. 5258. . . .
        Mr. Gradison: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue, with the 
    Chair's indulgence, the point just made.
        Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the bill before us amends 
    all budget resolutions and that it requires the Committee on Rules, 
    in bringing any budget resolution to the floor, to include four 
    choices which may be in addition to other budget resolutions which 
    may be brought to the floor for consideration. So, I frankly am 
    confused by the point raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Conyers) because it seems that the criticism which he is levying 
    against my motion to recommit would apply equally to the measure 
    before us.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will apply the fundamental 
    purpose test of germaneness to this motion. The underlying 
    legislation is described primarily in the second paragraph of page 
    2 of the Rules Committee report filed with the bill.
        The intention of the motion to recommit and the instructions 
    contained therein would, in the opinion of the Chair, change 
    fundamentally the purpose of the bill before the House to include 
    the President, as well as the Congress, in the entire congressional 
    budget process, including all procedures and sanctions resulting 
    therefrom.
        For that reason it fails the test of germaneness, and the point 
    of order is sustained.

Bill To Provide Temporary Increase in Statutory Debt Ceiling--Amendment 
    Construed as Temporary Rather Than Permanent Change in Law

Sec. 5.7 Although the Chair will not ordinarily look behind the text of 
    a bill and consider the probable effects of its provisions, or 
    amendments thereto, in determining issues of germaneness, the Chair 
    has ruled that an amendment which in form

[[Page 7760]]

    amounted to a permanent change in law could in fact be understood 
    to be a temporary change in law, in light of prior legislative 
    treatment of the subject in question (the statutory ceiling on 
    public debt), and thus could properly be offered to a bill whose 
    fundamental purpose was to provide a temporary increase in the 
    statutory ceiling on the debt.

    The proceedings of May 13, 1987, relating to H.R. 2360, extension 
of the public debt limit, are discussed in Sec. 46.7, infra.

Bill To Increase Debt Limit--Amendment Authorizing Issuance of Non-
    Interest-Bearing Obligations and Directing Purchase Thereof

Sec. 5.8 To that section of a bill repealing certain provisions of law 
    and amending the Second Liberty Bond Act to increase the debt 
    limit, an amendment authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    issue non-interest-bearing obligations and directing the Board of 
    Governors of the Federal Reserve banks to purchase such obligations 
    at par value was held to be not germane.

    On Feb. 10, 1941, the Public Debt Act of 1941 (16) was 
under consideration. The bill stated in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 2959 (Committee on Ways and Means).
17. See 87 Cong. Rec. 875, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. (a) Section 21 of the Second Liberty Bond Act, as 
    amended, is further amended to read as follows:

            Sec. 21. The face amount of obligations issued under the 
        authority of this act shall not exceed in the aggregate 
        $65,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time.

        (b) The authority granted in the following provisions of law to 
    issue obligations is terminated:
        (1) Section 32 of the act entitled ``An act to provide ways and 
    means to meet war expenditures, and for other purposes,'' approved 
    June 13, 1898, as amended (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 31, sec. 756). . 
    . .
        (c) Section 301 of title III of the Revenue Act of 1940 (54 
    Stat. 526) creating a special fund for the retirement of defense 
    obligations) is repealed.

    An amendment was offered (18) as described above. The 
proponent then stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 877.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: . . . This amendment is 
    prepared in a way that will allow the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    issue non-interest-bearing obligations and turn them over to the 
    Federal Reserve Banking System and receive in return therefor 
    credit which is used today in the same

[[Page 7761]]

    way and manner as the interest-bearing bonds are issued.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 878.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment . . . on the ground it is not 
    germane. . . . I concede the first part of the amendment . . . 
    would be in order, but [the principle is well established] that if 
    any part of the amendment is subject to a point of order . . . the 
    entire amendment is subject to a point of order.
        . . . [The latter part of the amendment] clearly places upon 
    the Federal Reserve bank a mandatory duty and responsibility which 
    is not embraced within the provisions of the bill. . . . Indeed, 
    such a provision as that should properly, and would have to, come 
    from the Banking and Currency Committee. It would not be within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

    The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Clarence A. Cannon (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The fact that an amendment and the provision in the bill to 
    which the amendment is offered have a common purpose and are 
    directed toward the same objective is not conclusive.
        The amendment proposed by the gentleman deals with a subject to 
    which there is no reference in the text to which offered, and is, 
    therefore, not germane to the bill.

Provision Extending for One Year Authorization for Revenue-Sharing--
    Amendment Extending Revenue-Sharing Program for Three Years

Sec. 5.9 To a proposition to appropriate or to authorize appropriations 
    for only one year (and containing no provisions extending beyond 
    that year) an amendment to extend the appropriation or 
    authorization to another year is not germane; thus, to an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute extending for one year the 
    entitlement authorization for revenue-sharing during fiscal year 
    1981 and containing conforming changes in the law which would not 
    effectively extend beyond that year, an amendment extending the 
    revenue-sharing program for three years was held broader in scope 
    and not germane.

    During consideration of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act 
Amendments of 1980 (1) in the Committee of the Whole on Nov. 
13, 1980, (2) it was demonstrated that the test of 
germaneness of a perfecting amendment to an

[[Page 7762]]

amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill is its relationship 
to said substitute, and not to the original bill. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 7112.
 2. 126 Cong. Rec. 29523-28, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Horton: Strike out everything after the enacting clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
    Section 1. Short Title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act Amendments of 1980''.
    Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

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

    An amendment was offered:

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations for Local Share.--
        Section 105(c)(1) of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act 
        of 1972 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 
        ``In addition, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Trust Fund to pay the entitlements of units of local government 
        hereinafter provided $4,566,700,000 for each of the entitlement 
        periods beginning October 1 of 1980, 1981, and 1982.''. . .

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

[[Page 7763]]

    tained in the legislation. It deals with other matters which are 
    contained in the general legislation, so I feel it is well within 
    the parameters of the bill it is trying to be substituted for.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Formula for Allotment of Funds to States for School Construction--
    Amendment Proposing Different Formula

Sec. 5.10 To a bill authorizing appropriations for allotment to the 
    states, under a specific formula, for school construction, an 
    amendment proposing a different formula was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (4) 
to authorize federal assistance to states and local communities in 
financing school construction, the following amendment was offered: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 7535 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 5. 102 Cong. Rec. 11859, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 5, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ralph W.] Gwinn [of New York]: 
    Beginning on page 3, line 1, strike out everything through line 6 
    on page 10 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                      Authorization of Appropriations

        Sec. 101. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the 
    fiscal year beginning July 1, 1956, and for each of the three 
    succeeding fiscal years, an amount equal to 1 percent of the total 
    of all income taxes collected . . . which shall be paid by the 
    Secretary of the Treasury . . . to the respective States . . . in 
    amounts equal to 1 percent of the amount of such revenue collected 
    in each such State or Territory, to be used for public schoolroom 
    construction as prescribed by the law of each State. . . .

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

        Mr. [Augustine B.] Kelley [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make

[[Page 7764]]

    the point of order that the amendment is not germane; that it 
    involves a taxation problem, and is not germane to this 
    legislation.

    The Chairman,(6) noting that the amendment merely 
provided another formula for apportionment of funds for schools, 
overruled the point of order. (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 7. For a similar ruling with respect to another amendment to the same 
        bill, see 102 Cong. Rec. 11756, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 3, 
        1956 (ruling of Chairman Francis E. Walter [Pa.] on the 
        germaneness of an amendment offered by Mr. Antonio N. Sadlak 
        [Conn.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revenue Bill--Amendment To Permit States To Tax Federal Incomes

Sec. 5.11 To a bill to raise revenue for the federal treasury, an 
    amendment permitting states to tax federal incomes was held to be 
    not germane.

    On Mar. 8, 1938, during consideration of the Revenue Bill of 
1938,(8) an amendment was offered (9) as 
described above. Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, made the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman, Clifton 
A. Woodrum, of Virginia, in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 9682 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 9. 83 Cong. Rec. 3048, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
10. Id. at p. 3049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The purpose of the pending bill is to raise revenue for the 
    Federal Treasury. Section (b) of the amendment . . . has for its 
    purpose conferring upon States the right to tax Federal incomes for 
    the purpose of raising revenue for the State.

    Citing the principle that, ``an amendment offered to a revenue bill 
proposing a tax for any other purpose than that of raising revenue is 
not germane,'' the Chairman sustained the point of order.

Omnibus Surface Transportation Authorization Bill--Amendment 
    Authorizing Funds for Highway Project With Ancillary Purpose of 
    Facilitating Completion of Flood-Control Project

Sec. 5.12 In determining the fundamental purpose of a bill and of an 
    amendment offered thereto, the Chair may examine the broad scope of 
    the bill and the stated purpose of the amendment and need not be 
    bound by ancillary purposes suggested by the amendment; thus, to an 
    omnibus surface transportation authorization bill, including 
    highway-related projects as well as roadways, an amend

[[Page 7765]]

    ment authorizing funds for construction of those portions of 
    highway projects in a certain area necessary to permit completion 
    of a related flood-control project was held germane since by its 
    terms it was limited to roadway authorization and not separately 
    extended to flood control projects.

    During consideration of H.R. 11733 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Sept. 27, 1978,(11) the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 32050, 32051, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Madam Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ertel: Page 119, after line 23, 
        insert the following:
            (c) In any case where an Appalachian development highway on 
        the Federal-aid primary system, is the final section of an 
        approved Appalachian development corridor highway within an 
        urbanized area, transects an unincorporated jurisdiction, and 
        is a necessary element of a flood control project for the 
        protection of a commercially-zoned area containing not less 
        than 70 commercial and industrial establishments which is 
        authorized under Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, 
        the Secretary of Transportation shall provide to the State 
        highway department so much of the costs, not to exceed 
        $1,800,000, as may be necessary to permit construction of that 
        portion of such development highway as is necessary to permit 
        completion of the flood control project. . . .

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, the 
    amendment the gentleman offers is in violation of House rule XVI, 
    clause 7, which prohibits nongermane amendments.
        The amendment seeks to provide moneys for the completion of a 
    flood control project by way of amending the bill providing for an 
    increase in the Federal share for highway construction projects 
    under the Appalachian Regional Development Act.
        The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill. The obvious fundamental purpose of 
    the gentleman's amendment is to permit completion of a flood 
    control project for a certain city in Pennsylvania.
        The fundamental purpose of the bill is to make authorizations 
    for highway construction, highway safety, and mass transportation. 
    Flood control projects are in no way within the ambit of this 
    legislation.
        Clearly, the amendment does not relate to the subject matter 
    under consideration. I would direct the Chair's attention to a 
    precedent contained in the Congressional Record July 3, 1968, on 
    pages H11926 through H11927. The bill being read in that case was 
    the Federal-Aid Highway Act to which a Member offered an amendment 
    allowing any Governor of a State to permit the diversion of funds 
    apportioned to a State from highway construction to urban mass 
    transit.
        The Chair in that case held such an amendment was not germane.

[[Page 7766]]

        A basic rule of germaneness is that an amendment must not only 
    have the same end as the matter sought to be amended, but must 
    contemplate a method of achieving that end that is closely allied 
    to the method encompassed in the bill.
        Even assuming that the basic purpose of the gentleman's 
    amendment is to actually complete the highway, this test is not 
    met, because an ancillary purpose is to complete this flood control 
    project. This is not closely allied to the method encompassed in 
    the bill, which is simply highway construction, unrelated to any 
    flood walls or levees.
        A further reason this amendment does not meet the test of 
    germaneness is that it creates a new class by providing relief for 
    a different group of people. Those aided by this bill are motorists 
    in need of good highways, while the gentleman's amendment instead 
    is aimed at providing flood control relief to the citizens of a 
    particular borough in Pennsylvania. Clearly, it violates the rule. 
    These beneficiaries are clearly not in the same class and would 
    rarely if ever be the same people.
        The gentleman's amendment broadens the scope of the original 
    bill by providing a general purpose which is not germane to the 
    specific subjects of the original bill. This legislation builds 
    bridges, highways, and mass transit systems; the gentleman's 
    amendment builds flood control levees. . . .
        Mr. Ertel: Madam Chairman, this is an amendment to complete the 
    Appalachian Development Highway on the Federal-aid primary system, 
    and it is clearly germane to the bill.
        It is true that this is to complete final sections of that 
    highway, and that is the purpose: To build the base for the 
    highway.
        That is the purpose of this amendment, and any flood control 
    project or any flood control benefit which might result has already 
    been appropriated and is incidental. The primary purpose of this is 
    to complete the Appalachian highway regional system in order 
    to connect regional highways together. . . .
        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: . . . I wish to speak 
    against this point of order.
        For the benefit of the Members of the House . . . let me say 
    that I inspected this area myself on behalf of the committee, and I 
    want to report that the Appalachian development highway program and 
    the regional program are part of this program, and this particular 
    link that is to be connected in Pennsylvania is an integral part of 
    the highway program. It had to be approved by the Environmental 
    Protection Agency, and it is part of the comprehensive planning of 
    the Appalachian program.
        Now, the question is whether or not the roadbed per se is a 
    matter of flood control versus a highway.
        You could not complete this program without putting this 
    highway on about a 52-foot fill. It happens to be because the 
    elevation and the terrain is in that direction. Therefore, Madam 
    Chairman, it is obvious that, whether it serves as an ancillary 
    purpose and does benefit the flood situation in the area, you could 
    not complete this highway without building it on the 52-foot fill. 
    Therefore, I would respectfully suggest to the Chairman that this 
    is not, in my judgment, nongermane and the point of order should be 
    defeated.

[[Page 7767]]

        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ertel) has offered an 
    amendment to section 125 of the bill, the section entitled 
    ``Appalachian Development Highways.''
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha) argues that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ertel) is not 
    germane because it is violative of the fundamental purpose of the 
    bill, which is to build highways and not to engage in flood 
    control.
        The fundamental purpose of the bill is not only to build 
    roadways. This is a surface transportation bill. There are a number 
    of ancillary highway-related activities and projects which are 
    authorized under the terms of the bill.
        The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Roe), in arguing in 
    opposition to the point of order, has contended that it would be 
    impossible to complete a certain highway without the construction 
    contemplated in this amendment. That the roadbed will be part of a 
    flood control project is ancillary to the main thrust of the 
    amendment. The completion of a highway is apparently its 
    fundamental purpose, since the highway could not be completed 
    without going into a flood control area and completing the highway 
    with the authorization provided in the amendment.
        Consequently, the Chair overrules the point of order raised by 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha).

Bill Authorizing Federal Energy Research and Development Administration 
    To Conduct Environmental Research--Amendment Authorizing Council on 
    Environmental Quality to Evaluate Environmental Effects of Energy 
    Technology

Sec. 5.13 To a proposition to accomplish a result by one method 
    (regulation by a governmental agency), an amendment to achieve the 
    same fundamental purpose by another closely related method (use of 
    another governmental agency) is germane; thus, to a bill 
    authorizing the Federal Energy Research and Development 
    Administration to conduct a broad range of programs involving 
    energy sources, including environmental research related to the 
    development of energy sources, an amendment authorizing the Council 
    on Environmental Quality to evaluate environmental effects of 
    energy technology was held germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1973 
(13) in the Committee of the

[[Page 7768]]

Whole on Dec. 19, 1973,(14) the Chair, overruling a point of 
order, held the following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 11510.
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 42618, 42619, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John R.] Dellenback [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dellenback: Page 55, line 8, 
        insert a new section 308 to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 308. (a) The Council on Environmental Quality is 
        authorized and directed to carry out a continuing analysis of 
        the conduct of research and development of energy technologies 
        to evaluate--
            ``(1) the adequacy of attention to the probable 
        environmental effects of the application of energy technology, 
        and
            ``(2) the adequacy of attention to environmental protection 
        in connection with energy processes.

            ``(b) The Council on Environmental Quality, in carrying out 
        the provisions of this section, may employ consultants or 
        contractors and may by fund transfer employ the services of 
        other Federal agencies for the conduct of studies and 
        investigations.
            ``(c) The Council on Environmental Quality shall hold 
        annual public hearings on the conduct of energy research and 
        development and the probable environmental consequences of 
        trends in the application of energy technology, and the 
        transcript of the hearings shall be published and made 
        available to the public.
            ``(d) The Council on Environmental Quality shall make such 
        reports to the President, the Administrator, and the Congress 
        as it deems appropriate concerning the conduct of energy 
        research and development, and the President as a part of the 
        annual Environmental Policy Report shall set forth the findings 
        of the Council on Environmental Quality concerning the conduct 
        of energy research and development and the probable 
        environmental consequences of trends in the application of 
        energy technology.''
            Renumber the subsequent sections. . . .

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it goes 
    beyond the authority of this committee and goes to the authority of 
    other committees.
        It seeks to authorize money, and it goes beyond the committee's 
    authority.
        I do not have the amendment in front of me, but I was listening 
    to it as the gentleman was reading it. There are a number of things 
    in it relative to the duties of the Council on Environmental 
    Quality, pending the authorization for the funding of the Council 
    on Environmental Quality, the hiring of consultants by the Council 
    on Environmental Quality, as well as others.
        It ranges all over the jurisdiction of almost every Member's 
    committee in this Congress besides the one that is handling the 
    bill here, and, therefore, the amendment should be stricken down as 
    nongermane. . . .
        Mr. Dellenback: . . . As the Chairman is aware, the bill which 
    is before us deals expressly with the question of the 
    responsibilities of the Administrator engaging in and supporting 
    environmental and other research related to the development of 
    energy sources and utilization technologies.
        I submit to the Chairman that this particular amendment, while 
    it does, of

[[Page 7769]]

    course, on its face deal with the responsibilities of the Council 
    on Environmental Quality, is dealing with this critically important 
    field of environmental research, and it is within the scope of the 
    bill. . . .
        If we are going to open up the field of environmental research, 
    as this bill does open it up, we should be able to deal with it in 
    this way and insure that that which is done is analyzed, 
    researched, and reported back to the Congress.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the language on page 33 of the bill 
    beginning at line 16, covers this point. It reads:

            (4) engaging in and supporting environmental, biomedical, 
        physical, and safety research related to the development of 
        energy sources and utilization technologies;

        The bill thus authorizes the Administrator of ERDA to engage in 
    precisely the type of environmental research which the amendment 
    would confer upon the Council.
        The Chair would like to cite from the House Manual, page 445:

            To a proposition to accomplish a certain purpose by one 
        method, an amendment to achieve the same fundamental purpose by 
        another closely related method may be germane. Thus, to a bill 
        proposing to regulate certain activities through the use of a 
        governmental agency, an amendment proposing to regulate such 
        activities by another governmental agency is germane (Dec. 15, 
        1937, pp. 1572-89; June 9, 1941, p. 4905).

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Granting Powers to Government Agency Relating to Use and 
    Conservation of Electrical Power--Amendment Creating Government 
    Corporation To Perform Similar Functions

Sec. 5.14 The test of germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole, 
    and the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill; thus, for a bill proposing to 
    accomplish a result by methods comprehensive in scope, an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute seeking to achieve the same result is 
    germane where the methods contemplated are closely related, and 
    where additional provisions not contained in the original bill are 
    merely incidental conditions or exceptions related to the 
    fundamental purposes of the bill.

    During consideration of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power 
Planning and Conservation Act (16) in the Committee of the 
Whole on

[[Page 7770]]

Sept. 29, 1980,(17) it was held that to a proposition to 
accomplish a result by one method (regulation by a government agency), 
an amendment to achieve the same fundamental purpose by another closely 
related method (another type of government entity) is germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. S. 885.
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 27832-52, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill reads as follows:

                                   H.R. 8157

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

                       short title and table of contents

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Pacific Northwest Electric 
        Power Planning and Conservation Act.''. . .
            Sec. 4. (a)(1) The purposes of this section are to provide 
        for the prompt establishment and effective operation of the 
        Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning 
        Council to further the purposes of this Act by the Council 
        promptly preparing and adopting (A) a regional conservation and 
        electric power plan and (B) a program to protect, mitigate, and 
        enhance fish and wildlife and to otherwise expeditiously and 
        effectively carry out the Council's responsibilities and 
        functions under this Act.
            (2) To achieve such purposes and facilitate cooperation 
        among the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, and 
        with the Bonneville Power Administration, the consent of 
        Congress is given for an agreement described in this paragraph 
        and not in conflict with this Act, pursuant to which--
            (A) there shall be established a regional agency known as 
        the ``Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation 
        Planning Council'' which (i) shall have its offices in the 
        Pacific Northwest, (ii) shall carry out its functions and 
        responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of this Act, 
        (iii) shall continue in force and effect in accordance with the 
        provisions of this Act, and (iv) except as otherwise provided 
        in this Act, shall not be considered an agency or 
        instrumentality of the United States for the purpose of any 
        Federal law; and . . .

                                     rates

            Sec. 7. (a)(1) The Administrator shall establish, and 
        periodically review and revise, rates for the sale and 
        disposition of electric energy and capacity and for the 
        transmission of non-Federal power. Such rates shall be 
        established and, as appropriate, revised to recover, in 
        accordance with sound business principles, the costs associated 
        with the acquisition, conservation, and transmission of 
        electric power, including the amortization of the Federal 
        investment in the Federal Columbia River Power System 
        (including irrigation costs required to be repaid out of power 
        revenues) over a reasonable period of years and the other costs 
        and expenses incurred by the Administrator pursuant to this Act 
        and other provisions of law. Such rates shall be established in 
        accordance with sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Columbia River 
        Transmission System Act (16 U.S.C. 838), section 5 of the Flood 
        Control Act of 1944, and the provisions of this Act. . . .

        Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. (James) 
    Weaver

[[Page 7771]]

    (of Oregon): Page 1, strike all after the enacting clause and 
    insert in lieu thereof:

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Columbia Basin Energy 
        Corporation Act of 1980''. . . .
            There is created a body corporate by the name of the 
        ``Columbia Basin Energy Corporation''. The Board of Directors 
        first appointed shall be deemed the incorporators, and the 
        incorporation shall be held to have been effected from date of 
        the first meeting of the Board. . . .

                                      fund

            Sec. 22. (a) There is hereby established in the Treasury of 
        the United States a Columbia Basin Energy Corporation 
        Administration Fund (hereinafter referred to as the ``fund''). 
        The fund shall consist of (1) all receipts, collections, and 
        recoveries of the Corporation in cash from all sources, 
        including trust funds, (2) all proceeds derived from the sale 
        of bonds by the Board, (3) any appropriations made by the 
        Congress for the fund, and (4) the following which are hereby 
        transferred to the Corporation: (A) all moneys in the 
        Bonneville Power Administration Fund established by the Federal 
        Columbia River Transmission System Act of October 18, 1974, (B) 
        the unexpended balances of funds appropriated or otherwise made 
        available for the Bonneville Power Administration. All funds 
        transferred hereunder shall be available for expenditure by the 
        Corporation, acting by and through the Board, as authorized in 
        this Act and other Acts relating to the Columbia Basin Energy 
        Corporation system, subject to such limitations as may be 
        prescribed by any applicable appropriation Act effective during 
        such period as may elapse between their transfer and the 
        approval by the Congress of the first subsequent annual budget 
        program of the Corporation. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the bill 
    before us is one which arranges to deal with the Pacific Northwest 
    power problems through giving certain power to the administrator of 
    BPA, by arranging for the backing of the funding of construction by 
    use of the rate of all the facilities in the area. It sets up a 
    council relating to the planning for energy and for commercial 
    fisheries and it deals with the use of conservation as a mechanism 
    for substituting for the production of new power.
        The gentleman's amendment, on the other hand, is violative of 
    the rule of germaneness because it sets up a mechanism which goes 
    beyond and is not related to the fundamental purpose of the 
    legislation and which, in going toward the fundamental purpose of 
    the legislation, uses mechanisms not authorized and not 
    contemplated and not of the same character as the functions of the 
    basic legislation.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman is different in a number 
    of noteworthy sections. For one thing, it sets up a corporation 
    which would be appointed with the board of directors, two to be 
    appointed by the President and a number of others to be appointed 
    by the several States. Apart from the constitutional questions that 
    this raises, the proposal would have a board which would 
    essentially be a corporate body, there being no corporation in the 
    legislation which is before the Committee at this time but, rather, 
    only an advisory council. This board would have sweeping powers 
    roughly equivalent to those of the Tennessee

[[Page 7772]]

    Valley Authority and which are, therefore, much more sweeping in 
    character. The board would be able to function without regard to 
    the civil service laws at page 10 section 5.
        Furthermore, the legislation confers upon the Secretary of 
    Labor the power to determine wage rates and so forth, and 
    compensation, something which is not included in the legislation 
    before us, Mr. Chairman.
        Furthermore, it provides for removal of board members by a 
    prescribed mechanism and requires that the activities of the board 
    be nonpolitical in character. It provides for the acquisition of 
    generating facilities, retail distribution systems, and affords to 
    the board the right of eminent domain, something which is not 
    included in the legislation before us. . . .
        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, another 
    point, let me also say the amendment is not germane to the bill in 
    that it sets up a Government corporation, a Government corporation, 
    and none is provided for in the basic legislation. Therefore, it is 
    not germane to the main legislation. . . .
        Mr. Weaver: . . . The bill before us sets up a council in which 
    one provision is appointed by the Secretary of Energy, that is the 
    so-called fallback provision, but, nevertheless, it is in the bill 
    that the council, which, by the way, is not an advisory council, it 
    has vast powers, vast powers, to approve the plan and projects, is 
    nominated by the Secretary of Energy, and mine is nominated by the 
    President. So the rule says that the fundamental purpose of the 
    amendment must be the same. I maintain the fundamental purpose of 
    the amendment is the same because both the bill and the substitute 
    are trying to solve the energy problems by creating a mechanism, 
    energy problems in the Northwest, by creating a mechanism.
        Mine sets up the Columbia Basin Authority which is quite 
    similar to the TVA. I think my substitute is very bad, you 
    understand. It is just that the bill is much worse. It sets up a 
    halfway TVA.
        I support very strongly something else. But if you are going to 
    have a TVA, I offer my substitute, Mr. Chairman, as a complete TVA.

        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would cite section 798(b) of the House Rules and 
    Manual relating to the fundamental purpose as a test of germaneness 
    which says in part:

            The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to 
        the fundamental purpose of the bill. Thus for a bill proposing 
        to accomplish a result by methods comprehensive in scope, a 
        committee amendment in the nature of a substitute seeking to 
        achieve the same result was held germane where it was shown 
        that the methods contemplated were closely related and that 
        additional provisions not contained in the original bill were 
        merely incidental conditions or exceptions which were related 
        to the fundamental purpose of the bill.

        The Chair would further cite chapter 28, section 2.22 of 
    Deschler's Procedure, and I quote:

            The test of germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a 
        sub

[[Page 7773]]

        stitute for a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole 
        and is not necessarily determined by the content of an 
        incidental portion of the amendment which, if offered 
        separately, might not be germane to the portion of the bill to 
        which offered.

        Finally the Chair would note on page 209 in Cannon's Procedure 
    in the 75th Congress, that to a proposal to create a bureau to 
    administer a program a substitute was held germane which 
    established a board rather than a bureau to administer the program.
        The bill under consideration utilizes the Bonneville Power 
    Administration and a planning council, while the amendment creates 
    a corporation.
        Therefore, on the basis of the precedents cited, the Chair 
    would overrule the point of order.

Bill Addressing Formulation by Agencies of Policies of Energy 
    Conservation--Amendment Prohibiting Use of Fuel for School Busing 
    and Imposing Criminal Penalties

Sec. 5.15 To a title of a bill designed to enable agencies of the 
    government to formulate policies of energy conservation, an 
    amendment prohibiting certain uses of fuel (for school busing) by 
    any person and imposing criminal penalties for such use was held 
    not germane to the fundamental purpose of the title.

    On Sept. 17, 1975,(19) it was demonstrated that the test 
of the germaneness of an amendment in the form of a new section to a 
title of a bill being read by titles is the relationship between the 
amendment and the pending title. The proceedings during consideration 
of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (20) 
in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 28925-27, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Collins of Texas: Page 273, insert 
        after line 4 the following new section:

            energy conservation through prohibition of unnecessary 
                                 transportation

            Sec. 450. (a)(1) No person may use gasoline or diesel fuel 
        for the transportation of any public school student to a school 
        farther than the public school which is closest to his home 
        offering educational courses for the grade level and course of 
        study of the student and which is within the boundaries of the 
        school attendance district wherein the student resides.
            (2) Any person who violates subsection (1) of this section 
        shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 
        one year, or both, for each violation of such subsection. . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]his is clearly beyond the scope of the matters that are 
    dealt with in this

[[Page 7774]]

    title of the bill. It would very substantially introduce 
    administrative duties that are not provided for in any way in the 
    bill, and it is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this committee. 
    . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, we have had a 
    similar amendment in conservation bills before which have passed 
    the House before, and in this particular bill. It comes in 
    conjunction with sections on energy conservation through van 
    pooling arrangements, through the use of car pools. It is an 
    identical type of conservation measure as the limitation of 
    limousines we discussed earlier, and the conservation of gasoline.
        This is very much consistent because what we are talking about 
    here in conservation, the unnecessary and unneeded uses of 
    transportation. Also, we have the jurisdiction over the FEA, and it 
    seems to me that we would be concerned with this. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman from New York makes 
    a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Collins) on grounds that it is not germane to title 
    IV. The gentleman from Texas, in responding to the point of order, 
    has cited certain amendments that have been adopted to the bill 
    during debate, and the Chair is not clear as to whether he is 
    talking only about this bill or about earlier bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I understand that 
    specifically this bill itself, in this particular bill itself on 
    page 270, we have a section of this bill which says, ``Energy 
    Conservation Through Van Pooling Arrangements.''
        On page 271, we have a section called ``Use of Carpools.'' We 
    just adopted the Santini amendment, which is related to it. We 
    talked about limousines. We have been talking about transportation 
    and vehicles. Here we are talking about conservation, and we could 
    conserve a great deal of gasoline and diesel fuel. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . I would point out 
    that the bill before us relates to allocation of gasoline. It 
    relates to the conservation of energy. But this amendment adds a 
    criteria category and purpose to the bill which is above, apart and 
    different from anything else found anywhere else in the bill, and 
    that is a specific prohibition of the use of fuels for a particular 
    purpose, which carries us beyond the purposes of the bill.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I would cite to the Chair that the nature 
    of the amendment must be such as to notify the House that it might 
    reasonably anticipate it and might be related for the purposes of 
    which the bill is drawn.
        Mr. Chairman, I might add further that the amendment adds 
    criminal sections, imposing, for example, penalties on bus drivers 
    of school buses, and goes well beyond the allocation powers or the 
    conservation powers which are vested in the Federal Government, 
    adding, essentially, a new criminal section of the bill which was 
    not previously before us and which is not in the bill. . . .
        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    call the attention of the Chair to title VI of the bill, 
    particularly section 605, where we have a section that prohibits 
    the use of natural gas as boiler fuel for the generation of 
    electricity.

[[Page 7775]]

        It would seem to me that here we have a similar type of fuel--
    gasoline--and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Collins) by his 
    amendment would prohibit the use of that fuel in transporting 
    school children. . . .
        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, there is one further thing 
    I wish to say. We have talked about whether there were penalties or 
    not provided in this bill.
        In the bill itself, in previous sections, violations were set 
    out and there were penalties of $5,000. There are several sections 
    in the FEA sections that provide for penalties. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to state at the outset that the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ottinger) against 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Collins) is 
    on the ground that the amendment is not germane to title IV, and we 
    are in effect limited in our consideration to the matters contained 
    in title IV.
        As will be clear in the statement which the Chair will make, 
    the ruling that the present occupant of the Chair made under 
    seemingly similar circumstances on an earlier bill is different.
        The amendment would prohibit the use by any person--and that is 
    the key to the ruling of the Chair--of gasoline or diesel fuel for 
    certain transportation of public school students, and would 
    establish a criminal penalty for violation of the amendment's 
    provisions. The Chair has noted the Chair's ruling, cited in 
    Deschler's Procedures, chapter 28, section 26.9, that an amendment 
    restricting the regulatory authority of the President, who was 
    authorized by the bill to establish priorities among users of 
    petroleum products, was germane where the amendment required the 
    product so allocated be used only for certain transportation of 
    public school students.
        It appears to the Chair that the ruling on that occasion was 
    specifically directed to the fact that the bill conferred certain 
    regulatory authority upon the President, and that the amendment 
    placed a specific limitation and direction on the power so 
    delegated. The amendment now in question does not address itself to 
    the authority of an agency of Government, except in its last 
    subsection relating to certain determinations by the Administrator 
    of the Federal Energy Administration. But the direct thrust of the 
    amendment is to prohibit certain uses of fuel by any person.
        It is true that the title to which the amendment is offered 
    deals with the subject of the conservation of energy, but the 
    provisions of title IV address the goal of conservation through 
    actions and encouragement by an agency of Government, not through 
    prohibitions on the use of fuel by any person.
        The Chair is unable to discover in title IV or in the basic act 
    being amended criminal prohibitions applicable to any person using 
    the fuel in a certain way.
        The Chair, therefore, finds that the amendment is not germane 
    to the fundamental purposes of the title to which offered and 
    sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7776]]

Provisions To Deregulate Primarily Interstate Sales of Natural Gas--
    Substitute Addressing More Aspects of Regulation of Intrastate 
    Sales and Differentiating Among Large and Small Producers

Sec. 5.16 While the methods to accomplish a general purpose in a bill 
    and amendment thereto must be closely related for the amendment to 
    be germane, where the bill contains a comprehensive and diverse 
    methodology, a substitute changing the emphasis to be placed upon 
    various suggested regulatory methods may be germane; thus, for an 
    amendment comprehensively amending the Natural Gas Act to 
    deregulate interstate sales of new natural gas and to regulate 
    certain aspects of intrastate natural gas use, a substitute 
    providing regulatory authority for both interstate and intrastate 
    natural gas sales of large producers was held germane.

    On Feb. 4, 1976,(2) during consideration of H.R. 9464 
(the Natural Gas Emergency Act of 1974) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, overruled a point of order and 
held the following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 2387-91, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as 
    a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Iowa as a substitute for 
        the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Krueger: . . .
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Krueger, insert the following: That, 
        this Act may be cited as the ``Natural Gas Act Amendments of 
        1976''. . . .
            Sec. 4. (a) Section 2 of the Natural Gas Act is amended by 
        redesignating paragraphs (7) through (9) as paragraphs (15) 
        through (17), respectively, and by inserting the following new 
        paragraphs. . . .
            ``(13) `Independent producer' means a natural gas producer 
        whose aggregate marketed production of natural gas in the 
        preceding calendar year, together with the marketed production 
        during that year of any affiliate of such producer, does not 
        exceed 100,000,000 Mcf., but such term does not include any 
        natural gas producer whose annual gross revenue, together with 
        the annual gross revenue of any affiliate of such person, from 
        the operation of a pipeline for the transportation or sale for 
        resale of natural gas in interstate commerce or the 
        distribution of natural gas does not exceed 10 percent of the 
        total annual gross revenues of the person or of the affiliate 
        of such person.
            ``(14) `Exempt independent producer sale' means a sale of 
        new natural gas that is produced by an independent producer and 
        a sale in

[[Page 7777]]

        which (A) no natural gas producer (other than an independent 
        producer) has any interest in the proceeds or profits other 
        than a royalty interest and (B) the aggregate of royalty 
        interests of natural gas producers (other than independent 
        producers) does not exceed 20 percent of such proceeds or such 
        profits. The term `exempt independent producer sale' does not 
        include a sale of new natural gas that is produced from acreage 
        in which the independent producer acquired an interest after 
        January 1, 1976; if, prior to the acquisition by the 
        independent producer, a discovery well had been drilled into 
        the reservoir from which the natural gas is produced at a 
        distance from the well from which the natural gas is produced 
        of two statute miles for areas on the outer continental shelf 
        and one statute mile for other areas of the United States. . . 
        .
            ``Sec. 24. (a)(1) Not later than the first day of the third 
        full calendar month following the effective date of this 
        section, the Commission shall, by rule, promulgated in 
        accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, 
        establish a national ceiling price applicable to any sale of 
        new natural gas in interstate and intrastate commerce by a 
        producer who is not an independent producer. For the purposes 
        of this section, a sale of new natural gas in intrastate 
        commerce means any sale of natural gas pursuant to a contract 
        entered into on or after the effective date of the rule 
        required to be promulgated pursuant to this subsection.
            ``(2) In establishing such national ceiling price, the 
        Commission shall take into account the following:
            ``(A) the recovery of costs, including prospective costs; 
        and
            ``(B) a reasonable rate of return which will provide 
        incentive adequate to attract capital investment and to provide 
        incentive for further exploration for, development of, and 
        production of, new natural gas.
            ``(3) The Commission may, by rule, establish a higher 
        ceiling price in excess of the national ceiling price 
        established under paragraph (1) if the Commission finds that 
        such higher ceiling is necessary to provide special relief to 
        meet extraordinary expenses for deep vertical drilling or other 
        high-cost or high-risk production of natural gas and limits 
        such higher ceiling price to only those persons incurring such 
        additional costs or risks.
            ``(b) The Commission shall amend rules required to be 
        promulgated under subsection (a) from time to time as may be 
        necessary to take into account inflation or any change in 
        circumstances related to the factors specified in subsection 
        (a) to be given consideration in establishing such rate. . . .

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order lodges against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Smith) on the basis that it is not germane to the basic 
    legislation and it is not germane to the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) in that while it may seek to 
    accomplish the same end as the Krueger amendment here, even the 
    same end as the basic piece of legislation, it does not contemplate 
    a method of achieving that end that is closely allied to the method 
    encompassed in the bill and in the Krueger amendment.
        I cite Deschler's Procedure in the House of Representatives, 
    page 374, paragraph 6, ``Amendment Accomplishing Result of Bill by 
    Different Method,'' paragraph 6.1 and then again in paragraph 6.17:

            To a proposition seeking to accomplish a result by one 
        general method,

[[Page 7778]]

        an amendment which might indirectly achieve that result but by 
        an unrelated method not contemplated in the original 
        proposition is not germane.

        In both of these instances the germaneness issue goes to the 
    method by which deregulation is to be undertaken. In the Krueger 
    amendment there is no regulation currently of intrastate natural 
    gas, but there is in the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Smith). In section 24 of that amendment, in the seventh 
    line, there is specific reference to the regulation of intrastate 
    natural gas, and there is a difference in procedure of the method 
    by which deregulation is accomplished in that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) achieves deregulation by 
    the source and the type of the gas, whereas the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) attempts to achieve 
    deregulation based on the size of the producer of the gas and, 
    therefore, undertakes an entirely different method.
        Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the two citations I gave, 
    paragraph 6.1, of which says:

            In order to be germane, an amendment must not only have the 
        same end as the matter sought to be amended, but must 
        contemplate a method of achieving that end that is closely 
        allied to the method encompassed in the bill or other matter 
        sought to be amended.

        I do not think that the method undertaken by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Smith) is either a method achieving that end closely 
    allied to the method encompassed in the bill or in the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, in the fear that I did not make myself clear 
    about what is in the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Smith), as I had a chance to read it, the Smith amendment deals 
    with intrastate gas, regulating intrastate gas with regard to the 
    large producers, which neither the Krueger amendment nor the basic 
    legislation do.
        Second, the Smith amendment seeks to deregulate on the basis of 
    the size of the producer, as opposed to the definition of the 
    source and the type of item to be deregulated. Therefore, it is not 
    closely allied and attempts to address the issue, but in ways and 
    by methods that are entirely different than exists either in the 
    basic legislation or in the Krueger amendment.
        That, Mr. Chairman, is my point. . . .
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: . . . I insist that 
    the point of order is valid, specifically because the Smith 
    substitute amendment provides for new natural gas regulation in the 
    instance of intrastate gas.
        The title of section 24 states, ``New natural gas sales of 
    regulated producers.''
        Section 24(a)(1): Not later than the first day of the third 
    full calendar month following the effective date of this section, 
    the Commission shall, by rule, promulgated in accordance with 
    section 553 of title 5, United States Code, establish a national 
    ceiling price applicable to any sale of new natural gas in 
    interstate and intrastate commerce by a producer who is not an 
    independent producer.
        That goes well beyond the scope, speaks to a question that the 
    Krueger

[[Page 7779]]

    substitute is silent on, and the point of order should prevail. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, very simply, both 
    the Krueger amendment and the Smith substitute amendment define the 
    scope of FPC price regulatory authority through amendment to 
    section C of the Natural Gas Act. Both deal with deregulated gas 
    and with regulated gas. The section of the Krueger amendment that 
    deals with OCS gas creates regulation in that area.
        Both purport to achieve a method by which encouragement of 
    production would come by deregulation, and at the same time purport 
    to keep certain restraints on price by maintaining some gas, some 
    quantity of gas, under regulation, under restriction.
        The two bills in fact come out with almost the same results, in 
    that OCS gas is generally under regulation, under the Krueger 
    amendment, and since it is largely produced by majors, it is also 
    under regulation under the Smith amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, the whole thrust of both bills is an attempt to 
    alter and to define the scope of the FPC, both with respect to 
    certain gas which is presently interstate and certain gas which is 
    intrastate.
        The agricultural priority provisions of section 25, oil and gas 
    provisions under section 26 of the Krueger amendment, deal with 
    both interstate and intrastate gas and indeed the original bill 
    deals with both. But the important thing is that, since the Krueger 
    amendment is made in order to a bill, an amendment to the Krueger 
    amendment which is germane to the Krueger amendment is also germane 
    at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair has had 
    some opportunity prior to the offering of this substitute to 
    examine into the problem raised by the substitute and by the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
        Essentially, in line with the line of reasoning stated by the 
    gentleman from Michigan and Texas, the Chair has a statement which 
    he would like to read.
        The gentleman from Ohio makes the point of order that the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) is not 
    germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). The Krueger amendment is 
    comprehensive in scope. Title I of the amendment authorizes the 
    Federal Power Commission to permit a temporary emergency purchase 
    by interstate pipelines of natural gas to meet the needs of their 
    high priority customers, free from the restrictions of the Natural 
    Gas Act.
        Title I also mandates, in its perfected form, short-term 
    allocation and price control of propane whether in interstate or in 
    intrastate commerce. Title II of the Krueger amendment 
    comprehensively amends the Natural Gas Act to deregulate interstate 
    sales of new natural gas, to establish a statutory priority for 
    essential agricultural and industrial uses in interstate commerce, 
    to ban the use of new gas affecting commerce generally for boiler 
    fuel use, to permit intrastate transportation of new natural gas 
    through interstate facilities under certain conditions, and to 
    provide for a study of the entire natural gas industry, both 
    interstate and intrastate, by the Federal Power Commission.

[[Page 7780]]

        The Smith substitute distinguishes in its regulatory approach 
    between new and old types of gas and also regulates intrastate gas 
    sales of large producers after a price ceiling has been established 
    pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the substitute.
        The substitute also contains provisions relating to 
    conservation of natural gas for boiler fuel use, priorities for 
    agricultural and other public service purposes, and emergency 
    allocations which are similar to those contained in the Krueger 
    amendment.
        Volume 8, Cannon's Precedents, section 2964 and volume 5, 
    Hinds' Precedents, section 5841, appear to indicate that to a bill 
    relating to interstate commerce an amendment relating to intrastate 
    commerce is not germane. Those precedents deal however with a 
    situation where a narrow bill or section of a bill directed towards 
    interstate commerce is attempted to be amended by an equally narrow 
    provision broadening that section to address intrastate commerce as 
    well.
        The decisions of the Chair on those instances were founded on 
    the principle that an amendment relating to one designated class is 
    not in order to a bill dealing with another designated and clearly 
    defined class, and have little applicability to the situation now 
    pending, where a comprehensive substitute is offered to a broad 
    measure amending existing law.
        The Chair has already noted that the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) does 
    not only address itself to interstate commerce. The amendment 
    affects natural gas in intrastate commerce in substantial ways both 
    through free-standing provisions of law and through amendments to 
    the existing Natural Gas Act. Furthermore section 203 of the 
    Krueger amendment would amend section 717 of the Natural Gas Act, 
    which section defines the coverage of the Natural Gas Act in 
    relation to natural gas in intrastate commerce.
        It is well established in the precedents that to a measure 
    amending in many respects an existing law, an amendment is germane 
    to further modify the law in another respect germane to the law. 
    For example, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    comprehensively amending several sections of the Clean Air Act with 
    respect to the impact of energy shortages, an amendment to another 
    section of that act suspending the authority of the Environmental 
    Protection Agency to control automobile emissions was held germane. 
    Chapter 28, Deschler's Precedents, section 28.44.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that the Krueger amendment 
    substantially changes the powers of the Federal Power Commission 
    under the Natural Gas Act, incorporates within the act various 
    authorities dealing with natural gas in intrastate commerce, and so 
    vitally affects the scope of the act as to allow a substitute to be 
    offered which proposes alternative revisions of the policy 
    directives and specific regulatory powers of the Federal Power 
    Commission under the Natural Gas Act, in order to achieve adequate 
    supplies of natural gas.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 7781]]

Bill Authorizing Establishment of Petroleum Reserves and Exploration at 
    Certain Sites for Oil and Gas--Amendment To Require Study of Uses 
    of Public Lands in Reserve for Recreational, Scenic and Subsistence 
    Purposes

Sec. 5.17 For a proposition reported from the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 
    establish national petroleum reserves on certain public lands and 
    authorizing exploration for oil and gas on naval petroleum reserve 
    number 4 with annual reports to Congress, an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute containing similar provisions and also 
    requiring a task force study of the values and best uses for 
    subsistence, scenic, historical, and recreational purposes, and for 
    fish and wildlife, of the public lands in that naval petroleum 
    reserve was held germane despite the inclusion of that incidental 
    portion which, if considered separately, might not have been 
    germane.

    On July 8, 1975,(3) during consideration of H.R. 49 in 
the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, held that the 
test of germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a 
bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole and is not necessarily 
determined by the content of an incidental portion of the amendment 
which if offered separately, might not be germane to the portion of the 
bill to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 21631-34, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Melcher: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
            That in order to develop petroleum reserves of the United 
        States which need to be regulated in a manner to meet the total 
        energy needs of the Nation, including but not limited to 
        national defense, the Secretary of the Interior, with the 
        approval of the President, is authorized to establish national 
        petroleum reserves on any reserved or unreserved public lands 
        of the United States (except lands in the National Park System, 
        the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
        System, the National Wilderness Preservation System, areas now 
        under review for inclusion in the Wilderness System in 
        accordance with provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and 
        lands in

[[Page 7782]]

        Alaska other than those in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4). 
        . . .
            (f) The Secretary of the Interior with the approval of the 
        President, is hereby authorized and directed to explore for oil 
        and gas on the area designated as Naval Petroleum Reserve 
        Numbered 4 if it is included in a National Petroleum Reserve 
        and he shall report annually to Congress on his plan for 
        exploration of such reserve, Provided That no development 
        leading to production shall be undertaken unless authorized by 
        Congress. He is authorized and directed to undertake a study of 
        the feasibility of delivery systems with respect to oil and gas 
        which may be produced from such reserve: Provided further, That 
        the Secretary of the Interior shall, through a Task Force, 
        including representatives of the State of Alaska, the Arctic 
        Slope Regional Corporation, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 
        and the Office of National Petroleum Reserves established by 
        this Act, functioning cooperatively, study and review the 
        values and best uses of the public domain lands contained in 
        Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4 as subsistence lands for 
        natives, scenic, historical, recreational, fish and wildlife, 
        wilderness or for other purposes, and, within three years, 
        submit to Congress his recommendations for such designation of 
        areas of those lands as may be appropriate and, Provided 
        further, That oil and gas exploration within the Utukok River 
        and Teheshepuk Lake areas and others containing significant 
        subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, historical or 
        scenic values, shall be conducted in a manner so as to preserve 
        such surface values.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order. . . .
        The bill, H.R. 49, authorizes as follows:

            To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish on 
        certain public lands of the United States national petroleum 
        reserves the development of which needs to be regulated in a 
        manner consistent with the total energy needs of the Nation, 
        and for other purposes.''

        Mr. Chairman, if we refer to the bill in toto, nowhere will we 
    find in that bill language relating to subsection (f) of the 
    amendment submitted to us. I regret that I cannot give the Chair 
    the precise citation.
        I will state that the point of order goes to the section 
    relating to the words,

            Provided further, That the Secretary of the Interior shall, 
        through a Task Force, including representatives of the State of 
        Alaska, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the U.S. Fish 
        and Wildlife Service and the Office of National Petroleum 
        Reserves established by this Act, functioning cooperatively, 
        study and review the values and best uses of the public domain 
        lands contained in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4 as 
        subsistence lands for natives, scenic, historical, 
        recreational, fish and wildlife, wilderness or for other 
        purposes, and, within three years submit to Congress his 
        recommendations for such designation of areas of those lands as 
        may be appropriated . . . .

        Mr. Chairman, a fundamental rule of the House of 
    Representatives is that the burden of establishing the germaneness 
    of an amendment falls upon the offeror and does not fall upon the 
    Member challenging the germaneness. I would point out that nowhere 
    else in the bill is there a proviso for a provision for a study 
    involving groups, and nowhere in the title of the legislation is 
    there anything that would justify or

[[Page 7783]]

    authorize a study of the kind that is set forth here in the 
    amendment.
        As a matter of fact, nowhere in the amendment that was reported 
    by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to the House of 
    Representatives is there anything which would relate to a study. A 
    study of the kind that is before us is totally different and alien.
        The purpose of the legislation is to establish a program of 
    national strategic reserves and for the development of the 
    petroleum reserves and not for the establishment of a study. It is 
    not for the establishment of a study relating to fish and wildlife 
    values, historical values, and matters of that sort.
        So since the burden falls upon the offeror of the amendment, 
    the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Melcher), I would point out that he 
    has assumed for himself a burden which is impossibly heavy, and 
    that is to provide a study of such sweeping import relating to 
    totally different matters than those which are contained in the 
    bill.
        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, the point of order should be 
    sustained.
        Mr. Melcher: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Chairman, I think the point is covered in rule XVI at 
    section 798c where it says as follows:

            . . . the test of the germaneness of an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute for a bill is its relationship to the 
        bill as a whole, and is not necessarily determined by the 
        content of an incidental portion of the amendment which, if 
        considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction of 
        another committee.

        Mr. Chairman, I think that about settles the point.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The proviso cited by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    is on page 8 of the mimeographed form of the Melcher amendment.
        Had this proviso been presented separately, the germaneness 
    would have been measured against the portion of the Interior 
    Committee amendment to which offered. However, having been 
    presented as a part of an overall substitute, the Chair would rule 
    that the provision objected to is merely incidental to the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment, and that under the precedent 
    cited by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Melcher), in section 
    798(b) of the Manual the amendment is germane to the text when 
    viewed as a whole.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill To Promote Energy Conservation, Including Energy Efficiency 
    Labeling of Consumer Products--Amendment Relating to Energy Use in 
    Production of Beverage Containers

Sec. 5.18 A bill of several titles dealing generally with energy use 
    and conservation and containing a title specifically dealing with 
    efficiency of energy-using consumer products and requiring energy 
    efficiency labeling of such products, was held sufficiently broad 
    in scope to admit as germane an amendment in the form of a new

[[Page 7784]]

    title dealing with energy use in the production of certain non-
    energy consuming products (beverage containers) and incorporating 
    the labeling requirements in the bill to demonstrate energy 
    production requirements of such products.

    On Sept. 18, 1975, (4) during consideration of the 
Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (5)) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order against an 
amendment in the form of a new title to the bill. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 29322-25, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         TITLE V--IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS

                      PART A--Automobile Fuel Mileage

        Sec. 501. Definitions.
        502. Average fuel economy standards applicable to each 
    manufacturer. . . .

       PART B--Energy Labeling and Efficiency Standards for Consumer 
                      Products Other Than Automobiles

        Sec. 551. Definitions and coverage.
        Sec. 552. Test procedures.
        Sec. 553. Labeling.
        Sec. 554. Energy efficiency standards. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 331, after line 10, 
        add the following:

        TITLE VI--ENERGY LABELING AND EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR BEVERAGE 
                                   CONTAINERS

                            definitions and coverage

        Sec. 601.--For purposes of this part--

            (1) The term ``beverage container'' means a bottle, jar, 
        can, or carton of glass, plastic, or metal, or any combination 
        thereof, used for packaging or marketing beer or any other malt 
        beverage, mineral water, soda water, or a carbonated soft drink 
        of any variety in liquid form which is intended for human 
        consumption. . . .
            (4) The term ``energy efficiency'' means the ratio 
        (determined on a national basis) of: The capacity of the 
        beverage container times the number of times it is likely to be 
        filled, to the units of energy resources consumed in producing 
        such container (including such container's raw materials) and 
        in delivering such container and its contents to the consumer.
            The Commissioner, in determining the energy efficiency 
        shall adjust any such determination to take into account the 
        extent to which such containers are produced from recycled 
        materials. . . .

                                    labeling

            Sec. 603. The provisions of section 553, except paragraph 
        (B) of subsection (a)(1), shall be applicable to beverage 
        containers as defined in section 601. In addition, if the 
        Commissioner determines that a beverage container achieves the 
        energy efficiency target described in section

[[Page 7785]]

        604, then no labeling requirement under this section may be 
        promulgated or remain in effect with respect to such type. . . 
        .

               requirements of manufacturers and private labelers

            Sec. 605. The provisions of section 555 of this act with 
        respect to consumer products to which a rule under section 553 
        applies shall be applicable to beverage containers as defined 
        in section 601. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order (is) on the ground that the amendment is not germane to the 
    bill before us. The amendment seeks to impose efficiency standards 
    on the manufacture of beverage containers. There is nothing in the 
    bill relating to beverage containers. The amendment seeks to change 
    efficiency standards imposed upon beverage containers themselves. 
    There is nothing in this bill relating to beverage containers.
        Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, not only is the amendment not 
    germane to the bill but it also fails because it is not germane to 
    the bill as amended because as the Chairman recalls all references 
    to the efficiency standards have been removed from the bill with 
    respect to industrial processes. If the amendment were to be 
    offered relating to efficiency in manufacturing processes, it more 
    appropriately should have been offered in sections relating to 
    efficiency in manufacturing.
        Those have now been deleted, of course. The amendment is not 
    germane because it comes too late in the bill, for that matter, 
    after it has been considered and acted upon in the House.
        The amendment is very, very complex, setting up standards for 
    efficiency in a whole series of devices. With regard to the 
    mechanism we are under, this efficiency is judged and it goes into 
    a lengthy complex set of judgments that must be exercised by the 
    administrators with regard to this efficiency; but dealing solely 
    with the question of bottles and containers. As I pointed out, 
    there is no reference in the bill to bottles and containers. For 
    that reason, the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . In Cannon's Procedures 
    of the House of Representatives, the rule of germaneness occurs at 
    section 794. It says that while the committee may report a bill 
    embracing different subjects, it is not in order during the 
    consideration of a bill to introduce a new subject. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the nature of the new subject in this 
    legislation, it seems to me, is embraced in section 604 of the 
    amendment as submitted by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
    Jeffords), in which we are not dealing with the set of standards of 
    the operation of appliances as we were in the appliance section, or 
    automobiles, as we were in the automobile standards section; but 
    rather in the design of a nonenergy consuming product which the 
    author of the amendment seeks to prohibit with reference to its 
    possibilities of reuse. It gives the authority to the Secretary to 
    prohibit a product on the basis of its design. So we are, in 
    effect, impacting on the product with reference to the manufacture 
    of the product in some mechanical or energy-consuming way. That, it 
    seems to me, is a new direction or a new subject under the rule of 
    germaneness, as opposed to the other approaches which the bill as 
    reported

[[Page 7786]]

    out of the committee has taken. It is an area which I rather doubt 
    comes under the purview of our committee, in that the purview of 
    the committee relates to the consumption of energy as such and the 
    licensing of that energy and the pricing of it and so forth. . . .
        Mr. [Phillip H.] Hayes of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I simply 
    wanted to add in regard to the standard . . . of looking to the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment in qualifying its germaneness, 
    that this particular amendment would seek to add for the first time 
    in the bill a class of product which does not in and of itself 
    consume an average annual per household energy factor, nor does it 
    consume in and of itself energy at all. . . .
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, never have I had an opportunity to 
    tell so many distinguished gentlemen that they are wrong at the 
    same time. First, let us go back to the basics here. What are we 
    concerned with when we talk about the germaneness? Let us look at 
    the legislative manual.
        The fundamental purpose of an amendment is that it must be 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill. What is the 
    fundamental purpose?
        Let us take a look at the title, ``Energy Conservation and Oil 
    Policy Act of 1975.'' Look what we are trying to do. We are trying 
    to conserve energy. Let us take a look at title III, with its broad 
    powers over the whole area of development of petroleum. There are 
    tremendous powers over the whole industry in allocation, 
    production, as to where the industry goes. . . .

        Let us get to the argument made by many, and that is it is 
    different because we are talking about energy consumed in the 
    production of the consumer product rather than the consumer 
    himself.
        The FEA is not going to go around this country chasing after 
    people with electric toothbrushes to see whether they brush 
    properly or to see whether they are plugged in properly. They are 
    going to go to the manufacturer and say, ``You have a toothbrush 
    here that has to have a certain energy efficiency improvement.'' So 
    we are saying when the product is sold that particular beverage 
    container must consume less than a certain amount of energy. It is 
    identical in purpose. The bill does not try to go out and nail the 
    consumer. It gets to him by labeling. It says, ``Here is a consumer 
    product that uses less energy.'' My amendment will say, ``Here is 
    something that uses less energy.'' I see no difference whatsoever. 
    Its basic purpose and fundamental purpose is the same as the bill, 
    to conserve energy and conserve oil. How anybody can argue that 
    this is not germane is impossible for me to see.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Indiana, the gentleman from Michigan, the 
    gentleman from Ohio, and the gentleman from Texas have made points 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) on the ground that it is not germane to the 
    bill.
        The Chair would like to state that if the amendment had been 
    offered to title V, the arguments of many of the gentlemen would 
    have more significance.
        The amendment offered would add a new title to the bill 
    relating to energy

[[Page 7787]]

    conservation in the production of beverage containers.
        The test of germaneness in such a situation is the relationship 
    between the new title to be added by the amendment and the entire 
    bill.
        The Chair would state, initially, that he has reexamined the 
    precedents contained in section 6.13 and section 6.19 of chapter 28 
    of Deschler's Procedure, wherein an amendment prohibiting the 
    production of nonreturnable beverage containers was held not 
    germane to the Energy Emergency Act, and finds that the situations 
    are distinguishable.
        As noted, the germaneness is dependent upon the relationship 
    between the amendment in the form of a new title and the entire 
    bill to which offered.
        The 1973 bill was designed to regulate and promote the 
    production, allocation, and conservation of energy resources and 
    contained no reference to the production of consumer goods. In that 
    context, the nonreturnable container amendment was not germane.
        However, the bill now under consideration contains several 
    diverse titles, all relating to use, consumption, availability, and 
    conservation of energy.
        The Chair notes specifically the provisions of title V relating 
    to end use and energy consumption of certain consumer products.
        The Chair, therefore, believes that the bill is sufficiently 
    broad in scope to admit as germane an amendment in the form of a 
    new title which is drafted in the form presented by incorporating 
    by reference certain standards in the bill, and which relates to 
    the conservation of energy by an industry engaged in the production 
    of a consumer product, specifically, beverage containers.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill To Authorize National Drinking Water Standards--Amendment 
    Requiring Enforcement of Agreements on International Drinking Water 
    Standards

Sec. 5.19 To a bill reported from the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce, authorizing the promulgation of national drinking 
    water standards to protect public health from contaminants, an 
    amendment requiring the negotiation and enforcement of 
    international agreements to accomplish that purpose was held to be 
    not germane, since it proposed a method not closely related to that 
    prescribed in the bill and involved a subject within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee.

    The proceedings of Nov. 19, 1974, relating to H.R. 13002, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, are discussed in Sec. 6.25, infra.

[[Page 7788]]

Bill Amending Reclamation Law Primarily With Respect To Eligibility for 
    Irrigation Water--Amendment To Require Review of Audit Reports on 
    Water Resource Projects Including Specified Projects To Provide 
    Hydro-electric Power

Sec. 5.20 While ordinarily a bill having a specific fundamental purpose 
    may not be amended by a proposal broader in scope, an amendment in 
    the form of a new title may be germane to a bill as a whole where 
    that bill contains additional provisions not necessarily confined 
    to the primary purpose and where the amendment is within the 
    overall parameters of the bill; thus, to a bill amending several 
    provisions of reclamation law relating primarily to the question of 
    eligibility of water users for increased irrigation water supply, 
    but also containing miscellaneous provisions relating to the status 
    of persons and entities affected by reclamation laws generally, an 
    amendment adding a new title to require the Inspector General of 
    the Department of the Interior to review audit reports pertaining 
    to Bureau of Reclamation water resource projects, including 
    specified multi-purpose projects to provide hydro-electric power as 
    well as water for irrigation, was held germane, based upon the 
    inclusion of diverse provisions in the bill not exclusively related 
    to irrigation eligibility.

    During consideration of the Federal Reclamation Law amendments 
(7) in the Committee of the Whole on May 6, 
1982,(8) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 5539.
 8. 128 Cong. Rec. 8933, 8934, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn: Page 26, after line 5, 
        insert the following new title:

                                  ``TITLE III

                               ``audit compliance

            ``Sec. 301. (a)(1) The Inspector General of the Department 
        of the Interior shall undertake a review of all audit reports 
        prepared by the Department of the Interior since January, 1977, 
        pertaining to Bureau of Reclamation water resource projects, 
        including, but not limited to,
            ``(A) `Review of the Central Valley Project--Bureau of 
        Reclamation'', January 1978;

[[Page 7789]]

            ``(B) `Review of Repayment Status of Pick-Sloan Missouri 
        Basin Program and Individually Authorized Projects'', July 
        1978;
            ``(C) `Review of Municipal and Industrial Water Activities, 
        Central Valley Project'', September 1979; . . .
            ``(2) No later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
        this Act, the Inspector General shall prepare, and transmit to 
        the Secretary of the Interior, and to the Congress, a list of 
        recommendations based upon the review of audit reports which he 
        has conducted pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection.
            ``(b) No later than 270 days after the date of enactment of 
        this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall implement all 
        recommendations which have been made by the Inspector General 
        pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, unless he earlier 
        informs the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and 
        Natural Resources of the Senate, in writing, of his detailed 
        reasons for not implementing such recommendations.''. . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . I make a point of 
    order that the amendment now pending, offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois, is not germane to the bill.
        This bill deals with irrigation policy. It is not so broad as 
    to encompass all aspects of the reclamation program. We are not 
    writing a comprehensive law to govern all features of reclamation 
    projects.
        The amendment is clearly not pertinent to irrigation. It places 
    a new duty on the Inspector General that is not now a part of the 
    Reclamation Act of 1902, or any act amending or supplementing any 
    part of that 1902 legislation. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would say that, in my 
    opinion, the amendment is germane. The bill before us does address 
    reclamation policy. Part of that is involved in the resolution of 
    these audits that also have to do with reclamation policy and, more 
    importantly, the implementation of that policy.
        The Inspector General has already the general duties, as 
    outlined in this amendment. The Inspector General, as a matter of 
    fact, has made audits in the seven cases that are specifically 
    mentioned in the amendment, and that is (A) through (G), the seven 
    particular projects. Some or all of those have been subject to 
    audit, and recommendations have been made.
        The duty of the Inspector General is not a new duty. The 
    Inspector General is supposed to make audits and make 
    recommendations. This is no new duty whatsoever. And certainly the 
    duty imposed on the Secretary of the Interior is not new, though 
    the implementation and carrying out of that duty might appear to be 
    new. That is the purpose of the amendment--to see that the duty of 
    the Department of the Interior to respond to audit recommendations 
    by the Inspector General is done in a prompt manner. . . .

        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: If the Chair would allow 
    me, within the duties of the Department of Reclamation also come 
    water resources, power, and several other elements of energy and 
    not only irrigation; water for municipal and industrial uses, water 
    for recreation, flood control, and many other purposes, many other 
    duties that the Department has besides irrigation.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair is concerned 
    about the amend

[[Page 7790]]

    ment, in that it is not clear what type of recommendations may be 
    implemented as a result of this amendment. If it is a question 
    between auditing power rates as opposed to irrigation rates, that 
    would be a serious question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. J. J. Pickle (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        But just on the question of germaneness . . . there are 
    provisions in sections 205, 206, 210, and 213 of the bill that 
    might go beyond irrigation policy continued in the reclamation 
    laws. To the extent that this amendment is limited to irrigation 
    recommendations, and since there are diverse provisions in the bill 
    with respect to reclamation policy involving water uses for other 
    than irrigation purposes, the Chair then will rule that the 
    amendment is germane, as a new title, to the committee reported 
    bill as a whole. The Chair overrules the point of order.

War Powers Bill--Amendment To Modify Civil Service Retirement Act

Sec. 5.21 To a bill conferring on the executive certain war powers for 
    purposes of expediting prosecution of the war, an amendment 
    proposing modification of the Civil Service Retirement Act with 
    respect to provisions affecting retirement of employees was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Second War Powers 
Bill of 1942,(10) an amendment was offered (11) 
by Mr. Frederick C. Smith, of Ohio, who stated: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. S. 2208 (Committee on the Judiciary).
11. 88 Cong. Rec. 1758, 1759, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1942.
12. Id. at p. 1759.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Perhaps the most germane part of this whole bill to its 
    objective is title IV. This is specifically designed to preserve 
    the credit of the Government. . . .
        Now, my amendment is also specifically designed to safeguard 
    the credit of the Government. It seeks to save to the taxpayers, 
    and therefore to the Treasury, $44,000,000 annually by repealing 
    the provision in the Ramspeck Act which sets up pensions for 
    250,000 political job holders. . . .

    A point of order having been raised by Mr. Charles F. McLaughlin, 
of Nebraska, the amendment was held not to be germane. The Chairman 
(13) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment . . . has to do with the Civil Service Retirement 
    Act of May 23, 1930, as amended, and would affect the domestic 
    employees of the Government. Certainly there is nothing in the 
    pending amendment to indicate to the Chair that it is related to 
    the subject matter covered by the pending bill.

    Citing a previous statement of the Chair that ``the only proper and 
reasonable test that can be applied in a situation of this kind is the 
subject matter and the pur

[[Page 7791]]

pose covered by the pending bill and the pending amendment,'' the 
Chairman sustained the point of order.

Bill To Increase Strength of Armed Forces--Amendment To Allow Aliens To 
    Enlist

Sec. 5.22 To a bill increasing the strength of the armed forces, an 
    amendment permitting the armed forces to accept original 
    enlistments from among qualified aliens and repealing existing law 
    to the contrary, was held to be germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948,(14) the following amendment was offered: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 8673, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Leon H.] Gavin [of Pennsylvania]: On 
    page 21 . . . insert the following new sections . . . .
        Sec. 6. (a) Under policies established by the Secretary of 
    Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and 
    the Secretary of the Air Force are authorized to accept original 
    enlistments . . . from among qualified aliens not less than 18 
    years of age for enlistment periods of not less than 3 years: 
    Provided, That the total number of aliens who may be enlisted 
    pursuant to this section shall not exceed 100,000 at any one time. 
    . . .

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

        Mr. [Paul J.] Kilday [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the bill. 
    . . .
        The bill is the Selective Service Act of 1948, and does not 
    contain any provisions similar to those contained in the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

    The Chairman,(16) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls attention to the fact that the bill is entitled 
    ``A bill to provide for the common defense by increasing the 
    strength of the armed forces of the United States, and for other 
    purposes.'' The bill carries sections relating to enlistments and 
    other means of increasing the strength of the armed forces of the 
    United States.
        The Chair has examined the amendment and believes that the 
    amendment is clearly within the scope of the bill.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance--Amendment 
    Authorizing Military Aid To Further Purposes of Bill

Sec. 5.23 To a bill reported from the Committee on Inter

[[Page 7792]]

    national Relations authorizing funds to provide humanitarian and 
    evacuation assistance and authorizing the use of United States 
    troops to provide that assistance, an amendment authorizing funds 
    for military aid to a foreign country (generally a subject within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services) to be used by 
    that country to further the fundamental purpose of the bill was 
    held germane and a point of order against the amendment was 
    overruled.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(17) during consideration of the 
Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act (18) in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order 
against an amendment as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 11509, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 6096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton to the substitute 
        amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt for the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar:
            Page 1, line 6; strike out ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
        ``$300,000,000''.

        Page 2, line 2; delete the period at the end of the line, 
    insert a semicolon and add the following: ``Provided that 
    $150,000,000 of such sum shall be available to the President solely 
    for military aid to South Vietnam to provide such protection as he 
    may deem necessary to insure the delivery of the humanitarian 
    assistance and evacuation programs authorized in this section.''
        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, military aid to Vietnam is not included in the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. It is under the 
    MACV account and DAV account, and the attempt has been made in the 
    past to vest this jurisdiction in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
    The committee does not have jurisdiction over this subject matter 
    and cannot give military aid. As a result, the amendment is not 
    germane, and I make that point of order. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: . . . This amendment is perfectly in order. This 
    would provide additional funds to the President to use, in his 
    discretion, to provide protection for the humanitarian assistance 
    and evacuation provided in the bill.
        I would invite the Chair's attention to the fact that section 3 
    of the amendment refers in considerable detail to the military 
    appropriations and to military actions, and that section 2 of the 
    substitute provides funds to the

[[Page 7793]]

    President to be used notwithstanding any other provision of law on 
    such terms and conditions as the President may deem appropriate.
        The basic legislation and the Eckhardt substitute both refer to 
    legislation that deals with military assistance to Vietnam, and 
    therefore, this amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 19. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is within the bill the provision for humanitarian 
    assistance and evacuation assistance. The amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) goes to aid, to provide for 
    the delivery of military aid, to be sure, but it is to insure the 
    delivery of humanitarian assistance and the evacuation programs, 
    and in that form the amendment is germane to the substitute, and 
    the point of order is overruled.

Bill Authorizing Operations of Coast Guard--Amendment To Require That 
    Commercial Cargo Under Coast Guard Protection Be Transported on 
    United States Vessels

Sec. 5.24 To a bill authorizing operations of the Coast Guard, an 
    amendment directing the President to ensure that, where Coast Guard 
    protection of commercial cargo is required, such cargo be 
    transported on vessels of the United States which were never 
    registered under the laws of a foreign country was held to be not 
    germane, such matters relating to the subject of commercial 
    shipping, which was within the jurisdiction of the Maritime 
    Administration.

    During consideration of the Coast Guard authorization for fiscal 
1988 (20) in the Committee of the Whole on July 8, 
1987,(1) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 20. H.R. 2342.
 1. 133 Cong. Rec. 19013-16, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Davis of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Earl] Hutto [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Hutto] reserves a point of order against the amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Robert W. Kastenmeier (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois: Page 22, after 
        line 11, add the following new section:
            Sec. 26. In any case where the President of the United 
        States, after consultation with the Secretary of the Department 
        in which the Coast Guard is operating, determines that neutral 
        shipping requires the protection of the Coast Guard or other 
        U.S. Armed Forces the President shall, if practicable cause the 
        commercial cargo requiring Coast Guard or other Armed Forces 
        protection, to be trans

[[Page 7794]]

        ported in vessels of the United States which were never 
        registered under the laws of a foreign country.

    Mr. Hutto made the point of order:

        Mr. Hutto: . . . As I mentioned, it is a good amendment. 
    Certainly we can associate ourselves with the remarks of the 
    gentleman from Illinois but unfortunately it does not belong in 
    this bill. It is not germane and is not made in order by the rule. 
    . . .
        Mr. Davis of Illinois: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is 
    germane. This amendment has been drafted to include the Coast Guard 
    and the Secretary which controls the Coast Guard and the President 
    of the United States.
        Let me just read this one sentence that I think makes it 
    germane--in fact, the whole paragraph does. 'In any case, where the 
    President of the United States, after consultation with the 
    Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, 
    determines that neutral shipping requires the protection of the 
    Coast Guard or other United States armed services' - now if that is 
    not an appropriation item, I do not know what is. The U.S. Coast 
    Guard, if called upon - and it does not just protect the 
    continental United States - if called upon to use its vessels to 
    protect reflagged or even chartered vessel bottoms of the United 
    States, chartered to another country, that is going to require an 
    expenditure of Coast Guard funds. I could have identified that line 
    item, but I did not. . . .
        Mr. [Herbert H.] Bateman [of Virginia]: . . . It seems to me 
    there is a great distinction between the amendment now being 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois and the previous amendment 
    which was ruled out of order on the point of order. The difference 
    being that the previous amendment addressed in a specific context 
    whether or not and under what circumstances Kuwaiti vessels 
    proposed to be reflagged would be permitted to be reflagged.
        The gentleman from Illinois' amendment does not relate to and 
    in fact has nothing to do with that reflagging issue which the 
    Rules Committee said would be determined on the basis only of the 
    pending Bennett amendment and the pending Lowry amendment and a 
    possible substitute amendment and that is what I understand the 
    rule to be.

        If I may have just 30 more seconds, this amendment deals 
    prospectively and deals with reflagging generically in the future, 
    not this reflagging which it does not reach but future reflagging. 
    As such, why should we hold back from considering something which 
    is of benefit and is a legitimate matter to be taken into 
    consideration as this country, through the Department of 
    Transportation, makes future reflagging decisions in general.
        Mr. Hutto: Mr. Chairman, I would grant that it does not deal 
    directly with the Kuwaiti reflagging issue. However, cargo is not 
    determined by the Coast Guard.
        In my view, it is not germane and would not pertain to the 
    Coast Guard authorization bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hutto] makes a point of order 
    that the

[[Page 7795]]

    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis] is not 
    germane.
        The primary purpose of the bill before the Committee, as 
    amended, is to authorize funds for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 
    1988, as well as to address other provisions including the Biaggi 
    amendment within the purview of the Coast Guard and its operations. 
    The operative part of the pending amendment, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, would suggest that the President cause commercial cargo 
    requiring protection to be transported in vessels documented under 
    the laws of the United States rather than in vessels previously 
    registered in another country. This in effect would create a new 
    form of ``cargo preference'' for U.S. vessels to be determined only 
    by the President, an area of law currently administered by the 
    Maritime Administration rather than the Coast Guard.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment goes beyond the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill to address matters other than the 
    Coast Guard and its operations. Therefore, the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Bill To Stabilize Prices of Housing--Amendment Providing Aid to 
    Veterans in Buying Houses

Sec. 5.25 To a bill to prevent speculation in housing and to insure 
    availability of real estate for housing purposes at reasonable 
    prices, an amendment providing that all discharged veterans of 
    World War II desiring to build or buy a house be issued a 
    certificate for $200 to be applied to the purchase price was held 
    to be germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
relating to housing stabilization. An amendment which contained 
provisions described above was offered by Mr. Emory H. Price, of 
Florida, and a point of order was raised against such amendment: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 4761 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 1983, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment that it is not germane. It does not 
    carry out the intended purposes of the proposed bill. It provides 
    for the giving of bonuses to veterans to buy homes, at least to 
    those who are fortunate enough to get homes. It provides for a 
    bonus of $200. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the proposal embodied in 
    the gentleman's amendment would even be referred to the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency.

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

        Mr. Price [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I thought the purpose of 
    this bill was to provide homes for veterans. I think this is in 
    line with other amend

[[Page 7796]]

    ments which have been offered and is in keeping with the purposes 
    set out in the bill.

    The Chairman, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated:

        . . . While a rather close question is involved, the amendment 
    does seem to relate to housing for veterans, which is the subject 
    matter of the pending bill in that it provides for a certificate 
    for a certain amount of money to be applied on the purchase price 
    of a new home or the purchase of materials to be used in building a 
    home.
        Although it is a close question, the Chair is inclined to rule 
    that it comes within the scope of the bill and overrules the point 
    of order.

    The following exchange then occurred: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: The amendment itself shows that it discriminates 
    against a large group of veterans; that the one who is fortunate 
    enough to get a home gets a bonus of $200, but the fellow who 
    cannot purchase a home does not get the $200.
        The Chairman: Of course, that question could not be considered 
    in passing upon the point of order, that being a proper argument 
    for the gentleman to make on the merits of the amendment.

--Amendment Authorizing Establishment of Maximum Prices for 
    Construction Materials

Sec. 5.26 To a bill to insure availability of real estate for housing 
    purposes at reasonable prices, and containing provisions 
    authorizing priorities and allocations of materials for 
    construction of homes, an amendment relating to the establishment 
    of maximum prices of construction materials was held to be germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill (6) 
relating to housing stabilizations, the following amendment was 
offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 4761 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 1984, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Howard H.] Buffett [of Nebraska]: 
    Page 12, after line 2, insert the following new section:
        In order to achieve maximum production of materials suitable 
    for use in the construction of housing accommodations the Expediter 
    is authorized and directed to issue a directive on policy to the 
    Price Administrator requiring the Price Administrator to establish 
    within 60 days after the date on which this title becomes effective 
    a maximum price with respect to each such material. . . .

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

        Mr. [A. S. Mike] Monroney [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment

[[Page 7797]]

    offered by the gentleman from Nebraska. The amendment he has 
    offered is not germane to the pending bill. It is an amendment to 
    the Price Control Act, which is not before the committee at the 
    present time.
        The Chairman,(8) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the pending 
    bill contains provisions authorizing priorities and allocations of 
    materials for the construction of homes. The pending amendment 
    provides for directives for the production of materials suitable 
    for use in the construction of housing accommodations, and so 
    forth.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is within the 
    scope of the pending bill and, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.

Bill Providing for Minting of Public Coinage--Amendment Providing for 
    Minting of Commemorative Coin

Sec. 5.27 To a bill relating to the minting of new coins for public 
    circulation as currency, an amendment providing for the minting of 
    commemorative coins bearing the likeness of the late Speaker 
    Rayburn for sale to the Rayburn Library was held to be not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of certain Coinage Act 
amendments,(9) an amendment was offered by Mr. Ray Roberts, 
of Texas, as described above. (10) A point of order was 
raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 14127 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 30101, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 15, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Barrett [of Pennsylvania]: . . . The gentleman 
    is talking about minting a coin and making a profit from it. The 
    bill calls for making coins, putting them into circulation, and 
    making no profit.

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hawaii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment . . . provides for the issuance of 500,000 half-
    dollar coins bearing the likeness of the late Speaker of the House, 
    Sam Rayburn.
        The amendment specifies that these coins are not to be put into 
    general circulation but are to be sold to the Sam Rayburn Library 
    for its use. These coins would be commemorative coins intended for 
    sale by the library at a price above their face value, with the 
    proceeds to be derived therefrom accruing to the library's benefit. 
    The purpose of the bill before the committee relates to the 
    issuance and minting of public currency and the disposal of certain 
    previously minted coins withdrawn from circulation and now held by 
    the Secretary of the Treasury.
        The Chair does not think the issuance of coins which, although 
    they might eventually find their way into public circulation, are 
    designed and minted primarily for a private purpose is a subject 
    that is germane to that under consideration. . . .

[[Page 7798]]

--Amendment Requiring Excess Silver To Be Retained for Later Use in 
    Commemorative Coin

Sec. 5.28 To a bill providing for the minting of public coinage, an 
    amendment requiring excess silver to be retained in the Treasury 
    for use in a commemorative coin to be issued for the American 
    bicentennial celebration was held to be not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of certain Coinage Act 
amendments,(12) the following amendment was offered: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 14127 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 30101, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 15, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James A.] McClure [of Idaho]: Page 5, 
    immediately after line 9, add the following:
        Sec. 7. Any silver held by the Treasury in excess of that 
    needed to complete the minting and issuing of any coin under this 
    act shall be retained for use in a commemorative coin to be issued 
    in conjunction with the bicentennial celebration of the United 
    States in 1976.

    Responding to a point of order made by Mr. William A. Barrett, of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. McClure stated:

        Mr. Chairman, there is a distinction between this amendment and 
    the one that was just offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Roberts] in that his called for the minting of a specific 
    commemorative. (14) This amendment is designed to 
    prevent the disposition of the silver by the Treasury Department. . 
    . . This is not to authorize the minting of the coin but to direct 
    the Treasury with respect to the disposition of this silver at the 
    present time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See the discussion of the Roberts amendment at Sec. 5.27, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Spark M. Matsunaga (Hawaii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The amendment] is not in keeping with the purpose of the bill 
    before the committee and therefore the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Providing for Fair Labor Standards for Wages and Hours--Amendment 
    To Establish Committee To Investigate Social and Other Factors 
    Relevant To Labor Standards

Sec. 5.29 To a bill providing for the establishment of fair labor 
    standards in industry by providing for minimum wages and maximum 
    hours, an amendment in the nature of a substitute proposing that a 
    joint executive and congressional committee be established to 
    examine possible legislative remedies and to investigate social, 
    economic and legal factors rel

[[Page 7799]]

    evant to establishment of labor standards was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of the Wages and Hours 
Bill,(16) an amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
offered which stated in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. S. 2475 (Committee on Labor).
17. 82 Cong. Rec. 1679, 1680, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 16, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That a commission . . . is hereby . . . 
    directed to be established, and it shall be the duty of the said 
    commission to explore and examine all the fundamental aspects and 
    the potential field of legislative regulation or remedy that may be 
    available or attainable looking to the objective of abolishing or 
    ameliorating excessive and oppressive hours of labor, [low] wages 
    (and the like). . . .
        Resolved, That the said commission, in submitting its findings, 
    shall include as exhaustive report as possible on the social, 
    economic, and legal factors involved in the problem. . . .

    Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane.(18) In defending the amendment, 
the proponent, Mr. Robert L. Bacon, of New York, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 1680.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, the substitute which I have offered has the same 
    objective as the pending bill. . . .

    Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, stated, in response to Mr. 
Bacon:

        Of course, there is quite a lot of difference between the 
    objective of a bill where you undertake legislation and the 
    objective of an investigation which is preliminary to any 
    legislation, if ever.

    The Chairman,(19) in sustaining the point of order, 
cited the principle that ``to a proposal to authorize certain 
activities, an amendment proposing to investigate the advisability of 
undertaking such activities is not germane.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Two rulings during consideration of the 
same bill took a liberal view of the requirement of the germaneness 
rule with respect to amendments which use different approaches to the 
achievement of the objectives of the bill. On Dec. 15, 1937, it was 
held that, where a bill concerned the determination of minimum wages 
and maximum hours in industry by an independent board exercising broad 
discretionary powers, an amendment in the nature of a substitute which 
provided that such determination be made by a division newly 
established in the Department of Labor was germane; and a further 
substitute amendment proposing to fix minimum wages and maximum hours 
in specific terms without resort to the exercise of discretion by any 
agency

[[Page 7800]]

was held to be germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
See the proceedings of Dec. 15, 1937, with respect to S. 2475, 
discussed in Sec. 6.23, infra.

Provisions Requiring Registration and Disclosure by Lobbyists--
    Amendment Requiring Identification Tags

Sec. 5.30 To a proposition having as its fundamental purpose 
    registration and public disclosure by lobbyists but not the 
    regulation of their activities, an amendment requiring lobbyists 
    within a certain distance of the House and Senate Chambers to wear 
    tags displaying their names and affiliations was construed as a 
    further information disclosure requirement and was held germane.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(20) during consideration of the 
Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976 (H.R. 15) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the following amendment to the pending amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was held germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 33082, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Michigan to the amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: On page 5 
        line 20 strike the period and insert a colon. On page 5 
        following line 20, insert the following: Provided however, That 
        any officer, agent or employee of an organization regulated as 
        a lobbyist by this Act who influences, or attempts to 
        influence, any Member of Congress with respect to any 
        legislative matter, shall prominently display on his or her 
        person an identification name tag, stating in clearly 
        discernible print, his or her full name and the organization he 
        or she represents; said name tag shall be printed in not less 
        than 24 point type; Provided further however, This requirement 
        shall only be applicable to those persons who influence, or 
        attempt to influence, Members within 50 feet of any entrance to 
        either Chamber of the Congress while such is in session. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment because I do not think it has 
    any relevancy to the bill.
        The distance of how far away one is or whether he or she is 
    wearing a badge of 24-point type has nothing to do with the bill. 
    There are a lot of things it is pertinent to, but not that. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: . . . I respectfully disagree with the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett).
        This is a disclosure bill. We require people to register and to 
    identify themselves. It seems to me that if we are going to have a 
    piece of disclosure legislation that is effective, we ought to be 
    able to associate names and faces; and that is all that this 
    amendment does.

[[Page 7801]]

    It just implements the disclosure requirements of this legislation. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (21) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined this amendment, and it is not the same 
    as the one on which the Chair ruled before.
        The Chair would have to say that this amendment would seem to 
    have as its purpose the disclosure of information by lobbyists and 
    to come within the fundamental purposes of the amendment to which 
    it has been offered.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

--Amendment Placing Ceiling on Contributions to Federal Officials

Sec. 5.31 To an amendment requiring registration and public disclosure 
    by lobbyists but not regulating or prohibiting their activities, an 
    amendment placing a ceiling on their monetary contributions to 
    federal officials is not germane.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(22) during consideration of the 
Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976 (23) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that the fundamental 
purpose of an amendment must relate to the fundamental purpose of the 
proposition to which it is offered when a point of order against the 
following amendment was sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 122 Cong. Rec. 33085, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
23. H.R. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mikva to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: On page 20, 
        immediately after line 13, insert the following new subsection:
            ``(e)(1)) No organization shall make expenditures 
        reportable under section 6 to or for the benefit of any Federal 
        officer or employee that exceed $100 in value in the aggregate 
        in any calendar year: Provided That, for the purposes of this 
        limitation all reimbursed expenditures made by persons employed 
        or retained by the organization shall be considered to have 
        been made by the organization: Provided further, That this 
        limitation shall not apply to any loan of money in the ordinary 
        course of business on terms and conditions that are no more 
        favorable than are generally available or to any honorarium 
        within the meaning of section 328 of the Federal Election 
        Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441(i)).
            ``(2) Any organization which knowingly and willfully 
        violates this subsection shall be fined not more than $10,000 
        for each such violation.''. . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order against the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Mikva), lies, I think, because the gentleman's 
    amendment violates the central purpose of the proposed

[[Page 7802]]

    legislation and that is to provide a method of lobbying disclosure 
    and not in any wise, Mr. Chairman, regulating amounts or providing 
    any ceiling or floor or anything else but disclosure.
        The amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Mikva), clearly violates the intent of the statute in that it 
    imposes duties upon the Comptroller General that would not 
    otherwise be imposed by this statute, or duties of a different 
    kind.
        It imposes a different penalty that would be imposed than 
    otherwise in this statute. It is not clear whether it is a civil or 
    a criminal penalty.
        For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Mikva: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what my distinguished 
    colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary is referring to, but 
    there is nothing in this amendment that talks about the Comptroller 
    General. He may be a little precipitous about something else. What 
    this says, very simply, is that there ought to be a $100 limitation 
    on the amount lobbyists can give as gifts. It excludes honoraria; 
    it excludes political contributions; it excludes all of the 
    nonreportable items. The rules now existing in this House of 
    Representatives--already the Rules of this House--make it clear 
    that no gifts of any substantial value shall be given by a lobbyist 
    to a Member. What this does is define that substantial interest in 
    terms of $100. It is put in the sanctions section, and it deals 
    with the other sanctions that are already in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Flowers: Mr. Chairman, might I be heard one moment further 
    here on the point of order?
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman extends the bill much further than 
    it is already intended, in that he says:
        That, for the purposes of this limitation--

            And again a limitation which is not a part of the purpose 
        of the bill--
            --all reimbursed expenditures made by persons employed or 
        retained by the organization shall be considered to have been 
        made by the organization.

        This is a concept not within the proposed legislation, and we 
    think, Mr. Chairman, clearly that this does extend the purpose of 
    the legislation far beyond that of the substitute or H.R. 15, as 
    amended. We feel that the point of order ought to be sustained.
        The Chairman: (24) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reason first stated by the gentleman from Alabama and 
    by the Chair in an earlier ruling on the Ashbrook amendment, the 
    point of order is sustained.

--Amendment Prohibiting Lobbying Within Certain Distances of 
    Congressional Chambers

Sec. 5.32 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute whose 
    fundamental purpose is to require registration and public 
    disclosure by persons who lobby before Congress and the executive 
    branch, but not seeking to regulate or prohibit their activities, 
    an

[[Page 7803]]

    amendment prohibiting lobbying within a certain distance of the 
    Chambers of the House and Senate 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,(25) a point of order against the following amendment 
was sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. 122 Cong. Rec. 33070, 33071, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Bennett: On page 5, line 
        20 strike the period and insert a colon. On page 5, following 
        line 20 insert the following new language: ``Provided however, 
        That no officer, agent, or employee of an organization defined 
        as a lobbyist by this Act may lobby on any legislative matter 
        within one hundred feet of either Chamber of the Congress when 
        either body of said Congress is in session;''. . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order that the gentleman's amendment is not germane to the 
    main purpose of the bill, which is public disclosure of public 
    activities and not a prohibition of lobbying activities. I would 
    also suggest to the Chair in raising my point of order to the 
    gentleman's amendment that additional duties hereunder would be 
    imposed on the Comptroller General than otherwise would be imposed 
    upon him. For that purpose it ought to be also considered 
    nongermane, and the point of order ought to be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . I fail to see how the amendment would add 
    additional duties to the Comptroller General. The amendment is 
    simply a statement of exception to the various provisions we have. 
    I do not see it as broadening the coverage of the act. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman would like to read from the report of the 
    committee on the bill which the Chair believes properly 
    characterizes the Bennett amendment as well. On page 8, in the 
    middle of the page, under the title ``Purpose,'' as the gentleman 
    from Alabama (Mr. Flowers) indicated:

            The purpose of H.R. 15, as amended--

        And here the Chair would add the words ``and of the Bennett 
    amendment''--
        is to replace the present lobbying disclosure law with a 
        comprehensive new statute that specifies which organization 
        must register as lobbyists and what information they must 
        publicly disclose. It does not in any manner seek to regulate 
        or prohibit lobbying itself.

        The Chair agrees with the statement of purpose made in the 
    report and in the statement of the gentleman from Alabama.
        Therefore, the Chair thinks that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman

[[Page 7804]]

    from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) goes well beyond the fundamental purpose 
    of the basic amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida, and attempts to directly regulate lobbying 
    activities. And the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill To Prohibit Off-shore Gambling--Amendment To Prohibit 
    Transportation of Gambling Devices in Interstate Commerce

Sec. 5.33 To a bill to prohibit off-shore gambling establishments, a 
    matter of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, an amendment 
    relating to transportation of gambling devices in interstate 
    commerce was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
as described above, the following amendment was offered: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 7235 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 11073, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 4, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Lee E.] Geyer of California: . . .
        Page 2, after line 15, insert:
        Sec. 287B. Whoever shall knowingly transport . . . in 
    interstate . . . commerce any . . . mechanical device designed . . 
    . for the playing of any game of chance . . . shall be guilty of a 
    felony. . . .

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane. The bill under consideration concerns the admiralty and 
    maritime jurisdiction of the United States, whereas the amendment 
    deals with matters of interstate commerce, the transportation or 
    carriage of so-called roulette wheels, marked dice, and other 
    paraphernalia used in games of chance across State borders. For 
    this reason it is not germane to the bill.
        The Speaker,(4) adopting the reasoning of Mr. 
    Celler, sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Authorizing Funds for Research on Nuclear Winter--Amendment 
    To Designate by Specified Senators' Names Any Science Scholarships 
    Established Under Bill

Sec. 5.34 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 specified Senators any science and mathematic 
    scholarships or fellowship programs established during the 99th Con

[[Page 7805]]

    gress under the bill was held not germane, as unrelated to the 
    narrow scope of the primary amendment.

    On Aug. 15, 1986,(5) during consideration of H.R. 4428 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against an amendment, thus demonstrating that an individual proposition 
may not be amended by an unrelated individual proposition. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 132 Cong. Rec. 22076, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Modification to the amendment offered by Mr. Wirth: Modify the 
    amendment to read as follows: At the end of division C (page 353, 
    after line 10), add the following new title: . . .

                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). . . .
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment to the amendment, as modified, as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Foley to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Wirth, as modified, as amended:1

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

        Any program established by this 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. Any such foundation, and any 
    board of trustees, fund, or other entity established in connection 
    with such foundation, shall include in its name the names of Barry 
    Goldwater and Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson. . . .
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    insist on my point of order on the grounds stated, that it is 
    beyond the scope and nongermane. I state my reluctance in insisting 
    on this point of order, but I think it is proper. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair is 
    constrained to observe that the pending amendment deals with 
    nuclear winter research, and that the subject matter of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington has little 
    relevancy to the pending amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas J. Downey (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Dickinson].

[[Page 7806]]



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 6. Amendment Accomplishing Result of Bill by Different Method

    Formerly, on at least one occasion, it was held that, in 
determining a question of the germaneness of an amendment to a 
proposition, the Chair looks solely to the result sought to be achieved 
by each, and not to the method of accomplishing that 
result.(7) More recent decisions, however, have tended 
toward the construction that, to be germane, an amendment must not only 
have the same end as the matter sought to be amended, but must 
contemplate a method of achieving that end that is closely allied to 
the method encompassed in the bill or other matter sought to be 
amended.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The ruling in this case was that, to a Senate amendment providing 
        for the issuance of national bank notes to increase the 
        circulating medium, an amendment proposing to restore and 
        maintain the purchasing power of the dollar by the purchase and 
        sale of bonds by the Federal Reserve banks was germane. See 75 
        Cong. Rec. 15469-73, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., July 15, 1932 
        (Speaker John N. Garner [Tex.]).
 8. See Sec. 6.35, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applicable principle at present, therefore, is that, to a 
proposition to accomplish a certain purpose by one method, an amendment 
seeking to achieve the same purpose by another closely related method 
is germane. Thus, to a bill proposing to regulate certain activities 
through the use of a governmental agency, an amendment proposing to 
regulate such activities through the use of a different governmental 
agency may be germane.(9) Conversely, one method of 
attaining an object is not germane to another method of attaining such 
object unless the two are closely related.(10) Where, for 
example, a bill proposes regulation of certain activities through the 
use of a governmental agency, an amendment substituting a different 
agency is not germane if, in addition, it authorizes such agency to use 
new and unrelated methods in achieving the purposes of the 
bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 7, infra.
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 9287, 9288, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 18, 1937. The 
        Chair (Jere Cooper [Tenn.]) on this occasion held that, to a 
        bill providing financial assistance to states and political 
        subdivisions thereof for the elimination of unsafe and 
        unsanitary housing conditions, an amendment proposing to amend 
        the National Housing Act in order to authorize the insuring of 
        loans on multi-family dwellings was not germane.
11. See Sec. 7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The germaneness of an amendment which takes a different ap

[[Page 7807]]

proach from that taken by the bill in achieving the bill's objectives, 
may depend partly on how broadly those objectives are conceived. For 
example, a bill with the broad purpose of combating unemployment may 
admit a number of quite dissimilar approaches. A ruling that is 
significant for the liberal approach that may be taken in this regard 
was to the effect that where a bill provided for the establishment of 
minimum wages and maximum hours in industry by the exercise of broad 
discretionary powers granted to an independent board in the furtherance 
of that objective, an amendment proposing to fix minimum wages and 
maximum hours in specific terms without resort to such board was 
germane.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 6.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rulings have indicated that, to a proposition to accomplish a 
certain purpose by one method, a proposition to achieve the same 
purpose by another closely related but more restricted method is 
germane.(13) Conversely, to a provision in a bill designed 
to accomplish a purpose by one method, an amendment to accomplish that 
purpose by a method broader in scope is not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 6.4, 6.46, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the fact that a bill and amendment have a similar 
purpose and goal is not conclusive in judging the germaneness of the 
amendment. Generally, to a bill drafted to achieve a purpose by one 
method, an amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated 
method, not contemplated by the bill, is not germane; and it is 
probably not too strict to say that, where the amendment deals with a 
subject to which there is no reference in the bill,(14) or 
which is within the jurisdiction of another committee than the scheme 
proposed by the bill or pending text,(15) a point of order 
based on clause 7, Rule XVI may be 
sustained.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 6.6, 6.35, infra.
15. See Sec. 6.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antirecession Measures: Bill Providing Grants for Public Works 
    Construction--Amendments Containing Revenue-Sharing Provisions To 
    Assist Local Governments in Maintaining Public Services

Sec. 6.1 To be germane, an amendment must not only seek to accomplish 
    the same result as the matter proposed to be amended but must 
    contemplate a method of achieving that end which is closely related 
    to the method contained in the bill.

[[Page 7808]]

    On June 23, 1976,(16) in proceedings relating to the 
conference report on S. 3201, to amend the Public Works and Economic 
Development Act, a House amendment was under consideration which had 
been reported from the Committee on Public Works and Transportation and 
which consisted of one title relating to grants to state and local 
governments for local public works construction projects. A new title 
contained in the Senate bill and in the conference report providing 
grants to state and local governments to assist them in providing 
public services was held not germane to the House amendment, as 
proposing a revenue-sharing program within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Government Operations, and not closely related to the 
public works construction provisions contained in the House version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 26.23, infra, for discussion of the proceedings of June 
        23, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The precedent for the above ruling had been set on Jan. 29, 
1976.(17) On that date, H.R. 5247, a bill reported from the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, was under consideration 
which similarly consisted of one title relating to grants to state and 
local governments for local public works construction projects. A new 
title added by the Senate and contained in a conference report provided 
grants to state and local governments to assist them in providing 
public services. The proceedings relating to the point of order made in 
the House against the title added by the Senate were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones, Jr. of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5247)) to authorize a local 
    public works capital development and investment program, and ask 
    unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in 
    lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order that title II of the conference report to H.R. 5247 
    constitutes a nongermane Senate amendment to the House-passed bill 
    and is in violation of clause 4 of rule XXVIII of the House rules. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 5247 was before the House in May, it was 
    for the sole purpose of authorizing appropriations for the 
    construction of public works projects to help alleviate 
    unemployment. Along with 312 other Members of the House, I 
    supported that legislation.
        However, when the bill was before the Senate, title II, an 
    entirely different and unrelated matter, was added. Title II is not 
    a public works

[[Page 7809]]

    provision. Title II simply authorizes appropriations for the basic 
    day-to-day support of the budgets of State and local governments. 
    It is, in short, a revenue sharing provision.
        Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, must have recognized this as 
    revenue sharing legislation when you referred identical legislation 
    introduced in the House exclusively to the Government Operations 
    Committee. Title II clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the 
    Government Operations Committee, not the Public Works Committee.
        Even in the Senate, this provision came out of the Government 
    Operations Committee, not the Public Works Committee. Perhaps if 
    the Senate had a rule on germaneness as we do, we would not be 
    facing this problem right now.
        Had title II been offered in the House when this bill was 
    before us on the floor, it would clearly have been subject to a 
    point of order as nongermane under clause 7 of rule XVI. It, 
    therefore, continues to be nongermane under clause 4 of House rule 
    XXVIII dealing with conference reports.
        Mr. Speaker, I recognize that committee jurisdiction is not the 
    exclusive test of germaneness. I do not base my point of order on 
    this issue alone. This provision simply has nothing to do with 
    public works, the only matter which was before the House in H.R. 
    5247. To the contrary, the use of title II funds for construction 
    purposes is specifically prohibited. Furthermore, there is not one 
    word in title II to guarantee that the funds will be used to 
    stimulate employment, the primary purpose of H.R. 5247.
        Mr. Speaker, title II does not come within the jurisdiction of 
    the Public Works Committee. It does not constitute public works or 
    emergency employment legislation, and it could not have been 
    incorporated into the bill when it was previously before the House. 
    For these reasons, I respectfully request that my point of order be 
    sustained. . . .
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: . . . There has been a 
    certain confusion presented here, and that is in the meaning of the 
    rule which this House passed and which my esteemed chairman, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) referred to. Clause 4, rule 
    XXVIII, was passed by this House in 1970 and 1972. This procedure 
    which the House adopted in 1972 was intended to do away with the 
    situation wherein the Senate . . . attached to a House-passed bill 
    matter that was wholly unrelated to the subject on which the House 
    had acted. . . .
        The bill as reported from the conference does not contain 
    provisions whose subject and substance is different. Title I of the 
    conference report version is almost identical with the House-passed 
    bill. Title II, upon which there is now brought a question of a 
    separate vote, is the conference version and is also directed, as 
    is title I, to the question of assistance in unemployment, and is 
    so aimed at correcting it at the local level. . . . The allocation 
    of funds is dependent on the extent to which unemployment in any 
    area exceeds the national average, so that both the public works, 
    title I, and title II, countercyclical assistance, have the same, 
    identical goal. That is, to ease the current recession. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: . . . The 
    fundamental method used in the original bill to

[[Page 7810]]

    stimulate the economy is to provide for the construction of public 
    works projects. The methods used in the amendment provide for the 
    stabilization of budgets of general purpose governments, the 
    maintenance of basic services ordinarily provided by the State and 
    local governments, emergency support grants to State and local 
    governments to coordinate budget-related actions with the Federal 
    Government. Clearly, the methods provided for in the Senate 
    amendment are on their face so different from those in the House 
    bill as to preclude their being considered as the same or closely 
    allied. For this reason, then, the amendment is in violation of 
    clause 4, rule XVI.

        The Speaker: (18) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) makes the point of order 
    that title II of the conference report, which was contained in the 
    Senate amendment to H.R. 5247, would not have been germane if 
    offered as an amendment in the House and is thus subject to a point 
    of order under rule XXVIII, clause 4.
        The test of germaneness in this case is the relationship 
    between title II of the conference report and the provisions of 
    H.R. 5247 as it passed the House. The Chair believes that had title 
    II been offered as an amendment in the House it would have been 
    subject to a point of order on two grounds.
        First, one of the requirements of germaneness is that an 
    amendment must relate to the fundamental purpose of the matter 
    under consideration and must seek to accomplish the result of the 
    proposed legislation by a closely related means--Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 28, sections 5 and 6. The fundamental purpose of 
    the bill when considered by the House was to combat unemployment by 
    stimulating activity in the construction industry through grants to 
    States and local governments to be used for the construction of 
    local public works projects.
        While the fundamental purpose of title II of the conference 
    report is related to the economic problems caused by the recession, 
    specifically unemployment, the means proposed to alleviate that 
    problem are not confined to public works construction. Title II 
    authorizes grants to States and local governments to pay for 
    governmental services such as police and fire protection, trash 
    collection and public education. The managers, in their joint 
    statement, specifically state that the grants under title II are 
    for the ``maintenance of basic services ordinarily provided by the 
    State and local governments and that State and local governments 
    shall not use funds received under the act for the acquisition of 
    supplies or for construction unless essential to maintain basic 
    services.'' An additional purpose of this title is to reduce the 
    necessity of increases in State and local government taxes which 
    would have a negative effect on the national economy and offset 
    reductions in Federal taxes designed to stimulate the economy. The 
    Chair therefore finds that the program proposed by title II of the 
    report is not closely related to the method suggested in the House 
    version of the bill.
        Second, title II of the report proposes a revenue sharing 
    approach to the problems faced by State and local governments 
    during the present recession.

[[Page 7811]]

    General revenue sharing is a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Government Operations under rule X, clause 1(h)(4), 
    and a bill, H.R. 6416, in many respects identical to title II of 
    the report, was introduced in the House on April 28, 1975, and 
    referred to that committee. While committee jurisdiction is not the 
    exclusive test of germaneness--Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, 
    section 4.16--it is a relevant test where, as here, the scope of 
    the House bill is within one committee's jurisdiction. The 
    precedents indicate that as a bill becomes more comprehensive in 
    scope the relevance of the test is correspondingly reduced. The 
    bill, as it passed the House, was not a comprehensive antirecession 
    measure overlapping other committees' jurisdictions, but proposed a 
    specific remedy, local public works construction assistance, to a 
    complex problem. Given the limited scope of the bill as it passed 
    the House, the Chair finds the jurisdiction test quite persuasive 
    in this instance.
        For the reasons just stated, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Antirecession Assistance to States: Different Distribution Formula

Sec. 6.2 To a portion of a committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute amending a section of existing law to authorize 
    antirecession assistance to state governments based on state 
    unemployment rates, an amendment amending the same section of 
    existing law to provide a different distribution of such grants 
    based on state and local tax efforts, but retaining unemployment 
    rates as the criteria for such grants, was held germane.

    During consideration of the Intergovernmental Antirecession 
Assistance Act of 1977 (19) in the Committee of the Whole, 
it was demonstrated that to a proposition to accomplish a result by one 
method, an amendment to achieve the same fundamental purpose by another 
closely related method is germane when the Chair overruled a point of 
order against the amendment described above. The proceedings of May 13, 
1977,(1) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 6810.
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 14506, 14603, 14604, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (2) Pursuant to the rule, 
    the Clerk will now read the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute recommended by the Committee on Government Operations 
    now printed in the reported bill as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Elizabeth Holtzman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            Sec. 2. (a) Subsection (b) of section 202 of the Public 
        Works Employment Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6722(b)) is amended to 
        read as follows:
            ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Subject to the 
        provisions of

[[Page 7812]]

        subsections (c) and (d) of this section, there are authorized 
        to be appropriated for each of the five succeeding calendar 
        quarters (beginning with the calendar quarter which begins on 
        July 1, 1977) for the purpose of payments under this title--
            ``(1) $125,000,000, plus
            ``(2) $30,000,000 multiplied by the number of whole one-
        tenth percentage points by which the rate of seasonally 
        adjusted national unemployment for the most recent calendar 
        quarter which ended three months before the beginning of such 
        quarter exceeded 6 per centum.''. . .
            Sec. 3. (a) Paragraph (2) of section 203(b) of the Public 
        Works Employment Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6723(b)(2)) is amended 
        to read as follows:
            ``(2) Applicable state percentage.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the applicable State percentage is equal to the 
        quotient resulting from the division of--
            ``(A) the product of--
            ``(i) the State excess unemployment percentage, multiplied 
        by
            ``(ii) the State revenue sharing amount
            ``(B) by the sum of such products for all the States,
        except that, for purposes of subparagraph (A), the product for 
        a State as defined in paragraph (3)(A)(ii) shall be deemed to 
        be equal to the product of the population of that State 
        multiplied by lowest per capita factor of any State (as defined 
        in paragraph (3)(A)(i)) determined in accordance with paragraph 
        (3)(E).''. . . .

        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Aspin: Page 26, strike out line 1, 
        and everything that follows through page 28, line 10, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 3. (a) Section 203 of the Public Works Employment Act 
        of 1976 is amended to read as follows:

                                  ``Allocation

            ``Sec. 203. (a) In General.--There shall be allocated for 
        each State for each calendar quarter out of amounts 
        appropriated out of section 202(b) for that quarter, an amount 
        which bears the same ratio to the amount appropriated under 
        that section for that period as the amount allocable to the 
        State under subsection (b) bears to the sum allocable to all 
        States under such subsection.
            ``(b) Determination of Allocable Amount.--
            ``(1) In general.--For the purposes of subsection (a) the 
        amount allocable to a State under this subsection for any 
        calendar quarter is the amount which bears the same ratio to 
        the amount appropriated as--
            ``(A) the aggregate taxes of that State, multiplied by the 
        relative tax effort factor of that State, bears to--
            ``(B) the sum of the products determined under subparagraph 
        (A) for all States,
        except that--

            ``(i) the product determined under subparagraph (A) for the 
        State described in subsection (e)(1)(B) shall be deemed to be 
        equal to two-thirds of the product of the aggregate taxes of 
        that State, multiplied by the relative tax effort factor of 
        that State; and
            ``(ii) the product determined under subparagraph (A) for 
        each State described in subsection (e)(1)(C) shall be deemed to 
        be equal to the population of such State multiplied by the 
        lowest per capita product (as determined under paragraph (6)) 
        of any of the States described in subsection (e)(1)(A).

        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I 
    make

[[Page 7813]]

    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Madam Chairman, the amendment changes the formula in a bill 
    that is described as establishing a new title to the State and 
    Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972.
        In the present law, which is commonly known as the 
    countercyclical bill, the Congress enunciated as among its purposes 
    to deal with recession phenomena, and the act is cited as the 
    Intergovernmental Antirecession Assistance Act of 1977. . . .
        The formula for State percentages and allocations under the 
    existing bill is based on unemployment in given areas of the 
    country. The bill is founded on a response to unemployment in 
    communities around the country and, thus, the applicable State 
    percentages are based on unemployment.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Aspin) changes the very foundation of that formula and takes it 
    away from the unemployment underpinning and changes it to something 
    else. The gentleman wants to change this bill that is for the local 
    fiscal assistance based on the Public Works Employment Act of 1976 
    and put in a new basis for allocation of the formula.
        I am not sure I know what his basis is, whether it is the size 
    of the community, the size of the people in the community, or the 
    dress of the people in the community, but it has nothing to do with 
    unemployment upon which this bill is founded.
        The gentleman also has other irrelevant bases for changing the 
    formula.
        Thus I would urge, Madam Chairman, that a point of order lies 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Aspin). . . .
        Mr. Aspin: I believe that the points raised by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Rosenthal) clearly do not constitute a point of 
    order.
        The purpose of this bill is to provide countercyclical funds. 
    The trigger in the bill is still unemployment. The amounts of money 
    in this bill are determined by the unemployment rate. Beginning 
    October 1, 1977, the amount of money available for distribution to 
    States and localities will be determined upon the unemployment 
    rate. How many percentages or how many tenths of a percent it is 
    above 6 percent; so the unemployment principle is still in the 
    bill.

        Once the percent has been determined this formula does indeed 
    change the distribution formula and changes it in a way in which I 
    believe it is much better--as I will explain when I have a chance 
    to talk about my amendment--because the unemployment rate is 
    already below the national average and is almost useless. . . .
        Mr. Rosenthal: . . . Very briefly, Madam Chairman, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Aspin) is 
    founded on the tax effort of communities. It is to that response 
    that I feel and believe a point of order would lie because it does 
    not deal with the basic fundamentals of the existing law which is 
    based on the percentage of unemployment in various communities. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The Chair finds, first, that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman

[[Page 7814]]

    from Wisconsin (Mr. Aspin) amends the same section of the law as 
    the committee amendment; and, second, finds that the amendment is 
    germane under the precedents since it accomplishes the same result 
    by a different but related method. The use of a different method to 
    accomplish the same result does not in any way offend the 
    germaneness doctrine. The amendment does not remove the 
    unemployment factor which triggers the authorization in the 
    committee bill. For that reason the point of order is overruled.

Aid to States for Public Works: Grants Proposed Instead of Loans

Sec. 6.3 To a section of a bill authorizing ``loans or advances'' to 
    states for certain public works, an amendment proposing that such 
    authorization should be for ``grants'' instead of loans or advances 
    was held to be not germane.

    On Aug. 31, 1944,(3) the following proposition was being 
considered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 90 Cong. Rec. 7471, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        2051 (Committee on Ways and Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In order to encourage States and other non-Federal public 
    agencies to make advance provision for the construction of public 
    works . . . the Federal Works Administrator is hereby authorized to 
    make . . . loans or advances to the States and their agencies and 
    political subdivisions . . . to aid in financing (certain costs) 
    preliminary to the construction of such public works. . . .

    An amendment was offered as follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 90 Cong. Rec. 7472, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On page 40, line 15, change the period to a colon and add the 
    following: ``Provided further, That no grant shall be in excess of 
    50 percentum of the estimated planning cost for any individual 
    project''; and, on the same page strike out the words ``loan or 
    advances'' appearing in lines 6, 7, 13, 16, and 25, and insert the 
    word ``grants'' in lieu thereof.

    In response to a point of order, the proponent of the amendment 
stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the title of this section is ``Public Works,'' 
    and it is stated: ``In order to encourage States and other non-
    Federal public agencies to make advance provision for the 
    construction of public works'' in which case certain loans or 
    advances might be given.
        It seems to me it is thoroughly germane to encourage the States 
    and other non-Federal agencies public in nature and that grants be 
    given in aid of these public works.

    The Chairman(5) ruled as follows on the point of order: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 7472, 7473, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair there is a very great difference 
    between loans

[[Page 7815]]

    and advances and grants. The pending committee amendment refers 
    only to loans and advances. In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    provision for grants would not be germane to the committee 
    amendment, and for that reason the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Loan Guarantees to States and Cities--Direct Loan to One Municipality

Sec. 6.4 A bill designed to accomplish a given result by one method may 
    be amended by a substitute designed to accomplish the same result 
    by a different but closely related method; thus, to a bill 
    providing loan guarantee programs for all states and subdivisions, 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute providing direct loans 
    (limited to New York) was held germane.

    During consideration of the Intergovernmental Emergency Assistance 
Act (7) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 2, 
1975,(8) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
amendment described above, demonstrating that a general proposition may 
be amended by a proposition more limited in nature, if it is within the 
same class. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 10481.
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 38179, 38180, 38181, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. J. William Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. J. 
        William Stanton: Strike all after the enacting clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the New York City 
        Seasonal Financing Act of 1975''.
            Sec. 2. The Congress makes the following findings and 
        declarations:
            (1) It is necessary for the city of New York to obtain 
        seasonal financing from time to time because the city's 
        revenues and expenditures, even when in balance on an annual 
        basis, are not received and disbursed at equivalent rates 
        throughout the year. . . .
            Sec. 4. (a) Upon written request of the city or a financing 
        agent, the Secretary may make loans to the city . . . subject 
        to the provisions of this Act. . . .
            Sec. 6. (a) A loan may be made under this Act only if the 
        Secretary determines that there is a reasonable prospect of 
        repayment of the loan in accordance with its terms and 
        conditions. In making the loan, the Secretary may require such 
        terms and conditions as he may deem appropriate to insure 
        repayment. The Secretary is authorized to agree to any 
        modification, amendment, or waiver of any such term or 
        condition as he deems desirable to protect the interests of the 
        United States.
            (b) At no time shall the amount of loans outstanding under 
        this Act exceed in the aggregate $2,300,000,000. . . .

[[Page 7816]]

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the present consideration of the substitute 
    for the bill on the grounds that it is not germane as an amendment 
    to this particular legislation. For authority I cite chapter 28, 
    section 6.1 of Deschler's Procedure, which says:

            In order to be germane, an amendment must not only have the 
        same end as the matter sought to be amended, but must 
        contemplate a method of achieving that end that is closely 
        allied to the method encompassed in the bill or other matter 
        sought to be amended. (116 Cong. Rec. 28165, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 11, 1970.)

        Also I cite chapter 28, section 6.2 of Deschler's Procedure, 
    which says:

            To a bill drafted to achieve a purpose by one method, an 
        amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated 
        method not contemplated by the bill, is not germane. (113 Cong. 
        Rec. 21849, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 8, 196.7.

        Mr. Chairman, I have examined the two bills, although I am 
    under the disability of having had the substitute amendment in my 
    possession only for 2 hours, but title I of H.R. 10481 states first 
    of all in its scope that the bill applies to all States and 
    subdivisions of the United States. Until the recent unanimous-
    consent request by the gentleman from Washington, the bill also 
    amended the IRS code and in one of its titles it sought to amend 
    the U.S. Bankruptcy Act. The substitute proposes only to apply to 
    New York City.
        Title I of the bill sought to be amended creates an 
    Intergovernmental Emergency Assistance Board to administer the 
    legislation. There is no such creation of a Board in the 
    substitute, but the Secretary of the Treasury is given authority to 
    administer the legislation.
        The entire thrust of the bill sought to be amended, H.R. 10481, 
    is a guarantee of State obligations which the State issues. The 
    entire thrust of the bill now offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    will direct Federal loans to two given entities, New York and New 
    York City.
        As provided in the bill which originally came before the House 
    under the rule there was a method for avoiding default and there 
    were eligibility requirements by which various States and 
    subdivisions must be met and it also allowed State loans to 
    municipalities. There are no such provisions in the substitute. It 
    speaks only of fiscal problems of New York and New York City.
        The bill before us limits guarantees to $5 billion over a 13-
    year period and $3 billion over a 23-year period. The substitute 
    speaks only of $2.3 billion and creates a revolving guarantee fund 
    over 3 years duration which is terminated in 1978, unlike the bill 
    which is sought to be amended.
        Section 111 of H.R. 10481 creates an emergency municipal debt 
    fund. There is no such fund in the substitute. It is completely 
    silent on that.
        Section 113 of the original bill speaks of the recovery of sums 
    loaned by the Federal Government and gets specific on remedies. The 
    only remedy section in the substitute is the general provision 
    speaking not at all about any specific recovery means.
        Finally the original bill provides for a future audit of New 
    York City or any

[[Page 7817]]

    local or State government applying for these guarantees. There is 
    absolutely no audit provision in the substitute. There is rather 
    only the right to inspect records.
        I submit under rulings of the Chair, even though the ends 
    sought are similar, the methods are totally dissimilar and 
    therefore the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. J. William Stanton: . . . The substitute under 
    consideration deals entirely and wholly with the subject matter 
    that has been under discussion here previously and before our 
    committee and these had to do with New York City.
        Second, Mr. Chairman, we do not in our substitute in any way 
    expand the authority for this particular aid and in fact, Mr. 
    Chairman, in many ways we in the substitute limit the amount of 
    authority and amount of money that has been given under this 
    particular substitute and in the particular section of the bill.
        I think what we have in the substitute is subject matter which 
    is germane and more limited rather than expanding the original 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the substitute before us consists of nothing more 
    than a specific amendment to a general proposition. The Chairman 
    stated that as a specific point. I do not believe that this point 
    of order is valid.
        Mr. [Thomas M.] Rees [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to add on this point of order as to germaneness. There are two 
    propositions we have before us in the bill as it came out of the 
    committee and the substitute on the floor. The substitute on the 
    floor deals with a loan and the bill coming out of the committee is 
    a loan guarantee; but in essence they are basically the same thing 
    in that the only time the Federal Government would be under a 
    liability would be if there was a default of the loan or the paper 
    that is guaranteed by the loan guarantee. So they are essentially 
    the same; the loan and the loan guarantee provide the exact same 
    liability to the taxpayers and to the Federal Treasury. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Maryland has made a point of order that the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio is not germane to the bill.

        Now, several points have been raised in connection with this 
    point of order. First, the point has been made that the bill by its 
    terms extends loan guarantees to all States and municipalities, 
    whereas the amendment in the nature of a substitute directs itself 
    only to the problems of the city and the State of New York. With 
    respect to that particular point, the Chair would like to call the 
    attention of the gentleman from California and the gentleman from 
    Maryland to volume 8 of Cannon's Precedents, section 3004, which 
    stands for the principle that:

            To a proposition general in its nature an amendment 
        specific in character is germane if within the same class.

        This was pointed out by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. J. William 
    Stanton). It goes on to state:

            To a section of the river and harbor bill making a lump-sum 
        appro

[[Page 7818]]

        priation for the maintenance of river and harbor projects an 
        amendment designating specifically the projects on which the 
        sum should be expended was held to be germane.

        The further point is made that a different agency is involved 
    in the carrying out of the particular program. The Chair would call 
    the attention of the gentleman from Maryland to section 6.21, 
    chapter 28 of Deschler's Procedure in the House of Representatives, 
    that to a proposition to accomplish a result by regulation by a 
    particular Government agency, an amendment to achieve the same 
    fundamental purpose by another governmental agency was held to be 
    in order.
        Finally, with respect to the difference between the methods 
    sought to accomplish the common result--loan guarantees in the bill 
    and loans in the amendment, there is no quarrel, the Chair does not 
    believe, over the applicable principles. As was pointed out by the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) in order to be germane an 
    amendment must not only have the same end as the matter sought to 
    be amended, but must contemplate a method of achieving that end 
    that is closely allied to the method in the bill sought to be 
    amended. To a bill drafted to achieve a purpose by one method, an 
    amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by another method not 
    contemplated by the bill is not germane.
        The question, therefore, is whether or not the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute proposes to accomplish a similar purpose by 
    a method that is closely allied to the method encompassed in the 
    bill. That question is a factual one of whether or not the loan 
    mechanism in the amendment in the nature of a substitute is a 
    closely allied manner of seeking the same end as the provisions of 
    the bill containing the loan guarantee approach.
        The Chair, after listening to the discussion of the point of 
    order, would have to agree that the method proposed by the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute is closely allied to the 
    method proposed by the bill since the concept of repayment or 
    recoupment of Federal outlays is contained in both approaches.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill To Provide Assistance to States for Public Housing--Amendment 
    Proposing Loans to Individuals for Purpose of Providing Better 
    Privately Owned Housing

Sec. 6.5 To a bill providing for national assistance to states and 
    political subdivisions thereof for the purpose of securing better 
    public housing facilities, an amendment proposing that money should 
    be loaned directly to individuals for the purpose of providing 
    better privately owned housing facilities was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a public housing 
bill, an amendment was offered providing that ``The United States 
Housing Authority shall make loans to construct individual de

[[Page 7819]]

tached dwellings. . . .'' The following exchange centered on the 
question of the germaneness of the amendment to the bill: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 9279, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 18, 1937. Under 
        consideration was S. 1685 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clyde] Williams [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment--that it is not germane to the 
    bill or any section in the bill. This is a public housing bill, and 
    the amendment proposes to loan money to a private individual to 
    build a home. . . .
        Mr. [Peter J.] DeMuth [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    offered this amendment to make a better rounded housing program. 
    This amendment will develop more contented and better citizenry by 
    making home ownership possible for many of those now ill-housed. . 
    . .
        Mr. Chairman, in regard to the point of order, in that this is 
    a public housing bill and my amendment is aimed only to help the 
    public secure better housing facilities, I contend that my 
    amendment is germane to the purpose and intent of the bill.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania offers an amendment to the 
    pending bill to which the gentleman from Missouri makes a point of 
    order. The pending bill provides financial assistance to States and 
    political subdivisions thereof. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania seeks considerably to change the 
    purpose and scope of the bill in that it would make loans directly 
    to individuals and provides for character loans and various other 
    matters which, in the opinion of the Chair, are not germane to the 
    bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Crime Control Measures: Firearm Regulation Proposed Instead of 
    Assistance to States in Law Enforcement Research and Training

Sec. 6.6 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 to be not 
    germane.

    The following exchange,(12) including the statement of 
objections to the proposed amendment, the response by the proponent of 
the amendment,(13) and the ruling of the Chairman 
(14) on the point of order raised against the amendment, 
occurred during consideration of a bill relating to law enforcement and 
criminal justice:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 21849, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 8, 1967. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 5037 (Committee on the Judiciary).
13. Jonathan B. Bingham (N.Y.).
14. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point

[[Page 7820]]

    of order against the amendment on the ground that the amendment is 
    not germane to the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the text of the bill before the Committee of the 
    Whole provides for Federal assistance to States and localities and 
    improvement of law enforcement.
        There is no language in the bill dealing with any Federal 
    crime, particularly with crime involving the control of firearms.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would also 
    amend title 18 of the United States Code and create a new Federal 
    crime relative to the interstate shipment of firearms. . . .
        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the very 
    first purpose of the bill before us . . . is stated in its title as 
    follows: ``To assist State and local governments in reducing the 
    incidence of crime.'' . . .
        My amendment proposes an additional means for carrying out the 
    same purpose. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Bingham] urges that the 
    purpose of his amendment is the same as that of the bill--to assist 
    State and local governments in reducing the incidence of crime. But 
    it is a well-established principle of the germaneness rule that a 
    common purpose or objective is not conclusive when judging the 
    germaneness of an amendment. . . .
        The Chair concludes that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Bingham] is on a subject not now before this 
    Committee and therefore sustains the point of order.

Energy: Solid Waste Amendments To Bill To Conserve Fossil Fuels

Sec. 6.7 To a proposition seeking to accomplish a result by one general 
    method, an amendment which might indirectly achieve that result but 
    by an unrelated method not contemplated in the original proposition 
    is not germane; thus, to a measure designed to regulate and promote 
    the production, allocation and conservation of energy (primarily 
    directed toward crude petroleum and petroleum distillates but also 
    touching on the use of other energy sources), an amendment 
    providing for the prohibition of the production of non-returnable 
    beverage containers was held not to be germane where nothing in the 
    bill pertained to the control of solid waste or the production of 
    consumer goods.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(15) the Chair held that to an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute intended to accomplish the 
conservation of energy resources by the regulation of the production, 
allocation and use of those resources, an amendment

[[Page 7821]]

in the form of a new title prohibiting the manufacture or sale of non-
returnable beverage containers was not drafted to achieve the 
conservation of energy resources by the regulation of those resources 
and was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 41755, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Vigorito to the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: At the end of the 
    bill, add a new title as follows:

        TITLE III--NONRETURNABLE BEVERAGE CONTAINER PROHIBITION ACT

        Sec. 301. To reduce energy waste which is caused by the 
    production of nonreturnable containers used for the packaging of 
    soft drinks caused by the production of nonreturnable containers 
    used for the packaging of soft drinks and beer, and to assure 
    energy conservation, so that the essential needs of the United 
    States are met, by banning such containers when they are sold in 
    interstate commerce on a no-deposit, no-return basis.
        (a) The Congress finds that the utilization of returnable 
    beverage containers would result in substantial energy savings.
        (b) It is the purpose of this Act to assist in the solving of 
    this energy situation by preventing the use and circulation of the 
    offending types of nonreturnable containers by banning their 
    shipment and sale in interstate commerce. . . .
        Sec. 304. (a) No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer 
    for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate 
    commerce any non-returnable container with respect to which no 
    refundable money deposit is required from the consumer. . . .
        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment is not germane because obviously 
    it creates a whole new title. It does not amend any existing 
    section of the bill.
        Second, it refers to nonreturnable beverage containers. This is 
    not mentioned in the existing substitute.
        Third, in effect it constitutes an amendment to the Solid Waste 
    Disposal Act but with regulatory effect, affecting none of the 
    operative provisions of the amendment and any reference to energy 
    conservation; and, finally, the amendment regulates economic 
    relationship between the purchaser and seller of consumer goods. 
    This is not done anywhere in H.R. 11882, except maybe one could 
    argue the windfall profits section might affect that, which this 
    does not purport to amend.
        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am constrained to object and 
    say it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph P.] Vigorito [of Pennsylvania]: . . . I think this 
    is appropriate at this time because we are trying to save energy, 
    and we definitely will save energy here, because we are using one-
    way containers, about 60 or 70 billion of them every year, and 
    increasing at the rate of 70 billion every year. One returnable 
    container can be used 20 times. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For all the reasons outlined by the gentleman from Florida the 
    amend

[[Page 7822]]

    ment is clearly not germane to this bill and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Energy Projects and Regulation: Achieving Purpose by Creation of a 
    Different Agency To Administer Provisions

Sec. 6.8 To a proposition to accomplish a result by one method 
    (regulation by a government agency), an amendment to achieve the 
    same fundamental purpose by another closely related method (another 
    type of government entity) is germane. Thus, to a bill granting 
    broad powers to the Bonneville Power Administration relating to the 
    use and conservation of electric power in the Pacific Northwest, 
    and establishing a council to approve plans and projects relating 
    to energy planning, commercial fisheries and energy conservation, 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute creating instead a 
    government corporation to perform similar and related duties was 
    held germane as accomplishing the same result as the bill by a 
    closely related method.

    On Sept. 29, 1980,(17) during consideration of the 
Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that 
the test of germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
for a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole, and the 
fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the fundamental 
purpose of the bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 27832-52, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. S. 885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill reads as follows:

                                   H.R. 8157

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

                     short title and table of contents

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Pacific Northwest Electric 
        Power Planning and Conservation Act''. . . .
            Sec. 4. (a)(1) The purposes of this section are to provide 
        for the prompt establishment and effective operation of the 
        Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning 
        Council to further the purposes of this Act by the Council 
        promptly preparing and adopting (A) a regional conservation and 
        electric power plan and (B) a program to protect, mitigate, and 
        enhance fish and wildlife and to otherwise expeditiously and 
        effectively carry out the

[[Page 7823]]

        Council's responsibilities and functions under this Act.
            (2) To achieve such purposes and facilitate cooperation 
        among the States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, and 
        with the Bonneville Power Administration, the consent of 
        Congress is given for an agreement described in this paragraph 
        and not in conflict with this Act, pursuant to which--
            (A) there shall be established a regional agency known as 
        the ``Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation 
        Planning Council'' which (i) shall have its offices in the 
        Pacific Northwest, (ii) shall carry out its functions and 
        responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of this Act, 
        (iii) shall continue in force and effect in accordance with the 
        provisions of this Act, and (iv) except as otherwise provided 
        in this Act, shall not be considered an agency or 
        instrumentality of the United States for the purpose of any 
        Federal law; and. . . .

                                   rates

            Sec. 7. (a)(1) The Administrator shall establish, and 
        periodically review and revise, rates for the sale and 
        disposition of electric energy and capacity and for the 
        transmission of non-Federal power. Such rates shall be 
        established and, as appropriate, revised to recover, in 
        accordance with sound business principles, the costs associated 
        with the acquisition, conservation, and transmission of 
        electric power, including the amortization of the Federal 
        investment in the Federal Columbia River Power System 
        (including irrigation costs required to be repaid out of power 
        revenues) over a reasonable period of years and the other costs 
        and expenses incurred by the Administrator pursuant to this Act 
        and other provisions of law. Such rates shall be established in 
        accordance with sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Columbia River 
        Transmission System Act (16 U.S.C. 838), section 5 of the Flood 
        Control Act of 1944, and the provisions of this Act. . . .
            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.

        Weaver: Page 1, strike all after the enacting clause and insert 
    in lieu thereof:

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Columbia Basin Energy 
        Corporation Act of 1980''. . . .
            There is created a body corporate by the name of the 
        ``Columbia Basin Energy Corporation''. The Board of Directors 
        first appointed shall be deemed the incorporators, and the 
        incorporation shall be held to have been effected from date of 
        the first meeting of the Board.

                                    fund

            Sec. 22. (a) There is hereby established in the Treasury of 
        the United States a Columbia Basin Energy Corporation 
        Administration Fund (hereinafter referred to as the ``fund''). 
        The fund shall consist of (1) all receipts, collections, and 
        recoveries of the Corporation in cash from all sources, 
        including trust funds, (2) all proceeds derived from the sale 
        of bonds by the Board, (3) any appropriations made by the 
        Congress for the fund, and (4) the following which are hereby 
        transferred to the Corporation: (A) all moneys in the 
        Bonneville Power Administration Fund established by the Federal 
        Columbia River Transmission System Act of October 18, 1974, (B) 
        the unexpended balances of funds appropriated or otherwise made 
        available for the Bonneville Power Administration. All funds 
        transferred hereunder shall be available for expenditure by the 
        Corporation, acting by and through the Board, as authorized in 
        this Act and other Acts relating to the Columbia Basin Energy 
        Corporation system, subject to such

[[Page 7824]]

        limitations as may be prescribed by any applicable 
        appropriation Act effective during such period as may elapse 
        between their transfer and the approval by the Congress of the 
        first subsequent annual budget program of the Corporation. . . 
        .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the bill 
    before us is one which arranges to deal with the Pacific Northwest 
    power problems through giving certain power to the administrator of 
    BPA, by arranging for the backing of the funding of construction by 
    use of the rate of all the facilities in the area. It sets up a 
    council relating to the planning for energy and for commercial 
    fisheries and it deals with the use of conservation as a mechanism 
    for substituting for the production of new power.
        The gentleman's amendment, on the other hand, is violative of 
    the rule of germaneness because it sets up a mechanism which goes 
    beyond and is not related to the fundamental purpose of the 
    legislation and which, in going toward the fundamental purpose of 
    the legislation, uses mechanisms not authorized and not 
    contemplated and not of the same character as the functions of the 
    basic legislation.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman is different in a number 
    of noteworthy sections. For one thing, it sets up a corporation 
    which would be appointed with the board of directors, two to be 
    appointed by the President and a number of others to be appointed 
    by the several States. Apart from the constitutional questions that 
    this raises, the proposal would have a board which would 
    essentially be a corporate body, there being no corporation in the 
    legislation which is before the Committee at this time but, rather, 
    only an advisory council. This board would have sweeping powers 
    roughly equivalent to those of the Tennessee Valley Authority and 
    which are, therefore, much more sweeping in character. The board 
    would be able to function without regard to the civil service laws 
    at page 10 section 5.
        Furthermore, the legislation confers upon the Secretary of 
    Labor the power to determine wage rates and so forth, and 
    compensation, something which is not included in the legislation 
    before us. . . .
        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, another 
    point, let me also say the amendment is not germane to the bill in 
    that it sets up a Government corporation, a Government corporation, 
    and none is provided for in the basic legislation. Therefore, it is 
    not germane to the main legislation. . . .
        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: . . . The bill before us sets 
    up a council in which one provision is appointed by the Secretary 
    of Energy, that is the so-called fallback provision, but, 
    nevertheless, it is in the bill that the council, which, by the 
    way, is not an advisory council, it has vast powers, vast powers, 
    to approve the plan and projects, is nominated by the Secretary of 
    Energy, and mine is nominated by the President. So the rule says 
    that the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be the same. I 
    maintain the fundamental purpose of the amendment is the same 
    because both the bill and the substitute are trying to solve the 
    energy problems by creating a mechanism, energy problems in the 
    Northwest, by creating a mechanism.
        Mine sets up the Columbia Basin Authority which is quite 
    similar to the

[[Page 7825]]

    TVA. I think my substitute is very bad, you understand. It is just 
    that the bill is much worse. It sets up a halfway TVA.
        I support very strongly something else. But if you are going to 
    have a TVA, I offer my substitute, Mr. Chairman, as a complete TVA.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would cite section 798(b) of the House Rules and 
    Manual relating to the fundamental purpose as a test of germaneness 
    which says in part:

            The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to 
        the fundamental purpose of the bill. Thus for a bill proposing 
        to accomplish a result by methods comprehensive in scope, a 
        committee amendment in the nature of a substitute seeking to 
        achieve the same result was held germane where it was shown 
        that the methods contemplated were closely related and that 
        additional provisions not contained in the original bill were 
        merely incidental conditions or exceptions which were related 
        to the fundamental purpose of the bill.

        The Chair would further cite chapter 28, section 2.22 of 
    Deschler's Procedure, and I quote:

            The test of germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute for a bill is its relationship to the bill as a 
        whole and is not necessarily determined by the content of an 
        incidental portion of the amendment which, if offered 
        separately, might not be germane to the portion of the bill to 
        which offered.

        Finally the Chair would note on page 209 in Cannon's Procedure 
    in the 75th Congress, that to a proposal to create a bureau to 
    administer a program a substitute was held germane which 
    established a board rather than a bureau to administer the program.
        The bill under consideration utilizes the Bonneville Power 
    Administration and a planning council, while the amendment creates 
    a corporation.
        Therefore, on the basis of the precedents cited, the Chair 
    would overrule the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Federal Energy Research and Development Administration 
    To Conduct Programs--Amendment Authorizing Council on Environmental 
    Quality To Evaluate Environmental Effects of Energy Technology

Sec. 6.9 To a proposition to accomplish a result by one method 
    (regulation by a governmental agency), an amendment to achieve the 
    same fundamental purpose by another closely related method (use of 
    another governmental agency) is germane; thus to a bill authorizing 
    the Federal Energy Research and Development Administration to 
    conduct a broad range of programs involving energy sources, 
    including environmental research related to the development of 
    energy sources, an

[[Page 7826]]

    amendment authorizing the Council on Environmental Quality to 
    evaluate environmental effects of energy technology was held 
    germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1973 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 19, 
1973,(1) the Chair, overruling a point of order, held the 
following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 11510.
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 42618, 42619, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John R.] Dellenback [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dellenback: Page 55, line 8, 
        insert a new section 308 to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 308. (a) The Council on Environmental Quality is 
        authorized and directed to carry out a continuing analysis of 
        the conduct of research and development of energy technologies 
        to evaluate--
            ``(1) the adequacy of attention to the probable 
        environmental effects of the application of energy technology, 
        and
            ``(2) the adequacy of attention to environmental protection 
        in connection with energy processes.
            ``(b) The Council on Environmental Quality, in carrying out 
        the provisions of this section, may employ consultants or 
        contractors and may by fund transfer employ the services of 
        other Federal agencies for the conduct of studies and 
        investigations.
            ``(c) The Council on Environmental Quality shall hold 
        annual public hearings on the conduct of energy research and 
        development and the probable environmental consequences of 
        trends in the application of energy technology, and the 
        transcript of the hearings shall be published and made 
        available to the public.
            ``(d) The Council on Environmental Quality shall make such 
        reports to the President, the Administrator, and the Congress 
        as it deems appropriate concerning the conduct of energy 
        research and development, and the President as a part of the 
        annual Environmental Policy Report shall set forth the findings 
        of the Council on Environmental Quality concerning the conduct 
        of energy research and development and the probable 
        environmental consequences of trends in the application of 
        energy technology.''
            Renumber the subsequent sections. . . .

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it goes 
    beyond the authority of this committee and goes to the authority of 
    other committees.
        It seeks to authorize money, and it goes beyond the committee's 
    authority.

        I do not have the amendment in front of me, but I was listening 
    to it as the gentleman was reading it. There are a number of things 
    in it relative to the duties of the Council on Environmental 
    Quality, pending the authorization for the funding of the Council 
    on Environmental Quality, the hiring of consultants by the Council 
    on Environmental Quality, as well as others.
        It ranges all over the jurisdiction of almost every Member's 
    committee in this Congress besides the one that is handling the 
    bill here, and, therefore, the amendment should be stricken down as 
    nongermane. . . .

[[Page 7827]]

        Mr. Dellenback: . . . As the Chairman is aware, the bill which 
    is before us deals expressly with the question of the 
    responsibilities of the Administrator engaging in and supporting 
    environmental and other research related to the development of 
    energy sources and utilization technologies.
        I submit to the Chairman that this particular amendment, while 
    it does, of course, on its face deal with the responsibilities of 
    the Council on Environmental Quality, is dealing with this 
    critically important field of environmental research, and it is 
    within the scope of the bill. . . .
        If we are going to open up the field of environmental research, 
    as this bill does open it up, we should be able to deal with it in 
    this way and insure that that which is done is analyzed, 
    researched, and reported back to the Congress.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the language on page 33 of the bill 
    beginning at line 16, covers this point. It reads:

            (4) engaging in and supporting environmental, biomedical, 
        physical, and safety research related to the development of 
        energy sources and utilization technologies;

        The bill thus authorizes the Administrator of ERDA to engage in 
    precisely the type of environmental research which the amendment 
    would confer upon the Council.
        The Chair would like to cite from the House Manual, page 445:

            To a proposition to accomplish a certain purpose by one 
        method, an amendment to achieve the same fundamental purpose by 
        another closely related method may be germane. Thus, to a bill 
        proposing to regulate certain activities through the use of a 
        governmental agency, an amendment proposing to regulate such 
        activities by another governmental agency is germane (Dec. 15, 
        1937, pp. 1572-89; June 9, 1941, p. 4905).

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill To Extend Federal Energy Administration--Amendment To Abolish 
    Agency and Transfer Functions

Sec. 6.10 To a bill reenacting a law to extend the existence of the 
    Federal Energy Administration, an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute abolishing the agency and some of its functions and 
    transferring other functions to existing agencies was held to be 
    germane.

    On June 1, 1976,(3) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration a bill (H.R. 12169) reenacting a law, to extend the 
existence of the Federal Energy Administration. That law provided, in 
the absence of such extension, for termination of the agency and a 
consequent transfer of its functions to other agencies. An amendment in 
the nature of a

[[Page 7828]]

substitute was offered which itself provided for termination of the 
agency and the transfer of certain of its functions to other agencies--
matters deemed to be within the jurisdiction of committees other than 
that which reported the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 16021-25, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

                           abolition of functions

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

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

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

[[Page 7829]]

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

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

        The other purposes are not accomplished in the legislation or 
    the lan

[[Page 7830]]

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

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

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

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

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 7831]]

        The amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish the 
    Federal Energy Administration and some of its functions, and would 
    transfer other functions currently performed by the agency to other 
    Departments and agencies in the executive branch, and would 
    authorize appropriations for the next fiscal year for the 
    performance of those functions transferred by the amendment.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the committee bill, 
    the law--Public Law 93-275--being continued and reenacted by the 
    bill, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute against which 
    the point of order has been raised. While it is true that the basic 
    law which created the Federal Energy Administration was reported as 
    a reorganization proposal from the Committee on Government 
    Operations in the last Congress, and while it is also true that a 
    bill containing the substance of the amendment has been jointly 
    referred to that committee and to the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce in this Congress, the Chair would point out that 
    committee jurisdiction is not the sole or exclusive test of 
    germaneness.

        The Chair would call the attention of the Committee to 
    extensive precedent contained in Cannon's volume VIII, section 
    2941, which the Chair has already cited, where an amendment germane 
    to an existing law was held germane to a bill proposing its 
    reenactment. The Chair feels that this precedent is especially 
    pertinent in the limited context where, as here, the pending bill 
    proposes to extend the existence of an organizational entity which 
    would otherwise be terminated by failure to reenact the law.
        In such a situation, the proper test of germaneness is the 
    relationship between the basic law being reenacted and the 
    amendment, and not merely the relationship between the pending bill 
    and the amendment.
        It is important to note that the law being extended was itself 
    an extensive reorganization of various executive branch energy-
    related functions. Not only did Public Law 93-275 transfer several 
    functions from the Interior Department and the Cost of Living 
    Council to the FEA, but that law also authorized the Administrator 
    of FEA to perform all functions subsequently delegated to him by 
    Congress or by the President pursuant to other law. Section 28 of 
    that law provides that upon its termination, which would result if 
    the pending bill is not enacted, all functions exercised by FEA 
    would revert to the department or agency from which they were 
    originally transferred.
        It appears to the Chair, from an examination of the committee 
    report, that all of the functions which the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute proposes to abolish or to transfer are being 
    extended and authorized by the committee bill.
        Since the basic law which created the FEA is before the 
    committee for germane modification, since changes in that law 
    relating to the delegation of authority to perform functions from 
    or to the FEA are germane to that law, and since the pending 
    committee bill authorizes the FEA to perform all of the functions 
    which the amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish or 
    transfer, the Chair holds that the amendment is germane to the 
    committee proposal and overrules the point of order.

[[Page 7832]]

Energy Conservation: Different Classes of Tax Incentives

Sec. 6.11 To a title of a bill containing several taxes and tax credits 
    and having energy conservation as its fundamental purpose, amended 
    to include a section imposing a civil penalty on fuel-inefficient 
    cars, an amendment repealing the oil depletion tax credit in order 
    to increase federal revenues and to discourage petroleum production 
    was held not to fall within the class of energy conservation 
    provisions in that title and was ruled out as not germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Conversion Act 
of 1975 (5) in the Committee of the Whole on June 13, 
1975,(6) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 6860.
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 18817, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gibbons:

        Sec. --. Repeal of Percentage Depletion on Oil and Gas Royalty 
                                    Income.

            (a) Subsection (d) of section 613A of the Internal Revenue 
        Code of 1954 (relating to persons entitled to percentage 
        depletion on 2,000 barrels of oil per day) is amended by adding 
        at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Royalty Income Excluded.--Subsection (c) shall not 
        apply to income derived from a nonoperating mineral interest as 
        defined in section 614. In applying such definition for 
        purposes of this paragraph, the taxpayer's share of the costs 
        of production of the oil or gas shall be treated as zero if his 
        percentage share of such costs is substantially less than his 
        percentage share of the production.''. . .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, the subject of a 
    depletion allowance is very definitely not germane to either this 
    title or to the bill. There is nothing in this title that in any 
    way relates to that section of the code. There is nothing in this 
    title that in any way relates to the kind of tax treatment the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) refers to in his amendment.
        This is a title that deals with tax credits. The depletion 
    allowance is not a tax credit. This title deals with fuel 
    conservation, and the depletion allowance is not a conservation 
    matter.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Gibbons) is not germane to either this title or to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Gibbons: . . . Mr. Chairman, let me point out that this 
    bill deals with taxes, it deals with tax credits, it deals with tax 
    deductions, it deals with all kinds of tax matters. It is 
    intimately infected with the oil and gas problem, and this 
    amendment deals with that oil and gas problem. It deals with 
    conservation of fuel. This amendment would have the effect of pro

[[Page 7833]]

    moting conservation because the royalty owner would not be taxed 
    through a tax subsidy when the royalty is granted. For these 
    reasons I think the amendment is germane to the bill.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) well knows, under 
    the rule governing the consideration of amendments to this bill, 
    any amendment, of course, must be germane to the pending title. 
    Here we have title III and, as the gentleman well knows, in this 
    title the bill deals with tax credits and other matters, but not 
    depletion allowance matters.
        This is not a tax, or the same kind of tax, as those contained 
    in the pending title, and since it is not a tax designed to 
    accomplish the same purpose as those in this title and is not of 
    the same class as those contained in the pending title, the Chair 
    must sustain the point of order, and the point of order is 
    sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rule providing for the consideration of 
the bill specified that only amendments which had been printed in the 
Record could be offered. While the amendment was printed in the Record, 
it was printed as an amendment to title V, not title III, and would 
therefore have been subject to a point of order on that ground.

Energy Conservation: Rebates to Purchasers in Lieu of Regulatory 
    Measure To Promote Fuel Efficient Automobiles

Sec. 6.12 To an amendment designed to accomplish a result by one 
    method, an amendment thereto designed to accomplish a related 
    result but by a different and unrelated method is not germane; 
    thus, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a title of 
    a bill designed to conserve energy through the imposition of civil 
    penalties on manufacturers of low miles-per-gallon autos, an 
    amendment thereto designed to conserve energy through tax rebates 
    to purchasers of high miles-per-gallon autos was ruled out as not 
    germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Conversion Act 
of 1975 (8) in the Committee of the Whole on June 12, 
1975,(9) Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, sustained 
a point of order and ruled that the following amendment was not 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 6860.
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 18695, 18698, 18701, 18702, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 7834]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sharp: Page 58, strike out line 4 
        and all that follows down through line 20 on page 71 and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following: . . .
            (b)(1)(A) Any manufacturer who the Secretary determines 
        under subsection (a) to have violated a provision of section 
        302(a)(1) of this Act, shall be liable [for a] civil penalty 
        equal to [a specified amount] per gallon by which the average 
        fuel economy of the automobile manufactured by such 
        manufacturer during such model year is exceeded by the 
        applicable average fuel economy standard established under 
        section 302(a)(1) of this Act, multiplied by (ii) the total 
        number of automobiles manufactured by such manufacturer during 
        such model year. Such penalty shall be assessed by the 
        Secretary and collected in a civil action brought by the 
        Attorney General. . . .
            (2) Any person who the Secretary determines after 
        opportunity for presentation of data, views, and arguments to 
        have violated a provision of section 305 of this Act, other 
        than paragraph (1) thereof, shall be liable to the United 
        States for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each 
        violation; each day of a continuing violation constituting a 
        separate violation. . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ottinger to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Sharp: Page 24, after line 5, insert the following:

                rebate for fuel efficient passenger automobiles

            Sec. 308. (a) The Secretary, in accordance with rules he 
        shall prescribe, shall pay to each person a rebate with respect 
        to each domestically manufactured passenger automobile which is 
        purchased by such person after August 31, 1976, determined in 
        accordance with the following table:
            (1) In the case of a 1976 model year passenger automobile:
            [If the fuel economy rate is at least 21.5 but less than 
        26.5, the rebate is $100; if the fuel economy rate is at least 
        26.5, the rebate is $200.]
            (c) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums 
        as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, in the first place 
    this amendment is not germane to the Sharp amendment. Under the 
    special rule, only germane amendments to the Sharp amendment would 
    be in order. This is not germane.

        Second, Mr. Chairman, it violates our international GATT 
    obligations and treaties.
        Third, it violates the budget authority under Public Law 93-344 
    which says that it shall not be in order in either the House or 
    Senate to consider any bill or resolution which provides new 
    spending authority, described in section (c)(2)(c), ``Or any 
    amendment which provides such new spending authority which is to 
    become effective before the first day of the fiscal year or of the 
    calendar year in which the resolution was reported.''
        For those reasons, I insist on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . Under the rule, Mr. 
    Chairman, the only amendments which are germane to the Sharp 
    amendment are in order at this time. The reading of the amendment 
    makes it very clear that the amendment directs, and I quote:

[[Page 7835]]

            The secretary shall pay to each person a rebate with 
        respect to each domestically manufactured passenger automobile 
        which is purchased by such person after August 31, 1976, 
        allowed in accordance with the following table:

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment fails on three grounds. It is, 
    first of all, essentially an appropriation, because there is 
    nowhere in there authorization for the expenditure of money--simply 
    a direction to the Secretary to pay money. This, therefore, 
    constitutes an appropriation of funds, and as such, constitutes an 
    amendment which would direct an appropriation and an expenditure of 
    money without a piece of legislation.
        Mr. Chairman, it fails in two other particulars to meet the 
    requirements of the rules of germaneness.
        First of all, in an amendment that sets up standards of 
    automobile efficiency and civil penalties, this would add a 
    direction to pay money. Obviously, that is not the type of 
    amendment or legislation which might be anticipated by Members. So 
    it fails the second test.
        Third, Mr. Chairman, it is a proposal which would logically 
    have gone to the Committee on Appropriations, as opposed to having 
    come to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which 
    would have had jurisdiction over the Sharp amendment, or to the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over the main 
    piece of legislation.
        As such, it fails the test of notice to the membership, which 
    is one of the inherent tests of germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Ottinger: . . . I do think the amendment is germane. In 
    point of fact, a very similar amendment was offered in the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and it was found to 
    be germane. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Michigan . . . 
    in his original bill, had such a provision in the bill. I do not 
    think the gentleman will deny it.
        Mr. Chairman, this specifically contemplates authorization. It 
    is not an appropriation. It says there shall be authorized to spend 
    such money as may be appropriated.
        With respect to the budget resolution, I understand there is 
    nothing to prohibit offering such and the House adopting a new 
    provision which goes above the budget, but we have to make 
    adjustments like that.
        So I would ask that the various points of order be overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The question involved pertains to the germaneness of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ottinger).
        In Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 6.2, we find the 
    following provision:

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

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Ottinger) provides for a rebate to the purchaser. This amendment 
    approaches the issue in a way completely unrelated to the Sharp 
    amendment, which imposes a civil penalty upon the manufacturer.
        Therefore, the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane. 
    The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 7836]]

Bill To Promote Conversion From Petroleum to Coal as Energy Source--
    Amendment To Provide Government Aid to Private Industry for 
    Construction of Facilities for Liquefaction of Coal

Sec. 6.13 To a bill designed to increase supplies of fossil fuels, and 
    increase the use of domestic energy supplies other than petroleum 
    through conversion to coal, and containing an entire title dealing 
    with industrial conversion from oil and gas to coal, an amendment 
    adding a new title providing government loans and other assistance 
    to private industry for the construction and operation of 
    facilities for the liquefaction and gasification of coal was held 
    germane as within the scope of the bill.

    On Sept. 18, 1975,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 
(H.R. 7014), an amendment was offered to add a new title to the bill to 
which a point of order was raised and overruled. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 29338-41, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the form of a new title to title VIII.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Carter: On page 356, line 6, 
        insert the following new Title and renumber subsequent Titles 
        accordingly:

           TITLE VIII--COAL GASIFICATION AND LIQUEFACTION DEVELOPMENT

            Sec. 801. (a) The Administrator shall establish a program 
        of assistance to private industry for the construction and 
        operation of one or more facilities for the liquefaction and 
        gasification of coal. In order to effectuate such program, the 
        Administrator may make loans and issue guarantees to any person 
        for the purpose of engaging in the commercial operation of 
        facilities designed for the liquefaction or gasification of 
        coal.
            (b)(1) For the purpose of making loans or issuing 
        guarantees under this section, the Administrator shall consider 
        (A) the technology to be used by the person to whom the loan or 
        guarantee is made or issued, (B) the production expected, (C) 
        reasonable prospect for repayment of the loans. . . .
            Sec. 802. (a) The Administrator is authorized. . . .
            (3) Each lease shall further provide that the lessee shall 
        have options to purchase the facilities at any time within ten 
        years after the date of the respective lease at a price to be 
        agreed upon by the parties. Each option shall be conditioned, 
        however, upon the right of the Administrator within the ten-
        year term to offer the facilities for sale at public auction 
        and the lessee shall be entitled to purchase the facilities if 
        he meets the highest bona fide offer in excess of the agreed 
        option price. In order that an offer may be considered bona

[[Page 7837]]

        fide, it shall be offered by a bidder who shall have been 
        determined by the Administrator to be financially and 
        technically qualified to purchase and operate the facilities. . 
        . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        The point of order is as follows: A reading of the amendment 
    will show that under subsection 801(a), it would authorize a very 
    large program of loans and grants for the construction and 
    operation of facilities for the liquefaction and gasification of 
    coal.
        Nowhere else in the bill are there loans and grants, and 
    nowhere else in the bill are there provisions for that kind of 
    stimulus for the construction of facilities for the liquefaction or 
    gasification of coal.
        In addition to these loans and guarantees, the Administrator is 
    vested with authority to guarantee performance of contracts of 
    persons receiving loans from the administration for the purchase, 
    construction, and acquisition of equipment and supplies necessary 
    to construct and operate such a facility. This again, Mr. Chairman, 
    is not within the purview of the bill.
        In addition to this, construction plans and construction of 
    facilities, further down under (d)(2), could be financed in whole 
    or in part, including exploration and development.
        In addition to this, the possibility of exemptions and 
    exceptions from the air and water pollution laws are included under 
    (c)(2)(d), or, rather, under paragraph (d).
        To go along further, by no stretch of the imagination could my 
    colleagues be anticipated to anticipate an amendment of this kind 
    and character coming to this bill and relating to the air and water 
    pollution laws. Indeed the language is sufficiently broad to make 
    this exempt from State statutes, as well as from Federal statutes, 
    and that is a matter clearly not before the committee at this 
    particular time. Then we have the question of compliance with 
    Federal and State air pollution laws. . . .
        In addition to this, under section 802(a)(3), the amendment 
    provides for acquisition of private interests in all such 
    facilities as may have heretofore been constructed or acquired 
    relating to gasification of coal and other types of energy uses. 
    Again this goes far beyond the scope and sweep of the bill before 
    the committee.
        Again, under section 802(b)(1), these facilities could then be 
    leased or rented under conditions and terms as agreed on by and 
    between the parties, apparently without regard to existing Federal 
    statutes relating to the sale, leasing, or disposal of real estate, 
    and that is a matter which is under the jurisdiction of other 
    committees and which is the subject of control under other statutes 
    not presently before the House and not mentioned or alluded to in 
    the provisions of H.R. 7014 now before the committee. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: As much as I am reluctant to 
    do so, I would have to suggest to the chairman of the subcommittee 
    that I think that the gentleman's amendment is germane.
        I would like to cite the provisions of the purposes of the act, 
    section 102. Item (3) in that section says, ``to in

[[Page 7838]]

    crease the supply of fossil fuels in the United States, through 
    price incentives and production requirements.''
        The gentleman's amendment squares, it seems to me, specifically 
    with that. As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carter) has pointed 
    out, item (6) says ``to increase the use of domestic energy 
    supplies other than petroleum products and natural gas through 
    conversion to the use of coal.''
        This would certainly encourage the use of coal.
        Section 606 in the bill provides similar incentives to those 
    provided by the amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
    Carter) for coal mines. Pollution requirements would not be 
    overridden by the legislation or the legislative modification of 
    the gentleman from Kentucky unless specified, that is, those 
    existing pollution requirements would not be overridden unless they 
    were specified in the amendment, and they are not specified in the 
    amendment. They would, therefore, continue to apply.
        It seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky specifically does encourage the development and use of 
    additional fossil fuels by the various provisions in his amendment 
    and that those provisions are in the bill and have been added by 
    other amendments, and, therefore, would be germane to this 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For substantially the reasons just outlined by the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and in view of the fact that title III has 
    several provisions going to the general issue of maximizing 
    availability of energy supplies, including coal, and, as pointed 
    out, title VI encourages industrial conversion from oil and gas to 
    coal, for example, by a similar loan guarantee mechanism as 
    proposed in the amendment, the Chair finds that the amendment 
    inserting a new title is germane to the bill under consideration 
    and overrules the point of order.

Agricultural Credit: Reappropriation in Lieu of New Budget Authority

Sec. 6.14 It is not germane to change a direct appropriation of new 
    budget authority from the general fund of the Treasury into a 
    reappropriation (in effect a rescission) of funds previously 
    appropriated for an entirely different purpose in a special reserve 
    account; thus, to a bill providing new budget authority for 
    emergency agricultural credit, an amendment contained in a motion 
    to recommit with instructions to provide, in lieu of that new 
    budget authority, for a transfer of unexpended balances of funds 
    previously appropriated for a totally unrelated purpose was held to 
    be not germane.

[[Page 7839]]

    On Feb. 28, 1985,(12) during consideration of H.R. 1189 
(13) in the House, Speaker Pro Tempore Alan D. Wheat, of 
Missouri, sustained a point of order against a motion to recommit the 
bill with instructions to the committee of jurisdiction. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 131 Cong. Rec. 4133, 4134, 4146, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Emergency Farm Credit Appropriation, fiscal 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.R. 1189

        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 ``Emergency Agricultural Credit Appropriations 
    Act''.

                         DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                        Farmers Home Administration

                     agricultural credit insurance fund

        For an additional amount for guaranteed loans under this fund 
    in accordance with and subject to the provisions of 7 U.S.C. 1928-
    1929, $1,000,000,000, which shall be in addition to the 
    $150,000,000 provided in Public Law 98-396 and the $500,000,000 
    made available by Public Law 98-473. Such funds shall be available 
    in order that farm producers may obtain the necessary financing for 
    calendar 1985 operations. Such funds shall be used to prevent 
    foreclosure of farm loans through extending the period of repayment 
    of existing loans and the reduction in rate of interest. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1189, to the 
        Committee on Appropriations, with instructions to that 
        committee to report the bill back to the House forthwith, with 
        the following amendment.
            On page 2, in line 10, after ``$1,000,000,000,'' insert 
        ``to be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the 
        Energy Security Reserve.''.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions in 
    that it attempts to propose as instructions, language which would 
    not have been in order directly as an amendment during the reading 
    of the bill. The instructions include what is in effect a 
    rescission which was not considered by the House and which would 
    have violated clause 7 of rule XVI if there had been a reading of 
    the bill for amendment.
        The bill under consideration provides supplemental 
    appropriations for fiscal year 1985. The gentleman's instructions 
    would rescind funds appropriated in fiscal year 1980 for the 
    Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a matter clearly not related to this 
    bill.
        Mr. Speaker, because the motion contains language not in order 
    during consideration of the bill in the House, I believe it 
    violates the germaneness rule of the House. I ask for a ruling of 
    the Chair. . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    point of order should be overruled. An amendment in a motion to 
    recommit with instructions

[[Page 7840]]

    must be germane to the bill as a whole. Although the amendment does 
    affect previously appropriated funds, so do several provisions of 
    the bill itself.
        On page 2, in lines 15 through 18, there is language that 
    provides that funds in the bill ``shall be used to prevent 
    foreclosure of farm loans through extending the period of repayment 
    of existing loans.'' This language directly affects loans 
    guaranteed with funds under existing law.
        On page 3, in lines 2 through 14, there is language which 
    provides for ``review of FATM loans,'' and ``deferral of principal 
    and interest and the foregoing of foreclosure.'' This language 
    directly affects loans held by the Farmers Home Administration.
        On page 4, in lines 2 through 5, there is language directing 
    the administrator of the Small Business Administration to use loan 
    guarantee authority to restructure existing loans.
        Taken as a whole, the bill clearly affects the use of 
    previously appropriated funds and authority. My amendment, which 
    also affects previously appropriated funds, is germane, and 
    therefore I ask the Chair to overrule the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Mississippi makes the point of order that 
    the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Conte) is not germane to the bill H.R. 1189. The bill reported 
    from the Committee on Appropriations provides only new budget 
    authority for emergency agricultural credit. The bill does not 
    directly transfer or reappropriate any unexpended balances of 
    appropriations nor does it rescind previously appropriated funds.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the effect of the motion to 
    recommit is to decrease sums already appropriated for a program--
    Synfuels payments for future defaults on loans guaranteed pursuant 
    to the Energy Security Act--totally unrelated to the program under 
    consideration--farm credit--and to convert into immediate budget 
    outlays obligational authority which was not intended to represent 
    any outlays except in the event of a future default. The amendment 
    in the motion to recommit has the effect of transferring the 
    original appropriation for Synfuels loan guarantees, a proposition 
    not contemplated in the bill reported from the Committee on 
    Appropriations. The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The pending bill was not a general 
appropriation to which clause 6 of Rule XXI would apply. Otherwise, the 
amendment would clearly have been a reappropriation in violation of 
that rule.

Bill Authorizing Agricultural Loans To Encourage Farm Ownership--
    Amendment Directing Federal Land Banks To Transfer Designated 
    Property for Resale

Sec. 6.15 To a bill authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to make 
    loans for the purpose of enabling certain persons to acquire farms, 
    an amend

[[Page 7841]]

    ment directing the federal land banks to transfer designated real 
    property to the Secretary of the Treasury for purposes of resale 
    was held to be not germane.

    On June 29, 1937,(14) the House was considering a bill 
designed to encourage and promote ownership of farm homes. An amendment 
was offered (15) directing the transfer of certain land 
owned by the federal land banks, for purposes of resale by the 
Secretary of Agriculture. The germaneness of the amendment was 
discussed in the following exchange: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 81 Cong. Rec. 6574-79, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 7562 (Committee on Agriculture).
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 6577, 6578, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1937.
16. Id. at p. 6578.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . . It would authorize 
    acquiring land from the Federal land banks and the trading of stock 
    in the banks. These are not involved in this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Otha D.] Wearin [of Iowa]: . . . I desire to call the 
    attention of the Chair to the enacting clause of this bill, which 
    specifies that it is an act to encourage and promote ownership of 
    farm homes. It can be seen that the enacting clause itself, 
    therefore, does not set out that this proposed act provides 
    exclusively for loans. It says it is a provision to encourage and 
    promote the ownership of farm lands, which is precisely what my 
    amendment does.
        The Chairman [William J. Driver, of Arkansas]: . . . It is true 
    that this amendment seems to direct the thought to the same 
    purpose, the acquisition of land for the purpose of placing the 
    same in the hands of tenants, sharecroppers, and so forth, for the 
    purpose of providing farm homes for that class of citizens; but 
    there is a very distinct difference in the provision for the 
    acquisition of such homes under the terms of this amendment and the 
    provisions of the bill. One is the purchase of a home direct by the 
    tenant and the furnishing of the money by the Secretary of 
    Agriculture for the purpose of enabling him to acquire the title. 
    In this amendment, however, new machinery is set up for the purpose 
    of operating with property that was not considered at all in the 
    bill under consideration. New machinery is brought into life and 
    authorized to operate in connection with the use of properties 
    owned by a separate and distinct agency of the Government.
        The Chair, therefore, is of the opinion that this amendment is 
    not germane to the provisions of the bill under consideration. . . 
    .

Proposition and Amendment as Stating Different Formulas for Acreage 
    Reserve Programs and Affecting Different Feed Grains

Sec. 6.16 To a proposition stating a formula for establishing a minimum 
    acreage allotment

[[Page 7842]]

    for corn and relating to acreage reserve programs for diverted 
    acres and for feed grains, an amendment providing another formula 
    for acreage reserves and containing provisions as to other feed 
    grains was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill was under consideration which sought 
to establish a minimum acreage allotment for corn and to provide 
acreage reserve programs for diverted acres and for feed grains. An 
amendment was also pending which provided an alternative formula for 
establishing a minimum acreage allotment for corn and containing 
provisions relating to acreage reserve programs for diverted acres. To 
such amendment, which was in the nature of a substitute, the following 
amendment was offered:(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 103 Cong. Rec. 3580, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 13, 1957. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 4901 (Committee on Agriculture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas] to the 
    substitute offered by Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: 
    At the end of the pending amendment add the following new section:
        Sec. 2. Section 103(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1956 is 
    amended to read as follows:
        (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in addition to 
    all other programs authorized by this act, the Secretary is 
    authorized and directed to formulate and carry out an acreage-
    reserve program for 1957 for acreage diverted from the production 
    of each of the commodities specified in subsection (a) of this 
    section except corn produced in the commercial corn-producing area. 
    Individual farms may participate in such acreage-reserve program 
    for diverted acres up to (a specified acreage). . . . For purposes 
    of this subsection the measure of feed grain acreage on the farm 
    shall be the average acreage planted in the 3 most recent years, 
    adjusted for unusual weather conditions, to the following crops for 
    harvest as grain: Corn produced outside the commercial corn-
    producing area, wheat produced on farms to which marketing quotas 
    are not applicable, grain sorghums, barley, rye, and oats.

    The following point of order was raised against such amendment:

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the Poage amendment for the reason that it 
    introduces matter not covered in the amendment which it seeks to 
    amend. The amendment as offered deals only with corn as one 
    commodity. The gentleman's amendment to that seeks to broaden that 
    to include feed grain.

    The proponent of the amendment defended the amendment as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 3580, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 13, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: . . . The Harrison (19) amendment has for 
    its purpose the

[[Page 7843]]

    control of excess corn. . . . The Poage amendment adopts another 
    means of controlling the excess supply of corn. Since they are both 
    directed at achieving the same result, I submit the amendment is in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Some confusion arose from the fact that the Poage amendment, while 
        intended as an amendment to the Harrison amendment, was 
        actually offered as an amendment to the Cooley amendment, which 
        was itself a substitute for the Harrison amendment. Mr. Poage 
        subsequently reintroduced his amendment as an amendment to the 
        Harrison amendment (see 103 Cong. Rec. 3581, 85th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Mar. 13, 1957).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In overruling the point of order, the Chairman (20) 
stated: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Lawrence Brooks Hays (Ark.).
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 3581, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 13, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question touches the germaneness of the formula or plan 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Poage] as an amendment to 
    the plan offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Cooley]. 
    As the gentleman from Texas says, it is related to the corn 
    program. It differs as to method, and since it differs as to method 
    and not in substance, it is related to the purposes of the 
    legislation, and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill Regulating Marketing of Agricultural Products--Amendment To Fix 
    Prices After Determinations Made by Secretary of Agriculture

Sec. 6.17 To a bill regulating the marketing of domestically produced 
    farm products, an amendment in the nature of a substitute providing 
    for certain guaranteed payments by dealers, manufacturers, and 
    others to the producers of agricultural products was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a bill regulating the 
marketing of farm products, a substitute amendment was offered which 
provided that the Secretary of Agriculture should determine the cost of 
production of agricultural products, and that such determination should 
furnish the basis for payments to be made by dealers to the producers 
of such products. In the course of ruling that the amendment was not 
germane, the Chairman (2) described the provisions of the 
bill and the substitute as follows: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
 3. 82 Cong. Rec. 1284, 1285, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 10, 1937. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8505 (Committee on Agriculture).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration is a bill to regulate the 
    marketing of domestically produced farm products.
        The substitute . . . provides among other things, that the 
    Secretary of Agriculture shall determine the costs of production of 
    such agricultural products and shall issue a proclamation to that 
    effect.
        It further provides that after that proclamation has been 
    issued all deal

[[Page 7844]]

    ers, manufacturers, millers, elevator operators, processors, [and 
    the like] shall pay to the producers of such agricultural products 
    not less than such average costs of production price. . . .
        There is also a provision . . . dealing with tariff 
    adjustments, something entirely foreign to the bill now under 
    consideration. . . .

    The Chair, citing precedent, (4) indicated that, while 
the purpose of both the bill and the amendment was farm relief, the 
wide difference in the methods of approach of the two rendered the 
amendment improper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the ruling of Speaker Henry T. Rainey (Ill.), cited in 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agriculture: Tariff and Import Restriction in Lieu of Domestic Price 
    Supports

Sec. 6.18 To a proposal to provide financial assistance to domestic 
    agriculture through a system of price support payments, an 
    amendment seeking to protect that segment of domestic agriculture 
    by restricting imports in competition therewith is not germane, 
    since seeking to accomplish a purpose by an unrelated method within 
    the jurisdiction of another committee.

    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.

Proposition To Permit Transfer of Certain Federal Timberlands in 
    Exchange for Timberlands Acquired From Private Owners--Amendment 
    Permitting Transfer of Timber Rights Only

Sec. 6.19 To a proposition relating to compensation, in the form of 
    transfers of certain federal timberlands, to be given to private 
    owners in exchange for timberlands acquired by the government for 
    public use, an amendment imposing restrictions on such exchanges 
    was held to be germane.

    On Feb. 17, 1954, the following proposition was under 
consideration: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 100 Cong. Rec. 1925, 1926, 83d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 4646 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That whenever the United States finds it necessary to acquire 
    for any public use timberlands which are being operated as part of 
    a forest area to provide a sustained yield of timber for processing 
    purposes . . . [the agency concerned] shall . . . provide that . . 
    . federally owned lands situated within the same community area . . 
    . shall be transferred to the owners of the pri

[[Page 7845]]

    vate lands acquired if said owners so elect, as compensation pro 
    tanto for the lands taken. . . .

    The following amendment was offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 100 Cong. Rec. 1928, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        And provided further, That title to the lands involved shall 
    not be transferred, and that it shall be determined that such 
    exchange of timber will not impair the efficient administration or 
    operation of the overall unit of land on which the exchanged timber 
    is situated.

    Mr. Wesley A. D'Ewart, of Montana, made a point of order against 
the amendment on the ground that it was not germane. In support of the 
point of order, he stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment reads in the first phrase, ``title 
    to the land involved shall not be transferred.'' The whole purpose 
    of the legislation is to transfer title. Therefore, this amendment 
    is contrary to the whole purpose of the bill.

    The proponent of the amendment stated in reply:

        As far as the amendment not being germane is concerned, the 
    bill involves the transfer of timber rights; not the transfer of 
    title. I think this amendment only secures to the Forest Service 
    and to the Government the proposition that title shall remain in 
    the Government, and the timber rights shall be preserved, which is 
    the purpose of H.R. 4646 and is the stated purpose of the 
    legislation.

    In disposing of the point of order, the Chairman (7) 
stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Alvin E. O'Konski (Wis.).
 8. 100 Cong. Rec. 1928, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. The committee amendment provides 
    that whenever the United States finds it necessary to acquire 
    timberlands being operated as part of a unit to provide a sustained 
    yield for processing purposes, the private owners from whom such 
    lands are acquired may under certain conditions elect to be 
    compensated therefor by exchange of other federally owned 
    timberlands, and certain limitations are imposed upon such 
    exchanges.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Montana seems to have the 
    same objective but it provides somewhat different and additional 
    conditions upon such exchanges.
        . . . [T]o a proposition to accomplish a certain purpose by one 
    method a proposition to achieve the same purpose by another closely 
    related method is germane.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Montana falls into this category and, therefore, overrules the 
    point of order.

Wage and Price Stabilization: Replacing Advisory Function With Mandated 
    Prices

Sec. 6.20 To a bill extending executive authorities which are advisory 
    and informational in nature, an amendment to confer direct 
    mandatory au

[[Page 7846]]

    thority on an executive official belongs to another class and is 
    not germane; thus, to a bill extending the advisory and 
    informational authority of the Council on Wage and Price Stability 
    to encourage voluntary programs to resist inflation, an amendment 
    directing the President to issue orders and regulations stabilizing 
    economic transfers including wages and prices was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 2283 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Mar. 20, 1979,(9) the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 125 Cong. Rec. 5549, 5550, 5562-64, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 2283

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 6 of the Council on Wage and Price Stability Act is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 6. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry 
        out the provisions of this Act not to exceed--
            ``(1) $6,952,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1979, which shall remain available until expended;
            ``(2) $8,483,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1980; and
            ``(3) $8,483,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1981.''.

        The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will report the 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Butler Derrick (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: On page 2, strike out lines 1 and 2 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            That section 3(a) of the Council on Wage and Price 
        Stability Act is amended . . .
            (3) by adding at the end thereof the following:
            (10) hold regional hearings on the Council's standards, 
        regulations, and other major actions which affect general 
        consumer interests; and
            (11) enlist voluntary individual and group participation 
        from the public to help monitor the performance of the 
        Council's anti-inflationary programs. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton: On page 3 at the end of 
        line 5 insert the following new section:
            Sec. 4. (a) Strike out section 3(b) of the Council on Wage 
        and Price Stability Act.
            (b) Insert in the Council on Wage and Price Stability Act a 
        new section 4 as follows:
            Sec. 4(a). Presidential Authority.--Within sixty days of 
        the date of enactment of this Act the President shall issue 
        such orders and regulations as he may deem appropriate to 
        stabilize prices, rents, wages, salaries, profits, dividends, 
        interest rates, and other comparable economic transfers at 
        levels not less than those prevailing on October 1, 1978. Such 
        orders and regulations shall provide for--
            (1) the making of such adjustments, as may be necessary to 
        prevent gross inequities;

[[Page 7847]]

            (2) wage and salary increases or adjustments, after October 
        1, 1978, based on the application of cost of living and 
        productivity formulas. . . .
            (b) Delegation.--The President may delegate the performance 
        of any function under this Act to the Council.
            (c) Penalty.--Whoever willfully violates any order or 
        regulation under this Act shall be fined not more than $5,000. 
        . . .
            (e) Expiration.--The authority to issue and enforce orders 
        and regulations under this Act expires at midnight September 
        30, 1983, or upon any earlier date provided in a concurrent 
        resolution of the Congress. . . .
            Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I 
        make a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
        gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) for two reasons.

        First. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Stratton) which seeks to strike down section 3(b) of the 
    original act, is well beyond the fundamental purpose of this act, 
    which is the gathering of information and voluntary programs to 
    fight inflation. Certainly the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Stratton), which is a mandatory program, is 
    outside of such fundamental purpose of the act.
        Second. If the amendment is adopted, it will establish a 
    precedent which allows amendments striking limiting language, such 
    as section 3(b) of the original act, and then inserting language of 
    an entirely different scope, of a much broader application, and 
    allowing, once limiting language is stricken, the broadening of the 
    scope which would put a chilling effect on all attempts by the 
    Congress to insert limiting sections, specifically in a particular 
    law. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    speak on the point of order.
        I would also point out that in addition to the argument offered 
    by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the scope of the amendment is 
    so broad that it goes well beyond the particular authorities that 
    the present statute, Public Law 93-387, contains, and is therefore 
    nongermane. First of all, the present statute allows the President 
    to establish the Council which is the subject of this legislation. 
    The gentleman's amendment shifts the power completely to the 
    President, who may or may not under his amendment place this power 
    in this or any other agency of Government, as appears on the second 
    page of his amendment.
        Furthermore, it permits the President to delegate to any 
    officials or departments the powers his amendment suggests, which 
    goes beyond the scope of the current law, and also provides for 
    criminal penalties and injunctions upon application to the district 
    court, none of which is in the present law and is beyond its scope.
        It also sets up an expiration date, which the present law does 
    not contain. So, in many specifics, it is well beyond the scope of 
    the present act, and nongermane for that reason. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: . . . This is a bill to amend the Council on Wage 
    and Price Stability and to extend the authority granted by such 
    act. My bill is designed to provide a method whereby the Council on 
    Wage and Price Stability can achieve this price and wage

[[Page 7848]]

    stability within the period determined by the original act. 
    Therefore, in my judgment it simply represents an additional duty 
    imposed on the Council which will perhaps enable it to achieve the 
    objective that, so far, it has not achieved.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment, to be germane, must accomplish the purpose of 
    the bill by a closely related method to that in the bill.
        The amendment would amend section 3(b) of the Wage and Price 
    Stability Act. That subsection presently contains the disclaimer 
    that nothing in the basic act, which is being extended and amended 
    by the pending bill, should be construed to confer mandatory wage 
    and price control authority upon the Council or to affect separate 
    authorities under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act. In lieu 
    of that disclaimer, the pending amendment would confer upon the 
    President or Council mandatory wage and price control authorities.
        The authorities being extended by the pending bill are of a 
    readily definable class--they are all advisory or informational in 
    nature. On the other hand, the amendment confers authorities of a 
    different class--authorities which are mandatory in nature. For the 
    same reason that the Chair feels it would not be germane to impose 
    direct wage and price controls on specified levels of income or 
    commodities as an amendment to this bill, it is not in order to 
    confer direct mandatory authority upon an executive official to 
    impose such controls.
        On June 19, 1952, Chairman Mills held not germane to a bill 
    extending authority in law to settle labor disputes by negotiation 
    and collective bargaining, an amendment to the same law empowering 
    the President to take possession of plants closed by work 
    stoppages.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    A similar amendment, but one which ``authorized'' rather than 
directed the President to issue orders and regulations stabilizing 
economic transfers, was offered on Mar. 21, 1979, and ruled out of 
order as not germane: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 125 Cong. Rec. 5779-82, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Weiss: Page 3, insert after line 5 the 
    following:
        Sec. 5. (a) Section 3(b) of the Council on Wage and Price 
    Stability Act is amended by striking out ``Nothing in this Act'' 
    and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as provided in section 8, 
    nothing in this Act''.
        (b) Such Act is amended by adding after section 7 the following 
    new section:

                          ``presidential authority

        ``Sec. 8. (a) The President is authorized to issue such orders 
    and regulations as he may deem appropriate to stabilize prices, 
    rents, wages, and salaries at levels not less than those prevailing 
    on January 1, 1979, and to stabilize interest rates and corporate 
    dividends and similar transfers at levels consistent with orderly 
    economic growth. Such orders and regulations may provide for the 
    making of such ad

[[Page 7849]]

    justments as may be necessary to prevent gross inequities.
        ``(b) The President may delegate the performance of any 
    function under this section to the Council as he may deem 
    appropriate. . . .
        Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Weiss).
        I cite as precedent for that, because it is absolutely on all 
    fours with the prior ruling, the ruling of the present occupant of 
    the chair on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Stratton).
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Weiss), as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) has stated, 
    is very similar; I would say it is almost identical, and in fact 
    part of it seems to be merely a photocopy of the previous 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Ted] Weiss [of New York]: . . . What we have today is an 
    amendment to the Council on Wage and Price Stability. We are 
    talking about wage and price stability. We are talking about 
    inflation. What the amendment that I have offered seeks to do is to 
    provide an additional weapon, an additional basis, for dealing with 
    wage and price instability. Nothing could be more germane than what 
    we do, which is not to mandate, not to impose mandatory controls, 
    but simply to allow the President the standby authority to impose 
    it. It is discretionary, it is voluntary upon the part of the 
    President.
        I should say, even if that were not the case, Mr. Chairman--and 
    I now have before me in my hand the act itself--there is a 
    provision in the act which is anything but voluntary. What it says 
    is--and this is section 2(G)(1)--the Council shall have the 
    authority for any purpose relating to this act to require periodic 
    reports for the submission of information maintained in the course 
    of business. And then it goes on to say that they have the power to 
    issue subpenas. Then they go on to say that, in case of the refusal 
    to obey this section, or the subpena, that the Council may request 
    the Attorney General to seek the aid of the U.S. district court. 
    Now, that is not voluntary.
        So it seems to me that the premise that we have is a maze of 
    voluntary informational advisory provisions in the bill before us. 
    But what we are asking for is different, is totally erroneous, 
    because ours is no less voluntary than the act that it seeks to 
    amend and, secondly, because the (act) itself is not totally 
    voluntary. It has mandatory provisions. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The Chair believes that the underlying reasons cited in his 
    ruling yesterday, are applicable to the pending amendment in 
    determining its germaneness to H.R. 2283. The principle of 
    germaneness which the Chair enunciated yesterday, and which is 
    supported in many precedents contained in Deschler's, chapter 28, 
    section 6 and on page 532 of the House Rules and Manual, suggests 
    that to be germane, an amendment to accomplish the same result as 
    that sought to be accomplished by a pending bill must also suggest 
    a closely related method of accomplishing that result. The 
    precedent relied upon yesterday, when examined in the full context 
    of the entire Defense Production Act under consideration supports 
    the Chair's position.

[[Page 7850]]

        As a further example, to a proposition whose fundamental 
    purpose was registration and public disclosure by lobbyists, but 
    not regulation of the activities of lobbyists an amendment 
    prohibiting lobbying in certain places or placing monetary limits 
    on contributions by lobbyists was held not germane (Chairman 
    Bolling, September 28, 1976, cited on page 532 of the House Rules 
    and Manual). There, as here, the pending bill was limited in scope 
    to a proposition which established a mechanism for gathering and 
    distributing information relating to certain conduct, and the 
    amendment which was ruled out as not germane went beyond the scope 
    of the bill to directly regulate the activity or conduct in 
    question.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill To Establish Limitation on Salaries--Amendment To Permit 
    Stabilization of Salaries on Basis of Levels Existing at Specified 
    Time

Sec. 6.21 To a provision in a bill fixing a limitation on salaries, an 
    amendment seeking by another method to accomplish the same end was 
    held to be germane.

    On Mar. 11, 1943, the following proposition was being considered: 
(12)

        No action shall be taken under authorization of this act, or 
    otherwise, which will limit the payment of annual salaries to a 
    maximum amount less than the greater of the following:
        (1) The annual rate of salary paid to such employee on December 
    7, 1941; or
        (2) An amount which after reduction by the Federal income taxes 
    thereon would equal $25,000.

    An amendment was offered to the bill, as follows:(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 1891, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bertrand W.] Gearhart [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            . . . No provision of law heretofore enacted . . . shall be 
        held or considered to authorize a limitation, in terms of a 
        stated amount of money . . . of the aggregate amount which may 
        . . . be paid to . . . any individual as compensation for 
        personal services. . . . This section shall not prevent the 
        stabilization of wages or salaries on the basis of levels which 
        existed on any stated date between January 1, 1942, and 
        September 15, 1942.

    The following exchange related to a point of order made against the 
Gearhart amendment:(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [of Tennessee]: . . . The amendment is not 
    germane to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
    nor is it germane to the [bill]. It is broader in scope. It takes 
    in subject matter which is contained in neither the amendment nor 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. Gearhart: Mr. Chairman, I merely point out that the section 
    to

[[Page 7851]]

    which I offered my amendment is a section which fixes limitations 
    on salary earnings. The amendment I offer would also fix 
    limitations upon salary earnings. . . .
        The Chairman (Clifton A. Woodrum, of Virginia): The Chair 
    thinks that both the section in the bill and the amendment regulate 
    restrictions on salaries. The Chair is unable to see from reading 
    the amendment . . . that it is any broader in scope than the 
    section 4 in the bill and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Amendment Providing for Suspension of Ceiling Prices--Substitute 
    Amendment Stating Different Conditions for Suspension of Ceiling 
    Prices

Sec. 6.22 To an amendment providing for suspension of ceiling prices 
    under certain designated conditions, a substitute amendment 
    providing for suspension of ceiling prices under other, but 
    similar, designated conditions is germane.

    On June 20, 1952, a proposition was being considered which provided 
in part: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 7713, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 
        8210 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (5) The ceiling price for any material shall be suspended as 
    long as (1) the material is selling below the ceiling price and has 
    sold below that price for a period of 3 months; or (2) the material 
    is in adequate or surplus supply to meet current civilian and 
    military consumption and has been in such adequate or surplus 
    supply for a period of 3 months.

    To such proposition, a substitute amendment was 
offered:(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 98 Cong. Rec. 7718, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 20, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided however, That the ceiling price for any material, 
    which by its nature is not susceptible to speculative buying and 
    not more than 10 percent of which is purchased with Government 
    funds for defense purposes, shall be suspended as long as: (1) The 
    material is selling below the ceiling price and has sold below that 
    price for a period of 6 months; or (2) the material is in adequate 
    or surplus supply to meet current civilian and military consumption 
    and has been in such adequate or surplus supply for a period of 6 
    months, if such material requires expansion of productive 
    facilities beyond the levels needed to meet the civilian demand as 
    set forth in section 2 of this act.

    In response to a point of order raised against the substitute 
amendment, the Chairman (17) indicated that the amendment 
did not go beyond the purposes and scope of the legislation considered 
in committee, and held the substitute amendment to be 
germane.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 7718, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 20, 1952.

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

[[Page 7852]]

Bill Conferring Authority Upon Independent Board to Determine Minimum 
    Wages and Maximum Hours in Industry--Amendment Providing That 
    Determination Be Made by Division of Department of Labor--
    Substitute Amendment Specifically Setting Wages and Hours

Sec. 6.23 Where a bill concerned the determination of minimum wages and 
    maximum hours in industry by an independent board exercising broad 
    discretionary powers, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    which provided that such determination be made by a division newly 
    established in the Department of Labor was held to be germane; and 
    a further substitute amendment proposing to fix minimum wages and 
    maximum hours in specific terms without resort to the exercise of 
    discretion by any agency was held to be germane to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.

    On Dec. 15, 1937,(19) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration S. 2475, the Wages and Hours bill, which had as its 
purpose the elimination of substandard labor conditions in occupations 
in or affecting interstate commerce, through prohibition of interstate 
shipment of goods produced under such conditions, and through 
utilization of an independent board exercising broad discretionary 
powers with respect to the establishment of minimum wages and maximum 
hours in industry. An amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
offered which sought to establish a wages and hours division in the 
Department of Labor which was to exercise similar discretionary powers, 
within prescribed limits. A point of order against such amendment was 
overruled. A substitute amendment was then offered to such amendment 
for the purpose of fixing minimum wages and maximum hours in specific 
terms, rather than through the exercise of discretion by a government 
agency. The substitute amendment was held to be germane to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 82 Cong. Rec. 1572, 1580-94, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) . . . The Clerk will report the 
    Senate bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as the 
        Black-Connery Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.

[[Page 7853]]

         Part I--Legislative Declaration; Definations; Labor Standards 
                                     Board

                            legislative declaration

            Section 1. (a) The employment of workers under substandard 
        labor conditions in occupations in interstate commerce, in the 
        production of goods for interstate commerce, or otherwise 
        directly affecting interstate commerce (1) causes interstate 
        commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of interstate 
        commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate among the workers 
        of the several States conditions detrimental to the physical 
        and economic health, efficiency, and well-being of such workers 
        . . . (4) leads to labor disputes directly burdening and 
        obstructing interstate commerce and the free flow of goods in 
        interstate commerce; and (5) directly interferes with the 
        orderly and fair marketing of goods in interstate commerce.
            (b) The correction of such conditions directly affecting 
        interstate commerce requires that the Congress exercise its 
        legislative power to regulate commerce among the several States 
        by prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce of goods 
        produced under substandard labor conditions and by providing 
        for the elimination of substandard labor conditions in 
        occupations in and directly affecting interstate commerce. . . 
        .

                             labor standards board

            Sec. 3. (a) There is hereby created a Board, to be known as 
        the Labor Standards Board, which shall be composed of five 
        members who shall be appointed by the President by and with the 
        advice and consent of the Senate and in such appointment 
        industrial and geographic regions shall be given consideration. 
        The President shall from time to time designate one of the 
        members of the Board to act as chairman. . . .

                 Part II--Establishment of Fair Labor Standards

                 minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards . . .

            4(a) Whereas it is necessary for the development of 
        American commerce and the protection of American workers and 
        their families that substandard wages and hours be eliminated 
        from interstate industry and business . . .
            It is declared to be the policy of this Act to maintain, so 
        far as and as rapidly as is economically feasible, minimum-wage 
        and maximum-hour standards, at levels consistent with health, 
        efficiency, and general well-being of workers and the maximum 
        productivity and profitable operation of American business.

            (b) Having regard to such policy . . . the Board shall by 
        order from time to time declare . . . minimum wages which shall 
        be as nearly adequate as is economically feasible, without 
        curtailing opportunity for employment, to maintain a minimum 
        standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and 
        general well-being; Provided, That the Board's jurisdiction in 
        declaring minimum wages shall not include the power to declare 
        minimum wages in excess of 40 cents per hour, but higher 
        minimum wages fixed by collective bargaining or otherwise shall 
        be encouraged, it being the objective of this Act to raise the 
        existing wages in the lower-wage groups so as to attain as 
        rapidly as practicable a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour 
        without curtailing opportunities for employment and without 
        disturbance and dislocation of business and industry. . . .

        The Chairman: . . . The gentlewoman from New Jersey offers an 
    amendment, which the Clerk will report.

[[Page 7854]]

        The Clerk read as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 82 Cong. Rec. 1580, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Mary Teresa] Norton moves to strike out all after the 
    enacting clause down to and including all of section 1 of the bill 
    S. 2475 and insert in lieu thereof the following as a substitute 
    for the Senate bill:

            ``That this act may be cited as the Fair Labor Standards 
        Act of 1937.

         ``Part I--Legislative Declaration; Definitions; Wage and Hour 
                        Division of Department of Labor

                           ``legislative declaration

            ``Section 1. (a) The employment of workers under 
        substandard labor conditions in occupations in interstate 
        commerce, in the production of goods for interstate commerce, 
        or otherwise directly affecting interstate commerce (1) causes 
        interstate commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of 
        interstate commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate among 
        the workers of the several States conditions detrimental to the 
        physical and economic health, efficiency, and well-being of 
        such workers. . . .

                                 ``definitions

            ``Sec. 2. (a) As used in this act unless the context 
        otherwise requires--. . .
            ``(8) `Oppressive wage' means a wage lower than the 
        applicable minimum wage declared by order of the Administrator 
        under the provisions of section 4.
            ``(9) `Oppressive workweek' means a workweek (or workday) 
        longer than the applicable maximum workweek declared by order 
        of the Administrator under the provisions of section 4. . . .
            ``Sec. 3. (a) There is hereby created in the Department of 
        Labor a Wage and Hour Division which shall be under the 
        direction of an Administrator, to be known as the Administrator 
        of the Wage and Hour Division (hereinafter referred to as the 
        Administrator). . . .

                ``Part II--Establishment of Fair Labor Standards

            ``It is declared to be the policy of this act to establish 
        minimum-wage and maximum-hour standards, at levels consistent 
        with health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers and 
        the profitable operation of American business. . . .
            ``(b) Having regard to such policy and upon a finding that 
        a substantial number of employees in any occupation are 
        employed at wages and hours inconsistent with the minimum 
        standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and 
        general well-being, the Administrator shall appoint a wage and 
        hour committee to consider and recommend a minimum-wage rate or 
        a maximum workday and workweek . . . Provided, however, That no 
        such committees shall be appointed with respect to occupations 
        in which no employee receives less than 40 cents per hour or 
        works more than 40 hours per week. . . .
            ``(g) A committee's jurisdiction to recommend labor 
        standards shall not include the power to recommend minimum 
        wages in excess of 40 cents per hour or a maximum workweek of 
        less than 40 hours, but higher minimum wages and a shorter 
        maximum workweek fixed by collective bargaining or otherwise 
        shall be encouraged; it being the objective of this act to 
        raise the existing wages in the lower wage groups so as to 
        attain as rapidly as practicable a minimum wage of 40 cents per 
        hour without curtailing opportunities for employment and 
        without disturbance and dislocation of business and industry, 
        and a maximum workweek of 40 hours without curtailing earning

[[Page 7855]]

        power and without reducing production. . . .

    Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at p. 1586.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Snell: . . . I call the attention of the Chair very briefly 
    to one matter. The original Senate bill, 2475, has for a title the 
    following:

            To provide for the establishment of fair labor standards in 
        employments in and affecting interstate commerce, and for other 
        purposes.

        The title of the amendment offered by the committee is exactly 
    the same as the title of the original Senate bill. In other words, 
    the intent and purpose of each bill is exactly the same, but as set 
    up in the very first paragraph in the first section of the Senate 
    bill, it proposes to accomplish this end by setting up an 
    independent board consisting of five members with certain specific 
    qualifications, and there is also the proposition to give them 
    certain authority to do certain things.
        The committee amendment, offered by the chairman of the Labor 
    Committee, tries to accomplish the same end, but does so in an 
    entirely different method. It sets up a Wages and Hours Division 
    under the Department of Labor to be headed by one man, and the 
    authority given to that one man is entirely different from the 
    authority given to the board set up in the original bill. In other 
    words, it is distinctly a new method which was never mentioned in 
    the original Senate bill.
        There is nothing about wages and hours in the title or the 
    objects of the Senate bill. I maintain, Mr. Chairman, without going 
    over the complete argument I made earlier in the afternoon, that 
    the method proposed by the amendment is entirely different from the 
    method proposed by the original bill, therefore is not germane and 
    should not be held to be germane at this time. . . .
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Chairman, this is a 
    very important parliamentary matter, in the opinion of many 
    Members, because it goes to one of the fundamental rules of the 
    House, rule XVI, relating to ``germaneness.'' This rule as to 
    ``germaneness'' when adopted early in the history of the Congress 
    in 1790 was a new departure in parliamentary law and without any 
    precedent. It has been interpreted countless times. Sometimes it 
    has been strained, reflecting the particular attitude of the 
    membership at that time, and sometimes it has reflected the 
    attitude of the then presiding officer.
        The argument I shall make will be directed at the point of 
    order made by the distinguished minority leader (Mr. Snell) . . . 
    and the point of order made by the distinguished gentleman from 
    South Dakota (Mr. Case) all going to the same point.
        With regard to the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota, I believe he has directed his argument more against 
    the merits of the proposal than against the parliamentary 
    procedure. . . .
        The distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Snell) the 
    minority leader, has admitted in his second argument on his point 
    of order the crux of this question, when he states that

[[Page 7856]]

    the ``intent and purpose of these two bills is the same.'' This is 
    the whole issue here.
        The gentleman has referred to the titles of the two bills. Of 
    course, it is well held in parliamentary procedure, as announced in 
    section 2916 of Hinds' Precedents, that the title of a bill is of 
    no influence whatever in deciding what is in the bill.
        In his first argument the gentleman from New York (Mr. Snell) 
    referred to subtitles and pointed out that the subtitle of the 
    Senate bill referred to a Labor Standards Board while the subtitle 
    of the committee amendment referred to a Wage and Hour Division of 
    the Department of Labor. If they are important, they are not so 
    unrelated as to affect the question under consideration. 
    Furthermore, they are merely titles.
        What subject are we considering here? How would anybody briefly 
    describe it in a few words? He or she would say we are taking up 
    the subject of wages and hours. Minimum wages and maximum hours are 
    what we are discussing, and this is the issue in every one of at 
    least a half dozen bills which have been introduced in the House.
        The point of order of the distinguished minority leader (Mr. 
    Snell), however, is directed toward the method by which we shall 
    approach this goal, to do something about minimum wages and maximum 
    hours. The point I make is that the subject matter of the bill 
    being wages and hours, this amendment offered by the lady from New 
    Jersey is in the nature of a substitute. It also deals with wages 
    and hours. Any other amendments which may be offered hereafter 
    dealing with this subject, is germane irrespective of the 
    particular method proposed to be adopted to reach the ultimate 
    objective.
        As far as I know, I have examined every single, solitary 
    precedent in Hinds and Cannon and in other works, and I have not 
    found one precedent which would sustain the point of order made by 
    the distinguished minority leader. Every one of the precedents 
    cited by the gentleman from New York can be distinguished from the 
    question in point, because this is a new proposal.
        Congress and the Government are engaged in a new venture, you 
    may call it, in legislation. There is nothing on the statute books 
    today in reference to ``minimum wages and maximum hours.'' We are 
    not amending any existing law. We are not giving any new powers to 
    any existing agency of the Government. We are starting on an 
    entirely new venture, an attempt to do something about wages and 
    hours in industry.
        As everybody knows, the amendment offered by the distinguished 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Norton), in the nature of a 
    substitute, is offered as a new, complete, clean bill, as it has 
    been called, for the purpose of avoiding confusion as far as 
    possible. The Senate bill went to the House Committee on Labor, 
    which first reported some 60 amendments to the Senate bill. Then 
    the House Labor Committee reported other amendments, and then 
    finally decided to bring in a clean copy of the bill, including all 
    of the House committee amendments, and to offer that as a 
    substitute, treating it as one new bill. All

[[Page 7857]]

    the amendments included in this committee substitute, except one, 
    are practically minor perfecting amendments, about which there can 
    be little complaint, and possibly no point of order.
        The issue all comes down to the question of the method of 
    administration of the act. The issue devolves as to section 3 of 
    the original bill and section 3 of the amendment offered by the 
    distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Norton). Section 3 
    of the original bill was entitled ``Labor Standards Board.'' 
    Section 3 of the new bill is entitled ``Administrative Agency.'' 
    Section 3 of the Senate bill, the original bill, provided for the 
    setting up of a board of five members, and the section had five or 
    six subsections relating to the place of office, the appointment of 
    employees, the making of reports, and other minor matters. Section 
    3 of the House Labor Committee amendment is the same, except that 
    it provides for the appointment of an administrator in the 
    Department of Labor rather than a board of five members. Outside of 
    this one detail, both sections are substantially the same.
        Now, no one can say that whether or not we put the 
    administration of this act in the Labor Department or in a board of 
    five, or in some other agency, or in no agency, is the outstanding 
    feature of this bill. The outstanding feature is the proposal to do 
    something about minimum wages and maximum hours, and there is no 
    one who can now dispute that point. How we shall do it is another 
    question.
        I wish to call to the attention of the Chair an authority 
    directly in point, in my opinion. I have seen no authorities to the 
    contrary. They all point in the direction which I am arguing, but 
    this authority is directly on the point and should be conclusive.
        In Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, at section 3056, the headline 
    is:

            To a proposition to accomplish a certain purpose by one 
        method a proposition to achieve the same purpose by another 
        closely related method is germane.
            To a bill proposing the adjudication of claims arising out 
        of informal contracts with the Government through the agency of 
        the Secretary of War, an amendment proposing to adjudicate such 
        claims through the agency of a commission appointed for that 
        purpose was held to be germane. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Snell] makes the point of order against the 
    amendment, one of the reasons advanced being that the substitute 
    provides for the setting up of a bureau as a division of the 
    Department of Labor under an administrator, whereas the Senate bill 
    provides for the establishment of a board. Also, that the method 
    proposed by the amendment pending establishes a different one from 
    that set forth in the Senate bill. Points of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Martin] and the gentleman from South 
    Dakota [Mr. Case] are involved in the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from New York, and in part the point of order raised by 
    the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] is also involved, but in part 
    it is not.
        The Chair recognizes the seriousness of this question. The 
    Chair is indebted to those who have presented their arguments on 
    both sides. The Chair realizes that the matter of germaneness at 
    times is one filled with great uncer

[[Page 7858]]

    tainty. The Chair realizes that there is a twilight zone. The Chair 
    also realizes that too narrow an interpretation of the rule might 
    interfere with the conduct of the Committee of the Whole House or 
    of the House in the proper consideration of a bill.
        The Chair anticipated this particular point of order and has 
    had an opportunity of giving consideration to the precedents 
    interpreting the rule which prompted the point of order being 
    raised. During the general debate on the pending Senate bill, the 
    Chair was informed by a number of Members that certain amendments 
    would be offered to it, some in the nature of a substitute and 
    others in the nature of perfecting amendments thereto. The Chair 
    has taken notice and has utilized its opportunity during the 
    general debate to review the decisions on germaneness embodied in 
    Hinds' and Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives. The 
    Chair has also listened intently to the discussion of the point of 
    order on the floor and has examined the precedents cited by 
    gentlemen on both sides of the question.
        In deciding this question it may be appropriate to examine into 
    the meaning of the word ``germane'' as it relates to parliamentary 
    law. In this respect the Chair calls attention to a statement made 
    in a decision on germaneness by Mr. Chairman Fitzgerald, of New 
    York, on September 22, 1914, which is to be found in Cannon's 
    Precedents, volume 8, section 2993. The Chair quotes from that 
    decision:

            The meaning of the word ``germane'' is akin to, or near to, 
        or appropriate to, or relevant to, and ``germane'' amendments 
        must bear such relationship to the provisions of the bill as 
        well as meet other tests; that is, that they be a natural and 
        logical sequence to the subject matter, and propose such 
        modifications as would naturally, properly, and reasonably be 
        anticipated.

        The Chair also calls attention to a decision made by Mr. 
    Chairman Garrett, of Tennessee, September 19, 1918, section 2911 of 
    volume VIII of Cannon's Precedents, wherein it was held generally 
    that the rule providing that amendments must be germane was 
    construed as requiring that the fundamental purposes of the 
    amendment be germane to the fundamental purposes of the bill to 
    which it is offered. The Senate bill pending before the Committee 
    of the Whole at the present time provides generally for the 
    establishment of fair labor standards in employments in and 
    affecting interstate commerce. To accomplish that result the bill 
    sets up a board, conferring upon that board certain specified 
    powers; asserts that the declared policy of the act is to maintain 
    minimum wage and maximum hours standards, fixing the limits to be 
    achieved in the one case at a minimum wage of 40 cents per hour and 
    in the other a maximum of 40 hours per week. Certain discretionary 
    powers are lodged in the board and certain conditions and 
    limitations are placed upon such discretion. It is a broad plan, 
    attempting to achieve a definite result.
        Coming more directly now to the immediate question presented to 
    the Chair, involving the question of germaneness of the amendment 
    offered by the lady from New Jersey to the Senate bill, the Chair 
    finds that the amendment, of course, differs somewhat from the 
    Senate bill. It nec

[[Page 7859]]

    essarily follows that it would do so; otherwise it would not have 
    been offered. The question for the Chair here is to ascertain 
    whether it differs so widely in its details from the Senate bill to 
    justify the Chair in holding it not germane. The Chair has listened 
    attentively to the citations of precedents involving the question 
    of germaneness of amendments to farm legislation which have 
    occurred during the past 12 years. The Chair studiously examined 
    those decisions prior to the time when the pending question 
    presented itself, and the Chair believes that they can be 
    distinguished from the instant question as well as from the 
    decision referred to by the gentleman from Michigan in connection 
    with the ruling made by the distinguished gentleman from North 
    Carolina [Mr. Warren] only several days ago.
        It seems to the Chair that this entire question turns upon one 
    point, and that is whether a new agency proposed by the amendment 
    offered by the lady from New Jersey to administer the provisions of 
    the pending bill is so different from the agency set up in the 
    Senate bill to accomplish that purpose as to warrant the Chair 
    holding the amendment not germane. It seems to the Chair that the 
    other provisions in the pending bill involve solely a question of 
    detail, and do not, in and of themselves, provide a great departure 
    from the terms of the Senate bill. Therefore, it appears to the 
    Chair that the point for him to determine is whether the change in 
    agency to administer this act is so different as to make the 
    amendment not germane.
        Again referring to those decisions of germaneness made in the 
    past, in the consideration of farm legislation, the Chair would 
    distinguish them in this manner: The amendments in those cases, it 
    seems to the Chair, were not ruled out on the ground that the 
    substitution of a new governmental agency to administer the terms 
    of the bill were not germane, but went, rather, to the authority of 
    the new agency proposed to use a new and unrelated method in 
    accomplishing that end. The Chair thinks that there is a decided 
    difference between the substitution of a new agency to administer 
    the law and the substitution of a new method of accomplishing a 
    predetermined end.
        The Chair happily finds, however, that it is not necessary for 
    him to rely entirely upon his own opinion in reaching a conclusion 
    on this question. The Chair has found, and the gentleman from New 
    York has referred to a precedent involving a similar question. The 
    Chair has found what he regards to be a direct and pointed decision 
    on this matter.
        The Chair has before him the following decision which the 
    gentleman from New York has referred to, which may be found in 
    Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, section 3056, wherein it was held 
    that--

            To a bill proposing the adjudication of claims arising out 
        of informal contracts with the Government, ``through the agency 
        of the Secretary of War,'' an amendment proposing to adjudicate 
        such claims through the agency of a commission appointed for 
        that purpose was held to be germane.

        The Chair thinks that the decision by Mr. Chairman Crisp, of 
    Georgia, is of sufficient importance that it should be read in its 
    entirety. Mr. Chairman Crisp on that occasion said:

[[Page 7860]]

            The bill before the House has for its object the validating 
        and settling of damages arising out of informal contracts made 
        by the War Department. The bill before the House provides that 
        the Secretary of War, or any of his agents or representatives, 
        can adjust and settle these differences. The amendment of the 
        gentleman from Pennsylvania provides a different method or a 
        different agent or a different tribunal to settle these 
        differences. The Chair believes it is germane to the bill 
        before the House. The Chair does not believe the House is 
        confined to the particular method of settlement of these claims 
        that the committee reports. The Chair believes the amendment is 
        germane, proposing another vehicle, and it is for the House to 
        determine which shall be adopted.

        For the reasons stated, Chairman Crisp overruled that point of 
    order.
        In conclusion, the Chair thinks that the fundamental purpose of 
    the amendment proposed by the lady from New Jersey is germane to 
    the fundamental purposes of the bill now before us. The Chair, 
    relying more specifically upon the decision of Mr. Chairman Crisp, 
    just quoted, thinks the amendment comes within the rule of 
    germaneness, and overrules the points of order.

    A substitute amendment was offered: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 1591.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glenn H.] Griswold [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute to the Norton amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Griswold offers the following amendment as a 
        substitute: In lieu of the matter proposed by the pending 
        amendment insert the following:
            ``That as used in this act unless the context otherwise 
        requires--
            ``(1) ``Person'' includes an individual, partnership, 
        association, corporation, business trust, receiver, trustee, 
        trustee in bankruptcy, or liquidating or reorganizing agent. . 
        . .
            ``Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful to employ any person in any 
        employment affecting interstate or foreign commerce at a wage 
        less than 40 cents an hour, or at work in excess of 8 hours per 
        day or more than 40 hours in any 1 week, or to employ any 
        person under conditions of oppressive child labor as 
        hereinafter defined: Provided, That in case of emergency the 
        provisions of this act shall not apply during the period of 
        such emergency: Provided further, That such employer affected 
        file with the State labor commissioner or other proper State 
        official designated by law a sworn statement as to the 
        necessity for such action: Provided further, That such employer 
        shall pay to his workers during such emergency wages of not 
        less than time and one-half for work in excess of 8 hours per 
        day or 40 hours in any 1 week.
            ``Sec. 3. Any person in any State or Territory or 
        possession of the United States or the District of Columbia 
        guilty of violation of any of the provisions of this act shall 
        be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be 
        fined not less than $100 for each offense. The employment of 
        each employee at a wage less than that fixed in this act, or 
        for hours longer than those fixed in this act, unless excepted 
        as provided in section 3, shall constitute a separate offense.
            ``Sec. 4. The district courts of the United States and 
        possessions shall have jurisdiction of the violations of this 
        act. . . .

[[Page 7861]]

        Mr. [Robert C.] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this substitute for the amendment offered by 
    the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Norton] is not germane to the 
    amendment to which it is offered for the reason that it not only 
    sets up a different procedure and a different agency but it is for 
    a different purpose.
        The pending amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey proposes to set up fair labor standards. It proposes not one 
    wage scale or one hour limitation but different wage scales and 
    different hour limitations to be arrived at by the procedure 
    outlined in her amendment. The proposal offered by the gentleman 
    from Indiana [Mr. Griswold], on the contrary, is a penal statute 
    solely and exclusively. It makes it unlawful for any person to 
    employ anybody for more than 40 hours per week except for the 
    exemptions named in the bill. It makes it unlawful to pay anybody 
    less than 40 cents per hour and therefore it is for a different 
    purpose which is to set up a single standard of wages and hours, 
    whereas the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
    sets up plural standards and plural hours, to be administered by an 
    administrative agency in the Department of Labor. This proposal 
    would be administered by the officers enforcing the criminal laws 
    of the United States and by the criminal divisions of the district 
    courts of the United States, whereas the proposal of the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey is administered by an executive 
    department and the amendment provides for a series of steps before 
    reaching the maximum purpose.
        I would like to call the Chair's attention to this language 
    taken from the testimony of Assistant Attorney General Robert H. 
    Jackson, who presented the legal phases of the bill as originally 
    introduced, to the House and Senate committees, and it applies 
    likewise to the purpose sought to be accomplished by the proposal 
    now before the Committee of the Whole offered by the gentlewoman 
    from New Jersey. Mr. Jackson said this:

            The bill recognizes the very practical exigencies which 
        make it impossible to prescribe for all goods which enter into 
        interstate commerce a single minimum fair-wage standard or a 
        single maximum reasonable workweek standard. Even in the 
        treatment of national problems there are geographic and 
        industrial diversities which cannot be ignored. For that reason 
        the bill makes a distinction between labor conditions which are 
        clearly oppressive under any circumstances and labor conditions 
        which may be found unreasonable under circumstances prevailing 
        in particular industries or in particular geographic areas. As 
        to labor conditions that are clearly oppressive, the regulatory 
        provisions of the bill are largely automatic, but as to labor 
        conditions which depend for their unreasonableness upon 
        particular circumstances, the regulations become effective only 
        after appropriate administrative findings and audits. The 
        administration of these provisions is placed in a labor 
        standards board of five members.

        The only difference between Mr. Jackson's statement and the 
    proposal of the gentlewoman from New Jersey is that instead of a 
    board we have wage and hour committees appointed by an 
    administrator, but the method provided is for consideration of 
    economic factors, of the cost of living, of the cost of 
    transportation, of wages paid for like work of comparable char

[[Page 7862]]

    acter in the community under investigation, and the unit cost of 
    production, all of which are ignored in the substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Indiana, who proposes to set up a single rigid 
    standard, which I submit to the Chair, under his own ruling a few 
    moments ago on the point of order made by the gentleman from New 
    York, is a different purpose arrived at also by a different method, 
    and therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe the substitute is not 
    germane to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey. . . .
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Chairman, earlier today I said I 
    believed that any bill that approaches a possible solution of the 
    question of wages and hours is germane as a substitute to the 
    pending bill.
        The original bill provided for a board to administer its 
    provisions. The Norton amendment provides for an administrator in 
    the Department of Labor. The Griswold substitute provides for no 
    administrator whatsoever. In that respect all these proposals are 
    germane. The original bill and the Norton amendment provide for 
    flexible wages and flexible hours. The Griswold amendment provides 
    for fixed wages and fixed hours. Surely, if you have a flexible 
    schedule, you could always offer an amendment to make a rigid or 
    fixed schedule.
        There has been some talk about enforcement of the act, putting 
    such enforcement into the courts. That result has nothing to do 
    with administration of the measures. Probably in the other bills 
    before us there are provisions whereby some parts of the measures 
    will be enforced by the courts, but any bill that deals with wages 
    and hours, irrespective of any schedule of wages and hours, 
    irrespective of whether such schedules are flexible or rigid, 
    irrespective of what method of administration is selected or 
    whether there is no administration at all, I contend all these 
    measures are germane to the Senate bill first under consideration 
    by the House. They all aim at the ultimate objective of solving the 
    national problem of minimum wages and maximum hours for our 
    workers.

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the ruling made by the Chair a 
    short time ago on the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Snell] applies as well to the point of order raised 
    by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Ramspeck].
        In addition to the citations mentioned by the Chair on the 
    previous occasion, the Chair calls attention in connection with the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Ramspeck] 
    to a precedent in section 3054 of Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, 
    where, in the syllabus, it is stated:

            To a proposition providing for the attainment of an 
        objective by a specific method a proposal to achieve the same 
        objective through the adoption of another method closely 
        related may be germane.
            To a bill authorizing the Secretary of War in his 
        discretion to discharge enlisted men, an amendment directing 
        the Secretary of War to prescribe regulations permitting the 
        discharge of such men was held to be germane.
            An instance wherein a proposal to instruct an executive to 
        take definite action was held to be germane to a proposal to 
        authorize him to take such action.

        The Chair believes, having in mind the broad objective of this 
    bill, the es

[[Page 7863]]

    tablishment of minimum wages and maximum hours, that the Committee 
    of the Whole and the House are not precluded from considering 
    another method or another means of accomplishing that purpose than 
    the one recommended by the Senate bill or by the House committee, 
    both methods being germane. The Chair believes it germane for the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union under the 
    rules, to consider a mandatory minimum-wage and maximum-hour 
    provision in preference to the amendment of the committee or the 
    provisions of the Senate bill. Which is the desirable course to 
    take is a matter for the Committee to determine.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Griswold], for the reasons stated, is 
    germane, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Providing for Promulgation of National Standards for Drinking 
    Water--Amendment Permitting Judicial Remedy to Prevent Discharge of 
    Contaminants into Streams

Sec. 6.24 To a bill providing for promulgation and enforcement of 
    national drinking water standards to protect the public health from 
    contaminants of any source of public water supply, an amendment 
    permitting a judicial remedy in equity to assure safe drinking 
    water by preventing discharges or emissions of contaminants in 
    violation of law was held germane as limited to the control of 
    drinking water sources covered by the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 13002 (4) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Nov. 19, 1974,(5) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The Safe Drinking Water Act.
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 36395, 36396, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip E.] Ruppe [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ruppe: Page 132, line 18, strike 
        out the quotation marks.
            Page 132, insert after line 18 the following:

                               ``equitable relief

            ``Sec. 1449. (a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in 
        paragraph (2), in any action which is commenced by (or at the 
        request of) the Administrator and which requests equitable 
        relief for the purpose of assuring safe drinking water, if a 
        party shows that a defendant in such action is discharging or 
        emitting any substance in violation of Federal law (or any 
        State law which is enforceable under Federal law) and that such 
        discharge or emission presents or contributes to a public 
        health risk, the court shall grant such equitable relief as may 
        be necessary promptly to assure that such discharge or emission 
        does not present or contribute to such risk.

[[Page 7864]]

            ``(2) A court is not required by this section to grant 
        equitable relief with respect to a discharge or emission if the 
        person who is discharging or emitting such substance 
        demonstrates that--
            ``(A) the public health risk does not exist; or
            ``(B) it would be arbitrary or capricious to grant such 
        relief (taking into account technological and economic 
        considerations, size of population at risk, and availability of 
        alternative sources of drinking water).
            ``(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to have 
        the effect of limiting any other provision of law which 
        requires or authorizes any court to prohibit or limit any 
        discharge or emission. . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment, that the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill. The bill provides the requirement that the 
    Administrator of EPA will prescribe national primary drinking water 
    regulations. Also, it has provisions in it to provide for State 
    enforcement of these national primary drinking water regulations 
    and also sets up certain oversight by the Administrator in case the 
    States fail to adopt or implement these standards.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with discharge of pollutants 
    into a stream. The bill has enough provisions dealing with this 
    discharge of pollutants. The legislation deals only with water 
    treatment in order to comply with the standards that are set up as 
    a result of the bill and the enforcement of these standards. This, 
    again, is realistically an amendment to the Federal Water Pollution 
    Control Act. . . .
        Mr. Ruppe: . . . First of all, in response to the question of 
    germaneness, I would like to make the following four points:
        The major bill deals with the issue of safe drinking water, and 
    that is exactly the thrust of the amendment.
        The amendment deals with the possible health hazards connected 
    with the drinking of water from a raw water source. There are many 
    references to raw water sources in the bill--it is not limited to 
    solely water systems. . . .
        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: . . . Since it has been agreed 
    that the amendment deals with emissions and discharges into streams 
    and since the amendment deals with that and that the bill has 
    nothing whatever to do with that subject matter and that is the 
    subject of jurisdiction of another committee, I maintain it is not 
    germane to this legislation, or to the legislative jurisdiction of 
    the committee. . . .
        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I would just 
    like to reemphasize the point made by the distinguished gentleman 
    from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill), that this clearly deals with 
    the discharge and emission into the navigable waters of the 
    country, and is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water 
    Pollution Control Act and amendments which we adopted in 1972. It 
    has nothing to do with the language of the bill presently being 
    considered by the Committee; nor does the Committee on Interstate 
    and Foreign Commerce have any jurisdiction over water pollution. 
    That is within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Public 
    Works. To attempt to amend that law by this means is not germane 
    nor within the jurisdiction of this legislation. . . .

[[Page 7865]]

        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William Nichols (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is limited in scope 
    to the question of equitable relief to assure safe drinking water, 
    and does not go to the broader question of water quality generally. 
    The bill goes to the question of contamination of drinking water by 
    any source, including injections of contaminants into underground 
    water. Thus an amendment to provide a remedy which is limited to 
    the control of contamination of drinking water sources is germane 
    to the bill.
        For that reason, the Chair must overrule the point of order.

--International Instead of Domestic Approach To Maintaining Standards 
    for Clean Water

Sec. 6.25 To a bill reported from the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce, authorizing the promulgation of national drinking 
    water standards to protect public health from contaminants, an 
    amendment requiring the negotiation and enforcement of 
    international agreements to accomplish that purpose was ruled out 
    as not germane, since it proposed a method not closely related to 
    that prescribed in the bill and involved a subject within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee.

    On Nov. 19, 1974,(7) during consideration of H.R. 13002 
(8) in the Committee of the Whole, it was held that to a 
bill reported from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
authorizing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
promulgate national drinking water regulations and requiring 
cooperative federal-state enforcement of those standards, an amendment 
directing the President to negotiate international agreements to 
protect drinking water in the United States from contaminants outside 
the United States was held to go beyond the scope of the bill and to 
include a subject within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs and was ruled out as not germane. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 36393, 36394, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. The Safe Drinking Water Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vanik: Page 132, insert after line 
        18 the following new section:

                           ``international agreements

            ``Sec. 1449. For the purpose of protecting drinking water 
        in the States from contamination by contaminants from sources 
        outside the jurisdiction of the States and the United States, 
        the President shall--

[[Page 7866]]

            ``(1) seek to negotiate multilateral treaties, conventions, 
        resolutions, or other agreements and seek to formulate, 
        present, and support appropriate proposals at the United 
        Nations and other appropriate international entities, and
            ``(2) seek to implement and enforce existing treaties and 
        agreements to which the United States is a party or signatory 
        and which may serve to provide such protection.''. . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: . . . Mr. Chairman, it is my 
    contention that this amendment goes far beyond the scope of this 
    legislation. There is no provision in this legislation, as far as I 
    can see, for involvement in international treaties or agreements 
    and no funds authorized in the wording of the bill for that 
    purpose. . . .
        Mr. Vanik: . . . In response to the point of order that is made 
    by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Iowa, I want to 
    point out that this amendment does not provide for any 
    appropriation of funds. It merely requests that the President 
    explore the possibilities of working out conventions and agreements 
    with Canada on drinking water standards.
        I do not know how else we can achieve the same standards on the 
    Great Lakes for the millions of Americans who depend on the Great 
    Lakes for their water supplies, if we cannot work this out in some 
    way by agreement with respect to a mutuality of standards between 
    the United States and the Government of Canada.
        We cannot compel the Canadians to do anything. Our statutes 
    have no effect, and I think that if we are going to achieve a 
    better quality water, if we are going to maintain the standards 
    proposed by this legislation for drinking water for those people 
    who must depend on the Great Lakes in the nations that are 
    involved, it can only be achieved by agreements and treaties and by 
    conventions with the Government of Canada. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William Nichols (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman advises the gentleman from Ohio that the subject 
    of international agreements is not within the scope of the bill and 
    that the subject of the amendment comes under the jurisdiction of 
    another committee of the House; namely, the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs.
        Therefore, the amendment is not germane and the Chair must 
    sustain the point of order raised by the gentleman from Iowa.

Clean Air: Amendment Invoking Provisions of Law Not Within Jurisdiction 
    of Reporting Committee

Sec. 6.26 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.

[[Page 7867]]

    On May 1, 1974,(10) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 12520, 12522-24, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Proposing Interim Period of Public Ownership in lieu of 
    Private Ownership of District of Columbia Transportation Authority

Sec. 6.27 To a committee amendment restoring the District of Columbia 
    transportation franchise to the Capital Transit Company, a 
    substitute amendment providing for an interim public transportation 
    authority operated by the District of Columbia Commissioners 
    pending sale to private operators, was conceded to be not germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a proposition was under consideration 
relating to the reinstatement of a franchise for operation of a 
transportation system in the District of Columbia.(11) To 
such proposition, an amendment was offered which stated in part that: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Under consideration was H.R. 8901 (Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce).
12. 102 Cong. Rec. 8417, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., May 17, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is hereby declared to be a matter of legislative 
    determination . . . that operation of the Capital Transit Co., the 
    operator of the principal transportation system located within the 
    Washington metropolitan area, will cease August 14, 1956, 
    consequent upon repeal of its franchise rights and charter

[[Page 7868]]

    by Public Law 389, 84th Congress (69 Stat. 724); that the Congress 
    finds the establishment of an adequate transportation system to 
    operate in the Washington metropolitan area, commencing August 15, 
    1956, as a replacement for Capital Transit Co., cannot be 
    accomplished at the present time by the ordinary operations of 
    private enterprise without public participation. . . .

    The amendment sought to grant,(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . to a public body corporate consisting of the 
    Commissioners of the District of Columbia for an interim period 
    certain powers to acquire . . . and operate an adequate 
    transportation system or systems in the Washington metropolitan 
    area. . . .

    The following proceedings then took place: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 8424.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. Heselton] is not germane to the committee 
    substitute. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] Heselton [of Massachusetts]: . . . I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (15) The point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Augustine B. Kelley (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amtrak: Tax Incentives in Lieu of Direct Financial Assistance To 
    Improve Rail Service

Sec. 6.28 To a bill within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce reorganizing Amtrak through 
    financial assistance and other methods to improve rail passenger 
    services, an amendment to achieve track improvements solely through 
    tax incentives by amending the Internal Revenue Code, is not a 
    related method and is not germane, since it would fall within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

    The Chair, in the proceedings of July 25, 1979, discussed in 
greater detail in Sec. 4.66, supra, relied for its ruling on the fact 
that the methods proposed by the amendment to improve rail passenger 
service fell within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, rather than the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
which had jurisdiction over the bill. In so ruling, the Chair was 
rejecting the contention of the proponent of the amendment that the 
fundamental purpose of both bill and amendment was the same, and that 
the methods used by both to achieve the purpose were closely enough 
allied to render the amendment germane.

[[Page 7869]]

Income Tax in Lieu of Sales Tax in District of Columbia

Sec. 6.29 To a bill providing for a sales tax for the District of 
    Columbia, a substitute proposing an amendment to the income tax 
    laws was held to be germane.

    On Mar. 14, 1949, the following amendment was offered to a bill 
relating to a sales tax for the District of Columbia: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 2444, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 3347 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is hereby annually levied and imposed for each taxable 
    year upon the taxable income of every resident a tax at the 
    following rates:
        Two percent on the first $2,000 of taxable income. . . .

    A point of order was made against the amendment:

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, we are 
    considering titles I and II of this bill; that is a sales tax. It 
    is an entirely different proposition from the income tax; in fact, 
    it is usually put in a separate title or in a separate bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a substitute for a 
    sales tax of an income tax is not germane to the pending bill at 
    this point.

    In ruling on the point of order, the Chairman (17) 
stated: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Hale Boggs (La.).
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 2444, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 14, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York has offered an amendment as a 
    substitute to the pending bill. The Chair is constrained to rule 
    that it is germane, because in the gentleman's substitute he 
    proposes a method of taxation which though somewhat different from 
    the method proposed in the bill, nevertheless, is a method of 
    taxation, and it is germane at this point.

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Dollar Limitation on Expenditures--Amendment Increasing Limitation in 
    Amount Computed Pursuant to Given Formula

Sec. 6.30 To a provision fixing an expenditure limitation at a specific 
    dollar amount for a fiscal year, an amendment increasing the 
    limitation by an amount to be computed pursuant to a specified 
    formula was held to be germane.

    On May 21, 1969, it was held that, to that section of an 
appropriation bill setting a limitation of $192,900,000,000 on 
expenditures for the fiscal year, an amendment increasing the 
limitation by an amount equal to certain budgetary fixed costs was 
germane.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See the proceedings at Sec. 15.51, infra.

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

[[Page 7870]]

Budget Procedure: Introducing Executive Branch Into Congressional Rule-
    making

Sec. 6.31 To a proposition changing Congressional budget procedures to 
    require consideration of balanced budgets, an amendment changing 
    concurrent resolutions on the budget to joint resolutions, bringing 
    executive enforcement mechanisms into play, was held not germane.

    The proceedings of July 18, 1990, relating to H.R. 5258, the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1990, are discussed in Sec. 5.6, supra.

Proposition Amending Rule To Permit Recorded Teller Votes--Amendment to 
    Another Rule To Allow Roll Call Vote in House on Amendments 
    Rejected in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 6.32 To a proposition amending a rule of the House so as to permit 
    recorded teller votes, a substitute amendment addressed to another 
    rule of the House and requiring in certain instances a roll call 
    vote in the House on amendments rejected in the Committee of the 
    Whole was held to be not germane.

    On July 27, 1970, the House was considering a proposal 
(20) to permit, upon demand of one-fifth of a quorum, the 
recording by clerks of individual teller votes in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. The following amendment in the nature of a 
substitute was offered by Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 25796, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. The proposal, in the form 
        of an amendment to clause 5 of Rule I of the Rules of the House 
        offered by Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.), is set forth in 
        Sec. 6.33, infra. Under consideration was H.R. 17654 (Committee 
        on Rules).
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 25801, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 27, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Reconsideration by Roll Call Votes of Amendments Defeated in 
                        Committee of the Whole House

        . . . Rule XXIII . . . is amended by adding . . . :
        9. When any measure is reported from a Committee of the Whole 
    House, it shall be in order . . . for any Member, who has proposed 
    an amendment to that measure in the Committee of the Whole House 
    which has been defeated by teller vote, to offer a motion, which 
    shall require for adoption the affirmative vote of at least one-
    fifth of a quorum, demanding the reconsideration of that amendment 
    by roll call vote taken in the manner provided by rule XV.

    The following proceedings then took place with respect to the 
proposed substitute: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id.

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

[[Page 7871]]

        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I want to 
    raise a point of order against the consideration of this amendment 
    at this time. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, as I understand the substitute, the substitute is 
    addressed to rule XXIII of the House, whereas the current 
    amendment, the one offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    O'Neill), is addressed to rule I. The O'Neill amendment primarily 
    deals with procedures under consideration in the Committee of the 
    Whole, whereas the substitute primarily deals with matters in the 
    House rather than in the Committee of the Whole. That is the main 
    substance of my objection. . . .
        Mr. Hays: . . . I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman (William H. Natcher, of Kentucky): The point of 
    order is conceded.
        The point of order is sustained.

Proposition Amending Rule To Permit Recorded Teller Votes--Amendment 
    Adding Language to Same Rule to Allow Roll Call Vote in House on 
    Amendments Rejected in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 6.33 To an amendment to the rules of the House to permit, upon 
    demand of one-fifth of a quorum, the recording of teller votes in 
    the House or in Committee of the Whole, an amendment adding 
    language to permit a separate roll call vote in the House, upon 
    demand of one-third of a quorum, on any amendment rejected in 
    Committee of the Whole by a teller vote was held to be germane as 
    providing a different method for the recording of teller votes.

    On July 27, 1970,(3) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, offered the following amendment to the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 25796, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17654 (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Recording Teller Votes

        Clause 5 of Rule I of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
    is amended to read as follows:
        . . . If . . . any Member requests tellers with clerks and that 
    request is supported by at least one-fifth of a quorum, the names 
    of those voting on each side of the question shall be entered in 
    the Journal. . . .

    Subsequently, Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, stated: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 25814, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 27, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, immediately after the adoption of the O'Neill 
    amendment . . . I want to offer an amendment adding the sentence 
    that when we go back into the House from the Committee of the Whole 
    any amendment that has been adopted by a teller vote or defeated by 
    a teller vote shall have a difference in this respect: On the 
    adoption of the amendment it takes

[[Page 7872]]

    . . . one-fifth to ask for a recorded vote, but on any defeated 
    amendment that if a vote is requested we ask for one-third of the 
    membership to rise in order to get a vote. I believe we ought to 
    make a distinction between an approved or disapproved teller vote 
    amendment.

    The amendment was offered by Mr. Arends:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Arends to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts. After the last sentence of the 
        O'Neill amendment add the following new language:
            ``When any measure is reported from a Committee of the 
        Whole House, it shall be in order, immediately after the order 
        for the engrossment and third reading of the measure and before 
        consideration of the question of final passage, for any Member 
        with respect to any amendment which has been defeated by teller 
        vote in the Committee of the Whole, to offer a motion, which 
        shall require for adoption the affirmative vote of at least 
        one-third of a quorum, demanding the reconsideration of that 
        amendment by roll call vote taken in the manner provided by 
        Rule XV. Such motion is of the highest privilege and shall be 
        decided without debate. If, upon reconsideration by roll call 
        vote, the amendment is adopted, then the amendment shall be 
        deemed to have been read in the third reading, and shall be 
        included in the engrossment, of that measure.''

    Mr. O'Neill made a point of order against the amendment. The 
Chairman (5) ruled as follows: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 25815, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 27, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Arends) provides for the recording of teller votes. The pending 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts also provides 
    for the recording of teller votes. Therefore, the Chair overrules 
    the point of order. . . .

    Another amendment in the nature of a substitute, also relating to 
reconsideration by roll call votes of amendments defeated in the 
Committee of the Whole House, had been ruled out as not germane because 
it was addressed to a different rule of the House than that to which 
the O'Neill amendment related. See Sec. 6.32, supra.

Ethics in Government: Limits on Outside Earned Income in Addition to 
    Disclosure

Sec. 6.34 To a proposition intending to regulate the conduct of a class 
    of persons by several diverse methods, an amendment adding an 
    additional approach to accomplish the same result may be germane; 
    thus, to a title of a bill providing for financial disclosure and 
    regulation of

[[Page 7873]]

    ethical conduct and conflicts of interest by employees of the 
    executive branch, an amendment prohibiting employees covered by 
    said title and receiving a certain level of compensation from 
    receiving above a certain percentage of outside earned income was 
    held germane as an additional regulation of ethical conduct related 
    to those contained in the title.

    During consideration of H.R. 1 (Ethics in Government Act of 1977) 
in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 27, 1978, (7) the 
Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 32006, 32007, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 51, after line 
        19, insert the following new section and renumber accordingly:
            ``Sec. 243. Except where the employee's Agency or 
        Department shall have more restrictive limitations on outside 
        earned income, all employees covered by this Act who are 
        compensated at a pay grade in the General Schedule of Grade 16 
        or above shall be limited in outside earned income to not more 
        than fifteen percent of their salary.''. . .

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: . . . The proposed 
    amendment in the first place by its terms applies to employees 
    covered by this act. The act has three titles: Title I which is on 
    the legislative branch; title II, executive branch; and title III, 
    judicial branch. We are here presently dealing only with title II, 
    the executive branch. Therefore the amendment is broader than the 
    subject matter pending before the committee under the rule and 
    would be subject to a point of order.
        Second, the other point of order I would like to raise is that 
    this bill by its terms is a financial disclosure act. It is to 
    require certain officers and employees of the United States to 
    answer as to their income and financial holdings and transactions 
    and report as to those. It does not limit income.

        A limitation of income is within the rules of the House and by 
    special mention in the rule under which this bill is being heard, 
    an amendment by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Quillen) could 
    have been entertained, but that I submit respectfully is not a 
    broad enough exemption to the rule to permit the entire bill to 
    reach earnings limitations in addition to the financial disclosure. 
    . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from California 
    withhold his point of order until I ask unanimous consent to change 
    the word ``act'' to ``title''? . . .
        I would ask unanimous consent to change the word ``act'' to 
    ``title'' in the amendment. That is the intention of the amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.  Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

[[Page 7874]]

        Does the gentleman from California insist on his point of 
    order?
        Mr. Danielson: Yes. As to the other point of order, as to the 
    scope of the bill, the earnings limitation as opposed to the 
    financial disclosure, yes. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . I think the entire thrust of the bill does 
    relate, as we have said particularly as to income having a 
    relationship to ethics, and I think on that point my amendment 
    would be germane.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Title II approaches the issue of the ethical conduct of 
    executive branch employees in three diverse ways, one, disclosure; 
    two, creation of the Office of Ethics to monitor employee conduct; 
    and, three, imposition of civil penalties for conflicts of 
    interest. The amendment suggests a fourth approach to the issue of 
    ethical conduct of executive branch employees and as modified is 
    germane to title II as a whole.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill To Limit Campaign Expenditures for Radio and Television--Amendment 
    To Effect Limitation on Newspaper and Periodical Expenditures

Sec. 6.35 To a bill intended to limit campaign expenditures for radio 
    and television, an amendment making any such expenditures 
    contingent upon compliance with a limitation on newspaper and 
    periodical expenditures was held to be not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a bill (9) 
imposing limits on the amounts permitted to be spent on radio and 
television broadcasting by certain candidates for elective office, an 
amendment to such proposition was offered for purposes of prohibiting 
any broadcasting expenditures by such candidates unless they certified 
that their newspaper and periodical advertising expenses did not exceed 
certain limits. The amendment stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Under consideration was H.R. 18434 (Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce).
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 28165, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 11, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [No] . . . candidate in an election . . . for a major elective 
    office [may] spend for the use of broadcasting stations on behalf 
    of his candidacy in such elections any amount of money unless he 
    has first certified to the broadcast licensee from whom he proposes 
    to make the purchase of time that his total expenditures for 
    newspaper or periodical advertisements on behalf of his candidacy 
    in such an election will not exceed [a specified sum].

    The amendment was held to broaden the scope of the bill and was 
ruled out on a point of order. The basis of such ruling was explained 
by the Chairman (11) as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Samuel S. Stratton (N.Y.).
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 28166, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 11, 1970.

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

[[Page 7875]]

        The gentleman from Massachusetts has made a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana on the 
    grounds that it is not germane. . . .
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana is drafted 
    as an amendment to that part of the bill . . . which seeks to 
    impose limits on the amounts which may be spent by candidates for 
    major elective offices for the use of broadcasting stations.
        The bill pertains solely to radio and television.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana, however, 
    introduces another subject: Expenditures for newspaper and 
    periodical advertising.
        The effect of the amendment is to significantly broaden the 
    scope of the bill. While both the bill, in part, and the amendment 
    have a common purpose--limiting campaign expenditures--this fact 
    alone does not insure the germaneness of the amendment. The Chair 
    has examined a ruling made by Chairman Cannon, of Missouri, in the 
    77th Congress which stands for the following proposition.

            The fact that an amendment and the provision in the bill to 
        which the amendment is offered have a common purpose and are 
        directed toward the same objective is not conclusive, and an 
        amendment dealing with a subject to which there is no reference 
        in the text to which offered is not germane to the bill [Rec. 
        p. 875-878, Feb. 10, 1941].

        Since there is no mention in the pending bill of an expenditure 
    control on any campaign costs except radio and television, the 
    Chair finds that the amendment is not germane and sustains the 
    point of order.

Consumer Protection: Congressional Oversight in Lieu of New Independent 
    Executive Agency

Sec. 6.36 To a bill establishing an independent agency within the 
    executive branch for the protection of consumer interests, an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute emphasizing the committee 
    oversight responsibility of the legislative branch and authorizing 
    Congressional committees to order the consumer office to take 
    certain actions, and creating an office within the legislative 
    branch as a function of the committee oversight responsibility was 
    held to be not germane.

    On Nov. 5, 1975,(13) during consideration of a bill 
establishing an agency for consumer protection (14) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was illustrated that to a bill seeking to 
accomplish a purpose by one method, an amendment proposing to 
accomplish that result by another method not contemplated by the bill 
is not ger

[[Page 7876]]

mane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 35041-43, 35046, 35047, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 7575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Levitas as a substitute:
            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That this Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Protection Act 
        of 1975''.

                             statement of findings

            Sec. 2. The Congress finds that the interests of consumers 
        are inadequately represented and protected within the Federal 
        Government; that vigorous representation and protection of the 
        interests of consumers are essential to the fair and efficient 
        functioning of a free market economy; that it is the primary 
        responsibility of each Federal agency to serve and protect the 
        consuming public and to orient its operations toward this goal; 
        and that it is within the legitimate oversight authority and 
        responsibility of the Congress to establish mechanisms whereby 
        the operations of Federal agencies may be subjected to critical 
        examination to insure that those purposes are faithfully 
        pursued.
            Sec. 3. (a)(1) There is hereby established an office of the 
        Congress to be known as the Office of Consumer Protection. The 
        Office shall be headed by a Director who shall be nominated by 
        the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
        House of Representatives, and confirmed by majority vote of the 
        Senate and of the House of Representatives. . . .
            Sec. 5. (a) The Office shall, in the performance of its 
        functions, advise the Congress as to matters affecting the 
        interests of consumers; and protect and promote the interests 
        of the people of the United States as consumers of goods and 
        services made available to them through the trade and commerce 
        of the United States. . . .
            Sec. 7. (a) Whenever a committee of the Congress having 
        specific oversight responsibility with respect to the 
        operations of a Federal agency determines that the result of a 
        proceeding or activity of such agency may substantially affect 
        an interest of consumers, such committee may by resolution 
        order the Director to intervene as a party or otherwise 
        participate for the purpose of representing the interests of 
        consumers, as provided in paragraph (1) or (2) of this 
        subsection. . . .
            (d) To the extent that any person, if aggrieved, would have 
        a right of judicial review by law, the Director may, at the 
        direction by resolution of the committee of the Congress having 
        primary oversight responsibility, institute, or intervene as a 
        party, in a proceeding in a court of the United States 
        involving judicial review of any Federal agency action which 
        such committee determines substantially affects the interests 
        of consumers, except that where the Director did not intervene 
        or participate in the Federal agency proceeding or activity 
        involved, the court shall determine whether the Director's 
        institution of the judicial proceeding would be necessary to 
        the interests of justice. . . .
            (e) When the committee of the Congress having primary 
        oversight responsibility determines it to be in the interests 
        of consumers, such committee may by resolution order the 
        Director to request the Federal agency concerned to initiate 
        such proceeding or to take such other action as may be 
        authorized by law with respect to such agency. . . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: . . . I would review and point 
    out that in

[[Page 7877]]

    rule 16, section 78(c), committee jurisdiction as a test of 
    germaneness is the section to which I refer, and it is quite 
    obvious that this substitute amendment would give considerable 
    authority and jurisdiction in this entire field to a branch of the 
    Congress and would, if independently introduced, be referred 
    undoubtedly to some other committee, other than the Committee on 
    Government Operations. It would probably go to the Committee on 
    House Administration and to the Committee on Rules, or maybe to all 
    three.
        I would rest on that argument that this substitute amendment is 
    not germane and that a point of order lies against it. . . .
        Mr. Levitas: . . . I must say, I am somewhat taken by surprise 
    that the chairman of the committee did offer this point of order, 
    but it occurs to me, nevertheless, having one or two precedents 
    here that perhaps that point of order is not well taken.
        The question of germaneness, I believe, is quite clearly not 
    confined to which committee has jurisdiction in reporting the 
    original legislation.
        I think that there are ample precedents to establish the fact 
    that the question of committee jurisdiction itself is not a 
    sufficient test of germaneness.
        I would like to cite three precedents in particular that I 
    think are quite pertinent and I will refer to the first in some 
    detail because I think it is the most important. It is a precedent 
    that occurred on December 15, 1937, and involves a ruling by the 
    Chairman at that time. The point of order that was then made 
    related to whether or not a Department of Labor--a proposal was 
    made that would set up an authority within an independent agency. 
    The substitute provided, however, for setting up a bureau as a 
    division of the Department of Labor under an administrator, whereas 
    the Senate bill provided for the establishment of an independent 
    board.
        In ruling that the point of order was not well taken, the Chair 
    pointed out and quoted from Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, section 
    2993:

            The meaning of the word ``germane'' is akin to, or near to, 
        or appropriate to, or relevant to, and ``germane'' amendments 
        must bear such relationship to the provisions of the bill as 
        well as meet other tests; that is, that they be a natural and 
        logical sequence to the subject matter, and propose such 
        modifications as would naturally, properly, and reasonably be 
        anticipated.

        Now, as I pointed out in my remarks, the purpose of both these 
    bills is quite clearly to get the executive and the independent 
    agencies to do their jobs. This is clearly stated in the findings 
    incorporated in both pieces of the legislation that are offered. 
    The only difference is which vehicle is to be used to carry out the 
    responsibility of seeing that the independent agencies do their 
    job. In further making his ruling, the Chair said as follows:

            It seems to the Chair that this entire question turns upon 
        one point, and that is whether a new agency proposed by the 
        amendment offered by the lady from New Jersey to administer the 
        provisions of the pending bill is so different from the agency 
        set up in the Senate bill to accomplish that purpose as to 
        warrant the Chair holding the amendment not germane. It seems 
        to the Chair that the other provisions in the pending bill 
        involve solely a question of de

[[Page 7878]]

        tail, and do not, in and of themselves, provide a great 
        departure from the terms of the Senate bill. Therefore, it 
        appears to the Chair that the point for him to determine is 
        whether the change in agency to administer this act is so 
        different as to make the amendment not germane.
            Again referring to those decisions of germaneness made in 
        the past, in the consideration of farm legislation, the Chair 
        would distinguish them in this manner: The amendments in those 
        cases, it seems to the Chair, were not ruled out on the ground 
        that the substitution of a new governmental agency to 
        administer the terms of the bill were not germane, but went, 
        rather, to the authority of the new agency proposed to use a 
        new and unrelated method in accomplishing that end. The Chair 
        thinks that there is a decided difference between the 
        substitution of a new agency to administer the law and the 
        substitution of a new method of accomplishing a predetermined 
        end.

        It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is quite clear, based on 
    the statement of findings in both bills, that the purpose of both 
    is the same. The agency to carry it out only differs.
        Concluding my point, Mr. Chairman, again in that precedent the 
    Chair quoted from Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, section 4056, 
    wherein it was held--

            To a bill proposing the adjudication of claims arising out 
        of informal contracts with the Government, ``through the agency 
        of the Secretary of War,'' an amendment proposing to adjudicate 
        such claims through the agency of a commission appointed for 
        that purpose was held to be germane.

        One of those was a cabinet post, the other was a quasi-judicial 
    body.
        The Chair in that case stated:

            The bill before the House has for its object the validating 
        and settling of damages arising out of informal contracts made 
        by the War Department. The bill before the House provides that 
        the Secretary of War, or any of his agents or representatives, 
        can adjust and settle these differences. The amendment of the 
        gentleman from Pennsylvania provides a different method or a 
        different agent or a different tribunal to settle these 
        differences. The Chair believes it is germane to the bill 
        before the House. The Chair does not believe the House is 
        confined to the particular method of settlement of these claims 
        that the committee reports. The Chair believes the amendment is 
        germane proposing another vehicle, and it is for the House to 
        determine which shall be adopted.

        The other two precedents, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to 
    cite are as follows: One was the ruling of the Chairman, Mr. 
    Lanham, in the Record of June 9, 1941, reported at page 4905; and 
    most recently, Mr. Chairman, the ruling of the Chair on December 
    19, 1973, found at page H11753.
        Based on those authorities, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the 
    test of germaneness is whether the substance to be accomplished is 
    akin to the substance in the bill itself. I think that is quite 
    clearly the case, as a reading of the findings in both situations 
    provide. The only difference is the vehicle to carry it out, and I 
    think it is quite clear in this instance that the precedents I 
    called to the attention of the Chair of 1937 are quite clearly in 
    point. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) . . . The bill H.R. 7575 would 
    set up an independent

[[Page 7879]]

    agency within the executive branch to protect and represent the 
    interests of consumers. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Georgia, while related to the general 
    purpose of the bill--the protection of consumer interests--would 
    establish an Office for Consumer Protection as an office of the 
    legislative branch to further strengthen ``the legitimate oversight 
    authority and responsibility of the Congress to establish 
    mechanisms whereby the operations of Federal Agencies may be 
    subjected to critical examination to insure that those purposes are 
    faithfully pursued.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While the amendment tracks the bill in many respects, 
    conferring upon the congressional office many of the authorities 
    given to the agency in the bill, to initiate actions for the 
    protection of consumers, a major function of the office as stated 
    in section 7 of the amendment is to institute or intervene in 
    actions to protect the interests of consumers whenever a committee 
    having specific oversight responsibility adopts a resolution 
    ordering the Director to so participate.
        It thus appears to the Chair that a primary method contemplated 
    by the amendment to achieve the common purpose of protecting 
    consumer interests is not closely enough related to the methods 
    contained in the bill to permit the amendment to be considered 
    germane.
        A landmark germaneness decision in this area, which was cited 
    by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas), is cited on page 515 
    of the House Rules and Manual, where Chairman McCormack ruled on 
    December 15, 1937, that, for a bill to accomplish a result through 
    regulation by a governmental agency, an amendment to accomplish the 
    same fundamental purpose through regulation by another executive 
    agency was held germane. (See also Cannon's Precedents, vol. 8, 
    sec. 3056.)
        The precedents also indicate, however, that, to one method of 
    attaining an objective, an amendment to accomplish the same 
    objective by a different and unrelated method not contemplated by 
    the bill is not germane. (Deschler's Procedure, chap. 28, sec. 
    6.2).
        For example, to a bill providing relief to foreign countries 
    through Government agencies, an amendment providing for such relief 
    to be made through the Red Cross was held not germane December 10, 
    1974 . . . also cited on page 515 of the manual.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the emphasis contained in the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute upon congressional 
    oversight responsibilities and the authority conferred upon House 
    and Senate committees to order certain actions to be undertaken by 
    the Consumer Office in furtherance of those committees' oversight 
    functions introduces an issue which is not sufficiently related to 
    the scope of the pending bill.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Bill Authorizing President To Appoint Administrative Assistants--
    Amendment To Change President's Term of Office

Sec. 6.37 To a bill authorizing the President to appoint up to

[[Page 7880]]

    six administrative assistants, an amendment proposing a 
    constitutional amendment extending the terms of the President and 
    Vice President to six years was held to be not germane.

    In arguing that a constitutional amendment extending the terms of 
the President and Vice President was germane to a bill authorizing 
Presidential appointment of administrative assistants, the proponent of 
the amendment, Mr. Donald H. McLean, of New Jersey, stated: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 7700, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1937. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 7730 (Select Committee on Government 
        Organization).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A moment ago the ruling of the Chair was that this bill 
    pertained to the Executive Department. Certainly the amendment I 
    proposed pertains entirely to the executive department of the 
    Government and is therefore in order. Much has been said about the 
    physical and mental strain upon the Executive. The proposal for the 
    election of the President for a term of 6 years . . . would relieve 
    it. . . . (The amendment) has as one of its purposes the relief of 
    the mental and physical strain on the occupant of the Executive 
    Office, enabling the President to give his entire time to the 
    duties of the Presidency. . . .

    The Chairman (17) ruled that the amendment was not 
germane, pointing out that, ``the bill proposes that the President . . 
. be allowed to appoint . . . administrative assistants. The amendment 
offered . . . proposes a constitutional amendment.'' (18) 
The Chairman expressly relied on the principle that, ``to a proposition 
to effect a purpose by one method, a proposition to effect such purpose 
by another method, wholly unrelated, is not germane.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wright Patman (Tex.).
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 7701, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Amend Foreign Assistance Act--Amendment Authorizing Annual 
    Appropriation to President To Accomplish Objectives of Bill

Sec. 6.38 Where a bill amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
    sought to provide new authorizations and declarations of policy, an 
    amendment proposing alternatives to the several programs authorized 
    in the bill and in the act was held to be germane.

    In the 88th Congress, the Chairman (19) ruled that the 
amendment stated in part below was germane to a bill amending the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Albert M. Rains (Ala.).
20. See 109 Cong. Rec. 15614, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 22, 1963. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 7885 (Committee on Foreign 
        Affairs).

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

[[Page 7881]]

        In order to more directly, and thus more effectively, and more 
    economically accomplish the humanitarian objectives of the United 
    States . . . there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
    President, as an alternative to the several programs authorized for 
    such purposes by this Act and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
    as amended, the sum of $1,000,000,000 annually. . . .

    The Chair stated only that, ``It is evident from a reading of the 
amendment that (it) is germane.''

Bill Providing for Settlement of Foreign Claims Against United States--
    Amendment Providing for Settlement in Form of Credit Against 
    Indebtedness of Foreign Nation

Sec. 6.39 To a bill directing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay out 
    Treasury funds for the settlement of certain claims of foreign 
    individuals against the United States, an amendment providing that 
    such payments should be credited upon any indebtedness due to the 
    United States by the claimants' governments, was held to be 
    germane.

    On July 11, 1949, a bill was under consideration reading in part as 
follows: (21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 95 Cong. Rec. 9236, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was S. 
        937 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury is 
    hereby authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
    Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sum as may be necessary 
    to effect full and final settlement of the following claims against 
    the United States:
        (a) Claim of the Government of Great Britain in [a specified 
    amount] on behalf of John Bailey. . . .

    A proposed amendment stated: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 9238, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., July 11, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [S]trike out ``pay out of any money in the Treasury not 
    otherwise appropriated'' and insert ``credit upon any indebtedness 
    due to the United States by the claimant governments.''

    Objection was made to the amendment as follows:

        Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the purposes 
    and intent of the bill.

    The Chairman,(2) however, overruled the point of order 
without further comment. (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Raymond W. Karst (Mo.).
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 9238, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., July 11, 1949.

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

[[Page 7882]]

Proposition Empowering President To Take Over Foreign Vessels, and 
    Providing for Compensation Therefor--Amendment Providing That 
    Compensation May Be in Form of Credit Upon Debt Owed by Foreign 
    Nation

Sec. 6.40 To a proposition empowering the President to take over title 
    or possession of foreign merchant vessels and providing just 
    compensation shall be paid owners, an amendment providing that the 
    compensation for such vessels to any nation indebted to the United 
    States shall be in the form of a credit upon such debt was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 77th Congress, the following proposition was being 
considered: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 87 Cong. Rec. 3668, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 6, 1941. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 4466 (Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That during the existence of the present emergency, the 
    President is authorized and empowered . . . to purchase . . . or 
    take over the title to . . . any foreign merchant vessel which is 
    lying idle in waters within the jurisdiction of the United States 
    and which is necessary to the national defense: Provided That just 
    compensation shall be determined and made to the owner or owners of 
    any such vessel in accordance with [certain statutory provisions].

    An amendment to the proposition stated: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 87 Cong. Rec. 3678, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 6, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided further, That in the event any vessel taken over under 
    the provisions of this act belongs to any government now indebted 
    to the United States, the compensation to be paid . . . shall be 
    paid by crediting the same upon such existing debt. . . .

    In response to a point of order against the amendment, the Chairman 
(6) stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John M. Costello (Calif.).
 7. 87 Cong. Rec. 3678, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 6, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the bill provides that vessels may be purchased 
    by the American Government, and the provisions of this amendment 
    merely go to the method whereby that purchase may be carried out. 
    It provides for one method of payment. Therefore, the Chair holds 
    it is germane to the purpose of the bill, and the point of order is 
    overruled.

Bill Giving Administrator of Veterans' Affairs Authority To Establish 
    Maximum Interest Rate for Loans to Veterans--Amendment Changing 
    Existing Authority of Administrator to Manage Loan Program

Sec. 6.41 To a bill giving the Administrator of Veterans' Af

[[Page 7883]]

    fairs authority, for a two-year period, to establish a maximum 
    interest rate for insured loans to veterans, an amendment changing 
    the existing authority of the Administrator to finance and manage 
    the loan program was held to be not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during the consideration of a proposition 
relating to the authority of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to 
establish a maximum interest rate for guaranteed veterans' loans, an 
amendment was offered for purposes of changing the existing authority 
of the Administrator to finance and manage the loan program. The effect 
of the basic proposition and the amendment thereto, and the basis for 
ruling that the amendment was not germane, were discussed by the 
Chairman (8) as follows: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 27343, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 29, 1969. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 13369 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The proposition before the Committee has a narrow purpose: To 
    grant the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs authority, for a 2-
    year period, to establish a maximum interest rate for guaranteed or 
    insured veterans loans. . . .
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wright 
    Patman], authorizes and directs the Administrator, in certain 
    situations, to purchase loan commitments from the lender-mortgagee 
    in a veterans loan transaction. Such purchases would be funded 
    through a revolving fund in the Treasury, with assets transferred 
    from the national service life insurance fund. Commitments 
    purchased by the Administrator under this authority could then be 
    sold through the Participation Sales Act of 1966.
        It has been suggested that the purpose of the two propositions 
    is similar in that both the committee amendment and the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas are designed to help veterans 
    obtain housing loans. In a very broad sense this may be true, but 
    the precedents indicate that where a bill is drafted to achieve a 
    purpose by one method, an amendment to accomplish a similar purpose 
    by an unrelated method, not contemplated by the bill, is not 
    germane.

Bill and Amendment as Stating Different Conditions To Be Used in 
    Determining Veterans' Pensions

Sec. 6.42 To that section of a bill providing a pension for certain 
    veterans to be paid monthly under certain conditions, an amendment 
    providing that such monthly payments be paid under other conditions 
    was held to be germane.

    During consideration of that section of a bill providing pensions 
for veterans based on age and

[[Page 7884]]

physical condition,(10) an amendment was offered basing such 
pension payments in part on service performed during a period of open 
hostilities or in an actual theatre of war.(11) In ruling on 
a point of order against the amendment, the Chairman (12) 
stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 95 Cong. Rec. 3058, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1949. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 2681 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 3063, 3064, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1949.
12. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
13. 95 Cong. Rec. 3064, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Although the amendment . . . makes reference to periods of 
    service in arriving at an amount to be paid per month, it 
    nevertheless refers to a monthly amount of pension. Therefore, the 
    Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Relating to Free Postage for Armed Forces in Time of War--
    Amendment Proposing That Members of Armed Forces Be Furnished 15 
    Postage-free Envelopes Each Month

Sec. 6.43 To a section of a bill dealing with free postage for members 
    of the armed forces in time of war, an amendment proposing that 
    each member of the armed forces be furnished 15 postage-free 
    envelopes each month was held to be germane.

    On Feb. 28, 1942,(14) a bill relating in part to free 
postage for members of the armed forces was being considered. The 
following statement (15) by the Chairman (16) 
related to a proposed amendment to the bill and a point of order raised 
against such amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 88 Cong. Rec. 1792-94, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 2208 (Committee on the Judiciary).
15. 88 Cong. Rec. 1793, 1794, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 28, 1942.
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment. It provides every member 
    of the military or naval forces of the United States . . . shall be 
    furnished 15 penalty envelopes each month during the war. The title 
    of the bill to which the amendment is offered provides free postage 
    for soldiers, sailors, and marines.
        The Chair thinks the question involved is that of free postage 
    for men in the military service. Whether a man is handed a certain 
    number of envelopes that require no postage or is handed a certain 
    number of postage stamps to be placed on some other envelope is a 
    matter of mere detail. The Chair is of the opinion that the 
    amendment is on the same subject as the provision of this title of 
    the bill, and therefore, is of the opinion that it is germane, and 
    overrules the point of order.

[[Page 7885]]

Bill Authorizing Funds To Reimburse Post Office for Costs of Air 
    Transportation of Military Mail--Amendment Authorizing Direct 
    Payments To Air Carriers

Sec. 6.44 To a bill authorizing use of funds to reimburse the Post 
    Office Department for costs of air transportation of military mail, 
    an amendment authorizing the Secretary of Defense in certain 
    instances to make direct payments to air carriers for such 
    transportation was held to be germane.

    The following exchange, on July 21, 1956, concerned an amendment to 
certain proposals made with respect to the costs of air transportation 
of military mail: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 102 Cong. Rec. 13855, 13856, 84th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 7992 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania on the ground, first, that it relates to payment for 
    air transportation of mail, and to methods of handling matters 
    within the Post Office Department, two subjects which are entirely 
    within the jurisdiction of two other committees, and not within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. . . .
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: . . . This deals not 
    with matters before the Post Office Department; this deals with the 
    Department of Defense, it deals with problems in the Department of 
    Defense, it deals only with persons who can be covered by the 
    Department of Defense.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 18. Charles B. Deane (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Flood] has offered an 
    amendment to strike section 32 which reads:

            There is herewith authorized to be made available 
        appropriations of the Department of Defense for reimbursement 
        to the Post Office Department for payment of costs of 
        commercial air transportation of military mail between the 
        United States and foreign countries.

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
    Flood] reads:

            The Secretary of Defense is authorized to provide for the 
        commercial air transportation of military mail between the 
        United States and foreign countries--

        With further language. It appears from the reading of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Flood] 
    that it is germane, and the point of order is overruled.

Proposal To Withhold Pay of Retired Military Officers Who Engage in 
    Selling of Products to Defense Department--Amendment To Penalize 
    Defense Contractors Who Hire Retired Officers

Sec. 6.45 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute pro

[[Page 7886]]

    viding in part for the withholding of retired pay of military 
    officers who engage in the selling of products to the Department of 
    Defense within two years after their retirement, an amendment 
    making it unlawful for contractors to hire such retired officers 
    within the two-year period and disqualifying contractors who 
    violate this provision from engaging in government contracts was 
    held to be not germane.

    The following exchange,(19) during consideration of a 
proposition (20) respecting activities of retired military 
officers, related to the germaneness to such proposition of an 
amendment having the same basic purposes but applying to persons other 
than retired military officers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 7682, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 10959 (Committee on Armed Services).
20. See 106 Cong. Rec. 7680, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 7, 1960 
        (amendment offered by Mr. Paul J. Kilday [Tex.]). For further 
        discussion, see Sec. 4.39, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kilday: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not germane. In that connection, 
    I call the Chair's attention to the fact that it includes the 
    prohibition as to the person employing, that phrase not being 
    included in either the amendment or the original bill. It creates a 
    new civil penalty for violation which was not included in either 
    the pending original bill or the pending amendment. For that reason 
    it is not germane to the pending bill and amendment. . . .
        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: . . . The title of the 
    bill is ``A bill relating to the employment of retired commissioned 
    officers by contractors of the Department of Defense and the Armed 
    Forces and for other purposes.'' . . .
        . . . I submit that the amendment which I have offered provides 
    as to the activity of the contractor and provides a penalty for a 
    violation of law not with a jail sentence or a criminal 
    prosecution, but with a civil penalty. . . .
        [The amendment] deals with officer and contractor relations, 
    and I certainly think the amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: (1) . . . The Chair has had an 
    opportunity to study the amendment and finds that in paragraphs (c) 
    and (d) the amendment refers to contractors. It imposes a penalty 
    on contractors in the form of a suspension of the privilege of 
    doing business with the Federal Government for a period of 2 years. 
    The bill and amendment now under consideration deal solely with 
    retired commissioned officers of the armed services. It is entirely 
    outside the scope of the bill or of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Kilday]. Therefore, the Chair holds that 
    the

[[Page 7887]]

    amendment is not germane and the point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Authorizing Construction of Life Science Research Facility--
    Amendment Authorizing Expansion of Existing Life Science Research 
    Facilities

Sec. 6.46 To a bill including an authorization for Ames Research Center 
    in California for construction of a life science research 
    laboratory, an amendment reducing that authorization and providing 
    allocation of other sums authorized by the bill for expansion of 
    existing life science research facilities at other locations was 
    held to be germane.

    On Aug. 1, 1963, a bill was under consideration authorizing funds 
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. An amendment to 
the bill was offered which provided in part that,(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 109 Cong. Rec. 13899, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7500 (Committee on Science and Astronautics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Of the amount authorized to be appropriated . . . $2,000,000 
    shall be for use in the expansion of the existing life sciences 
    research facilities at Wright-Patterson Field, Ohio, or Brooks 
    Medical Center, Texas, as determined by the Administrator.

    A point of order was made based in part on the following argument:

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment refers to installations and the construction of 
    facilities which are not set out in the original bill. . . .
        Second, the amendment is defective in that these are both 
    Department of Defense installations. . . .
        . . . Obviously, it is not germane to the bill nor is it within 
    the jurisdiction of the Science and Aeronautics Committee for the 
    legislation now before us to determine authorization for Department 
    of Defense facilities such as these two facilities are.

    In response, the proponent of the amendment, Mr. James D. Weaver, 
of Pennsylvania, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, this is intended to maintain a life sciences 
    research unit but to remove the funds allocated for the Ames 
    Research Center and apply them at existing facilities either at 
    Wright-Patterson Field or the Brooks Medical Center, Tex. That is 
    the purpose of this amendment. It is related to the bill. . . .

    In overruling the point of order, the Chairman (3) 
stated: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Albert Thomas (Tex.).
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 13899, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is prepared to rule. It is the opinion of the Chair 
    that the amendment is germane. It deals with the same subject 
    matter. . . .

[[Page 7888]]

Arts and Humanities: Additional Program To Assist Artists

Sec. 6.47 Where a bill seeks to accomplish a general purpose by diverse 
    methods, an amendment which adds a specific method to accomplish 
    that result may be germane; thus, to a bill containing three 
    diverse titles authorizing grant programs for support of the arts 
    and humanities, including subsidies through the National Endowment 
    for the Arts to encourage and assist artists, an amendment in the 
    form of a new title authorizing the employment of unemployed 
    artists through the National Endowment for the Arts was held 
    germane as a specific additional program related to the general 
    programs already in the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 12838 (to amend the National 
Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965) on Apr. 26, 
1976,(5) Chairman Pro Tempore Edward I. Koch, of New York, 
overruled a point of order against the amendment described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 11098-101, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        TITLE I--ARTS AND HUMANITIES

                         state humanities councils

        Sec. 101. (a) Section 7 of the National Foundation on the Arts 
    and the Humanities Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following new subsection:
        Sec. 11. (a)(1)(A) For the purpose of carrying out section 5, 
    there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for fiscal 
    year 1977, and $113,500,000 for fiscal year 1978. . . .

                         TITLE II--MUSEUM SERVICES

                                short title

        Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the ``Museum Services 
    Act''.

                     TITLE III--CHALLENGE GRANT PROGRAM

                          establishment of program

        Sec. 301. The National Foundation on the Arts and the 
    Humanities Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
    following new section. . . .
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Abzug: Page 34, after line 11, 
        insert the following new title:

           TITLE IV--EMERGENCY PROGRAM FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF ARTISTS

                            establishment of program

            Sec. 401. (a) The Congress of the United States recognizes 
        the contributions which artists make to the

[[Page 7889]]

        cultural life of each community throughout the Nation as well 
        as to the Nation as a whole. . . .
            (b) The National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act 
        of 1965, as amended by section 301, is further amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following new section:

                 ``emergency program for employment of artists

            ``Sec.13. (a) The Chairman of the National Endowment for 
        the Arts with the advice of the National Council on the Arts, 
        shall carry out a program, directly and through grants-in-aid 
        to States, during any fiscal year in which the seasonally 
        adjusted national rate of unemployment published by the Bureau 
        of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor exceeds 6.5 per 
        centum as determined by the Chairman, of employment of 
        unemployed artists in projects or products. . . .
            ``(b) In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the 
        Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts shall 
        coordinate such program with programs for public service 
        employment under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act 
        of 1973 and with other appropriate public programs providing 
        employment for unemployed individuals. . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, reading the 
    amendment, I question the germaneness of this amendment. The jobs 
    provision added into the Arts, Humanities, and Cultural Affairs 
    Act, it seems to me fits better in the next bill coming up, the 
    emergency job programs bill, and I raise a point of order on 
    germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not germane to the bill before 
    us. It has to do with providing additional jobs of a public service 
    nature. It fits more in the legislation next on the agenda. I do 
    not see that it fits within the purview of the legislation we have 
    before us. . . .
        Ms. Abzug: Mr. Chairman, I disagree. I think it is germane to 
    the purposes of this act. This act recognizes the contributions 
    which artists make to the cultural life of the communities 
    throughout the Nation.
        Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is to provide for the 
    employment of artists in the program which is to be conducted and 
    determined, the eligibility for which programs as well as the 
    employment in the programs is determined by the Chairman of the 
    National Endowment for the Arts. I think it is germane. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair has examined the ``Ramseyer'' in the committee report on page 
    23. Title I of the committee amendment extends the law which 
    provides subsidies for projects and productions which would 
    otherwise be unavailable for economic reasons and which will 
    encourage and assist artists and enable them to achieve wider 
    distribution of their works, to work in residence at an educational 
    or cultural institution, or to achieve standards of professional 
    excellence. This is a general purpose of the bill and the amendment 
    provides a specific program of grants through the Chairman of the 
    National Endowment for the Arts to accomplish that.
        The amendment is germane as a new title to the bill which 
    presently contains three diverse titles and the gentlewoman from 
    New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 7890]]



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 7. Amendment Substituting Different Agency To Administer 
    Provisions

    An amendment that effects a substitution of one agency for another 
charged with administering the provisions of the bill may be germane. 
Accordingly, it has been held that, to an amendment placing certain 
duties upon an agency of the government, an amendment proposing to 
place such duties upon another agency was germane; (6) and 
where the fundamental purpose of the bill and amendment are clearly 
related, substituting a different agency to carry out that purpose may 
not render the amendment not germane.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sec. Sec. 7.1 and 7.9, infra.
 7. Sec. 7.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But a distinction has been made between the mere substitution of a 
different governmental agency to administer the terms of a bill, and 
the granting of authority to such an agency to use new and unrelated 
methods in accomplishing the purposes of the bill.(8) 
Discussing amendments ruled out in the past as not germane, the Chair 
on one occasion stated that the decisions in those cases rested not on 
the mere substitution of a new agency, but rather the substitution of 
unrelated methods of achieving the predetermined end.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sec. 7.4, infra.
 9. Sec. 7.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applicable rule therefore seems to be that where a bill 
proposes regulation of certain activities through the use of a 
governmental agency, an amendment substituting a different agency is 
not germane if, in addition, it authorizes such agency to use new and 
unrelated methods in achieving the purposes of the bill, or if the 
agency is not one within the jurisdiction of the committee handling the 
bill.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sec. 7.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On one occasion, an amendment creating a new agency was held not 
germane, the Chair noting that the funds to be controlled by the agency 
were not limited to those authorized by the bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sec. 7.1, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Authorizing Appropriation for Participation in United Nations 
    Relief and Rehabilitation Administration; Amendment Authorizing 
    Appropriation for Relief Purposes But Without Participation in 
    Organization

Sec. 7.1 To a bill authorizing an appropriation to be ex

[[Page 7891]]

    pended by the President for participation by the United States in 
    the work of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation 
    Administration, an amendment authorizing an appropriation to be 
    expended by the President to carry out the same work but not with 
    the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration was 
    held to be germane.

    The following exchange (12) indicates the nature of the 
germaneness argument against the amendment and the disposition by the 
Chairman (13) of the point of order raised against the 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 653, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 24, 1944. Under 
        consideration was H.J. Res. 192 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
13. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Luther A. Johnson [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the pending 
    resolution. The pending resolution is to enable the United States 
    to participate in the work of the United Nations Relief and 
    Rehabilitation organization. The gentleman's amendment simply 
    authorizes an appropriation to be made to the President for a 
    certain character of relief and not within the purview of the 
    pending resolution as stated in the preamble.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio appropriates 
    money for purposes of relief. The Chair feels that it is in line 
    with the general purposes of the bill and overrules the point of 
    order.

Bill Authorizing Assistance to Greece and Turkey Through Reconstruction 
    Finance Corporation--Amendment To Create New Commission To Control 
    Funds Not Limited to Those in Bill

Sec. 7.2 To a bill authorizing appropriations for assistance to Greece 
    and Turkey through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, an 
    amendment proposing the creation of a Foreign Funds Control 
    Commission having control of funds not limited to those proposed in 
    the bill was held to be not germane.

    A bill (14) relating to appropriations for assistance to 
Greece and Turkey was under consideration on May 9, 1947. The Chairman 
(15) ruled out of order as nongermane an amendment offered 
by Mr. Fred L. Crawford, of Michigan: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Under consideration was H.R. 2616 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
15. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
16. 93 Cong. Rec. 4930, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7892]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Crawford: On page 4, line 22, 
        after the period, add a new section:
            ``Sec. 3a. There is hereby created the Foreign Funds 
        Control Commission, which shall be an independent agency of 
        Government directly responsible to the Congress.
            ``The Commission shall consist of three members--a 
        Director, the Comptroller General, and the Secretary of the 
        Treasury. . . .
            ``The Commission is hereby directed to administer all funds 
        hereafter granted by the Treasury of the United States or 
        previous grants if directed by the Congress to foreign 
        countries, their nationals and agencies of whatever kind or 
        nature.

        Mr. [Charles A.] Eaton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. . . . Mr. Chairman, the legislation the gentleman 
    proposes is very important and very fundamental legislation, but it 
    ought to come before the committee in a special bill. I make the 
    point of order that it is not germane to the present bill.

    The Chairman, in ruling on the point of order, stated:

        The amendment . . . proposes [creation of] a Foreign Funds 
    Control Commission, to be an independent agency of the Government 
    and to have control not merely over the funds proposed to be 
    authorized by the pending legislation but over funds that might be 
    made available under other legislation. Consequently the Chair 
    sustains the point of order and rules that the amendment is not 
    germane.

Bill To Provide Foreign Aid Through Economic Cooperation 
    Administration--Amendment To Provide Aid To Individuals Through 
    Creation of World Relief Corporation

Sec. 7.3 To a bill providing for economical and financial assistance to 
    foreign countries through an agency to be known as the Economic 
    Cooperation Administration, an amendment to provide similar aid 
    through an agency to be known as ``World Relief, Inc.'' was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill relating to 
foreign assistance, an amendment, reading in part as follows, was 
offered for purposes of creating a corporate body with the function of 
furnishing aid to individuals: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 3627, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1948. Under 
        consideration was S. 2202 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 102. That there be, and is hereby, created a body 
    corporate with the name ``World Relief, Incorporated'' (herein 
    called the Corporation). . . .
        Sec. 107. That the purposes of this Corporation are and shall 
    be to furnish, directly, food, clothing, and other urgently needed 
    supplies to the needy individuals of the world. The Corporation is 
    hereby specifically prohibited

[[Page 7893]]

    from furnishing food, clothing, or other supplies to the 
    governments of any cooperating country or any political subdivision 
    thereof as distinguished from their individual citizens.

    In overruling a point of order against the amendment, the Chairman 
(18) stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 3629, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill pending before the committee is a bill of considerable 
    latitude. The title reads:

            An act to promote the general welfare, national interest, 
        and foreign policy of the United States through necessary 
        economic and financial assistance to foreign countries which 
        undertake to cooperate with each other in the establishment and 
        maintenance of economic conditions essential to a peaceful and 
        prosperous world. . . .
[T]he amendment that is offered in its present form does not, in the 
    opinion of the Chair, go beyond the very general purposes outlined 
    in the bill before us.

        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill To Provide Foreign Aid Through Government Agencies--Amendment 
    Providing Aid Through Red Cross by Different Methods of 
    Distribution

Sec. 7.4 To a bill providing relief to foreign countries through 
    government agencies, an amendment providing for such relief to be 
    made through the Red Cross, to be distributed by methods not 
    contemplated in the bill, was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a foreign aid bill, 
an amendment was offered for purposes of giving the Red Cross and 
similar organizations responsibilities with respect to providing relief 
to foreign countries.(20) The nature of the objections to 
the amendment, and the ruling by the Chairman,(1) are 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 11242, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1947. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 4604 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 1. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the bill 
    H.R. 4604, which, as its title indicates, is ``to promote world 
    peace and the general welfare, national interest, and foreign 
    policy of the United States by providing aid to certain foreign 
    countries.'' The entire structure of the bill provides for aid 
    furnished by this Government to governments of other countries. The 
    section of the bill in question . . . provides for agreements that 
    the recipient countries are required to make before any of the aid 
    is supplied. This amendment would provide a new subsection . . . by 
    which the foreign country is not only required to insure the 
    distribution of the bulk of the products through private 
    organizations selected

[[Page 7894]]

    by an American representative, but each of the foreign countries is 
    required to make an undertaking that the other countries insure 
    that these private organizations selected by the American 
    representative carry out the distribution.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 11242, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: . . . This is a bill to provide relief for 
    specified foreign countries. A specific method is provided for 
    administering that relief. That method proposed requires an 
    agreement between the governments involved. The bill provides that 
    the recipient governments must administer the relief in their 
    respective jurisdictions. . . .
        [The] amendment . . . creates a new plan of distribution, 
    including participation by the Red Cross. . . . Part of the 
    amendment undoubtedly is germane, but the amendment goes further 
    and provides for distribution in a method and a manner not 
    contemplated in section 5 or in the bill.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 11244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Create Division of Water Pollution Control in Public Health 
    Service--Amendment Proposing Water Pollution Study by Chief of 
    Engineers and Surgeon General

Sec. 7.5 To a bill creating a division of water pollution control in 
    the Public Health Service, to conduct a survey, issue a report, and 
    to control pollution, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    proposing a comprehensive water pollution study by the Chief of 
    Engineers and the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service was 
    held to be germane.

    During consideration of a bill establishing a division of water 
pollution control in the Public Health Service, the following amendment 
in the nature of a substitute was offered: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 3694, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 21, 1937. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 2711 (Committee on Rivers and Harbors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That the Chief of Engineers of the War Department and the 
    Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, Treasury Department, 
    are authorized and directed to make jointly a comprehensive study 
    of water pollution and the means of eliminating or reducing water 
    pollution. . . .

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

        Mr. Fred M. Vinson [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the section and 
    not germane to the bill. . . .

        I do not have the amendment before me . . . but section 1 
    establishes a division of water-pollution control in the Public 
    Health Service.
        Nothing whatever is contained in section 1 [of the bill] with 
    reference to

[[Page 7895]]

    the purposes set out in the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Missouri.

    The proponent of the amendment, Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
in defending the amendment, stated:

        This bill provides for the stopping of pollution in the streams 
    of the United States. That is the very purpose of my amendment. 
    When the report is received from the Engineers of the War 
    Department and the Public Health Service, then this Congress will 
    have something to work on and can act intelligently.

    The Chairman (5) ruled as follows: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Wall Doxey (Miss.).
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 3694, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 21, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair may say in reference to the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Fred M. Vinson] that the proposed 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cochran] 
    provides for a survey and a report. The pending bill, H.R. 2711, 
    not only provides for a survey and report but goes still further 
    and sets up certain machinery to control the pollution of streams.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is germane to 
    the pending bill and therefore overrules the point of order.

Water Resources of Alaska: Investigation by Corps of Engineers in Lieu 
    of Secretary of Interior

Sec. 7.6 To a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to make 
    investigations of projects for the conservation and utilization of 
    water resources of the Territory of Alaska, an amendment proposing 
    that such investigations be made by the Corps of Army Engineers was 
    held to be not germane.

    On June 1, 1955,(7) during consideration of a bill 
reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs dealing 
solely with an investigation of the water resources of the Territory of 
Alaska (a subject then exclusively within the jurisdiction of the 
Interior Committee), an amendment was offered to provide that the 
investigation should be carried out by a department other than the 
department named in the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 101 Cong. Rec. 7403, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 3990 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Homer H.] Budge [of Idaho]: . . . Mr. Chairman, it appears 
    to me that the amendment is germane. It substitutes an existing 
    Government agency for another existing Government agency. It 
    carries out the stated purposes of the legislation simply by a 
    substitution of the agency to do the things which are called for in 
    the legislation.
        The Chairman: (8) . . . The gentleman's amendment 
    substitutes a de

[[Page 7896]]

    partment of the Government which does not come under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and 
    therefore the Chair must rule that it is out of order. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standards for Wages and Hours To Be Established by New Division in 
    Labor Department in Lieu of Independent Executive Board

Sec. 7.7 To a bill providing for the establishment of fair labor 
    standards through the utilization of an independent board having 
    certain specified powers, an amendment proposing to accomplish the 
    same result by establishing a wages and hours division in the 
    Department of Labor was held to be germane.

    On Dec. 15, 1937, during consideration of a bill concerned with the 
determination of minimum wages and maximum hours in industry by an 
independent board exercising broad discretionary powers, an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute which provided that such determination be 
made by a division newly established in the Department of Labor was 
held to be germane; and a further substitute amendment proposing to fix 
minimum wages and maximum hours in specific terms without resort to the 
exercise of discretion by any agency was held to be germane to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. See the proceedings of Dec. 
15, 1937, with respect to S. 2475, discussed in Sec. 6.23, supra.

Research in Tin Smelting: Control Vested in Bureau of Mines in Lieu of 
    Government Corporation

Sec. 7.8 To a bill to continue an act providing for the maintenance of 
    a government-owned smelting operation, and for financing of 
    research in tin smelting and processing, an amendment proposing to 
    give control of such research to the Bureau of Mines was held to be 
    germane.

    On July 25, 1950, the following amendment was offered to H.R. 8569, 
reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency, a bill to 
strengthen the common defense by extending for five years the authority 
for the Texas City tin smelter operation: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 96 Cong. Rec. 11011, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That on or before December 31, 1950, the present lease and 
    smelting agreements, as amended, shall be terminated by the 
    Reconstruction Finance

[[Page 7897]]

    Corporation and the operation and management of the Government-
    owned tin smelter at Texas City, Tex., shall be awarded to bona 
    fide American private enterprise which has no affiliations or 
    interests whatsoever in tin mining or smelting outside of the 
    Western Hemisphere, or, if this cannot be accomplished 
    satisfactorily, such operation and management shall be given to and 
    undertaken by the United States Bureau of Mines, Department of the 
    Interior: And provided further, That all research and 
    experimentation performed with United States Government funds at, 
    or for the Government-owned tin smelter at Texas City, Tex., after 
    December 31, 1950, shall be conducted by or under the supervision 
    of the United States Bureau of Mines. . . .

    In ruling on a point of order made against the amendment, the 
Chairman (10) stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.  Prince H. Preston, Jr. (Ga.).
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 11011, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., July 25, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman has examined the basic law sought to be extended 
    by the bill now before the committee. The language in the basic law 
    states clearly, among other things, ``to finance research in tin 
    smelting and processing, and (4) to do all other things necessary 
    to the accomplishment of the foregoing shall continue in effect 
    until June 30, 1951, or until such earlier time as the Congress 
    shall otherwise provide.''
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
    Saylor] offers an alternative proposition, to place it in other 
    departments of the Government.
        Therefore the Chair holds that the amendment is germane and 
    overrules the point of order.

Amendment Substituting National Defense Mediation Board for National 
    Mediation Board as Agency To Perform Same Duties

Sec. 7.9 To an amendment placing certain duties upon the National 
    Mediation Board, an amendment proposing to place such duties upon 
    the National Defense Mediation Board was held to be germane.

    The following exchange in the 77th Congress (12) 
concerned an amendment substituting ``National Defense Mediation 
Board'' for ``National Mediation Board'' in a proposition relating to 
military appropriations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 4905, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., June 9, 1941. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 4965 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. The amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
    Dakota deals with the National Mediation Board. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Michigan deals with the National 
    Defense Mediation Board, an entirely different subject and 
    therefore not germane to the original amendment. . . .

[[Page 7898]]

        Mr. [Albert J.] Engel [of Michigan]: . . . The gentleman from 
    South Dakota [Mr. Case] intended to write ``National Defense 
    Mediation Board'' and unintentionally wrote ``National Mediation 
    Board.'' They are not the same Boards.
        The Chairman: (13) In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Engel] to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Case] is 
    simply a change in the Board which would have control, under the 
    amendment as offered. The Chair thinks it is entirely in order for 
    the gentleman from Michigan to offer an amendment for a different 
    Board to be charged with the operation than the Board stated in the 
    amendment as originally offered, and therefore overrules the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 8. Individual Proposition Offered as Amendment to Another 
    Individual Proposition

    A well-established principle governing questions of germaneness is 
that one individual proposition may not be amended by another 
individual proposition even though the two may belong to the same 
class.(14) The question for the Chair frequently consists in 
determining what comprises an ``individual proposition.'' 
(15) For example, it has been held that, to a bill relating 
to relief for one class, an amendment seeking to include another class 
is not germane.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 8.8, 8.17, infra.
15. Where a bill relates to the maintenance and administration of a 
        certain parkway, a proffered amendment affecting the 
        administration of a different parkway is not germane. See 
        Sec. 3.60 (Parliamentarian's Note), supra.
16.  See Sec. 13.19, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appropriation Bill Containing Funds for Agency--Amendment Appropriating 
    Funds for Different Agency for Related Purpose

Sec. 8.1 To a portion of an appropriation bill containing funds for a 
    certain purpose to be expended by one government agency, an 
    amendment containing funds for another government agency for the 
    same general purpose may not be germane although authorized by law; 
    thus, to a title of a general appropriation bill containing funds 
    for energy programs administered by the Department of Energy, an 
    amendment appropriating a portion of those funds for a pilot wood 
    utilization program authorized by law to be conducted by the 
    Department of

[[Page 7899]]

    Agriculture was held not germane.

    On July 24, 1981,(17) during consideration of the Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations for fiscal 1982 (18) in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 127 Cong. Rec. 17226, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 4144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: Page 16, line 19, insert 
        immediately before the period the following: ``, and Provided 
        further, That $5,000,000 of the funds provided herein shall be 
        made available to the Secretary of Agriculture for the 
        establishment of pilot wood utilization projects and 
        demonstrations as authorized by the Wood Residue Utilization 
        Act of 1980, Public Law 96-554.''. . . .

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the gentleman's amendment. . . .
        The amendment is not germane to this paragraph of the bill nor 
    to the bill as a whole. The wood residue program is authorized by 
    Public Law 96-554, and clearly is to be administered by the Forest 
    Service, Department of Agriculture, which is funded under the 
    Interior appropriations bill.
        This program was not authorized to be administered or funded by 
    the Department of Energy, which is where the gentleman's amendment 
    applies.
        Under clause 7, rule XVI, it is stated that it is not in order 
    during consideration in the House to introduce a new subject by way 
    of amendment, and an amendment inserting an additional section 
    should be germane to the portion of the bill to which it is 
    offered.
        I contend this amendment is not germane to this paragraph or 
    this bill and is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI. . . .
        Mr. Weaver: . . . [T]he Department of Energy now funds wood 
    utilization programs. This bill is law. We are not changing 
    existing law. We are referring only to existing law and it is an 
    energy manufacturing program and, therefore, definitely germane to 
    this bill.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order made by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.  Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Alabama, the 
    distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the point of order is 
    sustained and the amendment is held not germane to the pending 
    title of the bill, which relates only to the Department of Energy.

Amendment Changing Existing Law To Achieve Single Purpose Offered to 
    Proposition Not Amending That Law

Sec. 8.2 An amendment changing existing law in order to achieve one 
    individual purpose is not germane to a proposition which does not

[[Page 7900]]

    amend that law and which seeks to accomplish another individual 
    purpose.

    The proceedings of Dec. 14, 1973, relating to H.R. 11450, the 
Energy Emergency Act, are discussed in Sec. 41.20, infra.

Bill Granting Rights to Executive Agency Employees--Amendment To Extend 
    Coverage of Bill to Legislative Employees

Sec. 8.3 Unless a bill so extensively amends existing law as to open up 
    the entire law to amendment, the germaneness of an amendment to the 
    bill depends upon its relationship to the subject of the bill and 
    not to the entire law being amended; thus, to a bill amending a 
    section of title 5, United States Code, granting certain rights to 
    employees of executive agencies of the federal government, an 
    amendment extending those rights to legislative branch employees, 
    as defined in a different section of that title, was held to be 
    beyond the scope of the bill and was held to be not germane.

    On Oct. 28, 1975,(20) during consideration of a bill 
(1) dealing with the right to representation for federal 
executive employees during questioning, the Chair, in ruling that the 
amendment described above was not germane to that bill, reiterated the 
principle that one individual proposition is not germane to another 
individual proposition, even though the two belong to the same class:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 34031, 34036, 34037, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1.  H.R. 6227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
        chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
        at the end thereof the following new subchapter:

                       ``SUBCHAPTER III--EMPLOYEE RIGHTS

        ``Sec. 7171. Right to representation during questioning

            ``(a) Any employee of an Executive agency under 
        investigation for misconduct which could lead to suspension, 
        removal, or reduction in rank or pay of such employee shall not 
        be required to answer questions relating to the misconduct 
        under investigation unless--
            ``(1) the employee is advised in writing of--
            ``(A) the fact that such employee is under investigation 
        for misconduct,
            ``(B) the specific nature of such alleged misconduct, and
            ``(C) the rights such employee has under paragraph (2) of 
        this subsection, and

[[Page 7901]]

            ``(2) the employee has been provided reasonable time, not 
        to exceed 5 working days, to obtain a representative of his 
        choice, and is allowed to have such representative present 
        during such questioning, if he so elects. . . .

        Mr. [Robin L.] Beard of Tennessee: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Beard of Tennessee: on page 1, 
        line 8 insert immediately following the word ``agency'' the 
        following: ``, or any employee as defined under section 2107 of 
        this Title,''.

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Madam Chairman, I have a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Madam Chairman, under rule XVI, clause 7, of the Rules of the 
    House, any amendment to a bill concerning a subject different from 
    those contained in the bill is not germane and is subject to a 
    point of order. The instant amendment proposes to make the bill 
    applicable to a completely new class of employees other than what 
    is covered under the bill, namely, congressional employees. 
    However, the reported bill applies only to employees of executive 
    agencies as defined under section 105.
        In my opinion, the subject of the amendment is not similar to 
    any of the subject matters involved in H.R. 6227 which I have just 
    outlined and is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Beard of Tennessee: . . . Madam Chairman, I feel the 
    amendment is germane to this particular bill inasmuch as the people 
    we are including in this bill are Federal employees and those 
    concerning whom we are legislating today are Federal employees. . . 
    .
        Madam Chairman, if I may be heard further on the point of 
    order, all this does is to remove an exemption rather than add a 
    group of employees. It is just removing an exemption, and I believe 
    that is the fair thing to do.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill before us is very explicit as to its scope. It 
    includes any employee of an executive agency. The bill itself, by 
    its own terms, affects the class of civil servants known as 
    executive agency employees.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
    Beard) would seek to amend the bill by adding a totally different 
    individual class of employees to the bill beyond the scope of the 
    bill, namely, congressional employees as defined in section 2107.
        The rule of germaneness, in terms of amendments of this kind, 
    states as follows: One individual proposition may not be amended by 
    another individual proposition, even though the two belong to the 
    same class.
        In light of that principle and in light of the scope of this 
    bill, the Chair rules that this amendment is not germane and is, 
    therefore, out of order. . . .
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Madam Chairman, 
    respecting the chairperson's ruling, in regard to title V to which 
    this bill addresses itself, an amendment to title V includes all 
    employees, including the President, Members of Congress, and 
    members of the uniformed services, even though this bill has 
    application,

[[Page 7902]]

    as the gentlewoman has said, only to Federal employees. Therefore, 
    this title V does apply to all Federal employees. . . .
        The Chairman: To the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) 
    the Chair would only state that the germaneness of the amendment 
    must be weighed against the content and scope of the bill and not 
    title V of the United States Code, as the gentleman would interpret 
    it.

Bill Relating to Civil Service Employees--Amendment To Extend Coverage 
    of Bill to Postal and District of Columbia Employees

Sec. 8.4 To a bill relating to a certain class of federal employees 
    (the civil service), an amendment to bring another class of 
    employees (postal and District of Columbia employees) within the 
    scope of the bill is not germane.

    On Sept. 7, 1978,(3) during consideration of a bill 
(4) containing proposals to reform the federal civil service 
through merit system principles and personnel management, a point of 
order was made against two titles of a committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, one dealing with the work week of federal 
firefighters and one amending a law (the ``Hatch Act'') regulating 
political activities of postal and District of Columbia employees as 
well as the civil service. The point of order was made pursuant to a 
special order allowing a point of order based on the contention that 
both titles taken together would not have been germane if offered as a 
separate amendment to the bill as introduced, and providing that if the 
point of order were sustained, the committee amendment after deletion 
of those titles, would be read as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment. The Chair ruled that the amendment was not germane, basing 
such ruling on the inclusion of postal and District employees within 
the coverage of the bill, without deciding the issue relating to 
inclusion of provisions as to the work week of federal firefighters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 28437-39, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (H.R. 11280).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) . . . Pursuant to the rule, The 
    Clerk will now read by titles the committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Post Office and 
    Civil Service now printed in the reported bill as an original bill 
    for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk proceeded to read the bill.
        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order

[[Page 7903]]

    against titles IX and X, based on their violation of clause 7, rule 
    XVI, in that they are nongermane to the bill before us.
        Title IX deals with two groups of employees not covered in the 
    original bill. It includes postal workers and District of Columbia 
    employees. There is much precedent which indicates that we have 
    classes of subjects not covered by the basic proposition before us, 
    which renders the new material nongermane. That is precisely what 
    title IX does by adding two new subjects.
        Title X, on the other hand, introduces new subject matter, the 
    pay of firefighters that is not covered in the original bill. Title 
    X deals exclusively with hours of work and wages of firefighters, 
    while the original bill deals with the institution of the merit 
    system within the system. Where hours or wages are included, it is 
    only incidental to the basic proposition of the merit system, so 
    both of these titles should be stricken for the above reason, and 
    for the added reason that neither proposition amends the original 
    bill. Rather, both seek to amend existing and basic law. . . .
        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: . . . The facts are fairly 
    obvious--and the connections between Hatch Act reform and the rest 
    of H.R. 11280 are quite strong--
        First, the bill, in section 2302 (on page 138, beginning on 
    line 24) defines improper political activities as a prohibited 
    personnel practice. Title IX of the bill states exactly what these 
    improper political activities are.
        Second, the bill charges the special counsel of the Merit 
    System Protection Board (MSPB) with responsibility for not only 
    investigating prohibited personnel activities in general but 
    improper political activities in particular. (See page 160, 
    beginning on line 24.) Title IX of the bill defines more fully 
    these activities which apply to Federal civilian as well as postal 
    employees.
        Mr. Chairman, it is inconceivable to me that this bill--which 
    touches on virtually every aspect of civil service--should have 
    political activities and firefighters singled out for this kind of 
    shabby treatment. . . .
        Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    point of order under the rule applies to titles IX and X, and comes 
    before this House in a most unusual, and indeed a peculiar, way 
    that the Chair perhaps would have to rule against the germaneness 
    of one title that will be germane, because it is connected in the 
    rule to another title that the Chair may consider nongermane.
        I think it is unfortunate that the House must consider the 
    matter in that fashion. I would point out to the Chair with regard 
    to this point of order that title X, in fact, does pass the 
    jurisdictional test. It was in fact with the same jurisdiction 
    committee, the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, as this 
    bill is brought; therefore, it passes that jurisdictional test as 
    far as the case is concerned.
        I would point out further that the firefighter bill was 
    actually reported out of this committee and came before this House; 
    it passed by almost a 2-to-1 margin. Again, it reaches the 
    fundamental purpose test.
        The bill itself is for the reform of the civil service system 
    by title. This bill is for the reform of the working condi

[[Page 7904]]

    tions of the firefighters, a part of the civil service system by 
    title. The fundamental purpose of both bills are exactly the same, 
    that is, reform of the system. . . .
        I can cite precedents to indicate that when a bill deals with 
    several particulars, one particular may be held to be germane.
        In fact, this class is the same as the other titles of the 
    bill. A bill may be amended by a specific proposition of the same 
    class.
        I would be happy to quote to the Chair about a dozen precedents 
    that make this point.
        If in fact we were to deal with the whole civil service system, 
    dealing with a particular part of that system, that is the 
    firefighters and their work rules is a particular matter within 
    that system. Therefore, I would urge the Chair to overrule the 
    point of order and hold title X as germane.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington makes a point of 
    order against titles IX and X of the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Post Office 
    and Civil Service, on the grounds that those titles would not have 
    been germane if offered as an amendment to the bill H.R. 11280, as 
    introduced.
        As indicated by the gentleman from Washington, the special 
    order providing for consideration of this measure, House Resolution 
    1307, allows the Chair to entertain a point of order on the basis 
    stated by the gentleman, that titles IX and X would not have been 
    germane as a separate amendment to H.R. 11280 in its introduced 
    form.
        The bill as introduced and referred to the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service, although broad in its coverage of reform 
    proposals within the competitive service and in the executive 
    branch of the Government, is limited to merit system principles and 
    personnel management within the civil service of the U.S. 
    Government. Title IX of the committee amendment is designed to 
    characterize and to protect appropriate political activities of 
    employees of the District of Columbia and Postal Service as well as 
    civil service employees, by amending the Hatch Act. The Chair 
    agrees with the argument of the gentleman from Washington that the 
    amendment would add an entirely new class of employees to that 
    covered by the bill, and for that reason is not germane.
        Accordingly the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Governing Political Activities of Federal Civilian Employees--
    Amendment To Extend Coverage to Military Personnel

Sec. 8.5 To a bill governing the political activities of a certain 
    class of federal employees, an amendment broadening the scope of 
    the bill to cover another class of federal employees is not 
    germane; thus, where a bill contained a provision excluding from 
    its coverage a particular class (members of the uniformed 
    services), the effect of which was to narrow the scope of the bill 
    to an

[[Page 7905]]

    other single class (federal civilian employees), an amendment 
    proposing to strike out that exclusion from coverage, thereby 
    broadening the scope of the bill to include the separate class, was 
    held not germane.

    On June 7, 1977,(6) during consideration of the Federal 
Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977,(7) the Chair 
held that an amendment which by deleting an exception to the definition 
of the class covered by the bill and by inserting new provisions has 
the effect of including another class, is not germane. The amendment 
and proceedings related thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 7713, 17714, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Kindness: Page 28, line 12, 
        strike out ``but does not include a member of the uniformed 
        services'' and insert ``including any member of the uniformed 
        services''. . . .
            Page 38, line 14, immediately before the period insert ``or 
        by reason of being a member of the uniformed services''.
            Page 45, before line 8, insert the following:
            ``(j) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of a uniformed 
        service. Procedures with respect to any such violation shall, 
        under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be the 
        same as those applicable with respect to violations of section 
        892 of title 10.
            Page 46, after line 12, insert the following:
            ``(c) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of the uniformed 
        services. Any such violation shall, under regulations 
        prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be subject to the same 
        penalties as apply in the case of a violation of section 892 of 
        title 10.''.
            Page 47, after line 21, insert the following:
            ``(d) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the 
        Secretary concerned shall carry out the responsibilities 
        imposed on the Commission under the preceding provisions of 
        this section.''. . . .
            Page 48, after line 17, insert:
            ``(c) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the 
        Secretary concerned shall prescribe the regulations the 
        Commission is required to prescribe under this section, section 
        7322(9)), and section 7324(c)(2) and (3) of this title.''. . . 
        .

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order on the grounds that the matter contained in the 
    amendment is in violation of the germaneness rule stated in clause 
    7 of House rule XVI.
        The instant amendment proposes to make the bill applicable to 
    an entirely new class of individuals other than what is covered 
    under the bill.
        The reported bill applies only to civilian employees in 
    executive branch agencies, including the Postal Service and the 
    District of Columbia government, who are presently under the Hatch 
    Act.
        The amendment seeks to add a totally different class of 
    individuals to

[[Page 7906]]

    the bill; namely, military personnel who are not now covered by the 
    Hatch Act. Accordingly the amendment is not germane to the bill. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Responding (to) the point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman, the bill, as before us at this time, has 
    been expanded in considerable degree by the Clay amendment and by 
    other amendments that have been adopted during the course of the 
    consideration of the bill in the Committee of the Whole.
        However, I would point out that the amendment is germane, and I 
    particularly direct the attention of the chairman and the Members 
    to line 12 of page 28 where, in the definition of the word 
    ``employee'' the words appear, on line 12, ``but does not include a 
    member of the uniformed services.''
        Mr. Chairman, that is the very crux of this whole point. The 
    committee has given consideration, apparently, to the inclusion or 
    exclusion of members of uniformed services under the provisions of 
    this bill. A conscious decision was apparently made; and as 
    reported to the House, this bill has that conscious decision 
    reflected in it not to include members of the uniformed services.
        Mr. Chairman, the issue is directly before the House in that 
    form, so that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is 
    in order, is pertinent, and is germane. It could not be nongermane.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) makes a point of order 
    that the striking of the language, ``but does not include a member 
    of the uniformed services,'' and the remainder of the amendment 
    broadens the scope of the bill in violation of rule XVI, clause 7.
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) argues that because the 
    exclusion from coverage for the military is in the bill and has 
    received consideration, that the germaneness rule should be more 
    liberally interpreted. . . .
        An annotation to clause 7, rule XVI, says that, in general, an 
    amendment simply striking out words already in a bill may not be 
    attacked as not germane unless such action would change the scope 
    and meaning of the text. Cannon's VIII, section 2921; Deschler's 
    chapter 28, sec. 15.3.
        On October 28, 1975, Chairman Jordan of Texas ruled, during the 
    consideration of a bill H.R. 2667, giving the right of 
    representation to Federal employees during questioning as follows:

            In a bill amending a section of title 5, United States 
        Code, granting certain rights to employees of executive 
        agencies of the Federal Government, an amendment extending 
        those rights to, in that case, legislative branch employees, as 
        defined in a different section of that title, was held to go 
        beyond the scope of the bill and was ruled out as not germane.

        The class of employees included in this legislation is confined 
    to civilian employees of the Government, and those specifically so 
    stated and described as being civilian employees of the executive 
    agencies, of the Postal Service and of the District of Columbia 
    government, and a reference to the Hatch Act as currently in force 
    indicates that military personnel are not included in that act.

[[Page 7907]]

        It is obvious that the purpose and the scope of the act before 
    us as referred to in its entirety as amended by this bill, is, ``to 
    restore to Federal civilian and Postal Service employees their 
    rights to participate voluntarily, as private citizens, in the 
    political processes of the Nation, to protect such employees from 
    improper political solicitations, and for other purposes.''
        The Chair finds that the striking of the language excluding 
    military employees and inserting language covering the military 
    broadens the class of the persons covered by this bill to an extent 
    that it substantially changes the text and substantially changes 
    the purpose of the bill. The fact that the exclusion of military 
    personnel was stated in the bill does not necessarily bring into 
    question the converse of that proposition. The Chair therefore 
    finds that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I have [a] parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this: 
    Is there a way to appeal the ruling of the Chair within the rules 
    of the House?
        The Chairman: Yes, there is.
        Mr. Kindness: So that I may respectfully appeal the ruling of 
    the Chair at this point?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Ohio desires to do so.
        Does the gentleman desire to appeal the ruling of the Chair?
        Mr. Kindness: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not so desire at this 
    point.

Bill Containing Cost-of-living Adjustment for Foreign Service 
    Retirees--Amendment To Adjust Civil Service Annuities

Sec. 8.6 To a bill reported from the Committee on International 
    Relations containing a cost-of-living adjustment for foreign 
    service retirees, an amendment containing a comparable adjustment 
    in annuities for federal civil service employees was held to be not 
    germane as beyond the scope of the bill and within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

    During consideration of H.R. 13179 (the State Department 
authorization bill for fiscal 1977)), it was demonstrated that an 
individual proposition may not be germane to another individual 
proposition even though they may belong to the same generic class. The 
proceedings of June 18, 1976,(9) wherein the Chair sustained 
a point of order against the amendment described above, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 19224, 19226, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 7908]]

     cost-of-living adjustments of foreign service retirement annuities

        Sec. 13. (a) Section 882(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 
    is amended by striking out ``1 per centum plus''.
        (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with 
    respect to annuity increases which become effective after the end 
    of the forty-five-day period beginning on the date of enactment of 
    this Act. . . .
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski: Page 10, strike out 
        lines 3 through 9 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 13. (a) Section 882(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 
        1946 (22 U.S.C. 1121(b)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(b) Effective the first day of the second month which 
        begins after the price index change equals a rise of at least 3 
        percent for a month over the price index for the month last 
        used to establish an increase, each annuity payable from the 
        Fund having a commencing date not later than that effective 
        date shall be increased by such percentage rise in the price 
        index, adjusted to the nearest 1/10th of 1 percent.''. . .

             cost-of-living adjustments of civil service annuities

            Sec. 14. (a) Section 8340(b) of title 5, United States 
        Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(b) Each month the Commission shall determine the percent 
        change in the price index. Effective the first day of the 
        second month which begins after the price index change equals a 
        rise of at least 3 percent for a month over the price index for 
        the base month, each annuity payable from the Fund having a 
        commencing date not later than that effective date shall be 
        increased by such percentage rise in the price index, adjusted 
        to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    this amendment is not germane to this bill because it affects the 
    U.S. Civil Service and it is not within the scope of the bill. . .
        Mr. Derwinski: I rise in opposition to the point of order.
        Deschler's Procedures, chapter 28, paragraph 1.4, under general 
    principles of germaneness, states that the rule of germaneness 
    applies to the relationship between a proposed amendment and the 
    pending bill to which it is offered.
        There is an obvious relationship. Section 12 of the bill 
    provides for annuity adjustments for alien employees who are under 
    the Civil Service Retirement Act. Section 13 of the bill amends the 
    annuity provisions of the Foreign Service Act.
        The amendment I have offered relates to both these retirement 
    systems. My amendment to section 13 of the bill amends the annuity 
    provisions of the Foreign Service Act by changing the formula for 
    cost-of-living adjustments, and is germane to that section. My 
    amendment adding a new section 14 to the bill amends the Civil 
    Service Retirement Act in the same manner, and is germane to the 
    bill.
        Mr. Chairman, because both of these retirement systems are 
    affected by the pending bill, the amendment I have offered is, I 
    believe, in compliance with the rule of germaneness.

[[Page 7909]]

        Mr. Chairman, I urge the point of order be overruled.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Morgan) that the amendment covers a class of employees who are not 
    contained in the bill, the Chair rules that the amendment is not 
    germane and sustains the point of order.

Bill Amending Part of Law Relating to Prohibition Against Former 
    Executive Branch Employees Appearing Before Agency on Matters 
    Within Former Responsibility--Amendment To Repeal Prohibition in 
    Another Section of Law Against Appearances by Former Officials 
    Irrespective of Subject Matter

Sec. 8.7 To a bill amending one subsection of law dealing with one 
    prohibited type of activity, an amendment to another subsection 
    dealing with a related but separate prohibited type of activity is 
    not germane; thus, to a bill narrowly amending one subsection of 
    existing law to modify prohibitions against former executive branch 
    employees appearing before their former employing agency for a 
    certain time on matters within their former responsibility, further 
    narrowed by amendment to strike proposed changes in another 
    subsection of that law relating to coverage of categories of former 
    officials under the entire law, an amendment to a third subsection 
    of that section of law to repeal a separate prohibition against 
    appearances by former senior executive officials irrespective of 
    the subject matter of the appearance or communication, was held not 
    germane to the bill as perfected by amendment.

    On May 16, 1979,(11) during consideration of S. 869 in 
the Committee of the Whole, the bill had been amended to narrow it to 
one subsection of law. The amended bill read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 11470-72, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 7910]]

        Subsection (d)(3) of the aforesaid section 207 is amended by 
    striking ``O-7'' and inserting ``O-9''; and by inserting after 
    ``or'' the following: ``at such pay grade of O-7 or O-8 who has 
    significant decisionmaking or supervisory responsibility as 
    designated by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics in 
    consultation with the head of the department or agency concerned; 
    or''.

    The Chair then sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:

        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment and ask unanimous consent for its immediate 
    consideration.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 2, following line 2, add the following new sections 
        to the bill:
            ``Sec. 2. Subsection (c) of section 207 of title 18, United 
        States Code, is hereby repealed.
            ``Sec. 3. Section 207 of title 18, United States Code is 
        further amended--
            (1) in subsection (d) by striking out ``(c)'' and inserting 
        in lieu thereof ``(b)(ii)'';
            (2) in subsection (e) by striking out ``(c)'' and inserting 
        in lieu thereof ``(b)(ii)'';
            (3) in subsection (f) by striking out ``(a), (b), and (c)'' 
        and inserting in lieu thereof ``(a) and (b)'';
            (4) in subsection (i) by striking out ``(c)'' and inserting 
        in lieu thereof ``(b)(ii)'';
            (5) in subsection (j) by striking out ``(a), (b), or (c)'' 
        and by inserting in lieu thereof ``(a) or (b)''; and
            (6) by redesignating subsection (d) through (j) as 
        subsections (c) through (i), respectively. . . .

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman's amendment would repeal subsection (c) of title 207 of 
    the United States Code. I respectfully submit that it is not 
    germane inasmuch as the bill pending before the committee at this 
    time refers only to subsection (b) of section 207 of the United 
    States Code. It has nothing to do with subsection (c). Therefore, 
    it is beyond the scope of the bill and is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Kindness: This railroad is running pretty fast. The 
    chairman of the subcommittee has just shown a lack of confidence in 
    this bill. So much so that all we can consider under a very 
    narrowly drawn committee amendment is just a little bit of the 
    section that is involved. The real controversy lies outside of 
    subsection (b). . . .
        Now, as to the germaneness of the amendment that is before us, 
    it relates to section 207. It relates specifically to section 
    207(c). No amount of cute parliamentary maneuvering can remove 
    subsection (b) from section 207. Under the rules of the House, the 
    whole section is appropriate for consideration.
        The previous ruling of the Chair related to the establishment 
    of some other section of law; but this is right in the same section 
    and it is inappropriate to limit the application of this bill to 
    just a portion of the section which is, indeed, a sentence. To 
    limit it to only subsection (b) would not be to even consider the 
    complete sentence.
        Mr. [Carlos J.] Moorhead [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    wanted to speak to that point of order. The title of this bill is 
    an act to amend section 207 of title 18, United States Code. That 
    is exactly what this amendment does. It amends section 207 of title 
    18 of the United States Code. It should be relevant.

[[Page 7911]]

        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, on that point, in connection with 
    the point raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. Moorhead), 
    we must relate the ruling of the Chair on the point of order that 
    has been raised to section 501 of title 18 of the United States 
    Code. There can be no way to relate the ruling to section 501 of 
    title 18 without it being in order and germane to consider 
    everything within that section 501. . . .
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I speak in 
    opposition to the point of order. As has been said before, both the 
    matter before the House and the amendment relate to section 207. 
    Both address the same question, the precise question, that was 
    addressed by the original bill. This amendment is both germane to 
    the original bill and germane to the committee amendment.
        It is stated in the report:

            The purpose of the proposed legislation is to make two 
        clarifying amendments to section 207 of title 18, as amended by 
        the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. This section bars certain 
        government contacts or activity by former Federal officials and 
        employees after they have left government employment.

        Mr. Chairman, in discussing the purpose of the amendment, Mr. 
    Charles Curtis is quoted on page 4. It is said:

            Many top level Federal officers and employees come to a 
        Federal agency from outside the government. Generally, they 
        serve for a limited term or at the pleasure of the agency head 
        or the President. They do not intend, nor could they reasonably 
        expect, to make a career in Federal service. It is 
        fundamentally important, therefore, if we are to be able to 
        convince senior, highly qualified individuals to contribute 
        their talents to government that we preserve a reasonable 
        opportunity that they will be able to continue to pursue their 
        profession after they leave government.

        Mr. Chairman, both the original bill and the amendment offered, 
    and incidentally, both the original bill and the amendment offered 
    open up section 207 in order to correct it for a specific purpose. 
    They open that section to correct it in order to prevent a bar to 
    persons going out of Government from continuing to engage in the 
    type of skills and employment that they are trained for. The 
    amendment that is contained in the original bill purports to do 
    that by saying that nothing in the provision addressed will apply 
    to an employee who does not appear personally before the agency.
        The amendment that is offered to this simply strikes out all of 
    the third paragraph that addresses the same kind of question and 
    strikes out an absolute prohibition against an employee appearing 
    before the commission at all for any purpose during a period of 1 
    year.
        These both address the same problem. They have both been 
    addressed in hearings before the committee; they have both been 
    addressed by officials of Government over and over again.
        Mechanically, this is germane because it deals with the same 
    section, and substantially it is germane, because it deals with the 
    same problem.
        If a point of order could be so narrowly drawn, then there 
    would be no opportunity to meet a question addressed in the same 
    section of a bill except by one means. There would be no

[[Page 7912]]

    option of meeting the same problem by another means.
        In drawing so narrow a construction of the rules of 
    germaneness, which, incidentally are not perfect--they are somewhat 
    widely permitted to vary--if there could be any argument of 
    reasonableness, it would be that one may address the question of 
    the revolving door proposition either by permitting employees not 
    to be barred absolutely for a year or by means of saying that a 
    person will not be barred except for personal appearance. These are 
    two ways of reaching the same question under the same section. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: . . . I would just like 
    to note that even though the title itself refers to the full 
    section, the body of the bill relates only to subsection (b) and 
    subsection (d) as originally passed by the Senate and sent over to 
    this body. It does not relate in any way to subsection (c), which 
    is the subject of the amendment and, therefore, I believe the 
    germaneness rule, which I will acknowledge is a narrow 
    interpretation, should be followed here, and that only amendments 
    to those two parts of section 207 would be in order. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  E de la Garza (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair can only rule with respect to the legislation which 
    appears before the Committee of the Whole in its present form, and 
    that is S. 869.
        By a previous amendment adopted in the committee, the reference 
    to subsection (d)(3) has been stricken from the bill. The only 
    other subsection that remains in the bill is subsection (b) of 
    section 207 of title 18 addressing one category of employees. Any 
    mention made of the title to the bill is not considered as a 
    substantive part of the legislation and does not determine the 
    germaneness of an amendment to the test.
        Therefore, under the precedents as studied by the Chair, the 
    Chair will sustain the point of order.

Bill To Increase Legislative Clerk-hire Allowance--Amendment Affecting 
    Private Sector Employment

Sec. 8.8 To a bill increasing the allowance of Members and Delegates 
    for clerk hire, an amendment providing that nothing in the act or 
    in any executive order or rule of any government agency shall 
    prohibit any employer from paying to any employee a wage equivalent 
    to 75 cents per hour was held to be not germane.

    The Chairman,(13) in making the above ruling with 
respect to an amendment offered by Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.  Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 9013, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 7, 1944. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 5590 (Committee on Accounts), relating 
        to clerk-hire allowances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Virginia has offered an amendment which has 
    been

[[Page 7913]]

    reported, to which the gentleman from Missouri (15) has 
    made a point of order on the ground that the amendment is not 
    germane to the pending bill. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Mr. John J. Cochran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair . . . invites attention to page 193 of Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, which states under the 
    subject of germaneness:

            One individual proposition may not be amended by another 
        individual proposition even though the two may belong to the 
        same class.

        . . . [T]he Chair sustains the point of order.

Resolution Requesting Budgetary Information From President--Amendment 
    Requesting Budgetary Information From Certain House Members

Sec. 8.9 To a resolution requesting the President to furnish certain 
    information pertaining to the 1958 budget, an amendment requesting 
    that House Members who signed the proposed program for the 
    Democrats also furnish budgetary information was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a resolution 
(16) as described above, the following amendment was 
offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  H. Res. 190 (Committee on Appropriations).
17. 103 Cong. Rec. 3525, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 12, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Page 
    1, line 5, immediately preceding the word ``Resolved'' insert:
        Resolved, That the signers of the proposed program for the 
    Democrats in the House of Representatives . . . are . . . requested 
    to furnish to the Clerk of the Committee on Appropriations a 
    statement indicating whether the amounts named in the budget as 
    submitted for foreign policy and national defense . . . are 
    excessive or deficient. . . .

    Mr. Clarence A. Cannon, of Missouri, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane. The Chairman, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, 
in sustaining the point of order, stated:

        The pending resolution deals entirely and exclusively with the 
    request for information from the executive branch of the 
    Government. The gentleman's amendment deals entirely with a request 
    for information with respect to the House of Representatives, part 
    of the legislative branch of the Government, and is not germane.

    Subsequently, during consideration of the same resolution, another 
amendment was ruled out of order on similar grounds. Such amendment 
stated: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 3527.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: 
    After line 4, insert:
        Resolved, That the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
    . . . be

[[Page 7914]]

    asked within 3 weeks to report to the House as to where reductions 
    can be made in the budget.

Bill To Protect Federal Government From Subversive Activities--
    Amendment Relating to Protection of ``Any Government'' in United 
    States

Sec. 8.10 To a bill relating to registration of Communist organizations 
    and concerned with protection of the federal government from 
    subversive activities, an amendment providing that ``It shall be 
    unlawful for any person . . . to collaborate [with others] in 
    working for the overthrow . . . or weakening of any government in 
    the United States,'' was held to be not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, a bill (19) was under 
consideration to protect the United States against certain subversive 
activities. An amendment was offered (20) as described 
above. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 9490 (Committee on Un-American Activities).
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 13762, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 29, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane. This is a 
    registration act. The amendment would properly be to the Smith Act.

    The following exchange ensued:

        The Chairman: (1) The Chair would like to inquire of 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he has taken into consideration 
    that on page 9, in section 4 there are certain prohibited acts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walter: Mr. Chairman, I call the attention of the Chair to 
    the fact those prohibited acts are on the part of employees of the 
    Government. The amendment goes further and applies to anybody who 
    conspires to overthrow the Government, either by force or violence 
    or by peaceful means.

    The Chairman, in ruling on the point of order, stated:

        It is true that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida [Mr. Bennett] deals with acts relating to the destruction 
    or weakening of any government in the United States, which the 
    Chair would interpret to mean the government of any subdivision of 
    the country, referring to section 4. The bill before the committee 
    deals only with the Federal Government of the United States. 
    Therefore the Chair is constrained to rule that the amendment is 
    not germane to the bill now under consideration.

    Subsequently, a similar amendment was allowed which deleted the 
reference to ``any government'' in the United States.

[[Page 7915]]

Bill Providing for Census and Apportionment of Representatives--
    Amendment Invoking Constitutional Provisions Requiring Reduction of 
    Basis of Representation Where Voting Rights Abridged

Sec. 8.11 To a bill providing for a census and apportionment of 
    Representatives in Congress, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which sought to invoke constitutional provisions requiring 
    reduction of the basis of representation where the right of 
    citizens to vote is abridged.

    In the 76th Congress, the bill (2) described above was 
under consideration when the following amendment was offered: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  S. 2505 (Committee on the Census).
 3. 86 Cong. Rec. 4384, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 11, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Page 
    2, after the period at the end of the last line insert: ``Provided 
    That in submitting the statement to Congress and making the 
    apportionment, the reduction provided in section 2 of the 
    fourteenth amendment to the Constitution shall be made.''

    Mr. Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane. In defense of the amendment, the 
proponent stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the committee reported the bill with an amendment 
    excluding two classes of people who are not to be counted in the 
    apportionment, namely, aliens and Indians. This amendment therefore 
    opens up the bill so that . . . we can add another class of those 
    to be excluded in the count. . . .

    The Chairman, Marvin Jones, of Texas, in sustaining the point of 
order, noted that, ``the pending bill only deals with the mechanics of 
an apportionment and does not deal with the census itself.'' 
(4) He cited the principle that, ``One individual 
proposition may not be amended by another individual proposition,'' 
(5) and also quoted a prior ruling of the Chair which had 
included the observation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 4385.
 5. Id. at p. 4384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . that even though a subject relates to the same matter, 
    yet if it introduces a new element or an element of uncertainty, or 
    if it provides a future action upon the happening of something 
    indefinite, the matter so offered is not then germane as an 
    amendment.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 4385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joint Resolution Proposing Constitutional Amendment To Reform Electoral 
    College Process--Amendment Relating to Apportionment of 
    Representatives

Sec. 8.12 To a joint resolution proposing a constitutional

[[Page 7916]]

    amendment relating to the election of the President and Vice 
    President by popular vote rather than through the electoral college 
    process, an amendment pertaining to the apportionment of 
    Representatives and the size of congressional districts was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to the election of 
the President and Vice President. The following amendment was offered 
to the bill: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.J. Res. 681 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 25983, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 18, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thaddeus J.] Dulski [of New York]: 
    Page 3, insert after line 14 the following:

            Sec. 6. In each State entitled . . . to more than one 
        Representative . . . there shall be established . . . a number 
        of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which 
        such State is so entitled. . . . [N]o district . . . shall 
        contain a number of persons . . . more than 2\1/2\ per centum 
        greater or less than the average obtained by dividing the whole 
        number of persons in such State . . . by the number of 
        Representatives to which such State is entitled. . . .
            Page 3, strike out lines 17 and 18, and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:

        Sec. 8. The first five sections of this article shall take 
    effect one year after the 21st day of January following 
    ratification. Section 6 of this article shall not apply to any 
    Congress beginning prior to one year after the date of ratification 
    of this article or to any Congress prior to the 93rd Congress.

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: . . . House Joint 
    Resolution 681 relates to the election of the President and Vice 
    President. The Dulski amendment prescribes standards for 
    congressional redistricting and is not germane to the purposes of 
    the resolution under consideration.

    The Chairman, Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, in ruling on the point 
of order, stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 25984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The joint resolution presently under consideration relates to 
    the method of selecting the President and Vice President of the 
    United States. There is no reference therein to the apportionment 
    of Representatives or to their election.
        Therefore, the Chair holds that the establishment or 
    description of congressional districts is not a matter that is 
    within the scope of the pending joint resolution and the amendment 
    is not germane.

Bill Regulating Poll Closing Time in Presidential Elections--Amendment 
    Extending Coverage of Bill to Primary Elections

Sec. 8.13 To a bill regulating poll closing time in presidential

[[Page 7917]]

    general elections, an amendment extending the provisions of that 
    bill to presidential primary elections is not germane.

    On Jan. 29, 1986,(10) it was demonstrated that an 
individual proposition may not be germane to another individual 
proposition although the two may belong to the same class, when the 
Chair sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 684, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 3525, a bill providing for uniform poll closing time for 
        presidential elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Frenzel: On page 3, line 18, 
        insert the following: ``primary and'' before the word 
        ``general''.
            On page 4, line 4, after the word ``election'' insert the 
        following: ``or a Presidential primary election in which there 
        is more than one State conducting its primary election,''. . .

        Mr. [Dennis E.] Eckart of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer a point 
    of order based on clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule. I 
    would cite in particular Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    7 to the effect that ``one individual proposition is not germane to 
    another individual proposition.'' This bill deals exclusively with 
    Presidential general elections. The amendment deals with 
    Presidential primary elections. I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane and would go further to the point that 
    suggests that not all States in fact have primaries. Many have 
    conventions, many have other delegate selection processes known as 
    caucuses, and therefore the application of this amendment across 
    general election procedures would not be uniform. Therefore I 
    insist on my point of order based on the germaneness rule. . . .
        Mr. Frenzel: . . . It is true that the primary system is 
    nonuniform. It is also true that this bill is not uniform, since it 
    now eliminates certain jurisdictions, and, of course, from the 
    origination did not include two of our great States, who have a 
    part in both the general and the primary process.
        However, the point that I made is, that without primary 
    elections it would be impossible to select the candidates for the 
    general election; and to say that a person's vote in the general 
    election has a different value or weight than one in the primary 
    election, I think, is something that is antithetical to our form of 
    representative government.
        It is all one process; it is inseverable, and whatever the 
    precedent says about this thing, I think most sentient Americans 
    would suggest that an election bill handled by a committee with 
    election jurisdiction that could not be amended for a primary would 
    be a very strange election bill, indeed. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As stated in the committee report, the sole purpose of the bill 
    is to regulate Presidential general elections in

[[Page 7918]]

    terms of poll closing. An amendment to extend the scope of the bill 
    to Presidential primary elections is not germane under the 
    principle that an individual proposition is not germane to another 
    individual proposition although the two may belong to the same 
    class, and the point of order is sustained.

Senate Amendment Relating to Availability of Senate Contingent Fund for 
    Historical Items in Capitol--House Amendment Relating to 
    Availability of House Unexpended Balances for Additional Purposes

Sec. 8.14 To a Senate amendment relating to availability of the Senate 
    contingent fund for art and historical items in the Capitol 
    buildings, a proposed House amendment relating also to the 
    availability of House unexpended balances for those or other 
    purposes authorized by law, or required to implement specified 
    House resolutions (such as those relating to ``mass franked 
    mailings''), was conceded to be not germane.

    The proceedings of May 24, 1990, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 4404, the Dire Emergency supplemental appropriations, are 
discussed in Sec. 27.36, infra.

Bill Authorizing Specified Individuals' Appeals From Court of Claims--
    Amendment Conferring Jurisdiction on Court of Claims To Hear Claims 
    of Other Individuals

Sec. 8.15 To a bill authorizing an appeal to the Supreme Court from a 
    judgment of the Court of Claims in a specific case, an amendment 
    conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear and 
    determine another case was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration which stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 7230 (Committee on the Judiciary).
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 10274, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 13, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That George A. Carden and Anderson T. 
    Herd, or their legal representatives may, at any time within ---- 
    months after the date of the enactment of this act, appeal as of 
    right to the Supreme Court of the United States from the judgment 
    of the Court of Claims of the United States in the suit No. 42711 
    heretofore instituted. . . .

    An amendment was offered providing in part: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 10275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the Court of Claims 
    of the United States, notwithstanding any lapse of

[[Page 7919]]

    time or statute of limitation, to hear, determine, and render 
    judgment upon the claim or claims of (particular persons).

    Mr. Zebulon Weaver, of North Carolina, raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane to the bill. Chairman Luther 
Johnson, of Texas, in sustaining the point of order, stated:

        The bill under consideration, H.R. 7230, relates merely to one 
    claim, that of George A. Carden and Anderson T. Herd. The bill 
    confers upon these claimants the right to take their case from the 
    Court of Claims to the Supreme Court of the United States. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania covers a 
    number of other parties in other claims who it does not appear are 
    in any way related to the pending bill.

Bill Prohibiting Speculation in Onion Futures--Amendment Prohibiting 
    Speculation in Potato Futures

Sec. 8.16 To a bill prohibiting speculation in onion futures, an 
    amendment prohibiting speculation in Irish potato futures was held 
    to be not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(15) to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to prohibit trading 
in onion futures, an amendment was offered (16) as described 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 376 (Committee on Agriculture).
16. 104 Cong. Rec. 4325, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Victor L. Anfuso, of New York, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane. In defense of the amendment, the 
proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. [Clifford G.] McIntire [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I do want 
    to point out that my amendment is consistent with the legislative 
    work which this committee has done. . . .
        . . . I will accept the ruling of the Chairman, but in view of 
    all the legislative work which has been done in relation to 
    potatoes as well as onions, I feel that they, too, deserve 
    consideration under this legislation.
        The Chairman, (17) citing the principle that ``one 
    individual proposition may not be amended by another individual 
    proposition,'' sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Provide Price Support for Tung Nuts--Amendment To Provide Price 
    Support for Honey

Sec. 8.17 To a bill to provide price support for tung nuts, a committee 
    amendment to provide price support for honey was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(18) to pro

[[Page 7920]]

vide price support for tung nuts, an amendment was offered 
(19) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 29 (Committee on Agriculture).
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 10639, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, since the 
    committee amendment has no greater standing than any other 
    amendment, the title of this bill is to amend the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, to provide parity for tung nuts 
    and for other purposes. I make the point of order that the 
    inclusion of honey is not related to the bill and is, therefore, 
    not in order.

    Responding to the point of order, Mr. John Phillips, of California, 
stated: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 10640.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the title of the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act is all-inclusive. . . . This title, to 
    which objection is raised on the floor, says specifically, ``To 
    amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, to 
    provide parity for tung nuts, and for other purposes.'' The 
    committee, in the final line on page 3, has specified an amendment 
    to the title to include tung nuts and honey.

    The Chairman, (1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John McSweeney (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The title of the bill does not control. It is the body of the 
    bill that controls. When an individual proposition is added to 
    another individual proposition by amendment, even though they are 
    in the same class, they are not germane. The Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Bill Relating to Cost of Inspection of Meat--Amendment To Extend 
    Coverage of Bill to Seafood

Sec. 8.18 To a bill proposing that the cost of federal inspection of 
    meat and meat products be borne by the United States, an amendment 
    seeking to extend coverage of the bill to seafood and seafood 
    products was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
relating to the meat inspection service of the Department of 
Agriculture, an amendment was offered (3) as described 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. S. 2256 (Committee on Agriculture).
 3. 94 Cong. Rec. 6235, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., May 20, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(4) in 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Samuel K. McConnell, Jr. (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair holds that the amendment is not germane. Under the 
    rulings on the question of germaneness, one individual proposition 
    may not be amended by another individual proposition, even

[[Page 7921]]

    though the two may belong to the same class. The Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Bill Providing Financial Relief for Agricultural Producers--Amendment 
    To Extend Relief to Commercial Fishermen

Sec. 8.19 To a bill providing financial relief for one class 
    (agricultural producers), an amendment extending such relief to 
    another class (commercial fishermen), particularly where relief to 
    the latter class is within the jurisdiction of another committee, 
    is not germane.

    During consideration of the Agriculture Credit Act of 1978 
(5) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 24, 
1978,(6) Chairman Don Fuqua, of Florida, sustained a point 
of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 11504.
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 11080-81, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Weaver: Page 20, line 7, insert 
        ``and Commercial Fishing'' after ``Agricultural.''
            Section 202:
            Page 20, line 11, strike out ``and ranchers'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``, ranchers, or commercial fishermen''.
            Page 20, line 12, strike out the comma and insert ``or 
        commercial fishing''.
            Page 20, line 14, insert ``or fishing'' before 
        ``cooperatives''. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order the amendment is not germane to title II of the 
    bill. I cite the title of title II which is ``Emergency 
    Agricultural Credit Adjustment Act of 1978.'' The purposes of title 
    II of the bill are to make insured and guaranteed loans to bona 
    fide farmers and ranchers who are primarily engaged in agricultural 
    production, and to farm cooperatives, private domestic corporations 
    or partnerships that are primarily and directly engaged in 
    agricultural production.
        No part of the bill deals with fishing activities or the 
    fishing industry or has to do with establishing any loans or 
    credits or otherwise providing financial assistance to any 
    fishermen or those engaged in any fishing activity.
        The whole structure and purpose of this title are limited to 
    provision of credit to farmers and ranchers. Therefore, Mr. 
    Chairman, I feel that the amendment is not germane to the title. . 
    . .
        Mr. Weaver: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say the Farmers Home 
    Administration makes fish loans presently. This is a Farmers Home 
    Administration bill. Certainly the fishermen should be given the 
    right to borrow under this Emergency Loan Act.

[[Page 7922]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Weaver) would add commercial fishermen to the category of those 
    eligible under title II of the bill. Title II, as indicated in 
    section 202 on page 20, establishes a new emergency agricultural 
    credit adjustment program for bona fide farmers and ranchers who 
    are primarily engaged and directly engaged in agricultural 
    production and to other farming entities engaged in agricultural 
    production. While this program would be available to farmers and 
    ranchers, the Committee on Agriculture has chosen to treat them as 
    a generic class of persons engaged in the production of 
    agricultural commodities--a matter properly within the jurisdiction 
    of that committee.

        As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, in section 7.17 of 
    chapter 28--

            To a bill providing relief for one class, an amendment to 
        extend the relief to another class is not germane--

        Especially where, as here, the class of recipients who may 
    receive credit assistance is sought to be to commercial fishermen, 
    matters which are within the jurisdiction of another committee of 
    the House, as pointed out in the colloquy a few minutes ago. So, 
    therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order against the 
    amendment.

Provision To Prohibit Use of Funds for Enforcement of OSHA Regulations 
    Applicable to Small Farms--Amendment Requiring Expenditure To 
    Assure Congressional Compliance With OSHA

Sec. 8.20 To a substitute amendment prohibiting the use of funds in a 
    general appropriation bill for the enforcement of any regulation 
    under the Occupational Health and Safety Act applicable to small 
    farms, an amendment adding at the end thereof the requirement that 
    such funds be expended to assure full compliance under that Act by 
    Congressional Members and staff was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 14232 (7) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings of June 24, 
1976,(8) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare 
        Appropriation bill for fiscal 1977.
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 20370, 20371, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the

[[Page 7923]]

    amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Skubitz).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Skubitz: On page 7, strike the period 
        at the end of line 25, and insert in lieu thereof: ``: Provided 
        That none of the funds appropriated under this paragraph shall 
        be obligated or expended to prescribe, issue, administer, or 
        enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the 
        Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which is applicable 
        to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which 
        employs five or fewer employees.''. . .

        Mr. [Gary] Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania to the 
        amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Skubitz: At the end of the amendment 
        offered by Mrs. Fenwick strike the period and add the 
        following: ``Provided further, That the funds appropriated 
        under this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to assure 
        full compliance of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
        1970 by Members of Congress and their staffs.''

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane. It is also in 
    violation of the rule against legislating on an appropriation bill. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) has offered a 
    substitute for an amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
    (Mr. Skubitz).
        Both the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
    Skubitz) and the proposed substitute offered by the gentlewoman 
    from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) are applicable to farmworkers and 
    have a precise reference to the number of employees engaged by a 
    farmer.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) would add to the 
    substitute additional provisions requiring that funds appropriated 
    under the program shall be obligated and expended to assure 
    compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act by Members 
    of Congress and their staffs.
        Manifestly, this does constitute legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; and, beyond that, it would not be germane, in 
    the opinion of the Chair, to the pending substitute.
        For those reasons, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill To Regulate Marketing of Domestically Produced Farm Products--
    Amendment To Control Importation of Farm Products

Sec. 8.21 To a bill to regulate the marketing of domestically produced 
    farm products, an amendment proposing to control the importation of 
    farm products was held to be not germane.

[[Page 7924]]

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a farm bill 
(10) as described above, the following amendment was 
offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 8505 (Committee on Agriculture).
11. 82 Cong. Rec. 1193, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 9, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Page 80, at the bottom of the page, add a new section as 
    follows:

            Sec. 389. That . . . the importation of dairy products into 
        the United States is prohibited unless such products have been 
        produced from cattle which are free from bovine tuberculosis. . 
        . .

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

        Mr. [John M.] Jones [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment in that it is not germane to the 
    paragraph, the section, or the bill itself. . . .

    The Chairman, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, noting that 
(12) ``The purpose of the pending bill is to regulate the 
marketing of domestically produced farm products,'' and that the 
amendment sought to control the conditions under which farm products 
are produced in foreign countries, sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 1194.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Providing for Foreign Aid--Amendment Relating to Relief in United 
    States

Sec. 8.22 To a bill providing for aid to certain foreign countries, an 
    amendment relating to relief in the United States was held to be 
    not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration providing for aid to foreign countries. An amendment was 
offered (14) as described above. Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, 
raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane to the 
bill.(15) The Chairman,(16) in sustaining the 
point of order, stated that the amendment ``has nothing whatever to do 
with aid to foreign countries, but deals entirely with domestic 
conditions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 4604 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 11295, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 11, 1947.
15. Id. at p. 11296.
16. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Delaying Arms Shipment to Turkey Pending Certification of 
    Progress in Resolving Cyprus Issue--Amendment To Require Further 
    Certification as to Control of Opium Traffic

Sec. 8.23 To an amendment to a section of a bill delaying the shipment 
    of certain arms to Turkey pending a Presidential certification that 
    progress has been made with respect to the refugee problem on 
    Cyprus, an amend

[[Page 7925]]

    ment thereto requiring that the President also certify that the 
    government of Turkey has taken adequate measures to control the 
    diversion of opium poppy into illicit channels was held not 
    germane.

    During consideration of S. 2230 (17) in the Committee of 
the Whole on Oct. 2, 1975,(18) the Chair sustained a point 
of order against the amendment described above, citing the principle 
that one individual proposition may not be amended by another 
individual proposition even though the two may belong to the same 
class. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. A bill authorizing appropriations for the Board for International 
        Broadcasting for fiscal 1976, and to promote improved relations 
        between the United States, Greece and Turkey.
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 31480, 31481, 31486, 31489, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. (a)(1) The Congress reaffirms the policy of the 
        United States to seek to improve and harmonize relations among 
        the allies of the United States and between the United States 
        and its allies, in the interest of mutual defense and national 
        security. In particular, the Congress recognizes the special 
        contribution to the North Atlantic Alliance of Greece and 
        Turkey by virtue of their geographic position on the 
        southeastern flank of Europe and is prepared to assist in the 
        modernization and strengthening of their respective armed 
        forces.
            (2) The Congress further reaffirms the policy of the United 
        States to alleviate the suffering of refugees and other victims 
        of armed conflict and to foster and promote international 
        efforts to ameliorate the conditions which prevent such persons 
        from resuming normal and productive lives. . . .
            (b)(1) In order that the purposes of this Act may be 
        carried out without awaiting the enactment of foreign 
        assistance legislation for fiscal year 1976 programs--
            (A) the President is authorized, notwithstanding section 
        620 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, to furnish to the 
        Government of Turkey those defense articles and defense 
        services with respect to which contracts of sale were signed 
        under section 21 or section 22 of the Foreign Military Sales 
        Act on or before February 5, 1975, and to issue licenses for 
        the transportation to the Government of Turkey of arms, 
        ammunition, and implements of war (including technical data 
        relating thereto): Provided That such authorization shall be 
        effective only while Turkey shall observe the cease-fire and 
        shall neither increase its forces on Cyprus nor transfer to 
        Cyprus any United States supplied implements of war: Provided 
        further, That the authorities contained in this section shall 
        not become effective unless and until the President determines 
        and certifies to the Congress that the furnishing of defense 
        articles and defense services, and the issuance of licenses for 
        the transportation of implements of war, arms and ammunition 
        under this section are important to the national security 
        interests of the United States; and

[[Page 7926]]

            (B) the President is requested to initiate discussions with 
        the Government of Greece to determine the most urgent needs of 
        Greece for economic and military assistance.
            (2) The President is directed to submit to the Speaker of 
        the House of Representatives and to the Foreign Relations and 
        Appropriations Committees of the Senate within sixty days after 
        the enactment of this Act a report on discussions conducted 
        under subsection (b)(1)(B), together with his recommendations 
        for economic and military assistance to Greece for the fiscal 
        year 1976. . . .

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: Page 3, line 6, strike 
        out ``(1)''; in line 15, strike out ``and to issue licenses'' 
        and all that follows thereafter through ``thereto)'' in line 18 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``if the President determines and 
        certifies to the Congress that significant progress has been 
        made with respect to the refugee problem on Cyprus''; on page 
        4, line 1, strike out ``, and the issuance of licenses'' and 
        all that follows thereafter through ``ammunition'' in line 2; 
        and on page 4, strike out line 9 and all that follows 
        thereafter through line 16 on page 6.

        Mr. [Charles B.] Rangel [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rangel to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Fascell: On line 5 of the Fascell amendment after the word 
        ``Cyprus'' insert the following: and if the President 
        determines and certifies to the Congress that the Government of 
        Turkey has taken adequate measures to control the diversion of 
        opium poppy into illicit channels.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Rangel) to the Fascell amendment contains language that is not 
    germane, not only to the Fascell amendment, but certainly not to 
    the bill before us.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment violates rule XVI, clause 7, of 
    the Rules of the House of Representatives, which provides that no 
    motion or proposition on a subject different from that under 
    consideration shall be admitted under the guise of an amendment.
        This rule is construed by the precedents of the House to 
    require that the fundamental purpose of an amendment must be 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill. I cite Cannon's 
    Precedents VIII, 2911. The relevant portion of this bill relates to 
    the cessation of hostilities in Cyprus, not to the cultivation of 
    poppies in Turkey. No matter how laudable the gentleman's amendment 
    may be, or how much I may personally agree with the importance of 
    elimination of poppy cultivation, this amendment is not germane to 
    this bill, I submit, or to the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Florida (Mr. Fascell), and my point of order should be sustained.
        The title of the bill and the report from the Committee on 
    International Relations before us make it clear that the 
    fundamental purpose of this bill is to hasten a peaceful solution 
    of the Cyprus situation. The committee did not undertake a 
    comprehensive inquiry into the question of poppy cultivation in its 
    consideration of this bill, which addresses quite different issues. 
    We

[[Page 7927]]

    have no way of knowing, on the basis of this report, what efforts 
    the administration is making with the Government of Turkey to deal 
    with this situation or what steps have been taken by the Government 
    of Turkey. . . .

        Mr. Rangel: . . . It appears to me that if we are talking about 
    an agreement between the Turkish people and the Greek people, and 
    certainly one of which the U.S. Congress has an interest, that this 
    bill is broad enough to have the amendment included as being 
    germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Fascell: . . . The language in the bill in many places 
    makes it very, very clear that what we are seeking to do here is 
    to--and I quote from the bill--``. . . to improve and harmonize 
    relations among the allies of the United States and between the 
    United States and its allies . . .''
        The amendment which is pending, the principal amendment, lays 
    down a condition stating that it is essential to harmonize those 
    relationships. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Rangel) seeks to impose another condition for that same 
    purpose. I think it is clearly germane. . . .
        Mr. [John] Brademas [of Indiana]: . . . I would like to rise in 
    support of the position voiced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Fascell) and to draw attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that even 
    in the committee report there are separate views that touch upon 
    the very subject which is the subject of the gentleman's amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The test of germaneness is whether the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is germane to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell).
        Under Cannon's Procedures of the House of Representatives on 
    page 202, we find the following:

            One individual proposition may not be amended by another 
        individual proposition even though the two may belong to the 
        same class.

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Fascell) applies to one matter. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) applies to a different and a 
    separate matter.
        Under the precedents supporting the principle set forth in 
    Cannon's Procedures, the point of order must be sustained and the 
    point of order is sustained.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton).(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. An amendment having a similar purpose was later offered to a 
        section of the bill and was held to be germane. See Sec. 10.21, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Providing Relief for Aliens Who Are Political Refugees--Amendment 
    To Provide Similar Relief for Nonaliens

Sec. 8.24 To a bill providing relief for one class, an amendment to 
    extend the relief to another class is not germane; thus, to a bill 
    providing relief for aliens who are political refugees of a certain 
    geographic area, an amendment

[[Page 7928]]

    broadening the coverage of the bill to persons from another 
    geographic area who are not aliens as defined in immigration law 
    was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 6755 (United States assistance to 
migrants and refugees) in the Committee of the Whole on May 14, 
1975,(1) Chairman Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment, demonstrating that one 
individual proposition is not germane to another individual 
proposition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 14360, 14361, 14362, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Abzug: On page 1, line 10, strike 
        out ``aliens'' and insert in lieu thereof ``persons''.
            On page 2, line 1, strike out ``Cambodia or Vietnam,'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``Cambodia, Vietnam or the United 
        States''.
            On page 2, line 13, strike out ``aliens'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``persons''.
            On page 2, line 16, strike out ``Cambodia or Vietnam'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``Cambodia, Vietnam or the United 
        States.''. . .

        Mr. [Joshua] Eilberg [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane.
        This bill deals with a particular class of people: refugees 
    from Indochina, that is, Cambodia and Vietnam. The subject matter 
    of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
    Abzug) has to do with amnesty, a matter which is within the 
    jurisdiction of the subcommittee chaired by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier), and is being separately considered by 
    that subcommittee, actively considered.
        This bill will cover those aliens, refugees, who have been 
    paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the 
    Immigration and Nationality Act. In addition, the term ``refugee,'' 
    as defined in the bill and as that term is interpreted under 
    international law and under section 203(a)(7) of the Immigration 
    and Nationality Act, does not include U.S. citizens, and the bill 
    was not intended to cover that category or class of people. . . .
        Ms. Abzug: . . . The bill before us deals with providing 
    assistance to a certain class of individuals, namely, those who 
    have had to flee their homeland because of fear of prosecution 
    because of their political opinions, among other things. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my amendment is germane because it does not seek 
    to add another class of persons. What my amendment says is that 
    there are several persons or several groups eligible within the 
    class, the class being those who have to flee their homeland 
    because of fear of persecution because of their political opinions. 
    That is the purpose of the legislation. We would not be addressing 
    this question of assistance if these people were just ordinary 
    refugees. What we are saying is that they are here in the country 
    be

[[Page 7929]]

    cause they fear persecution because of their political opinions, 
    and that was the same reason we originally gave relief to the 
    Cubans under the legislation which this bill tracks.
        My amendment, I submit, is germane. It merely adds another 
    group of persons and makes them eligible within the class. They are 
    also persons who fled their country because of fear of personal and 
    political persecution.
        The American political refugee, the person who resisted the war 
    in Vietnam because it was illegal and immoral, was forced to go 
    into exile in Sweden and in Canada and is unable to return because 
    of fear of prosecution, is entitled to the same kind of assistance 
    that the Vietnamese and the Cambodian refugee is entitled to. . . .
        Mr. [Paul S.] Sarbanes [of Maryland]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    class to which H.R. 6755 addresses itself is to aliens who, in 
    turn, meet other requirements contained within the legislation. The 
    permanent legislation to which this pending legislation is related, 
    since this is temporary legislation, is Public Law 87-510, the 
    Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 which also deals with 
    aliens as a class to which that legislation pertains.
        The jurisdiction of the committee bringing this legislation to 
    the floor of the House would not run to the programs proposed to be 
    covered if the class were expanded to ``persons'' rather than 
    ``aliens,'' the jurisdiction of this committee rests upon its 
    immigration and naturalization jurisdiction, and pertains to the 
    class of aliens which is set out in the legislation in the 
    Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962.
        Ms. Abzug: . . . I do not think the rule of germaneness is 
    determined by the jurisdiction of a committee. The situation is 
    that we are dealing with the bill that is before us now, and the 
    question of whether this committee would have had jurisdiction over 
    this or a bill with changed wording does not go to the question of 
    germaneness. Therefore, I press my point, and simply say that my 
    amendment merely brings in a third category of eligible persons, 
    and the fact that they are or are not aliens does not preclude them 
    from being covered for the purposes provided for the class for whom 
    the bill addresses itself, namely, those who have been uprooted as 
    a result of their political opinions from their homeland for fear 
    of persecution.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Abzug) has offered an 
    amendment to the bill which, in several places, strikes out 
    ``aliens'' and inserts ``persons,'' and would strike ``Cambodia or 
    Vietnam'' and insert ``Cambodia, Vietnam or the United States,'' to 
    which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Eilberg) has made the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill.
        The Chair has examined the bill and the report, and would 
    characterize this bill as one which enables the United States to 
    render assistance to a certain class of individuals, specifically, 
    as stated on page 6 of the report, those individuals who are 
    refugees from Indochina, and who are aliens.
        The amendment, however, offered by the gentlewoman from New 
    York, would extend the coverage of this act

[[Page 7930]]

    to another class of individuals, specifically persons of the United 
    States, who are citizens, but not aliens, even though they might be 
    in a broader sense considered ``political refugees.''
        The precedents of the House indicate that to a bill dealing 
    with the relief of one class, an amendment seeking to include 
    another class is not germane, both because one individual 
    proposition is not germane to another individual proposition and 
    because such amendment would broaden the scope of the bill.
        The Chair refers to Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    10.2, and Cannon's Precedents, volume 8, sections 2959 and 3046.
        The Chair believes that these principles are applicable in the 
    present situation. By striking the word ``aliens'' and inserting in 
    lieu thereof the word ``persons'' and by including a new class of 
    persons within the coverage of the bill, the amendment would 
    broaden the bill beyond its original scope. The Chair, therefore, 
    feels that the amendment is not germane, and the point of order is 
    sustained.

Bill Relating to Evacuation of Persons--Amendment Relating to 
    Evacuation of Commodities

Sec. 8.25 To a bill dealing with the evacuation of persons, an 
    amendment dealing with the evacuation of commodities is not 
    germane.

    During consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation 
Assistance Act (2) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 23, 
1975,(3) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 6096.
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 11550, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton: Page 2 at the end 
        of line 2, add such evacuation programs to include the 
        evacuation of any gold, silver, or other valuable commodities 
        belonging to the people of the United States that is determined 
        to be in danger of being shipped to Switzerland, including 16 
        tons of gold.

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. It goes far afield from the 
    bill and it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . The title of the bill is 
    ``Humanitarian Aid and Evacuation.''
        ``Evacuation,'' in the dictionary, is described as the removal 
    of things. It is not limited to persons.
        There is nothing in the title that says ``an evacuation of 
    persons.'' I think that it is very germane, the thought of some $83 
    million. . . .
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: ``Things,'' as I 
    have read the Webster International Dictionary--that is, the latest 
    version--would certainly include gold but would not necessarily be 
    limited to the evacuation or withdrawal of things confined only to 
    precious metals. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 7931]]

        Under section 4 of the bill it says:

            For the purposes of section 2, evacuation shall be defined 
        as the removal to places of safety . . .

        And the Chair will not read all of the intervening words--
        with the minimum use of necessary force, the following 
        categories of persons:

        The gentleman's amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill and 
    is not germane to section 2. Accordingly, the point of order is 
    sustained.

Senate Amendment Striking Appropriation for Missile Program--House 
    Amendment Reinserting Missile Appropriation and Earmarking Other 
    Funds for Unrelated Programs

Sec. 8.26 To a Senate amendment striking an appropriation for a missile 
    program from a general appropriation bill, a House amendment not 
    only reinserting a portion of those funds but also earmarking other 
    funds in the bill for specific grants unrelated to that missile 
    program and waiving provisions of law otherwise restricting such 
    grants was conceded to be nongermane.

    The proceedings of Nov. 15, 1989, relating to H.R. 3072, Department 
of Defense appropriations for fiscal 1990, are discussed in Sec. 27.13, 
infra.

Differing Bases of Selective Service Deferments

Sec. 8.27 To a bill amending the Selective Service Act and establishing 
    categories of registrants on the basis of persons dependent on each 
    registrant for support, an amendment was held to be not germane 
    which sought deferment of certain agricultural workers from 
    military service.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill (5) 
as described above, the following amendment was offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 1730 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 6. 89 Cong. Rec. 3300, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South 
    Carolina]: On page 4, line 20, after the word ``board'', strike out 
    all that follows in lines 20 to 24 inclusive, and insert, in lieu 
    thereof, the following: ``provided, however, That every registrant 
    who is . . . employed substantially full time on a farm in 
    connection with the production or harvesting of any agricultural 
    commodity set forth in local board release No. 164 of the Selective 
    Service System as being a commodity essential to the war effort 
    shall . . . be deferred by his selective service local board from 
    training and service under this act. . . .''

[[Page 7932]]

    Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill.(7) The 
Chairman,(8) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 3301.
 8. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill establishes the categories of registrants on the basis 
    of dependents. Certainly . . . a worker in agriculture should not 
    come within that category.
        Further, on page 4 of the bill it is provided expressly that no 
    deferment shall be made of individuals by occupational groups. The 
    Chair feels that farmers come very clearly within the provisions of 
    that language and therefore holds that the amendment is not 
    germane.

Bill To Increase Cadet Corps at United States Military Academy--
    Amendment To Increase Certain Appointments to Military Academy and 
    Naval Academy

Sec. 8.28 To a bill proposing to increase the corps of cadets at the 
    United States Military Academy, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which sought to increase the number of men to be appointed 
    both to the Military Academy and the Naval Academy from among sons 
    of certain war veterans.

    In the 77th Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
increasing the corps of cadets at the Military Academy. An amendment 
was offered (10) as described above. Mr. Andrew J. May, of 
Kentucky, raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane 
to the bill. The Chairman, J. Bayard Clark, of North Carolina, in 
ruling on the point of order, stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 6979 (Committee on Military Affairs).
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 4158, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., May 13, 1942.
11. Id. at p. 4159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the reference in the pending amendment to 
    matters pertaining to the Naval Academy and the appointment of 
    cadets to the Naval Academy takes it too far afield to make it 
    germane to the pending bill; therefore the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.

Bill Affecting Pensions for Veterans Based on Disability--Amendment 
    Relating to Compensation for Service-Connected Disability

Sec. 8.29 To a privileged pension bill, a committee amendment which 
    included provisions relating to compensation on account of service-
    connected disability was held to be not germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(12) relating

[[Page 7933]]

to disability pension awards, a committee amendment was offered 
(13) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 7886 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
13. 102 Cong. Rec. 11142, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., June 27, 1956.
14. Id. at p. 11143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: . . . This bill has been 
    classified as a general pension bill, and as such, comes up for 
    debate as a privileged matter. The term ``pension'' means payment 
    for a non-service-connected disability. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, all of title II relates entirely to service-
    connected compensation for disabilities of a veteran or to his 
    widow and/or children, and this is not germane to this bill.

    The Chairman, Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, in ruling on the point of 
order, stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 11143, 11144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From the very beginning the House, in the adoption of its 
    rules, has made a distinction between pensions and compensation. . 
    . .

        There can be no doubt that the bill as presented here was a 
    pension bill. The committee amendment seeks to add among other 
    things compensation provisions to the pending bill. The fact that 
    it was a pension bill gave it a privileged status and enabled the 
    bill to be called up as a privileged bill, but the compensation 
    part of the bill does not have a privileged status, as is true in 
    the instance of the pension provisions.
        Therefore, as to the committee amendment, including both 
    pension and compensation provisions, the rule is well established 
    that if any part of an amendment is subject to a point of order the 
    whole amendment is subject to a point of order. Therefore, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from Ohio.

    A subsequent motion to recommit the bill with instructions to 
report back a pension bill with compensation provisions was also ruled 
out of order. The motion was as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 11145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ayres moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 7886, to the 
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs with instructions to report it back 
    forthwith with the following amendment: Strike out all after the 
    enacting clause and insert the following: ``That (a) all monthly 
    wartime rates of compensation payable under public laws 
    administered by the Veterans' Administration for disability less 
    than total (not including special awards and allowances, dependency 
    allowances, or subsistence allowances), are hereby increased by 10 
    percent.'' . . .

    A point of order was made, as follows:

        Mr. [Edmond] Edmondson [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit on the same ground 
    that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ayres] made against the amendment 
    to the first section of this bill namely, that it is not germane; 
    that it is a compensation matter which he seeks by a motion to 
    recommit to place in a privileged pension bill.

[[Page 7934]]

    The Speaker,(17) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he Chair feels that the same point of order will lie against 
    this motion to recommit with instructions as did lie against the 
    committee amendment in the bill with reference to compensation; and 
    therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Affecting Naval Procurement--Amendment Affecting Procurement for 
    Other Armed Services

Sec. 8.30 To a bill amending the Navy Ration Statute to permit 
    oleomargarine to be served to naval personnel, an amendment 
    providing that no oleomargarine be acquired for use by the armed 
    services when surplus butter stocks are available to the armed 
    services through the Commodity Credit Corporation was held to be 
    not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration amending the Navy Ration Statute as indicated above. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 912 (Committee on Armed Services).
19. 104 Cong. Rec. 6931, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 22, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Add 
    the following new section:
        Sec. 2. During any period when surplus butter stocks are 
    available to the armed services through the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation no oleomargarine or margarine shall be acquired for use 
    by the armed services or any branch or department thereof. . . .

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

        Mr. [Paul J.] Kilday [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that this is a bill to 
    amend the Navy rations statute so as to provide for serving 
    oleomargarine or margarine. It goes no further than to amend the 
    Navy ration statute. The Navy ration statute does not refer to 
    other departments of the armed services.

    The Chairman,(20) relying on the rule that, ``one 
individual proposition may not be amended by another individual 
proposition even though the two may belong to the same class,'' 
sustained the point of order, pointing out that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James W. Trimble (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin includes 
    the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The bill before the House deals 
    solely with the Navy.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 32.4, infra, discussing a similar amendment which, because 
        more narrowly worded, was held to be germane.

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

[[Page 7935]]

Senate Amendment Proposing Feasibility Study of Land Transfer in 
    State--House Amendment Concerning Environmental Liabilities in 
    Another State

Sec. 8.31 To a Senate amendment proposing a feasibility study of a 
    certain land transfer in one state, a House amendment waiving 
    existing law concerning certain environmental liabilities in 
    another state was conceded to be nongermane.

    The proceedings of Nov. 15, 1989, relating to H.R. 3072, Department 
of Defense appropriations for fiscal 1990, are discussed in Sec. 27.39, 
infra.

Bill Relating to Prices of Petroleum Products--Amendment Relating to 
    Price of Coal

Sec. 8.32 To a bill containing provisions with respect to prices of 
    petroleum products and transferring certain functions of the Price 
    Administrator with respect to such products to the Petroleum 
    Administrator for War, an amendment seeking to transfer 
    responsibilities with regard to coal prices to the Solid Fuels 
    Administrator for War was held to be not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
which stated in part: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 2887 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 3. See 89 Cong. Rec. 10630, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 13, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the powers and functions conferred by 
    the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, upon the Price 
    Administrator, with respect to crude petroleum and the products 
    thereof . . . are hereby transferred to the Petroleum Administrator 
    for War. . . . In the fixing of prices for crude petroleum and the 
    products thereof . . . the Petroleum Administrator for War shall 
    consider the necessity for exploring for crude petroleum. . . .

    An amendment was offered, as follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 10641, 10642.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Calvin D. Johnson [of Illinois]: After 
    the last sentence insert, ``The fixing of prices of any mineral 
    through which by hydrogenation crude petroleum and the products 
    thereof and derivatives therefrom may be produced is hereby 
    transferred to the Solid Fuels Administrator for War. . . .''

    Mr. Johnson, in explaining the amendment, stated: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 10642.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . This amendment would transfer [the coal-mining] industry 
    to the Solid Fuels Administrator.

[[Page 7936]]

    Mr. Wesley E. Disney, of Oklahoma, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill. In defense of the amendment, 
the proponent stated:

        . . . Coal and oil are both fuel. The component parts of coal 
    and the component parts of oil are identical.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that there is no doubt that the 
    amendment seeking to include minerals in a bill providing for 
    petroleum certainly would bring in a proposition in addition to the 
    one covered by the bill, and therefore, is not germane. The point 
    of order is sustained.

Bill Providing for Disposal of Tin From National Stockpile--Amendment 
    Providing for Disposal of Silver

Sec. 8.33 An individual proposition is not germane to another 
    individual proposition, even though the two belong to the same 
    class; thus, to a House bill providing for the disposal of tin from 
    the national stockpile, a Senate amendment included in the 
    conference report providing for the disposal of silver from the 
    stockpile was conceded to be nongermane and held to be subject to a 
    motion to reject under Rule XXVIII clause 4.

    The proceedings of Dec. 12, 1979, relating to H.R. 595, authorizing 
the Administrator of General Services to dispose of tin from the 
national stockpile, are discussed in Sec. 26.8, infra.

Bill Relating to Settlement of Railway Labor Dispute--Amendment 
    Relating to Settlement of Another Railway Labor Dispute

Sec. 8.34 To a bill relating to settlement of a particular railway 
    labor dispute, involving certain railways and unions, an amendment 
    concerning another dispute between a different railroad company and 
    its employees was held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill relating to 
settlement of a railway labor dispute, the following amendment was 
offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 15930, 15931, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1967. 
        Under consideration was H.J. Res. 559 (Committee on Interstate 
        and Foreign Commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: 
    Add at the end of the joint resolution a new section as follows:

[[Page 7937]]

        Sec. 7. The Special Board established by the first section of 
    this joint resolution shall also have and exercise, with respect to 
    any labor dispute to which the Florida East Coast Railway Company 
    is a party . . . the same powers and duties set forth in sections 
    2, 3, and 4 of this joint resolution. In the exercise of such 
    powers and duties pursuant to this section the Special Board shall 
    use in lieu of the proposals of the Special Mediation Panel, the 
    recommendations of Emergency Board Number 157 as contained in its 
    report of December 23, 1963, with respect to disputes covered by 
    said report and shall extend the principles underlying said 
    recommendations to the other disputes covered by this section. . . 
    .

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

        Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment which has been offered by the 
    distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. Sullivan] is not 
    germane to the joint resolution now under consideration.

        Mr. Chairman, the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 559) deals with a 
    nationwide railroad dispute with the shop craft unions. However, 
    the amendment which has been offered by the distinguished 
    gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. Sullivan] deals with a single 
    dispute involving one railroad and all of its employees, not just 
    the shop craft union. . . .

    Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, in sustaining the point of 
order, stated:

        . . .  The joint resolution . . . is aimed at one specific 
    controversy between labor and management. The amendment . . . 
    relates to a different controversy involving different 
    classifications of unions as pointed out by the gentleman from 
    Maryland [Mr. Friedel].
        The amendment therefore is beyond the purview of the resolution 
    (H.J. Res. 559). . . .

Bill Relating to Design of Public Coin Currency--Amendment Providing 
    for Issuance of Commemorative Coin

Sec. 8.35 To a bill relating to the design of public coin currency, an 
    amendment providing for issuance of a commemorative coin is not 
    germane; thus, to a bill requiring public currency coins to bear a 
    design and date emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American 
    Revolution, an amendment providing for the issuance or sale of 
    Bicentennial gold commemorative coins was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 12, 1973,(8) during consideration of H.R. 8789 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment, thus illustrating that one individual 
proposition is not germane

[[Page 7938]]

to another individual proposition, although the two may belong to the 
same class:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 29376, 29377, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.R. 8789

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That the reverse 
    side of all dollars, half-dollars, and quarters minted for issuance 
    on or after July 4, 1975, and until such time as the Secretary of 
    the Treasury may determine shall bear a design determined by the 
    Secretary to be emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American 
    Revolution.
        Sec. 2. All dollars, half-dollars, and quarters minted for 
    issuance between July 4, 1975, and January 1, 1977, shall bear 
    ``1776-1976'' in lieu of the date of coinage; and all dollars, 
    half-dollars, and quarters minted thereafter until such time as the 
    Secretary of the Treasury may determine shall bear a date 
    emblematic of the Bicentennial in addition to the date of coinage.
        Mr. [Phillip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Crane: Page 2, after line 4, add 
        the following new section and redesignate the succeeding 
        sections accordingly:
            Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, 
        regulation, or order, the Secretary of the Treasury is 
        authorized and directed to coin and issue or cause to be sold, 
        between July 4, 1975, and January 1, 1977, special gold coins 
        commemorating the Bicentennial of the American Revolution of 
        such design, in such denomination, in such quantities (not 
        exceeding sixty million pieces), and containing such other 
        metals, as he determines to be appropriate. Notwithstanding any 
        other provision of law, coins minted under this section may be 
        sold to and held by the public, and the Secretary of the 
        Treasury is authorized, by regulation, to limit the number of 
        gold pieces which any one person may purchase. . . .

        Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language in this amendment, because 
    under the Rules of the House, one individual proposition may not be 
    amended by another individual proposition, even though the two 
    belong in the same class.
        This bill merely changes the designs of our existing coins. It 
    does not change the content of the coin or of the denomination.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here in this bill with 
    currency and not commemorative coins.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Crane: . . . It must be abundantly clear to one and all 
    that we are not talking about coin of the realm when we talk about 
    minting a gold coin with .13 ounces of gold that will be selling 
    for $35. We are speaking exclusively about commemorative coins. If 
    we were talking about minting coin of the realm and circulating 
    that, we would have to sell the coins at a figure substantially 
    half that figure of $35 which the Treasury ordered.
        Second, with respect to the question of the action of this 
    particular bill, it seems to me that there is something much more 
    dramatic involved than overturning existing law on the subject of 
    what shall be on the reverse or the obverse side of any coin, which 
    at the present time regulations dictate cannot

[[Page 7939]]

    be altered except once every 25 years, and that the talk of 
    creating another commemorative coin for distribution to those who 
    wish to memorialize the Bicentennial is not nearly so radical a 
    departure from the intent of this legislation and, in fact, is, 
    indeed, germane. . . .
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I believe this 
    amendment is not germane to the bill before us and, therefore, 
    think that a point of order on germaneness should lie. This bill 
    does deal with coin of the realm. The entire purpose of having half 
    dollars, dollars, and quarters minted into Bicentennial coin is 
    because they are coins in general circulation at the present time.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment would create a whole new coin 
    which would be a collector's item and not be coin of the realm, as 
    the gentleman has suggested. Therefore, I do think that it changes 
    the subject of the bill; changes the purpose of the bill, and, 
    therefore, is not germane.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Spark M. Matsunaga (Ha.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair having listened to the arguments made by the 
    gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Sullivan), the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Crane), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) 
    recalls that on October 15, 1969, the Chair, while presiding over 
    the debate on H.R. 14127, had a similar amendment offered, and at 
    that time the Chair ruled that to a bill relating to the minting 
    and issuance of public currency, as is the case proposed by H.R. 
    8789, an amendment providing for minting any coin for a private 
    purpose or for a commemorative purpose was held not to be germane.
        Accordingly, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Bill Relating to Design of Public Coin Currency--Amendment To Require 
    Issuance of Other Coin Currency in Uncirculated Proof Form

Sec. 8.36 To a bill relating to the design of certain coin currency, an 
    amendment specifying the metal content of other coin currency and 
    requiring its issuance in uncirculated proof form was held not 
    germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 8789 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Sept. 12, 1973,(10) Chairman Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, 
sustained points of order against two amendments (relating to the metal 
content of another currency coin) to a bill requiring certain coins to 
bear a design and date emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American 
Revolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 29377, 29378, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Crane: On page 2, following line 
        4, insert a new section 3 as follows and renumber the 
        succeeding section accordingly:

[[Page 7940]]

            Sec. 3. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law with 
        respect to the design of coins, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall mint and issue at face value through the Federal Reserve 
        banks after July 4, 1975, and until such time as the Secretary 
        of the Treasury may determine, one hundred and fifty million or 
        more circulating one-dollar coins which shall bear a design 
        determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be emblematic of 
        the bicentennial of the American Revolution. These one-dollar 
        coins shall meet the following specifications:
            (A) a diameter of 1.500 inches;
            (B) a cladding of an alloy of 800 parts of silver and 200 
        parts of copper; and
            (C) a core of an alloy of silver and copper such that the 
        whole coin weighs 24.592 grams and contains 9.837 grams of 
        silver and 14.755 grams of copper.
            (b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall mint and issue, in 
        uncirculated proof form, the above-specified coin in quantities 
        and prices as he shall determine to be appropriate. . . .

        Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I insist 
    on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I said on the previous amendment. 
    Under the Rules of the House, one individual proposition may not be 
    amended by another individual proposition, even though the two 
    belong in the same class. . . .
        Mr. Crane: . . . Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that the 
    gentlewoman's objections are not consistent. In the last one we 
    were talking about striking an altogether new coin and minting gold 
    coins. Under the provisions of this particular act we are planning 
    to continue to mint a dollar denomination coin. All that is 
    proposed is changing in the present legislation the imprint on the 
    reverse side of that coin. What this particular amendment does is 
    give the Secretary of the Treasury further instructions with 
    respect to the content of that coin, stipulating that approximately 
    40 percent of this shall be made up of silver instead of the 
    percentage of composition of copper and nickel in the present 
    coinage. . . .
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: . . . I support the point of 
    order made by the gentlewoman from Missouri. Again, the Eisenhower 
    proof set dollar was not minted as coin of the realm. These 40-
    percent silver dollars were minted to be sold as collectors' items, 
    as proof coins. As the gentleman in the well knows, they are being 
    sold for $10 apiece. They are not in general circulation. They are 
    not being minted for general distribution. The bill before us 
    specifically provides for the minting of general circulation coin 
    of the realm. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair, after listening to the arguments on both sides, is 
    constrained to sustain the point of order for the reason that the 
    bill now pending provides for a new coinage design that would be 
    emblematic of the Bicentennial of the American Revolution and it 
    applies to dollars, half-dollars, and quarters. The amendment goes 
    to the metal content of the dollar coin, a matter not within the 
    purview of the bill . . . and the Chair therefore is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order.

    Subsequently,(11) another amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 29378, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 12, 1973.

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

[[Page 7941]]

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: On page 2, following line 
        4, insert a new section 3 as follows and renumber the 
        succeeding section accordingly:
            Sec. 3. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law with 
        respect to the design of coins, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall mint and issue at face value through the Federal Reserve 
        banks after July 4, 1975, and until such time as the Secretary 
        of the Treasury may determine, one hundred and fifty million or 
        more circulating one-dollar coins which shall bear a design 
        determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be emblematic of 
        the bicentennial of the American Revolution. These one-dollar 
        coins shall meet the following specifications:
            (A) a diameter of 1.500 inches;
            (B) a cladding of an alloy of 800 parts of silver and 200 
        parts of copper; and
            (C) a core of an alloy of silver and copper such that the 
        whole coin weighs 24.592 grams and contains 9.837 grams of 
        silver and 14.755 grams of copper.

        Mrs. Sullivan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    this amendment. It goes to the metal content of the coin and not 
    the design of the coin. . . .
        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, I would say on the point of order, it 
    is coin of the realm, and I would be willing to hear the ruling of 
    the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair's previous ruling applies to the point of order 
    against the amendment, that this amendment goes to the metal 
    content of the coin whereas the bill pending before the committee 
    pertains only to the design and date of the coin proposed to be 
    minted. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Provision Authorizing Law Enforcement Assistance to States for Purchase 
    of Photographic and Fingerprint Equipment--Amendment To Provide 
    Assistance for Purchase of Bulletproof Vests

Sec. 8.37 To an amendment authorizing law enforcement administration 
    grants to states and localities for the purchase of photographic 
    and fingerprint equipment for law enforcement purposes, an 
    amendment including assistance for the purchase of bulletproof 
    vests was held to be directed toward a different category of law 
    enforcement equipment concerned with physical protection rather 
    than information-gathering and was therefore beyond the scope of 
    the amendment and not germane; the decision of the Chairman on the 
    germaneness of the amendment was upheld on appeal by a voice vote.

[[Page 7942]]

    On Oct. 12, 1979,(12) during consideration of the 
Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 (13) in the Committee 
of the Whole, Chairman Mike McCormack, of Washington, held that to an 
amendment providing financial assistance for a certain class of law 
enforcement equipment (for informational purposes), the following 
amendment adding financial assistance for another class (for protection 
of law enforcement officers) was not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 28121, 28123, 28124, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.R. 2061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer: Page 164, lines 24 and 
        25, amend the bill by adding the following after the word 
        ``project,'' ``including photographic equipment, and 
        fingerprint equipment, for law enforcement purposes.''. . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Volkmer: Insert after the word ``including'' ``bullet-
        proof vests,''. . .

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: . . . When we previously 
    discussed this with the Parliamentarian the point was made that it 
    could not be amended on the other side by having the bulletproof 
    vest amendment amended by adding cameras and other equipment. It is 
    not a germane fact to this issue and the type of equipment we are 
    dealing with and discussing, and for that reason it should be ruled 
    out of order. . . .
        Mr. Volkmer: . . . I would like to speak on the point of order. 
    As to the question of germaneness, as I understand it my amendment 
    says, ``including photographic equipment, fingerprint equipment,'' 
    and then the words ``for law enforcement purposes.''
        Therefore, in my opinion anything that would be in there for 
    law enforcement purposes would be germane. In other words, if 
    somebody would offer an amendment for pistols, or offer an 
    amendment for bullets, or offer an amendment for police caps or 
    cars or anything else for law enforcement purposes, it is germane. 
    This is not restricted just to a certain type of equipment. We have 
    photographic equipment and fingerprint equipment. They are not 
    related at all. Bulletproof vests are for law enforcement purposes.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The question really comes down to how to define and segregate 
    categories of law enforcement equipment. The Chair is persuaded 
    that the term, ``photographic equipment and fingerprint equipment'' 
    is a generic category that deals with information rather than 
    protection of law enforcement officers.
        Bulletproof vests are within the different category of 
    equipment for the protection of law enforcement officers. The Chair 
    recognizes that this is a fine

[[Page 7943]]

    line, but rules that under the precedents the amendment is not 
    germane to the pending amendment and the point of order is 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the Chair's ruling stand 
    as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
    pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Chairman: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair 
    announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period 
    of time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will 
    be taken on the pending question following the quorum call. Members 
    will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device. . . .
        The Chairman: Three hundred and twelve Members have answered to 
    their names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its 
    business.
        The pending business is the demand of the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Ashbrook) for a recorded vote appealing the decision of the 
    Chair.
        Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) insist upon his 
    demand for a recorded vote?
        Mr. Ashbrook: I do not, Mr. Chairman.

Bill Providing Aid for Construction of Public School Facilities--
    Amendment Proposing Assistance for Teachers' Salaries

Sec. 8.38 To a bill providing for federal financial assistance to 
    states to be used for constructing public school facilities, an 
    amendment proposing financial assistance for teachers' salaries was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration to authorize federal financial assistance to states for 
school construction. An amendment was offered (15) as 
described above. Mr. Cleveland M. Bailey, of West Virginia, raised the 
point of order that the amendment was not germane.(16) The 
Chairman,(17) in sustaining the point of order, stated: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 10128 (Committee on Education and Labor).
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 11269, 11270, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1960.
16. Id. at p. 11270.
17. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 11276, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending bill has to do with Federal aid to public schools 
    construction. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana, 
    in addition to dealing with school facilities construc

[[Page 7944]]

    tion also deals with the salaries of teachers, which comes in a 
    different category altogether, and, in the opinion of the Chair, 
    would not be germane. . . .

Bill Providing Aid for Construction of Public School Facilities--
    Amendment Proposing Loans To Assist in Construction of Private 
    Schools

Sec. 8.39 To a bill to provide financial assistance to the states for 
    construction of public school facilities, an amendment proposing 
    loans to assist in the construction of private schools was held to 
    be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (19) was under 
consideration to authorize federal financial assistance to states for 
public school construction. An amendment was offered (20) as 
described above. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 10128 (Committee on Education and Labor).
20. 106 Cong. Rec. 11292, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: . . . Since the 
    bill, H.R. 10128, is confined to one specified class of schools, 
    under the rule of germaneness the gentleman's proposal, plainly, is 
    not in order because it would add another specified class of 
    schools.

    The Chairman, Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, citing precedents 
and noting that the bill ``has to do strictly with public schools,'' 
sustained the point of order.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 11293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Aid Construction of Health Research Facilities--Amendment To 
    Provide for Training of Research Workers

Sec. 8.40 To a bill providing assistance for construction of facilities 
    for research with respect to certain diseases, an amendment to 
    provide for training of research workers was held to be not 
    germane.

    The following proceedings took place on July 13, 1956: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 102 Cong. Rec. 12736, 84th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        S. 849 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) Under the rule, the Clerk will now 
    read the substitute committee amendment printed in the reported 
    bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            Sec. 2. The Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. ch. 6A) is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new title:

                     Title VII--Health Research Facilities

            (b) It is . . . the purpose of this title to assist in the 
        construction of

[[Page 7945]]

        facilities for the conduct of research in the sciences related 
        to health by providing grants-in-aid on a matching basis to 
        public and nonprofit institutions for such purpose.

    Mr. Peter F. Mack, Jr., of Illinois, offered an amendment 
(6) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 102 Cong. Rec. 12737, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        . . . I feel that the amendment is not germane to an amendment 
    to the act. It is not a question of the act itself. This bill is an 
    amendment to the act and the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Illinois is not germane to this amendment.

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

        Mr. Mack [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, this bill amends 
    the Public Health Act, title 44, United States Code, chapter 6(a) 
    the National Research Institute. In this section they provide for 
    both training and research. Therefore, I feel that my amendment is 
    germane to the bill.

    The Chairman, in sustaining the point of order raised by Mr. 
Hinshaw, stated:

        The bill under consideration provides for construction of 
    facilities for research. Research is an entirely different subject 
    matter from training.

Bill Authorizing Grants to Certain Private Health Care Facilities--
    Amendment Authorizing Grants To States for Control of Health Hazard

Sec. 8.41 To a bill authorizing categorical grants to certain private 
    entities furnishing health care to medically underserved 
    populations, a committee amendment authorizing direct grants to 
    States for control of a certain public health hazard was held not 
    germane because it related to different categories of recipients.

    On Mar. 5, 1986,(5) during consideration of H.R. 2418 in 
the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against an amendment, thus demonstrating that to a bill authorizing 
certain financial assistance to be administered by one category of 
recipient for a particular purpose, an amendment authorizing assistance 
to be administered by a different category of agency recipient beyond 
the areas covered by the bill is not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 132 Cong. Rec. 3603, 3604, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the bill is as follows: . . .
    section 1. short title: reference to act.

            (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Health 
        Services Amendments Act of 1985''. . . .

[[Page 7946]]

    sec. 2. medically underserved populations.

            Section 330(b) (42 U.S.C. 254c(b)) is amended--
            (1) by striking out the second, third, fourth, and fifth 
        sentences of paragraph (3); and
            (2) by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(4) in carrying out paragraph (3), the Secretary shall by 
        regulation prescribe criteria for determining the specific 
        shortages of personal health services of an area or population 
        group. . . .
            ``(5) The Secretary may not designate a medically 
        underserved population in a State or terminate the designation 
        of such a population unless, prior to such designation or 
        termination, the Secretary provides reasonable notice and 
        opportunity for comment and consults with--
            ``(A) the chief executive officer of such State;
            ``(B) local officials in such State; . . .
    sec. 3. memorandum of agreement.

            Section 330 (42 U.S.C. 254c) is amended by redesignating 
        subsection (h) as subsection (i) and by inserting after 
        subsection (g) the following new subsection:
            ``(h) In carrying out this section, the Secretary may enter 
        in a memorandum of agreement with a State. Such memorandum may 
        include, where appropriate, provisions permitting such State 
        to--
            ``(1) analyze the need for primary health services for 
        medically underserved populations within such State;
            ``(2) assist in the planning and development of new 
        community health centers; . . .
    sec. 4. authorization of appropriations.

            Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 330(i) (as redesignated 
        by section 202 of this Act) are amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) There are authorized to be appropriated for payments 
        pursuant to grants under this section $405,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 1986, $437,000,000 for fiscal year 1987, and $472,000,000 
        for fiscal year 1988. . . .
    sec. 6. migrant health centers.

            The first sentence of section 329(h)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
        254b(h)(1)) is amended by striking out ``and'' after ``1983,'' 
        and by inserting before the period a comma and ``$50,000,000 
        for the fiscal year ending September 20, 1986, $56,000,000 for 
        the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987, and $61,000,000 for 
        the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988''. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (6) The Clerk will report 
    the next committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 6, insert after line 5 the 
        following new section:
    sec. 8. plague.

            Section 317 (42 U.S.C. 247b) is amended by adding at the 
        end the following:
            ``(k) The Secretary, acting through the Director of the 
        Centers for Disease Control, may make grants to and enter into 
        contracts and cooperative agreements with States for the 
        control of plague. For grants, cooperative agreements, and 
        contracts under this subsection there are authorized to be 
        appropriated $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1986, 
        1987, and 1988.''. . . .

        Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane to the subject matter or 
    purpose of this

[[Page 7947]]

    bill and is in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . If no one wishes to be heard on 
    the point of order, the Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment does not pertain to the subject matter of the 
    introduced bill and addresses a subject that is not covered by the 
    bill and the point of order is sustained.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 9. General Amendments to Specific or Limited Propositions; 
    Amendments Enlarging Scope of Proposition

    It is well established that a specific proposition may not be 
amended by a proposition general in nature.(7) It has been 
stated that, ``A measure relating to a limited and specific matter may 
not be amended to include matters general in character and scope.'' 
(8) The question for the Chair frequently consists in 
determining what comprises a ``general'' or ``specific'' proposition. 
It has been held that, to a bill limited in its application to certain 
departments and agencies of Government, an amendment applicable to all 
departments and agencies is not germane.(9) And to a 
proposition applying to named individuals, an amendment making such 
proposition one of general applicability was held not to be 
germane.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. Sec. 9.6, 9.9, infra.
 8. See Sec. 9.9, infra.
 9. See Sec. 15.17, infra.
10. See Sec. 27.41, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the rule, it is not in order to amend a private 
bill by a proposition of general legislation.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 9.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment which, by striking words in the bill, broadens the 
scope of the bill may be held not to be germane.(12) But in 
one case where words of qualification were permitted to be stricken, 
the Chair apparently took the view that such words were unnecessary, 
and that the essence of the bill was not changed by deleting 
them.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  See Sec. 20, infra.
13. See Sec. 9.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that a bill requires a study to be made as to the impact 
of the bill upon factors or activities that are not otherwise within 
the scope of the subject matter of the bill, does not render germane an 
amendment that seeks to directly affect such factors or activities, or 
one that seeks to make the effectiveness of the bill conditional upon 
factors not otherwise related to the subject matter of the 
bill.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See, for example, the proceedings of Nov. 2 and Nov. 3, 1983, 
        relating to H.R. 1234, the Fair Practices and Procedures in 
        Automotive Products Act, discussed in Sec. 31.20, infra.

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

[[Page 7948]]

                          -------------------Provision Effective for 
    One Year--Amendment Proposing Permanent Change in Law

Sec. 9.1 To a proposition establishing a ceiling on employment for one 
    year, an amendment proposing a hiring preference system as 
    permanent law is not germane as going beyond the year and the issue 
    of the number of employees covered by the measure to which offered.

    The proceedings of Oct. 11, 1989, relating to H.R. 3026, District 
of Columbia appropriations for fiscal 1990, are discussed in Sec. 24.5, 
infra.

One Year Authorization--Amendment Permanently Extending Law

Sec. 9.2 To a proposition to appropriate or to authorize appropriations 
    for only one year (and containing no provisions extending beyond 
    that year) an amendment to extend the appropriation or 
    authorization to another year is not germane.

    On Nov. 13, 1980,(15) during consideration of the State 
and Local Fiscal Assistance Act Amendments of 1980 (16) in 
the Committee of the Whole, it was held that to an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute only extending for one year the entitlement 
authorization for revenue-sharing during fiscal year 1981 and 
containing conforming changes in the law which would not effectively 
extend beyond that year, an amendment extending the revenue-sharing 
program for 3 years was broader in scope and was not germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 29523-28, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. H.R. 7112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) When the Committee rose on 
    Wednesday, November 12, 1980, section 1 had been considered as 
    having been read and opened for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any amendments to section 1?
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Horton: Strike out everything after the enacting clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
    Section 1. Short Title.

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

[[Page 7949]]

    Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

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

    An amendment was offered:

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

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations for Local Share.--
        Section 105(c)(1) of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act 
        of 1972 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 
        ``In addition, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Trust Fund to pay the entitlements of units of local government 
        hereinafter provided $4,566,700,000 for each of the entitlement 
        periods beginning October 1 of 1980, 1981, and 1982.''. . .
            ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations for Allocations to 
        State Governments.--
            ``(1) In general.--In the case of each entitlement period 
        described in paragraph (2), there are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Trust Fund $2,300,000,000 for each such 
        entitlement period to make allocations to State governments. . 
        . .
            ``(2) Entitlement periods.--The following entitlement 
        periods are described in this paragraph:
            ``(A) The entitlement period beginning October 1, 1981, and 
        ending September 30, 1982; and
            ``(B) The entitlement period beginning October 1, 1982, and 
        ending September 30, 1983.''. . . .

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

[[Page 7950]]

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

Bill Extending Time Limit for Settlement of Particular Labor Dispute--
    Amendment To Provide Permanent Procedures for Settlement of All 
    Emergency Labor Disputes

Sec. 9.3 To a bill extending the time limit for negotiation of labor 
    disputes under the Railway Labor Act for purposes of permitting 
    additional time for negotiation of a particular labor dispute, an 
    amendment providing permanent procedures for the settlement of all 
    emergency labor disputes by amendment of the Railway Labor Act was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration which related to settlement of a labor dispute between 
certain railroad companies and their union employees. An amendment was 
offered (19) whose purpose was explained by the proponent, 
Mr. William E. Brock 3d, of Tennessee, as follows: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.J. Res. 559 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
19. See 113 Cong. Rec. 15912, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1967.
20. Id. at p. 15914.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I propose to do two things: first, to put off the strike 
    for 90 days as is proposed in the bill, and second, during this 
    period, to take an entirely different approach, based upon the 
    problem, not the symptom that we are treating with compulsory 
    arbitration. I would prohibit industrywide bargaining and require 
    as an alternative carrier-by-carrier negotiations.

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

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . First, the amendment 
    goes beyond the fundamental purpose of the legislation before the 
    committee today. As such it is not germane to the fundamental 
    purposes of the measure.

[[Page 7951]]

        I would cite that the amendment deals with sections of the 
    Railway Labor Act other than those presently before us. . . .
        . . . [T]he pending measure is limited to a specific labor 
    dispute, whereas the amendment . . . deals with all labor disputes.
        The legislation pending before the committee today deals with 
    railroads in one specific instance . . . whereas the amendment . . 
    . deals with every industry covered by the Railway Labor Act, which 
    would also include the airlines. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, in addition to this I would point out that 
    legislation dealing with a specific subject or a specific set of 
    circumstances under the rules may not be amended by a provision 
    which is general in nature even when of the class or the specific 
    subject involved.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair will call attention to ``Cannon's Precedents,'' 
    volume 8, page 479, section 2912, which reads as follows:

            To a bill proposing measures to meet a declared emergency 
        and limited in operation to a period of five years an amendment 
        proposing permanent legislation of the same character was held 
        not to be germane. . . .

        Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
    is permanent legislation and the resolution before the committee is 
    limited to an existing situation and is not permanent in nature, 
    the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane.

Amendment Directing Study of Subject Not in Bill

Sec. 9.4 To a bill mandating that a certain percentage of automobiles 
    sold in the United States be manufactured domestically, imposing an 
    import restriction on any person violating that requirement, and 
    requiring diverse studies of the impact of the bill and of 
    discriminatory practices of manufacturers affecting domestic 
    production of automobile parts, an amendment directing the Attorney 
    General to study the antitrust and tax implications of automobile 
    manufacturers' sales-lease price differentials was held not germane 
    as relating to a subject (antitrust and tax law) beyond the scope 
    of studies and requirements contained in the bill.

    During consideration of the Automotive Products Act of 1983 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole on Nov. 2 and 3, 
1983,(3) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment de

[[Page 7952]]

scribed above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 1234.
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 30527, 30781, 30782, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    sec. 9. study of discriminatory practices affecting domestic 
    production of motor vehicle parts.

        Within eighteen months after the date of the enactment of this 
    Act, the Secretary and the Federal Trade Commission shall jointly 
    undertake an investigation, and submit to Congress a written 
    report, regarding those policies and practices of vehicle 
    manufacturers that are used to persuade United States motor vehicle 
    dealers, in choosing replacement parts for motor vehicles, to favor 
    foreign-made parts rather than domestically produced parts. Such 
    report shall include, but not be limited to, recommended 
    administrative or legislative action that the Secretary and the 
    Federal Trade Commission consider appropriate to assure that 
    domestic producers of replacement parts are accorded fair access to 
    the United States market for such parts.
    sec. 10. impact study regarding motor vehicle dealerships.

        (a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
    Advisory Council, shall conduct a continuing study of the extent to 
    which this Act has affected employment in any way at retail motor 
    vehicle dealerships located in the United States including, but not 
    limited to, dealerships which have either--
        (1) franchises for at least one make of motor vehicle 
    manufactured by domestic manufacturers for sale and distribution in 
    interstate commerce and at least one make of motor vehicle imported 
    into the United States for such sale and distribution; or
        (2) franchises for one or more makes of motor vehicles imported 
    into the United States for sale and distribution in interstate 
    commerce but no franchises for any make of motor vehicle 
    manufactured by domestic manufacturers for sale and distribution in 
    interstate commerce.
        The study shall identify and consider all factors affecting 
    such employment and shall establish an employment base period for 
    all such dealerships which the Secretary shall utilize in the 
    conduct of the study. . . .
        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Florio: On page 36, after line 4, 
        insert the following new section:

          Sec. 11. impact study regarding unfair price discrimination.

    (a) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Advisory 
Council, shall conduct a study of the antitrust and tax implications 
and of the impact on retail motor vehicle dealerships and consumers of 
the practice whereby manufacturers sell or lease, or offer to sell or 
lease, any passenger car, truck, or station wagon to any person 
(including any other automobile dealer) during any period of time at a 
price which is lower than the price at which the same model of 
passenger car, truck or station wagon, similarly equipped, is sold or 
leased, or offered for sale or lease, to such retail dealers during the 
same period. . . .
    Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a

[[Page 7953]]

point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Jersey is out of order in accordance with rule XVI, clause 7, the rule 
of germaneness.

        The gentleman has offered as an amendment a form of a bill 
    which is pending before the gentleman's subcommittee which deals 
    with the question of how leasing companies buy automobiles through 
    dealerships and under what circumstances. . . .
        The findings of the bill say that there has been serious injury 
    due to increases in imports. The purposes of the bill are declared 
    as they are going to remedy the serious injuries by not allowing 
    foreign-made merchandise to be sold in the United States.
        Clearly, this amendment, which deals with domestic-sales 
    arrangements of domestic companies, has nothing whatever to do with 
    the bill and should be declared out of order. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, as 
    salutory as the purpose of this amendment is, I certainly would 
    support it under other circumstances. It gives responsibilities to 
    the Attorney General that are not in the bill. It requires a study 
    of antitrust matters which are not at all pertinent to the bill 
    before us and it deals with pricing.
        For all those reasons, I believe it is nongermane and, 
    therefore, regrettably, I have to assert a point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    wish to be heard on the point of order? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The basic test of germaneness is the question of whether the 
    amendment relates to the basic subject matter of the bill. The 
    basic subject matter of the bill before the House relates to the 
    domestic content of automobiles.
        This particular amendment, in part, provides for a study of 
    antitrust and tax implications of manufacturers sale-lease 
    practices.
        In the opinion of the Chair, that takes it beyond the subject 
    matter covered by the bill and it is not related to that subject 
    matter.
        Therefore, under rule XVI, clause 7, the Chair finds that the 
    amendment is not germane and sustains the point of order.

Perfecting Amendment--Substitute Striking out Larger Portion of Text

Sec. 9.5 For a perfecting amendment to a subsection striking out one 
    activity from those covered by a provision of existing law, a 
    substitute striking out the entire subsection, thereby eliminating 
    the applicability of existing law to a number of activities, was 
    held more general in scope and not germane.

    On Aug. 18, 1982,(5) during consideration of H.R. 5540, 
the Defense Industrial Base Revitalization Act, in the Committee of the

[[Page 7954]]

Whole, the Chair made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 128 Cong. Rec. 21967, 21968, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs now printed in the 
    reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment in 
    lieu of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 5540

            . . . Sec. 2. Title III of the Defense Production Act of 
        1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2091 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
        after section 303 the following:
            Sec. 303A. (a) It is the purpose of this section to 
        strengthen the domestic capability and capacity of the Nation's 
        defense industrial base. The actions specified in this section 
        are intended to facilitate the carrying out of such purpose.
            ``(b)(1) The President, utilizing the types of financial 
        assistance specified in sections 301, 302, and 303, and any 
        other authority contained in this Act, shall take immediate 
        action to assist in the modernization of industries in the 
        United States which are necessary to the manufacture or supply 
        of national defense materials which are required for the 
        national security or are likely to be required in a time of 
        emergency or war. . . .
            ``(c) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
        Secretary of Commerce, shall--
            ``(1) determine immediately, and semiannually thereafter, 
        those industries which should be given priority in the awarding 
        of financial assistance under subsection (b);
            ``(2) determine the type and extent of financial assistance 
        which should be made available to each such industry; and
            ``(3) with respect to the industries specified pursuant to 
        paragraph (1), indicate those proposals, received under 
        subsection (e), which should be given preference in the 
        awarding of financial assistance under subsection (b) based on 
        a determination that such proposals offer the greatest prospect 
        for improving productivity and quality, and for providing 
        materials which will reduce the Nation's reliance on imports. . 
        . .
            ``(m)(1) All laborers and mechanics employed for the 
        construction, repair, or alteration of any project, or the 
        installation of equipment, funded, in whole or in part, by a 
        guarantee, loan, or grant entered into pursuant to this section 
        shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on 
        projects of similar character in the locality as determined by 
        the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Act entitled `An 
        Act relating to the rate of wages for laborers and mechanics 
        employed on public buildings of the United States and the 
        District of Columbia by contractors and subcontractors, and for 
        other purposes', approved March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a et 
        seq.), and commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act.

    When consideration of H.R. 5540 resumed on Sept. 23, 
1982,(7) an amendment was offered by Mr. Bruce F. Vento, of 
Minnesota, and proceedings ensued as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 128 Cong. Rec. 24963, 24964, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 7955]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:
            Page 41, line 24, strike out ``, or the installation of 
        equipment,''.
            Page 42, beginning on line 15, strike out ``, or the 
        installation of equipment,''. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Beginning on page 41, line 22, 
        strike all of subsection (m) through page 43, line 2.

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the substitute offered by the gentleman is 
    clearly not in order. Under rule 19, Cannon's Procedure VIII, 
    section 2879, the precedents provide that ``to qualify as a 
    substitute an amendment must treat in the same manner the same 
    subject carried by the amendment for which it is offered.''
        My amendment would remove language from the committee bill and 
    limit the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act in terms of one type 
    of activity. The gentleman's substitute would strike the entire 
    section of the committee bill which my amendment seeks to perfect 
    and thereby eliminate the Davis-Bacon provisions of this 
    legislation.
        In this case, the amendment offered by the gentleman clearly 
    does not treat the subject in the same manner which my amendment 
    does. Also, under Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.1, 
    decisions made by the Chair on August 12, 1963, December 16, 1963, 
    and June 5, 1974, a motion to strike out a section or paragraph is 
    not in order while a perfecting amendment is pending. In addition, 
    the decisions of the Chair of December 16, 1963, and June 5, 1974, 
    and contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.4, 
    provides that a provision must be perfected before the question is 
    put on striking it out. A motion to strike out a paragraph or 
    section may not be offered as a substitute for pending motion to 
    perfect a paragraph or section by a motion to strike and insert. 
    The gentleman's amendment attempts to accomplish indirectly 
    something that he is precluded from doing directly. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: . . . It does appear to me from what the 
    gentleman has said in support of his point of order that he is 
    claiming that my substitute would treat a different matter or in a 
    different manner the same matter as the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman.
        The language to which both amendments are directed is language 
    in the bill that is applying the Davis-Bacon Act to activities 
    under the bill in question. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    is reducing the extent of that coverage by taking out the 
    installation of equipment.
        My substitute also reduces that by eliminating the language so 
    there would be no extension of Davis-Bacon to the activities beyond 
    the present coverage of Davis-Bacon.
        So the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
    Min

[[Page 7956]]

    nesota (Mr. Vento) is affecting Davis-Bacon by reducing its 
    coverage. Mine also would affect the reduction of Davis-Bacon, only 
    in a broader manner; and I, therefore, believe the amendment is in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for the reasons advocated by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota that the substitute is too broad in its scope in its 
    striking the whole of subsection (m).
        The Chair would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) it would be appropriate as a separate amendment but it 
    is not in order as a substitute because of the scope of the 
    amendment.
        The point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota is 
    sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As the above proceedings indicate, a motion 
to strike out an entire subsection of a bill is not, in any event, a 
proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to the subsection, since 
it is broader in scope, but may be offered after disposition of the 
perfecting amendment.

Bill Authorizing Deportation of Named Individual--Amendment Authorizing 
    Deportation of Class of Aliens

Sec. 9.6 To a bill authorizing the deportation of a named individual, 
    an amendment authorizing deportation of any alien who is a member 
    of an organization specified in the amendment was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
to authorize the deportation of Harry Bridges.(9) An 
amendment was offered (10) as described above. A point of 
order was raised against the amendment, as follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 9766 (Committee on Immigration and Naturalization).
 9. See 86 Cong. Rec. 8203, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., June 13, 1940.
10. Id. at pp. 8213, 8214.
11. Id. at p. 8214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Lesinski [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I doubt that 
    that amendment should be voted on, as it is general legislation, 
    and we have before us a private bill, not general legislation. The 
    amendment is not germane to this bill.

    The Chairman (12) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Millard F. Caldwell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Abolish Specified National Monument--Amendment Relating to 
    Monuments Generally

Sec. 9.7 To a bill to abolish a particular monument created by 
    executive order, an amendment requiring, in specified 
    circumstances, Congres

[[Page 7957]]

    sional approval of proclamations relating to preservation of 
    American antiquities was held to be not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration to abolish the Jackson Hole National Monument. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 2241 (Committee on Public Lands).
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 9192, 9193, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 11, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Antonio M.] Fernandez [of New 
    Mexico]: After the end of the first section add another section as 
    follows:
        Sec. 2. That section 2, of the act entitled ``An act for the 
    preservation of American antiquity, approved June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 
    225, U.S.C., title 16, sec. 431.),'' be, and the same is hereby, 
    amended by adding at the end of said section the following words: 
    ``Provided however, That any proclamation hereafter made under 
    authority of this act shall not become effective until approved by 
    act of Congress if the lands embraced within or reserved as a part 
    of the national monument created thereby exceed 10,000 acres in 
    area.''

    Mr. J. Hardin Peterson, of Florida, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill.(15) The Chairman, 
(16) in holding that the amendment was not germane, noted 
that, ``The bill . . . refers to a very limited subject, applying only 
to the Jackson Hole National Monument and not to monuments generally.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 9193.
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Prohibiting Interstate Shipment of Specified Mechanical Gambiling 
    Devices--Amendment Expanding Prohibition To Include Racing Horses 
    and Dogs

Sec. 9.8 To a bill to prohibit the transportation in interstate 
    commerce of specific types of mechanical gambling devices, an 
    amendment expending the prohibition to include racing horses and 
    racing dogs was held to be not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, a bill (17) was under 
consideration which related to transportation of gambling devices in 
interstate and foreign commerce. An amendment was offered 
(18) as described above. Mr. John W. Heselton, of 
Massachusetts, raised the point of order that the amendment was not 
germane to the bill. The Chairman,(19) noting that, ``the 
bill as now amended is not directed at gambling in general'', held the

[[Page 7958]]

amendment to be beyond the scope of the bill and therefore not to be 
germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. S. 3357 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
18. 96 Cong. Rec. 13651, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 28, 1950.
19. Henry M. Jackson (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Providing Aid for School Construction in Federal Impact Areas-- 
    Amendment Providing Aid for School Construction Generally

Sec. 9.9 To a bill providing federal assistance for construction of 
    schools in areas affected by certain federal activities, an 
    amendment providing for federal assistance for school construction 
    generally was held not to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (20) was under 
consideration providing federal assistance for school construction in 
specified areas. An amendment was offered (1) as described 
above. Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill.(2) The Chairman, 
Charles Melvin Price, of Illinois, in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 11695 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 1. 102 Cong. Rec. 12027, 12028, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 7, 1956.
 2. Id. at p. 12028.
 3. Id. at pp. 12028, 12029.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration . . . is one limited to financial 
    assistance for the construction of schools in impacted areas. . . .
        The amendment . . . has for its purpose an authorization for 
    school construction generally. . . . It is a well-recognized 
    principle . . . that a measure relating to a limited and specific 
    matter may not be amended to include matters general in character 
    and scope.

    The Chairman then sustained the point of order.

Counsel for Persons Charged Under Civil Rights Act--Counsel for Any 
    Offense

Sec. 9.10 To an amendment providing for legal counsel for persons cited 
    for alleged contempt under a civil rights act, an amendment to 
    provide for legal counsel for persons ``charged with any offense'' 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (4) 
to protect civil rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the 
United States, the following amendment was offered: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 5. 103 Cong. Rec. 9378, 9379, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North 
    Carolina]: On page 8, immediately following line 24, in

[[Page 7959]]

    sert: Provided That any person cited for an alleged contempt under 
    this act shall be allowed to make his full defense by counsel (to 
    be assigned by the Court in certain instances).

    To such proposition, the following amendment was offered: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 9382.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan] to 
    the amendment offered by Mr. Whitener: After the word ``contempt'' 
    insert ``or charged with any offense.''

    Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(7) 
in sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina has to do 
    with contempt, whereas the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan has to do with any offense or charge, which broadens the 
    scope of the pending amendment to a degree where the Chair holds 
    that it is not germane. . . .

Bill Providing Remedies for One Form of Discrimination--Amendment To 
    Establish Community Relations Service Addressing Broad Range of 
    Discriminatory Practices

Sec. 9.11 To that title of a civil rights bill authorizing the Attorney 
    General to bring actions on account of discriminatory practices in 
    public facilities, an amendment striking that title and inserting 
    provisions establishing a Community Relations Service to assist in 
    resolving a broad range of disputes relating to discriminatory 
    practices was held to be not germane.

    In the 88th Congress, during consideration of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1963,(8) the following amendment was offered: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 7152 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 2251, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert T.] Ashmore [of South 
    Carolina]: Strike out all of title III and insert in lieu the 
    following:

          TITLE III--ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE

        Sec. 301. There is hereby established a Community Relations 
    Service. . . .
        Sec. 302. It shall be the function of the Service to provide 
    assistance to communities and persons therein in resolving disputes 
    . . . relating to discriminatory practices based on race . . . or 
    national origin which impair the rights of persons . . . under the 
    Constitution . . . or which . . . may affect interstate commerce. 
    The Service may offer its services in cases of such disputes . . . 
    whenever in its judgment

[[Page 7960]]

    peaceful relations among the citizens of the community involved are 
    threatened thereby. . . .
        Sec. 303. (a) The Service shall whenever possible in performing 
    its functions under this title seek and utilize the cooperation of 
    the appropriate State or local agencies and may seek and utilize 
    the cooperation of any nonpublic agency which it believes may be 
    helpful.

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    constrained to make the point of order that the amendment is not 
    germane to the title III. Title III involves litigation. Litigation 
    is the subject of title III.
        The amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina involves the 
    establishment of a community relations service, which is a sort of 
    informal conciliatory agency to settle disputes.

    The Chairman, Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, in ruling on the point 
of order, stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 2252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is to be noted that the title in the pending bill is limited 
    to the denial of access to or full and complete utilization of any 
    public facility which is owned, operated or managed by or on behalf 
    of any State or subdivision thereof.
        The Community Relations Service which is sought to be set up in 
    the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina goes far beyond 
    the provisions of the title in the pending bill. It is the opinion 
    of the Chair that the amendment is, therefore, not germane to the 
    title in the pending bill and sustains the point of order.

    Subsequently, a similar amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: On 
    page 48, strike out all of title III and insert the following 
    section:
        Sec. 301. (a) There is hereby established in the Department of 
    Commerce a Community Relations Service. . . .
        Sec. 303. (a) The Service, shall, whenever possible, in 
    performing its functions under this title, seek and utilize the 
    cooperation of the appropriate State or local agencies.

    Mr. Cramer, explaining the amendment, stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 2252, 2253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The wording I am offering sets up a community relations 
    service and is that reported out by the subcommittee which, I am 
    sure the gentleman knows, is substantially different in that the 
    community relations service is transferred to the Department of 
    Commerce, and is limited to six employees as compared to the 
    administration's bill.

    A point of order was again raised, as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 2253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I reiterate and reaffirm the point of 
    order which I made against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from South Carolina (Mr. Ashmore).

    The Chairman, in sustaining the point of order, stated:

[[Page 7961]]

        The text of the new title III to be inserted (by the amendment) 
    would create a community relations service in the Department of 
    Commerce, and it would place in that commission far broader powers 
    than are sought to be provided under the pending bill. . . .
        The Chair is of the opinion that, similar to the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Florida is not germane to title III of the 
    pending bill.

Bill Imposing Penalties for Obstruction of Desegregation Orders--
    Amendment Making Provisions Applicable to All Court Orders

Sec. 9.12 To that chapter of a bill making it a federal crime to 
    obstruct court orders relating to desegregation of public schools, 
    an amendment to broaden the chapter by making it applicable to all 
    court orders was held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(13) to enforce certain constitutional rights, the following 
amendment was offered: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 8601 (Committee on the Judiciary).
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 6369, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 23, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: On page 
    1, beginning at line 10, strike out all down to and through line 23 
    on page 2, and insert:
        Sec. 1509. Obstruction of court orders.
        Whoever . . . willfully . . . obstructs . . . the due exercise 
    of rights or the performance of duties under any order . . . of a 
    court of the United States, shall be fined . . . or imprisoned. . . 
    .

    Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, made a point of order against the 
amendment. The Chairman, Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, in 
sustaining the point of order, stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 6370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio has the effect 
    of making the ruling applicable to all court orders. The bill under 
    consideration applies to certain court orders. It is quite limited 
    in scope of application.

    Subsequently, an amendment was offered to strike out the language 
that limited the application of the provisions to desegregation 
rulings, thus making the section applicable to the obstruction of all 
court orders.(16) Mr. Celler again made a point of order 
against the amendment. The following exchange ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 6381 (amendment offered by Mr. Howard W. Smith [Va.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the point of order comes too late. I had been recognized.
        The Chairman: The point of order does not come too late.

[[Page 7962]]

    Subsequently, the Chairman, in sustaining the point of order, cited 
the rule that, a proposal to eliminate portions of a text thereby 
extending the scope of its provisions to other subjects than those 
originally presented is in violation of the rule requiring germaneness.

Bill Authorizing Commission To Investigate Deprivation of Voting Rights 
    Due to Discrimination--Amendment Striking Language so as to Expand 
    Coverage to Any Deprivation of Voting Rights

Sec. 9.13 To a bill establishing a commission on civil rights and 
    authorizing such commission to investigate deprivation of voting 
    rights due to color, race, religion, or national origin, an 
    amendment striking out such terms so that an investigation could 
    encompass any deprivation of voting rights, was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(17) relating to civil rights, an amendment was offered 
(18) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.  H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 9019, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: The point of order is 
    that the adoption of this amendment would completely change the 
    character of the legislation. It would leave in the bill simply the 
    power to investigate the right to vote. Such a commission set up in 
    this manner would not normally be created by the Committee on the 
    Judiciary but, rather, by the Committee on House Administration.

    Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas, in response to the point of order 
raised against the amendment, stated in part that ``the right to vote 
is a civil right.'' The Chairman, (19) in ruling on the 
point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment to the bill now 
    under consideration that would strike out the words ``by reason of 
    their color, race, religion, or national origin.'' The paragraph to 
    which it is offered deals with investigations to be made by the 
    Commission and reads ``investigate allegations in writing under 
    oath or affirmation that certain citizens of the United States are 
    being deprived of their right to vote.'' Then comes the 
    qualification.
        The Chair rules that those additional qualifications are not 
    necessary. The intent of the paragraph is still carried out by 
    virtue of the fact that it authorizes the Commission to investigate 
    the allegation that someone is being deprived of his political 
    right to vote and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

[[Page 7963]]

Substitute Amendment More Comprehensive Than Amendment

Sec. 9.14 To an amendment only decreasing the fiscal year 1984 
    authorization for Army ammunition funds in Title I of the Defense 
    Department authorization bill, a substitute adding language 
    prohibiting use of any Defense Department funds for the production 
    or procurement of binary chemical weapons was held to be not 
    germane because addressing funds not addressed by the pending 
    amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 2969 in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 15, 1983,(20) the Chair, in sustaining a point of order 
against the amendment described above, indicated that a substitute for 
an amendment must be germane to the amendment to which offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 15803, 15809, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 2, line 15, strike 
        out ``$2,272,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$2,157,900,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bethune as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 2, line 15, strike out 
        ``$2,272,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$2,157,900,000''.
            Page 10, after line 12, insert the following new section:

          prohibition on procurement of binary chemical munitions and 
            related production facilities, equipment, and precursor 
                                   chemicals

            Sec. 109. (a) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to 
        the authorizations of appropriations in this title may be 
        obligated or expended for procurement of binary chemical 
        munitions or for production facilities, equipment, or precursor 
        chemicals for such munitions.
            (b) No funds available to the Department of Defense may be 
        made available for the production or procurement of binary 
        chemical munitions (or for production facilities, equipment, or 
        precursor chemicals for such munitions) through the use of 
        reprogramming authority. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, under 
    section 109 of the amendment, on line 9, it says,

            No funds available to the Department of Defense may be made 
        available for the production or procurement of binary chemical 
        munitions (or for production facilities, equipment, or 
        precursor chemicals for such munitions) through the use of 
        reprogramming authority.

        The point of order is that this bill is a bill that would 
    authorize funds for

[[Page 7964]]

    fiscal year 1984 exclusively, whereas the amendment deals with 
    funds that might have been made available to the Department of 
    Defense in other ways, prior years, or subsequent year, and, 
    therefore, is outside of the scope of the pending legislation and 
    is, therefore, out of order. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) The Chair will rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Zablocki amendment addresses the Army ammunition funds 
    authorized by title I of the pending bill. The Bethune substitute 
    addresses other funds available to the Department of Defense not 
    authorized by the pending title I and is not germane to the 
    Zablocki amendment.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Provision Prohibiting Use of Specified Funds for Abortions--Motion To 
    Strike Out Language as Broadening Scope of Prohibition to Include 
    All Funds in Bill

Sec. 9.15 A motion to strike out a portion of the text of an amendment, 
    thereby extending its scope to a more general subject, is not 
    germane; thus, to a substitute amendment to the District of 
    Columbia Appropriation bill prohibiting the use of annual federal 
    payment funds therein for the performance of abortions, an 
    amendment striking the reference to federal payment funds, thereby 
    broadening the scope of the substitute to cover any funds contained 
    in the bill, was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 4580 (2) in the Committee 
of the Whole on July 17, 1979,(3) the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The District of Columbia Appropriations for fiscal 1980.
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 19064, 19066, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 17, after line 2, add the 
    following new section:
        ``Sec. 221. None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall 
    be used to pay for abortions.''. . .
        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: ``None of 
        the funds in this Act provided by the Federal payment shall be 
        used to perform abortions.''. . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman to the amendment offered

[[Page 7965]]

        by Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: delete from the amendment of 
        the gentleman from Texas the following words: ``provided by the 
        Federal payment''.

    A point of order was made, as follows:

        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: . . . As I understand the 
    amendment it in essence takes it back to the original Dornan 
    amendment without providing for the substitute. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, that is not a point of order, it 
    simply is an accurate description of the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the point 
    of order is that it is a sham amendment in that it just repeats the 
    intent of the original amendment.
        The Chairman: (4) In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    gentleman from Texas is suggesting that the perfecting amendment 
    broadens the scope of the substitute amendment, and for that reason 
    is not germane. The point of order is sustained under the 
    precedents that a motion to strike cannot broaden the scope of the 
    pending proposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Albert A. Gore, Jr. (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Chair could cite a 
    precedent for his ruling?
        The Chairman: Deschler's procedure chapter 28, section 15.3.

Amendment Relating to Funds in ``This or Any Other Act''

Sec. 9.16 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.

    During consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation 
Assistance Act (5) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
sustained a point of order against the amendment described above. The 
proceedings of Apr. 23, 1975,(6) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  H.R. 6096.
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 11550, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Matthew F.] McHugh [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McHugh: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 12, add the following new section: ``Sec. 8. (a) Funds 
        made available under this Act or any other Act for humanitarian 
        assistance shall be furnished under such international 
        organizations, international agreements or voluntary relief 
        agencies as the President may determine.
            ``(b) Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
        Act and within each 90-day period thereafter, the President 
        shall, to the fullest extent practicable, transmit to the 
        Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Foreign Relations of the Senate a report describing fully and 
        completely--
            ``(1) the amount of each type of humanitarian assistance 
        provided under the Act;

[[Page 7966]]

            ``(2) the actual and anticipated recipients of such 
        assistance;''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment in that some of the changes 
    are subject to a point of order because in line 2 it quotes, ``This 
    act or any other act.''
        Therefore, it affects funds made available in other acts and 
    limits their use. . . .
        Mr. McHugh: . . . Section 6, or what was section 6, provides 
    for funds under the Foreign Assistance Act of $177 million. That is 
    the other act referred to in the proposed section. Therefore, I 
    think it is in order.
        The Chairman: (7) Unfortunately, the intention of 
    the gentleman is not represented by the language of the amendment. 
    The amendment is overly broad in scope, and accordingly, the point 
    of order must be sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not 
    allowed.

Provision Adding New Labor Standard--Amendment To Strike Section of 
    Bill Covering Several Standards

Sec. 9.17 For an amendment inserting an additional labor standard to 
    those contained in a section of a bill, a motion to strike out the 
    entire section was ruled out as not a proper substitute for the 
    perfecting amendment, and not germane in that it had the effect of 
    enlarging the scope of the perfecting amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 14747 (amending the Sugar Act of 1948) 
in the Committee of the Whole on June 5, 1974,(8) it was 
demonstrated that a motion to strike out a section is not in order as a 
substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 17868, 17869, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: Page 18, after line 5, 
        insert:
            (5) That the producer who compensates workers on a piece-
        rate basis shall have paid, at a minimum, the established 
        minimum hourly wage.

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: In lieu of the amendment 
        offered by the gentleman from Michigan insert the following: 
        ``Section 11 of the bill, page 15, strike out all of line 11 
        through line 6 of page 17 and renumbering the `(3)' on line 7, 
        page 17 as `(1)', and strike out line 15 on page 17 through 
        line 5 on page 18.''. . .

[[Page 7967]]

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment in that it is not germane to the provisions of my 
    amendment. It deals with different parts of section 11. . . .
        Mr. Symms: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is germane to the 
    gentleman's amendment. It strikes it and all the labor provisions 
    from the bill.
        The Chairman: (9) It is the ruling of the Chair that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Symms) as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. O'Hara) is not a proper substitute. The substitute would 
    strike portions of section 11 not affected by the pending 
    amendment. And, the substitute is broader in scope than the 
    amendment to which offered and is not germane thereto. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  James A. Burke (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restriction of Funds in ``This or Any Other Act''

Sec. 9.18 To a title of a bill primarily amending the Foreign 
    Assistance Act reported from the Committee on Foreign Affairs to 
    authorize assistance for Africa (containing one reference to 
    another law, the Export-Import Bank Act, not directly amended and 
    also within the jurisdiction of another committee), an amendment 
    restricting the availability of funds in that bill ``or any other 
    Act'' to support the activities of the African National Congress 
    was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 3100 (10) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Dec. 9 and 10, 1987,(11) it was held that to 
a bill amending an existing law to authorize a program, an amendment 
restricting authorizations under that or any other Act is not germane. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1987.
11. 133 Cong. Rec. 34592, 34595, 34675, 34676, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             TITLE VIII--AFRICA

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

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

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

        ``To the maximum extent practicable, resources allocated for 
    sub-Saharan Africa under chapter 4 of part II (relating to the 
    Economic Support Fund), title IV of chapter 2 of this part 
    (relating to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation), the 
    Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, the Peace Corps Act, and the

[[Page 7968]]

    African Development Foundation Act shall be used to provide 
    assistance which meets the criteria specified in section 472(b). To 
    the maximum extent practicable, the agency primarily responsible 
    for administering this part should use resources and authorities 
    available under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance 
    Act of 1954, section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, and 
    the Food for Progress Act of 1985 to complement the assistance 
    provided under section 472. . . .
        Mr. [Dan] Burton of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 201, after 
        line 8, insert the following:

          sec. 830. prohibition on assistance to the african national 
                                   congress.

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

        Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        The point of order has to do with germaneness, Mr. Chairman. 
    The gentleman's amendment goes a lot farther beyond the purview of 
    the responsibility of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and thus also 
    the parameters of the bill itself that we are debating here. It 
    reaches the interest of other agencies that are not within the 
    jurisdiction of the consideration of this legislation at this time, 
    and therefore it is nongermane to the arguments that we pursue here 
    today.

        Also, Mr. Chairman, the amendment that the gentleman has 
    offered goes a lot farther than any other amendment that has been 
    offered here today. It is much broader, the scope of which is too 
    far reaching to be relevant to the discussions we have here today 
    under the foreign aid bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Les AuCoin (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        The Chair would note in reading that amendment of the gentleman 
    from Indiana that the gentleman provides a prohibition on funds 
    appropriated by this or any other act, and the Chair can find in no 
    other instance in title VIII as amended where there is any similar 
    prohibition.

[[Page 7969]]

        For that reason, the Chair would rule that the gentleman's 
    amendment goes beyond the scope of title VIII and is not germane. 
    Therefore, the point of order is sustained.

Specific Appropriation--Conditions Not Limited to Funds in Bill

Sec. 9.19 To a joint resolution making supplemental appropriations for 
    relief, an amendment prohibiting use of federal relief money for 
    political purposes but not limiting the prohibition to funds 
    appropriated by the pending bill, was held to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.J. Res. 596 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. See 83 Cong. Rec. 2069, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 16, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That to continue to provide relief, and work 
    relief on useful public projects, as authorized in the Emergency 
    Relief Appropriation Act of 1937 . . . there is hereby 
    appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
    appropriated, the sum of $250,000,000. . . .

    The following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 2070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert L.] Bacon [of New York]: Page 
    1, line 10, insert the following proviso: ``Provided however, That 
    it shall be unlawful to use Federal relief . . . funds . . . for 
    political purposes; for anyone to . . . receive contributions for 
    political purposes from anyone receiving . . . assistance out of 
    Federal relief funds. . . .''

    Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane.(16) The Chairman,(17) 
in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 2071.
17. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Bacon] unquestionably would apply to all relief funds heretofore 
    appropriated. For this reason the amendment is broader than the 
    scope of the joint resolution now under consideration and is 
    therefore not germane.

Restriction on Funding in Bill--Amendment Restricting all Funds

Sec. 9.20 To a Senate amendment prohibiting the use of funds 
    appropriated for a fiscal year for a specified purpose, a proposed 
    House amendment prohibiting the use of funds appropriated by ``this 
    or any prior Act'' for a different unrelated purpose is not 
    germane.

    The proceedings of June 30, 1987, relating to H.R. 1827, sup

[[Page 7970]]

plemental appropriations for fiscal 1987, are discussed in section 
27.4, infra.

Provision Affecting Specific Funds in Bill--Amendment Prohibiting Use 
    of Funds in Bill or in Any Other Act for Particular Purpose

Sec. 9.21 To a proposition limiting the use of funds in a bill for a 
    particular purpose, an amendment limiting the use of funds in other 
    Acts and for a purpose more general in scope is not germane; thus, 
    to a Senate amendment to an appropriation bill reported from 
    conference in disagreement, striking out a House provision 
    prohibiting the use of funds in the bill for a designated Outer 
    Continental Shelf lease sale in California, a House amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds in the bill or in any other Act for 
    that lease sale and other California lease sales was conceded to be 
    nongermane as more general in scope.

    On Oct. 5, 1983,(18) during consideration of the 
Department of the Interior appropriations for fiscal 1984 (H.R. 3363) 
in the House, a point of order was conceded and sustained in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 27319, 27320, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 95: Page 38, strike out all after line 
        21 over to and including line 15 on page 40.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 95 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by 
        said amendment, amended to read as follows:
            Sec. 113. (a) No funds in this or any other act may be 
        expended by the Department of the Interior for the lease or 
        sale of lands within the Department of the Interior Southern 
        California Planning Area described in (1) through (4) below. No 
        funds may be expended for lease or sale of lands within the 
        area described in (1) through (4) so long as adjacent State 
        Tidelands continue to be designated as State Oil and Gas 
        Leasing Sanctuary pursuant to Sec. 6871.1 et seq. of the 
        California Public Resources Code . . .
            (1) An area of the Department of the Interior Southern 
        California Planning Area off the coastline of the State of 
        California Oil and Gas Leasing Sanctuary as described by Sec. 
        6871.1 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code in 
        effect September 29, 1983 . . . .
            (4) An area within the boundaries of the Santa Barbara 
        Channel Eco

[[Page 7971]]

        logical Preserve and Buffer Zone, as defined by Department of 
        the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Public Land Order 4587. 
        . . .
            (b) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the 
        Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands in 
        OCS Lease Sale #80 which lie within an area located off the 
        coastline of the State of California Oil and Gas Leasing 
        Sanctuary as defined by Sec. 6871.1 et seq. California Public 
        Resources Code in effect September 29, 1983 . . . .
            (c) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the 
        Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands 
        within the Department of the Interior Southern California 
        Planning Area, as defined in section 2(a) of the Outer 
        Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(a)), located in the 
        Pacific Ocean off the coastline of Santa Monica Bay, State of 
        California, which lies within a line on the California 
        (Lambert) Plane Coordinate System . . . .
            (f) In OCS Lease Sale 80, lease or sale of lands affecting 
        the responsibilities of the Department of Defense shall be with 
        the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. . . .

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against Senate amendment No. 95, the point of order 
    being that under rule XVI, clause 7, the provisions are not 
    germane.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.

Joint Resolution Continuing Appropriations for Certain Agencies--
    Amendment Imposing Restriction Affecting All Expenditures

Sec. 9.22 To a joint resolution ``continuing'' appropriations for one 
    month, an amendment placing a restriction on the total 
    administrative budget expenditures for the fiscal year and thus 
    affecting funds not continued by the bill was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill continuing 
appropriations through October 1967, an amendment was offered 
(20) as above described. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 26957, 26958, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1967. 
        Under consideration was H.J. Res. 849 (Committee on 
        Appropriations).
 1. Id. at p. 26959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: . . . The amendment of the 
    gentleman from Ohio seems clearly not to be in order because it is 
    not germane. It limits the expenditure of money not in the bill and 
    not covered in the resolution and it rescinds money not in the 
    resolution and not contained in the pending measure.

    In sustaining the point of order, Speaker John W. McCormack, of

[[Page 7972]]

Massachusetts, cited precedents ``which stand for the general 
proposition that to a bill limited in its application to certain 
departments and agencies of Government, an amendment applicable to all 
departments and agencies is not germane.'' (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 26960. For more detailed discussion, see Sec. 15.17, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to Existing Law--Restriction on ``This or Any Other Act''

Sec. 9.23 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.

    On May 11, 1976,(3) during consideration of the 
Vocational Education Act amendments (4) in the Committee of 
the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 13419, 13427, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. H.R. 12835.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment because it is not germane.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 7973]]

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

Bill Pertaining to One Agency in Department--Amendment Affecting All 
    Departmental Programs

Sec. 9.24 To a proposition limited in its application to a single 
    agency within an executive department, an amendment applicable to 
    all activities and agencies within the department is not germane; 
    thus, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizing 
    funds for institutes within the National Institutes of Health, and 
    granting new authority to the National Institutes of Health, an 
    amendment restricting fetal and infant research within the entire 
    Department of Health and Human Services (which includes the 
    National Institutes of Health) was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 30, 1982,(6) during consideration of the Health 
Research Extension Act of 1982 (7) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 128 Cong. Rec. 26216-19, 26225, 26226, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. H.R. 6457.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Broyhill: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:

                                  short title

            Section 1. (a) This Act may be cited as the ``Biomedical 
        Research and Library Extension Act of 1982''.

                           national cancer institute

            Sec. 2. (a) Section 410(a) of the Public Health Service Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 286e(a)) is amended by striking out ``and'' after 
        ``1981;'', and by inserting before the period a semicolon and 
        ``$925,450,490 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983. . 
        . .
            Sec. 5. (a) Title IV of the Public Health Service Act is 
        amended by adding at the end the following new part: . . .
            Sec. 481. (a) There is established in the Public Health 
        Service a National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal 
        Diseases (hereinafter in this part referred to as the 
        ``Institute''). The general purpose of the Institute is the 
        conduct and support of research, training, health information, 
        and related programs with respect to arthritis and 
        musculoskeletal and skin diseases, including sports-related 
        disorders. . . .
            Sec. 6. (a)(1) The Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
        through the Director of the National Institutes of Health, 
        shall in accordance with subsection (b) arrange for the conduct 
        of a study of the effectiveness of the existing combinations of 
        disease research programs within the individual national 
        research institutes and of the standards which should be 
        followed in establishing

[[Page 7974]]

        new or realigning existing national research institutes. . . .
            Sec. 7. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
        shall review--
            (1) the actions being taken by the Department of Health and 
        Human Services to support research to develop research and 
        testing methodologies which will decrease the number of live 
        animals used in biomedical and behavioral research;
            (2) the actions taken by the Department to improve 
        oversight of the use of animals in such research by entities 
        which receive financial support for such research through the 
        Department. . . .

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Broyhill: Page 18, after 
        line 16, insert the following new section:

                          ``fetal and infant research

            ``Sec. 8. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
        not conduct or support research or experimentation in the 
        United States or abroad on a living human fetus or infant, 
        whether before or after induced abortion, unless such research 
        or experimentation is done for the purpose of insuring the 
        survival of that fetus or infant.''. . .

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is in violation of rule XVI, clause 7, of the House of 
    Representatives. The gentleman's amendment is not germane to the 
    amendment for two reasons:
        The subject matter of the Broyhill amendment is the 
    reauthorization of the National Cancer and Heart, Lung, and Blood 
    Institutes and the National Library of Medicine which is 
    administered by NIH. The Broyhill amendment is limited specifically 
    to the research conducted by the Cancer and Heart Institutes. The 
    amendment proposes to limit research throughout the Department of 
    Health and Human Services. The amendment would affect research 
    conducted by the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health 
    Administration, FDA, CDC, NIOSH, and the National Institute for 
    Handicapped Research.
        NIH is not the only research agency within the Department of 
    Health and Human Services that conducts research involving infants. 
    For example, the Center for Disease Control does or has done 
    research on infants and nutrition--new strains of infectious 
    diseases, adverse reactions to vaccines and drugs, infant 
    mortality. . . .
        Other agencies do extensive research on child health and infant 
    mortality.
        My second point is that a specific subject may not be amended 
    by a provision general in nature, even when the same class of the 
    specific subject. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Norman E. D'Amours (N.H.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Insofar as the amendment may restrict the authority of the 
    Secretary of HHS over programs not covered in the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, and also may restrict research for 
    experimentation of other agencies not within the province of the 
    substitute, the Chair agrees with the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
        The Chair has also found a precedent in Deschler's Procedures, 
    chapter 28, section 8.26, where--

[[Page 7975]]

            Sec. 8.26 To a bill amending the Bretton Woods Agreement 
        Act, perfected by the Committee of the Whole to only address 
        U.S. participation in and use of a special and limited 
        International Monetary Fund financing facility, an amendment 
        adding a new section to the act to impose certain policy 
        directives on the U.S. Governor of the International Monetary 
        Fund in relation to all IMF transactions was held not germane.

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 7 of the Broyhill amendment in the 
nature of a substitute arguably did broaden the scope of such amendment 
sufficiently to allow the Dannemeyer amendment, since the provision as 
to animal research was not confined to the National Institutes of 
Health, but was applicable to the research efforts of the entire 
Department of Health and Human Services.

Bill Addressing Disclosure of Medicaid and Medicare Patients' Records--
    Disclosure by Any Government Employee of Other Records

Sec. 9.25 To a bill amending existing law for limited purposes, an 
    amendment further changing that law but affecting programs beyond 
    the scope of the bill and the law being amended and waiving other 
    inconsistent provisions of law is not germane.

    On Sept. 23, 1977,(9) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (10) jointly reported from the 
Committees on Ways and Means and Interstate and Foreign Commerce to 
enable the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to investigate 
and prosecute fraud and abuse in the medicare and medicaid health 
programs within their respective jurisdictions. An amendment was 
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means to prohibit any federal 
officer or employee from disclosing any identifiable medical record in 
the absence of patient approval. The amendment was held not germane, as 
exceeding the scope and subject matter of the bill. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 30532-34, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H.R. 3, Medicare-Medicaid Antifraud and Abuse Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The Clerk will report the second 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

[[Page 7976]]

           ``disclosure of individually identifiable medical records

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

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

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

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

[[Page 7977]]

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

        Mr. [Philip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the point of order. The Ways and Means amendment, 
    set forth as section 5(1) of H.R. 3 as reported by that committee, 
    is clearly germane to the original bill and the bill in its current 
    form.
        In the first place, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3 ostensibly has as its 
    purpose the prevention of fraud and abuse in the medicare and 
    medicaid programs. To achieve that objective, a very complex set of 
    provisions were put into the original bill, including provisions in 
    section 5, that greatly strengthen the investigatory and 
    enforcement roles of professional standards review organizations 
    (PSRO's).
        These organizations do not simply acquire and inspect records 
    only of medicare and medicaid patients, or of doctors and other 
    health professionals who treat only those patients. Quite the 
    contrary is true. PSRO's are required to compile statistically 
    valid ``profiles'' of patients and providers, in order to identify, 
    among other things, patterns of suspected unnecessary services and 
    treatment that does not conform to ``appropriate'' medical 
    standards. In so doing, they not only may--they must--inspect, 
    acquire, and require the disclosure of the records of private 
    patients and their doctors. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the precedents of this body--
    and I am certain that my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee 
    are as well--that would not allow section 5(l) of H.R. 3 to be 
    broader in scope than the original bill. The fact is, however, that 
    section 5(h) of the bill now before us clearly extends the specter 
    of unauthorized violations of patients' rights to confidentiality 
    to all patients, by all Federal agencies and departments. There is 
    no way for Congress to know, in advance, precisely who will seek to 
    inspect, acquire or require the disclosure of the data and records 
    gathered by a PSRO and mandated to be shared with others by the 
    original language of H.R. 3. Furthermore, a private patient's 
    medical record can be transformed into a medicare or medicaid 
    patient's record simply by a change in the status of the patient--
    his becoming eligible, for example, through disability, age, or 
    poverty. The medicare and medicaid programs have much to fear if 
    the kinds of safeguards provided for in the Crane-Stark amendment 
    are not extended to all records of patients and all Federal 
    officials.
        The Crane-Stark amendment most certainly relates to the 
    fundamental purpose of H.R. 3, and applies only to those 
    individuals, agencies and departments that are within the scope of 
    the original bill. To decide otherwise would, I respectfully 
    submit, significantly and adversely affect the very patients who 
    are the intended beneficiaries of this important legislation. It 
    would create potential barriers between patient and doctor by 
    inhibiting free communication, since there would be no guarantees 
    that their jobs would be secure or their friends and families would 
    be free from interrogation and investigation by the Federal 
    Government. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from North Carolina makes the point of order 
    against the

[[Page 7978]]

    amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means printed on 
    page 66, line 22, through page 70, line 5, on the grounds that it 
    is not germane to the bill H.R. 3.
        The bill amends several titles of the Social Security Act to 
    correct fraudulent activities under the medicare and medicaid 
    programs by strengthening penalty sanctions, increasing disclosure 
    of information requirements, improving the professional standards 
    review program, and by proposing certain administrative reforms.
        The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    while addressing the role of professional standards review 
    organizations in permitting disclosure of confidential medical 
    records of patients under medicare and medicaid programs, goes 
    beyond that issue and encompasses a prohibition against any officer 
    or employee of the Federal Government from disclosing any 
    identifiable medical record absent specific authorization from the 
    patient. As drafted, the amendment would supersede any other 
    provision of law which would otherwise permit Federal officials to 
    disclose medical records, and would appear to affect health 
    programs which are not medicare or medicaid related which do not 
    involve PSRO participation and which are not established under the 
    Social Security Act.
        For this reason, the Chair holds that the amendment recommended 
    by the Committee on Ways and Means is not germane to H.R. 3 and 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill To Collect Medical Information for Study--Amendment Broadly 
    Restricting Access of Government Employees to Medical Information

Sec. 9.26 To a bill providing for the collection of certain 
    information, an amendment restricting access to a category of 
    information which might be needed to conduct that study is not 
    germane if it can be interpreted to more broadly deny access for 
    any purpose to any information within that category; thus, to a 
    bill authorizing a federal agency through grants or contracts to 
    conduct a study of a child health assurance program, an amendment 
    denying access to medical records to government employees and 
    agents or to an organization conducting medical reviews for 
    purposes of that study was conceded by the sponsor to deny access 
    to medical records which were not necessarily to be utilized to 
    conduct the study, and was held not germane as applying to medical 
    records not otherwise covered by the bill.

[[Page 7979]]

    On Dec. 11, 1979,(12) during consideration of the Child 
Health Assurance Act of 1979 (13) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the amendment 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 35425, 35438, 35439, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
13.  H.R. 4962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 14. (a)(1) The Secretary shall conduct or arrange (through 
    grants or contracts) for the conduct of an ongoing study of the 
    effectiveness of the child health assurance program under section 
    1913 of the Social Security Act. Not later than two years after the 
    effective date prescribed by section 16(a)(1) and each two years 
    thereafter, the Secretary shall report to Congress the results of 
    the study and include in the report (1) the effect of preventive 
    and primary care services on the health status of individuals under 
    the age of 21 assessed under such program, (2) the incidence of the 
    various disorders identified in assessments conducted under the 
    program, and (3) the costs of identifying, in such program, such 
    disorders. . . .
        Mr. Philip M. Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Philip M. Crane: On page 38, 
        following line 15, insert the following new subsection:
            (2)(a) No officer, employee, or agent of the Federal 
        Government or of an organization conducting medical reviews for 
        purposes of carrying out the study provided for in subsection 
        (a)(1) of this section shall inspect (or have access to) any 
        part of an individually identifiable medical record (as 
        described in subsection (c)) of a patient which relates to 
        medical care not provided directly by the Federal Government or 
        paid for (in whole or in part) under a Federal program or under 
        a program receiving Federal financial assistance, unless the 
        patient has authorized such disclosure and inspection in 
        accordance with subsection (b).
            (b) A patient authorizes disclosure and inspection of a 
        medical record for purposes of subsection (a) only if, in a 
        signed and dated statement, he--
            (1) authorizes the disclosure and inspection for a specific 
        period of time;
            (2) identifies the medical record authorized to be 
        disclosed and inspected; and
            (3) specifies the agencies which may inspect the record and 
        to which the record may be disclosed.
            (c) For purposes of this section:
            (1) The term ``individually identifiable medical record'' 
        means a medical, psychiatric, or dental record concerning an 
        individual that is in a form which either identifies the 
        individual or permits identification of the individual through 
        means (whether direct or indirect) available to the public. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order on the amendment. . . .
        I would like to make an inquiry of the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Philip M. Crane) who has offered the amendment, if I might. 
    The section (2)(a) on page 38 following line 15 as it would be 
    inserted by this amendment says:

            No officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Government or 
        of an organization conducting medical reviews for purposes of 
        carrying out

[[Page 7980]]

        the study provided for in subsection (a)(1) of this section 
        shall inspect (or have access to). . . .

        Is this a parenthetical clause: ``Or of an organization 
    conducting medical reviews for purposes of carrying out the study 
    provided for,'' or are we also referring only to the officers, 
    employees, or agents of the Federal Government who are conducting 
    medical reviews for purposes of carrying out the study?
        Mr. Philip M. Crane: If the gentleman will yield, the reason 
    for the seeming redundancy of language was to guarantee that there 
    would not be any commission or what I would classify as an agent, 
    but which might be open to some debate, or group of private 
    individuals performing a function under the auspices of the Federal 
    Government. I would define that as an agent and, therefore, that 
    language would be, then, redundant to that extent. My concern is 
    quibbling over fine points of definitions, and to the extent that 
    there is a potential here for some private group with the full 
    authority of the Federal Government to conduct these kinds of 
    studies, I want to make sure that those do not in any way have the 
    possibility of falling into the hands of Government officials 
    without the written consent of the patient involved.
        Mr. Waxman: If I might further inquire, is it fair to say that 
    the limitation, ``No officer, employee, or agent of the Federal 
    Government'' pertains specifically to the carrying out of the study 
    provided for in subsection (a)(1)? Is it specifically addressed to 
    carrying out that study? . . . I am trying to ascertain whether it 
    is limited to carrying out the study provided for in subsection 
    (a)(1) and the medical records are viewed only for the purpose of 
    carrying out that study.
        Mr. Philip M. Crane: Does the gentleman mean is it confined to 
    that?
        Mr. Waxman: Yes.
        Mr. Philip M. Crane: No, it is not. That would not be my 
    understanding of the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Waxman: Mr. Chairman, as I read this section without the 
    limitation that I tried to determine was included there, I believe 
    it is overly broad and, therefore, not germane, and I make a point 
    of order of the fact that it is not germane to the bill before us. 
    . . .
        Mr. Philip M. Crane: . . . I think it is, indeed, germane 
    because, Mr. Chairman, the language of the amendment, I think, 
    addresses the specific narrow concern that the Chairman has upon 
    which he bases his point of order, but, on the other hand, there 
    are implications in the language of the bill that I think this 
    additional language in this paragraph addresses, and that is the 
    potential to go beyond those narrow constraints that I think the 
    gentleman, the Chairman, would presume exist within this 
    legislation.

        I am less sure and less confident that those restraints are 
    there. I would argue that the specificity of the first part of this 
    sentence that ``No officer, employee, or agent of the Federal 
    Government or of an organization conducting medical reviews for 
    purposes of carrying out the study provided for in'' that 
    subsection indicated is language narrow enough to be germane to the 
    intent of the bill.
        The Chairman: (14) . . . [T]he Chair is prepared to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Bruce F. Vento (Minn.).

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

[[Page 7981]]

        The Chair, in listening to and weighing the arguments, finds 
    that the point of order is well taken. The argument seems to 
    establish that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Philip M. Crane) could go to confidentiality of other medical 
    records that would not otherwise be covered by the pending 
    legislation and as such represents, then, too broad an amendment. 
    The records could deal with additional information that would 
    usually be under the confidentiality of physician-and-patient 
    relationship, that would be outside the services rendered through 
    this program if the conduct of Federal officers is not to be 
    confined to the carrying out of the study in section 14. Therefore, 
    the Chair states that the point of order is well taken. . . .
        The point of order is sustained. The amendment is ruled out of 
    order.

Bill Authorizing Loans to Livestock Producers--Amendment To Expand 
    Coverage of Bill to All ``Agricultural'' Producers

Sec. 9.27 To a bill authorizing emergency loans to livestock producers, 
    an amendment changing the word ``livestock'' to ``agricultural'' 
    was held to broaden the class of producers covered by the bill and 
    was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 15560 (emergency loans to livestock 
producers) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that a 
specific proposition may not be amended by a proposition more general 
in scope. The proceedings of July 16, 1974,(15) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 23333, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Benjamin A.] Gilman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment to section 1 of the bill now before us, as well as 
    conforming amendments to sections 2, 3, and 8. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Gilman: Page 5, line 24, strike 
        the word ``Livestock'' and insert the word ``Agricultural''. . 
        . .
            Page 7, line 17, strike the word ``livestock'' and insert 
        the word ``agricultural'', and at the end of line 23, strike 
        the word ``livestock'' and insert the word ``agricultural''. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Bob] Bergland [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Gilman) on the ground that the amendment is 
    nongermane. The amendment takes a number of specific subjects, 
    beef, cattle, dairy cattle, swine, sheep, goats, chickens, and 
    turkeys, and broadens the class by a general provision to include 
    all other commodities such as beekeepers, catfish farmers, and 
    others.
        It is well settled in the precedents that a specific subject 
    may not be amended by a provision general in nature. Under clause 7 
    of rule XVI, the amendment is not germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Gilman: . . . The intent of the amendments refers to 
    agricultural

[[Page 7982]]

    loans, and complies with the intent of the main bill.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bergland) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment violates clause 7, rule XVI. The general 
    rule is that a general proposition is not in order as an amendment 
    to a specific proposition, Cannon's VIII, 2998.
        Specifically in point, however, is Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    8, section 3235:

            To a proposition authorizing loans to farmers in certain 
        areas, an amendment authorizing loans without geographical 
        restriction was held not germane.

        The Chair would observe that the language of the bill is 
    confined in scope to ``livestock'' producers, and contains 
    definition of ``livestock.'' The purpose of the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) would be to broaden the 
    bill to all agriculture, including many products not livestock, and 
    therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Provision Relating to Taxes on Specified Livestock Products--Amendment 
    Relating to Taxes on Agricultural Products Generally

Sec. 9.28 To an amendment relating to taxes on certain livestock 
    products, including pork, bacon, and ham, an amendment relating to 
    taxes on ``agricultural products'' was held not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of the Revenue Bill of 
1938,(17) an amendment was offered (18) to impose 
an excise tax upon the importation of pork and pork products. As a 
substitute for such amendment, an amendment was offered (19) 
as described above. Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, raised a point of 
order against the amendment.(20) The Chairman,(1) 
in sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 9682 (Committee on Ways and Means).
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 3198, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 10, 1938.
19. Id. at p. 3199.
20. Id. at p. 3200.
 1. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois refers to 
    particular products of livestock. The amendment of the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin to the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois 
    undertakes to bring in all agricultural products and is clearly 
    subject to the point of order that it is not germane.

Bill Affecting Wheat Sold as Feed--Amendment Affecting all Feed Crops

Sec. 9.29 To a joint resolution increasing the quantity of wheat which 
    may be sold for

[[Page 7983]]

    feed by the Commodity Credit Corporation, an amendment providing 
    that ``any producer of any feed crop may feed such crop to his own 
    stock without . . . penalty'' was held not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
which sought to permit additional sales of wheat for feed and which 
stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.J. Res. 83 (Committee on Agriculture).
 3. See 89 Cong. Rec. 2014, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 15, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the limitation contained in the Department 
    of Agriculture Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1943, on the quantity 
    of wheat which Commodity Credit Corporation can sell for feed is 
    hereby increased from 125,000,000 to 225,000,000 bushels.

    An amendment was offered (4) as described above. Mr. 
Hampton P. Fulmer, of South Carolina, having raised a point of order 
against the amendment, the Chairman, Robert E. Thomason, of Texas, 
ruled as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 2015.
 5. Id. at p. 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The joint resolution applies to wheat and the amendment applies 
    to any and all crops, and therefore is not germane. The point of 
    order is sustained.

Annual Appropriation--Amendment Permanently Changing Authorizing Law

Sec. 9.30 To a proposition appropriating funds for a program for one 
    fiscal year, an amendment permanently amending the authorizing law 
    relating to eligibility for funding in any fiscal year is more 
    general in scope and is not germane.

    On Oct. 5, 1983,(6) during consideration of H.R. 3363 
(7) in the House, the Chair held that, to a Senate amendment 
to an appropriation bill reported from conference in disagreement, 
striking funds for a certain fisheries program, a House amendment 
permanently amending the authorizing law to provide authority for 
funding for a state ineligible under existing law was not germane; the 
point of order was conceded and sustained. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 27313, 27314, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The Department of the Interior Appropriations for fiscal 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 16: Page 10, lines 10 and 11, strike 
        out ``; and

[[Page 7984]]

        for expenses necessary to carry out the Anadromous Fish 
        Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-757f)''.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 16 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by 
        said amendment, amended to read as follows: ``; $4,000,000, to 
        remain available until expended, for expenses necessary to 
        carry out the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-
        757f), of which $500,000 shall be made available to the State 
        of Idaho without regard to the limitation as stated in 16 
        U.S.C. 757e and without regard to the Federal cost sharing 
        provisions in 16 U.S.C. 757a-757f: Provided, That 16 U.S.C. 
        757e is amended by adding the following new sentence: `The 
        State of Idaho shall be eligible on an equal standing with 
        other states for Federal funding for purposes authorized by 
        sections 757a to 757f of this title.' ''. . .

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: . . . My point of order is 
    pursuant to clause 7 of rule XVI, the provisions of which indicate 
    that [the amendment] is not germane.
        Mr. Speaker, I make this point of order for two reasons, if the 
    Speaker would want me to be heard at this time.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.

Amendment Broadening a Specific Limitation on Appropriations That Had 
    Been Struck by Senate Amendment

Sec. 9.31 A specific proposition may not be amended by a proposition 
    more general in scope; thus, to a Senate amendment striking a 
    provision in a general appropriation bill which precluded the use 
    of funds therein by the Environmental Protection Agency to control 
    air pollution by regulating parking facilities, a motion in the 
    House to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an 
    amendment which temporarily prohibited the use of such funds to 
    implement any plan requiring the review of any indirect sources of 
    air pollution was held more comprehensive in scope and was held to 
    be not germane.

    On Dec. 12, 1974,(9) during consideration in the House 
of the conference report on H.R. 16901,(10) it was 
demonstrated that where a Senate amendment proposed to strike out 
language in a House

[[Page 7985]]

bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and concur with 
an amendment was the relationship between the language in the motion 
and the provisions in the House bill proposed to be stricken by the 
Senate amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 120 Cong. Rec. 39272, 39273, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Agriculture, Environment and Consumer Appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (11) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 8: Page 52, line 20, strike: ``Sec. 
        510. No part of any funds appropriated under this Act may be 
        used by the Environmental Protection Agency to administer any 
        program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking 
        facilities.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 8 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
            ``Sec. 510. No part of any funds appropriated under this 
        Act may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to 
        implement or enforce any provision of a state implementation 
        plan promulgated or approved pursuant to Section 110 of the 
        Clean Air Act that requires the review of indirect sources, as 
        defined in 40 CFR 52.22(b)(1), pending completion of judicial 
        review, pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, of the 
        indirect source regulations set forth in 40 CFR 52.22, or any 
        other such regulation relating to indirect sources.''. . .

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
    of order on the ground of nongermaneness.
        The House provision provided only for parking, and the Senate 
    struck completely the House provision.
        This language is not germane in that it goes far beyond 
    parking. The amendment would cover airports, it would cover 
    highways, it would cover shopping centers, and it would cover 
    sports arenas, regardless of whether any parking facilities are 
    attached or associated.
        There is no question but what this is not germane. It is far 
    beyond what the House had stated, and I think it is not appropriate 
    to be in an appropriation bill at all. Therefore I ask that it be 
    stricken in accordance with the arguments used against the 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: . . . Mr. Speaker, the legislation to which the 
    gentleman from Florida has referred has had the effect of stopping 
    employment in the cities of this country. It has done this because 
    they have to have a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency 
    for parking. It has prevented new buildings in universities, 
    hospitals, shopping centers--and this at a time of great 
    unemployment in the United States.
        It was felt when the bill passed in the House that in order to 
    prevent that effect upon our economy and upon the growth of our 
    cities, and in order to protect the inner cities so that efforts 
    could be made to live there, that we, in

[[Page 7986]]

    turn, should keep this one item from being used to effect this 
    legislation.
        In the Senate it was felt that since there are lawsuits pending 
    throughout the United States, I think in at least four instances, 
    that this legislation covering parking was the key, that that part 
    which had parking in it should be included in the conference and 
    the conferees felt that in the interest of the Nation that those 
    related matters which are a part and parcel of the provisions to 
    which we were trying to direct our attention, should be accepted, 
    and it was accepted by the conferees.
        So, Mr. Speaker, on that basis I respectfully submit that while 
    we touched on only one part of this provision, that the other parts 
    thereby came before the conference, and on that basis we have gone 
    along with delaying this, not to prohibit, but to restrict EPA from 
    causing such delays or work stoppages in this area until such time 
    as the courts determine the issue. And, as I said, the question is 
    now pending before the Federal courts in at least four cases. Of 
    course neither of these provisions, either the House or the 
    conference provision, affects the rights of the cities, towns or of 
    a State from taking such action as they wish. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        There is only one issue involved here and that is whether the 
    amendment included in the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi 
    is germane. It obviously is far more comprehensive than the House 
    provision, and is not germane thereto. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

General Appropriation Bill--Amendment Delaying Availability of All 
    Funds in Bill Pending Unrelated Contingency

Sec. 9.32 While it may be in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    delay the availability of certain funds therein until a nonfederal 
    recipient meets certain qualifications so long as the contingency 
    does not impose new duties on federal officials or directly change 
    existing law, the contingency must be related to the funds being 
    withheld and cannot affect other funds in the bill which are not 
    related to that factual situation; thus, to a general appropriation 
    bill containing funds not only for certain allowances for former 
    President Nixon, but also for other departments and agencies, an 
    amendment delaying the availability of all funds in the bill until 
    Nixon has made restitution of a designated amount to the United 
    States government was held to be not germane where that contingency 
    was not related to the availability of other funds in the bill.

[[Page 7987]]

    In the proceedings of Oct. 2, 1974,(12) relating to 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1975,(13) the points 
of order made against the amendment in question were largely based on 
the contention that the amendment constituted legislation on an 
appropriation bill. Most points of order against amendments delaying 
the availability of funds pending an unrelated contingency are based on 
the issue of germaneness, and in the Chair's ruling it appeared that 
the defect in the amendment was that its scope was so broad as to 
affect funds in the bill other than those to which the limitation was 
directly related--in other words, that the amendment was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 33620, 33621, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
13. 13. H.R. 16900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. James V. Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. James V. Stanton: On page 14, line 
        5 after the period insert:
            ``Sec. 203. No funds shall be available for expenditure 
        under this act until such time as Richard M. Nixon has made 
        restitution to the United States Government in the amount of 
        $92,298.03 as previously determined by the Joint Committee on 
        Internal Revenue Taxation on page 201 of its report dated April 
        3, 1974.''. . .

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        This amendment would impose some duty upon an agency of 
    Government in this bill. The Internal Revenue Service is the only 
    agency that can collect taxes. This obviously would require duties 
    not now required by law. It is obviously legislation in an 
    appropriation bill, and therefore it is subject to a point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment. . . . It merely delays 
    the availability of certain funds here appropriated until a certain 
    state of facts exist.
        It does not impose any duty upon a Federal official, in the 
    opinion of the Chair. The only duty it imposes by its terms, would 
    be upon President Nixon, who is no longer a Federal official. . . .
        Under the precedents and under the rules that the Chair has 
    been able to examine, the Chair is of the opinion that this 
    amendment might be in order.
        If the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) wants to be heard on 
    the point of order, the Chair will withhold his final ruling. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . The Chair is undoubtedly 
    correct, that this does not impose additional duties under the 
    standards set out in various cases. However, the objection of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), as I understand it, is that this 
    does not impose additional duties but creates substantive law. It 
    establishes a liability in effect on the President of the United 
    States, which liability does not

[[Page 7988]]

    exist by any judicial determination unless this action is taken by 
    this body.
        Mr. Chairman, what we are in effect doing is passing a special 
    bill with respect to liability of the President of the United 
    States for an amount of money that has only been determined by a 
    committee of this House and not by a court. If we pass this, we are 
    in effect saying that until he pays a certain amount of money, 
    which we say he owes by virtue of passing a law today, he will not 
    receive money that he would otherwise receive.
        I find this a very, very extensive legislative determination, 
    one which I would have doubts about on constitutional grounds, even 
    if it were brought up as a separate piece of legislation.
        I understand that the question of constitutionality is not 
    before the Chair with respect to a point of order, but I merely 
    point that out in emphasizing the great substantive effect of this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Charles S.] Gubser [of California]: . . . [T]he word 
    ``restitution,'' if I understand the English language correctly . . 
    . would imply that the funds were held by Richard Nixon illegally. 
    Therefore if . . . we allow this amendment to stand, we are clearly 
    creating what should be a judicial decision, and we are giving it 
    legislative sanction, and it is therefore legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore I think the point of order should be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, this amendment says ``no funds in this 
    act'', and that means if this amendment is adopted unless former 
    President Nixon paid this amount of money the whole bill is dead. 
    If that does not constitute legislation on an appropriation bill I 
    do not know what does.
        The Chairman: The Chair must observe that the Chair is not in a 
    position to rule as suggested by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) on a question of constitutionality. The gentleman's point 
    may quite well be valid, but the Chair is not in a position to rule 
    on constitutionality, nor is the Chair in a position to rule upon 
    the validity of the commentary offered as to whether or not the 
    Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation may or may not have 
    established this precise figure as being owed. . . .
        The Chair is . . . impressed by the most recent comment made by 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) wherein the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma points out that by the terms of the amendment itself funds 
    under the entire act and not just funds for the former President, 
    would be inhibited. Let the Chair read the amendment.

            No funds shall be available for expenditure under this act 
        until such time as Richard M. Nixon has made restitution.

        The Chair is persuaded that the availability of some of the 
    funds in the act for other purposes will be based upon an unrelated 
    contingency, and the Chair is prepared to state on the basis of the 
    additional argument made since his preliminary determination that 
    he has changed his opinion regarding the scope and effect of the 
    amendment and sustains the point of order.

[[Page 7989]]

Rescinding Agency's Funds for One Purpose--Amendment Conditioning 
    Availability of All Agency Funds on State Compliance With Federal 
    Standards for Seat Belt Use

Sec. 9.33 To a proposition rescinding an agency's funds for research 
    and education on the subject of motor vehicle seat belts and 
    passive restraints, an amendment conditioning the availability of 
    all of that agency's funds on certain findings with respect to 
    state compliance with federal standards for mandatory seat belt use 
    was conceded to be not germane, in that it affected regulatory 
    operations and was not confined to research and education funds.

    During consideration of H.R. 2577 (15) in the House on 
July 31, 1985,(16) a point of order against a motion to 
recede and concur with an amendment to the pending proposition was 
conceded and therefore sustained. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Supplemental Appropriations, fiscal 1985.
16. 131 Cong. Rec. 21832-34, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 262: Page 75, lines 14 and 15, strike 
        out ``$7,500,000 or so much thereof as may be available on May 
        2, 1985'' and insert ``$2,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 262 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert the 
        following: ``no funds shall be obligated until the Secretary 
        has made a complete, definitive and binding ruling on the 
        compliance of each state mandatory safety belt use law that has 
        been enacted as of the date of this act with the minimum 
        criteria set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
        208. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order regarding amendment No. 262. The point of order is 
    that that amendment is nongermane to the Senate amendment and so is 
    violative of the rules of the House relative to this point.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi 
    concedes the point of order. The point of order, therefore, is 
    sustained.

Restricting Programs Not in Bill

Sec. 9.34 While an amendment may be germane which limits for certain 
    purposes the au

[[Page 7990]]

    thorities granted in a bill, the amendment must be confined to the 
    agencies, authority and funds addressed by the bill and may not be 
    more comprehensive in scope; thus, to a bill amending the Bretton 
    Woods Agreement Act to ratify proposed amendments to the 
    International Monetary Fund Articles of Agreement, to approve an 
    increase in the United States quota in the Fund and to authorize 
    dealing in gold in connection with the Fund, an amendment 
    prohibiting the alienation of gold to any IMF trust fund, to any 
    other international organization or its agents, or to any person or 
    organization acting as purchaser for any central bank or 
    governmental institution was held not germane, being more general 
    in scope.

    On July 27, 1976,(18) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 13955 (amending the Bretton Woods Agreement 
Act), when a point of order against the amendment described above was 
sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 24040, 24041, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendments: page 2, line 23, strike out ``Sec. 3'' 
    and insert ``Sec. 5''.
        Page 3, line 11, strike out ``Sec. 4'' and insert ``Sec. 6''.
        Page 3, after line 12, insert the following:
        Sec. 7. Section 10(a) of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 
    U.S.C. 822a(a)) is amended to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 10. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval 
    of the President, directly or through such agencies as he may 
    designate, is authorized, for the account of the fund established 
    in this section, to deal in gold and foreign exchange and such 
    other instruments of credit and securities as he may deem necessary 
    to and consistent with the United States obligations in the 
    International Monetary Fund. The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
    annually make a report on the operations of the fund to the 
    President and to the Congress.''. . .
        Mr. [Ronald E.] Paul [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Paul: On page 5, add the following 
        new section:
            ``Unless Congress by law authorizes such action, neither 
        the President nor any person or agency shall on behalf of the 
        United States alienate any gold to any trust fund established 
        by the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund, 
        or to any other international organization or its agents, or to 
        any person or organization acting as a purchaser on behalf of 
        any central bank or governmental institution.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Rees [of California]: . . . The legislation 
    before us is to provide for amendment of the

[[Page 7991]]

    Bretton Woods Agreements Act and only the Bretton Woods Agreements 
    Act, and only those things in the U.S. statute that are directly 
    thereto attached to the purpose of the Bretton Woods Agreements 
    Act. This amendment is not limited to the International Monetary 
    Fund because there is the language at about page 5 of the 
    amendment, ``or to any other international organization or its 
    agents, or to any person or organization acting as a purchaser on 
    behalf of any central bank or governmental institution.''
        It goes about 5 miles beyond the Bretton Woods Agreements Act.
        Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, on 
    page 18, Article 5, Section 12, of the Jamaican Agreements, which 
    is something which we are partially ratifying with this 
    legislation, it does refer to this special trust fund.
        On page 18 of the communication sent to us from the Secretary 
    of State it refers to this special trust fund and the conditions 
    under which our governor and others will be expected to abide, and 
    it is very much a part of what we are ratifying.
        So I believe that it can be shown, because we are ratifying the 
    Jamaica Agreements with this legislation, that in fact we are 
    speaking and the gentleman from Texas is speaking to this issue and 
    he wishes to put conditions on our Governor in this International 
    Monetary Fund. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is not 
    germane to the bill H.R. 13955.


        The bill has as its major purpose the ratification of proposed 
    amendments to the International Monetary Fund Articles of 
    Agreement, and to consent to an increase in the quota of the United 
    States in the International Monetary Fund.
        The amendment would prohibit the President or the Secretary of 
    the Treasury from alienating or selling any gold to any trust fund 
    established by the IMF or to any other international organization 
    or its agents, or to any person or organization acting as a 
    purchaser on behalf of any central bank or governmental 
    institution, unless Congress authorizes such action by law.
        While the Chair is not completely aware of the impact which the 
    gentleman's amendment would have on international organizations 
    other than the International Monetary Fund, it is apparent from the 
    text of the amendment that it is far more comprehensive in scope 
    than the bill to which offered. Since the amendment is not limited 
    by its terms as a restriction upon U.S. authority to alienate gold 
    to the IMF, the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane to 
    H.R. 13955 and sustains the point of order.

Bill Amending One Law on Economic Development--Amendment To Require 
    Study of Impact of All Laws on Employment Opportunities

Sec. 9.35 To a bill reported from the Committees on Public

[[Page 7992]]

    Works and Transportation and on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
    amending an existing law to promote economic development through 
    financial assistance to local communities, an amendment requiring 
    the study of the impact of all federal, state and local laws and 
    regulations (not merely the law being amended by the bill) on 
    employment opportunities was held more general in scope and held to 
    be not germane.

    During consideration of the National Development Investment Act 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole on July 12, 
1983,(1) the Chair sustained a point of order in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 10.
 1. 129 Cong. Rec. 18712, 18713, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 44, after line 23, add 
    the following new section:
        Sec. 103. The Secretary of Commerce shall, in conjunction with 
    the appropriate state and local authorities, conduct a study of the 
    impact on employment opportunities of Federal, State, and local 
    laws and regulations.
        (a) Such study shall identify those laws and regulations which 
    have an adverse impact on employment opportunities and shall 
    identify to what extent such regulations and laws cause or result 
    in a reduction of permanent employment opportunities.
        (b) The Secretary shall, not later than December 30, 1983, 
    submit a report to Congress on the results of the study under 
    subsection (a), together with its recommendations on methods to 
    reduce or eliminate such adverse impact. . . .
        Mr. [James L.] Oberstar [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is so broadly 
    written as to be nongermane to this legislation. It directs the 
    Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study of State and local laws, 
    State and local regulations, in addition to Federal laws and 
    regulations, in conjunction with employment opportunities, so 
    broadly written as to have nothing to do with the legislation at 
    hand.
        I make the point of order that the amendment is not germane. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . This simply 
    authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to take action in exactly the 
    same areas that this bill covers. This bill covers a very broad 
    range of economic activity in the country. It authorizes the 
    Secretary of Commerce to take steps to assure employment 
    opportunities. The amendment that I have offered here to title I is 
    simply saying that there should be a study by the Federal 
    Government in the same areas that this bill addresses; so I would 
    ask the Chair to reject the point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  Charlie Rose (N.C.).

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

[[Page 7993]]

        The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania requires a 
    study of the impact of all Federal, State, and local laws, on 
    employment. The bill under consideration only amends several laws 
    within the jurisdiction of the Public Works and Transportation 
    Committee and the Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee 
    dealing with economic development. An amendment bringing into issue 
    all Federal, State and local laws as to their impact on employment 
    is more general in scope and is not germane.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Directed to One Function of Agency--Amendment Pertaining to All 
    Agency Actions

Sec. 9.36 To a bill amending the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, 
    perfected by the Committee of the Whole only to address United 
    States participation in and use of a special and limited 
    International Monetary Fund financing facility, an amendment adding 
    a new section to the Act to impose certain policy directives on the 
    United States Governor of the IMF in relation to all IMF 
    transactions was held not germane.

    On Feb. 23, 1978,(3) during consideration of H.R. 9214, 
it was demonstrated that an amendment adding a new section to the end 
of a bill must be germane to the bill as amended. The proceedings in 
the Committee of the Whole wherein the Chair sustained a point of order 
against such amendment were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 124 Cong. Rec. 4421, 4426, 4427, 4451, 4452, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                 H.R. 9214

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286-286k-2), as 
        amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 27. (a) For the purpose of participation of the 
        United States in the Supplementary Financing Facility 
        (hereinafter referred to as the `facility') established by the 
        decision numbered 5508-(77/127) of the Executive Directors of 
        the Fund, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to make 
        resources available as provided in the decision numbered 5509-
        (77/127) of the Fund, in an amount not to exceed the equivalent 
        of 1,450 million Special Drawing Rights.
            ``(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall account, through 
        the Fund established by section 10 of the Gold Reserve Act of 
        1934, as amended (31 U.S.C. 882a), for any adjustment in the 
        value of monetary assets held by the United States in respect 
        of United States participation in the facility.''. . . .

        The Chairman: (4) The Clerk will report the next 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 7994]]

            Committee amendment: On page 2, after line 15, insert:
            Sec. 2. Section 3(c) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act 
        (22 U.S.C. 286a(c)) is amended by inserting ``(1)'' immediately 
        after ``(c)'' and by adding at the end thereof the following:
            (2) The United States executive director to the Fund shall 
        not be compensated by the Fund at a rate in excess of the rate 
        provided for an individual occupying a position at level IV of 
        the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
        States Code. . . .
            (3) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United 
        States executive director to the Fund to present to the Fund's 
        Executive Board a comprehensive set of proposals, consistent 
        with maintaining high levels of competence of Fund personnel 
        and consistent with the Articles of Agreements with the 
        objective of assuring that salaries of Fund employees are 
        consistent with levels of similar responsibility within 
        national government service or private industry. The Secretary 
        shall report these proposals together with any measures adopted 
        by the Fund's Executive Board to the relevant committees of the 
        Congress prior to July 1, 1978.

        Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Neal to the committee amendment:
            Page 2, strike out line 20 and insert in lieu thereof ``The 
        individual who represents the United States in matters 
        concerning the Supplementary Financing Facility''.
            Page 2, lines 24 and 25, strike out ``The United States 
        alternate executive director to the Fund'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``The alternate to the individual who represents the 
        United States in matters concerning the Supplementary Financing 
        Facility''. . . .
            Page 3, line 5, strike ``United States executive director 
        to the Fund'' and insert in lieu thereof ``individual who 
        represents the United States in matters concerning the 
        Supplementary Financing Facility''. . . .

        [The committee amendment was agreed to and the committee 
    amendment, as amended, was agreed to.]
        Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cavanaugh: At the end of the bill 
        add the following:
            The Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286-286k-2), as 
        amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            Sec. 29. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
        United States Executive Director to seek to assure that no 
        decision by the International Monetary Fund on use of the 
        Facility undermines or departs from United States policy 
        regarding the comparability of treatment of public and private 
        creditors in cases of debt rescheduling where official United 
        States credits are involved. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Cavanaugh).
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 14, insert the following:

[[Page 7995]]

            Sec. 3. The Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 USC 286-286k-
        2), as amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof 
        the following new section:

            ``Sec. 29. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct 
        the United States Executive Director on the Executive Board of 
        the International Monetary Fund to initiate a wide consultation 
        with the Managing Director of the Fund and other member country 
        Executive Directors with regard to encouraging the IMF staff to 
        formulate stabilization programs which, to the maximum feasible 
        extent, foster a broader base of productive investment and 
        employment, especially in those productive activities which are 
        designed to meet basic human needs.
            ``(b) In accordance with the unique character of the 
        International Monetary Fund, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall direct the U.S. Executive Director to take all possible 
        steps to the end that all Fund transactions, including economic 
        programs developed in connection with the utilization of Fund 
        resources, do not contribute to the deprivation of basic human 
        needs, nor to the violation of basic human rights, such as 
        torture, cruel or inhumane treatment or degrading punishment, 
        prolonged detention without charge, or other flagrant denials 
        of life, liberty and the security of person; and to oppose all 
        such transactions which would contribute to such deprivations 
        or violations. . . .

        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, we have just established that we are only 
    considering the so-called Witteveen Facility of the International 
    Monetary Fund, and this amendment goes far beyond that. . . .
        Mr. Harkin: . . . I would respond to that argument by saying 
    that my amendment is entirely in order because, if we look at the 
    different sections, the first section of my amendment goes toward 
    instructing the U.S. Executive Director of the IMF to do certain 
    positive things about initiating wide consultations, and so forth, 
    which would help to promote those kinds of programs that would help 
    meet the basic human needs in other countries. This is a directive 
    to our Director on the Board of the International Monetary Fund.
        The last part of my amendment, subparagraph (c) also mandates 
    that the Executive Director do other positive things by submitting 
    a report to the Congress not later than 180 days after the close of 
    each calendar year outlining the effects of the policies that were 
    followed on the Fund which were designed to meet these basic human 
    needs of people in other countries.
        As far as the Fund or the Witteveen Facility itself is 
    concerned, my subparagraph (b), which is the human rights section, 
    speaks directly to the Witteveen Facility and directs the U.S. 
    Executive Director to make sure that the basic human rights of 
    people are not violated. . . .
        Mr. [M. Dawson] Mathis [of Georgia]: . . . The gentleman from 
    North Carolina (Mr. Neal) is attempting now to say that the 
    legislation before us has been narrowed in scope to the point where 
    it only deals with the Witteveen Facility, and that has been the 
    thrust of the previous committee amendments that I have argued 
    against, because I knew we were going to arrive at a point where 
    the gentleman was going to raise this point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the clumsy attempt to do that has obviously 
    failed in this

[[Page 7996]]

    fashion because subsection (3) of section 2 of the bill still deals 
    with the question of the Secretary of the Treasury instructing the 
    Executive Director of the Fund to present a comprehensive set of 
    proposals that do not deal with that issue. So the committee 
    amendment, which has already been adopted, very clearly deals with 
    the original Bretton Woods Act, and it is not restrictive in its 
    scope. . . .
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Georgia 
    (Mr. Mathis) has raised an interesting point. In the bill, under 
    paragraph (3) on page 3, it does in fact provide that the U.S. 
    Executive Director to the Fund has to do a certain positive thing. 
    He has to present to the Fund's Executive Board a comprehensive set 
    of proposals, et cetera. So it does not speak simply about the 
    Witteveen Facility.
        I think that my amendment, which mandates that the Executive 
    Director do other positive things, fits in very nicely with 
    subparagraph (3). . . .
        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, I would say that the amendment before 
    us is not germane because it is not germane to the fundamental 
    purpose of the bill nor does it relate exclusively to the subject 
    matter under consideration.
        Under the Rules of the House, no motion or proposition on a 
    subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted 
    under disguise of an amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule . . . .
        The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Neal) made a point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Harkin) is not germane to the bill H.R. 9214 in its perfected form. 
    In its perfected form the bill, while amending the Bretton Woods 
    Agreement Act, relates only to the authority of the United States 
    to participate in the supplementary financing facility of the 
    International Monetary Fund and to the salaries of the IMF 
    employees who are employees who administer that supplemental 
    financing facility, the so-called Witteveen Facility, but it does 
    not deal with the other operations of the International Monetary 
    Fund.
        The precedents indicate:

            To a bill amending one section of existing law to 
        accomplish a particular purpose, an amendment proposing changes 
        in another section of that law in a [manner] not within the 
        terms of the bill is not germane. (Deschler's Procedure, 
        chapter 28, section 32.1, section 32.14.)
            In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chairman 
        considers the relationship of the amendment to the bill as 
        modified by the Committee of the Whole. (Deschler's Procedure, 
        chapter 28, section 2.4.)

        The bill as modified by the Committee of the Whole is not 
    sufficiently broad, in the opinion of the Chair, to permit 
    amendments affecting operations of the IMF which are not directly 
    and solely related to the Witteveen Facility. As indicated 
    throughout the report on the bill, that special function of the IMF 
    is separate and distinct from other operations of the IMF, both 
    from the standpoint of qualification for participation in the 
    facility and from the point of view of disposition of assets and 
    the liabilities of participating nations.
        Let the Chair just add that the Cavanaugh amendment to H.R. 
    9214

[[Page 7997]]

    reserved itself to decisions by the IMF on the use of the facility, 
    referring to the Witteveen Facility, thereby confining itself to 
    that narrow aspect of the bill and not amending the entire act.
        Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment Changing One Budget Category--Substitute Changing Several

Sec. 9.37 To a substitute amendment to a concurrent resolution on the 
    budget changing one functional category only, an amendment changing 
    not only that category but several other categories of budget 
    authority and outlays and covering an additional fiscal year was 
    held to be more general in scope and therefore was ruled out as not 
    germane.

    On May 2, 1979,(5) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 107 (first concurrent resolution on the budget, 
fiscal 1980), the 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 amendment and proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 9556, 9562-64, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the matter relating 
        to the appropriate level of total new budget authority decrease 
        the amount by $8,113 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        budget outlays decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the amount of the deficit 
        decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of the 
        public debt decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to Function 050 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $3,351 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $1,177 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 350 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $102 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $34 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 450 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $75 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $25 million. . . .
            Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
        an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California as 
        a substitute for the amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the 
        matter relating to National Defense for fiscal year 1980, 
        strike out the amount specified for new budget authority and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$137,808,000,000''.

[[Page 7998]]

            In the matter relating to National Defense for fiscal year 
        1980, strike out the amount specified for outlays and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$125,070,000,000''.
            Increase the aggregate amounts in the first section (other 
        than the amount of the recommended level of Federal revenues 
        and the amount by which the aggregate level of Federal revenues 
        should be decreased) accordingly. . . .

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
    amendment offered as a substitute. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: My amendment is an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Charles H. 
    Wilson) as a substitute for the amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman; Strike all after 
        line 1 and insert:
            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $510,800,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is zero;
            (2) the appropriate level of total new budget authority is 
        $586,255,609,000.
            (3) the appropriate level of total budget outlays is 
        $510,567,609,000.
            (4) the amount of the deficit in the budget which is 
        appropriate in the light of economic conditions and all other 
        relevant factors is zero and . . .
            Sec. 3. Based on allocations of the appropriate level of 
        total new budget authority and of total budget outlays as set 
        forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the first section of this 
        resolution, the Congress hereby determines and declares 
        pursuant to section 301(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act 
        of 1974 that, for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979, 
        the appropriate level of new budget authority and the estimated 
        budget outlays for each major functional category are as 
        follows:
            (1) National Defense (050):
            (A) New budget authority, $112,974,000,000;
            (B) Outlays, $101,686,000,000.
            (2) International Affairs (150):
            (A) New budget authority, $12,932,000,000;
            (B) Outlays, $8,223,000,000. . . .
            Sec. 6. Pursuant to section 304 of the Congressional Budget 
        Act of 1974, the appropriate allocations for fiscal year 1979 
        made by H. Con. Res. 683 are revised as follows:
            (a)--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $458,485,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is $15,000,000;
            (2) the appropriate level of total new budget authority is 
        $555,659,000,000;
            (3) the appropriate level of total budget outlays is 
        $492,820,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: . . . I raise the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the Wilson amendment, which addresses itself to one 
    function, national defense, and this

[[Page 7999]]

    addresses itself far beyond that; and, therefore, it is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . It is my understanding that the 
    Charles H. Wilson amendment although it only addressed itself to 
    defense, it, by the language, inferred all that was in the 
    amendment of the gentlewoman from New York, by striking that. It 
    struck every section of the Holtzman amendment.
        If I am not germane here, certainly I am germane to the 
    Holtzman amendment and will offer my amendment to the Holtzman 
    amendment in the nature of an amendment to the Holtzman amendment, 
    if that be the necessary case.

            The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule 
        upon the point of order of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
        Giaimo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Charles H. Wilson) deals only with the national defense functional 
    category for fiscal 1980. The amendment thereto offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. John L. Burton) deals not only with 
    defense but with several other functional categories and is more 
    general in scope.
        Therefore, the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    John L. Burton) is not germane and the point of order is sustained.

Budget Resolution: Perfecting Amendment Changing Certain Figures for 
    One Year--Amendment Rewriting Resolution and Effecting Changes for 
    Two Years

Sec. 9.38 An amendment (in effect in the nature of a substitute) 
    rewriting an entire concurrent resolution on the budget covering 
    two fiscal years is not germane to a perfecting amendment proposing 
    certain changes in figures for one of the years covered by the 
    resolution.

    On May 2, 1979,(7) during consideration of the first 
concurrent resolution on the Budget, fiscal year 1980 (House Concurrent 
Resolution 107), the Chair sustained a point of order against an 
amendment, thus holding that to a perfecting amendment to a concurrent 
resolution on the budget changing amounts in functional categories and 
aggregates only for one fiscal year, an amendment which addresses the 
budget for another fiscal year as well and which contains other 
unrelated matter, as a redraft of the entire resolution, is not 
germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 9556, 9564-66, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.

[[Page 8000]]

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the matter relating 
        to the appropriate level of total new budget authority decrease 
        the amount by $8,113 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        budget outlays decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the amount of the deficit 
        decrease the amount by $2,705 million;

            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of the 
        public debt decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to Function 050 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $3,351 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $1,177 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 350 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $102 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $34 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 450 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $75 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $25 million. . . .

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Ms. Holtzman: Strike all after line 1 and insert:
            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $510,800,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is zero; . . .
            Sec. 6. Pursuant to section 304 of the Congressional Budget 
        Act of 1974, the appropriate allocations for fiscal year 1979 
        made by H. Con. Res. 683 are revised as follows: . . .

    Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: The gentleman's amendment 
is a substitute for the entire resolution; the Holtzman amendment is 
not. It touches on matters not dealt with in the Holtzman amendment, 
namely, changes for fiscal year 1979. It is, therefore, not germane to 
the amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Holtzman). . . .

        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
    Holtzman) deals only with fiscal year 1980 targets. The amendment 
    thereto offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. John L. 
    Burton) deals not only with 1980 but with fiscal 1979 revisions and 
    contains other language. The amendment is not germane to the 
    Holtzman amendment. The Chair so rules and sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Amending Law With Respect to Certain Authority--Amendment 
    Repealing Authority Under Any Provision of Law

Sec. 9.39 An amendment repealing authority under any pro

[[Page 8001]]

    vision of law is not germane to a bill amending only one law with 
    respect to that authority; thus, to a bill amending the Defense 
    Production Act to promote the development of synthetic fuels for 
    defense purposes, and authorizing loans and contracts to assist 
    such development, an amendment repealing authority under the 
    Defense Production Act or under any other law to impose allocation 
    and price controls on petroleum and natural gas was held not 
    germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 3930 (9) in the Committee 
of the Whole on June 26, 1979, (10) it was demonstrated that 
a specific proposition may not be amended by a proposition more general 
in scope when the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 16701, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 11, after line 6, 
    insert the following new section:

     removal of certain controls impeding production of petroleum and 
                                natural gas

        Sec. 5. Title VII of the Defense Production Act of 1950 is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
        ``Sec. 721. Effective beginning 30 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this section, allocation and maximum lawful price 
    restrictions imposed on crude oil, natural gas, and refined 
    petroleum products, by the provisions of this Act or any other law, 
    and the authority to impose such restrictions under such 
    provisions, is terminated.''. . . .
        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: I make a point of 
    order against the amendment, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The bill before us is a narrowly drawn bill dealing with the 
    production of synthetic fuel. This amendment talks about lawful 
    price restriction by the provision of this act or any other law. It 
    far exceeds the scope of the legislation before the Committee and 
    the amendment is not in order. . . .
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: . . . Title 3 of 
    the bill before the House deals with the expansion of productive 
    capacity and supply. The amendment which I have tendered will 
    remove certain controls impeding production of petroleum and 
    natural gas. I submit on that basis it is germane, it is 
    appropriate for us to consider to remove what really is the cause 
    of the shortage of oil in this country; namely, the law that this 
    Congress has enacted. It is not the oil companies or the OPEC 
    nations, it is this place right here.
        If we want to have more oil, take the price off and that is the 
    way to do it.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).

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

[[Page 8002]]

        The provisions of the act before the Committee relate solely to 
    production of fuels for the national defense. The amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from California effectively modifies the Petroleum 
    Allocation Act and other laws not amended by the bill before us and 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

Joint Resolution Appropriating Funds for Emergency Fuel Assistance--
    Amendment To Prohibit Windfall Profits Taxes To Be Used for Other 
    Purposes Except as Specified

Sec. 9.40 To a joint resolution appropriating funds to the Community 
    Services Administration for emergency fuel assistance, an amendment 
    providing that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
    portion of any oil windfall profit taxes imposed by law may be 
    transferred to any other use except to the extent that the amount 
    of such taxes exceeded the amount appropriated by the joint 
    resolution, was conceded to be subject to the point of order that 
    it was not germane.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 430 in the House on 
Oct. 25, 1979,(12) a point of order against the following 
amendment was conceded and sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 29639, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Giaimo: Page 3, after line 3, 
        insert the following new sentence: ``Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law (whether enacted before, on, or after the date 
        of the enactment of this Act), no portion of any windfall 
        profit taxes imposed by Federal law on producers of domestic 
        crude oil may be tranferred to any other use except to the 
        extent that the amount of such taxes exceeds the amount 
        appropriated by this Act.''

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) concedes the point of order and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Relating to Information in One Agency--Amendment Relating to 
    Information Throughout Government

Sec. 9.41 To a section of a bill requiring the Administrator of

[[Page 8003]]

    the Energy Research and Development Administration to maintain a 
    central source of information on energy resources and technology, 
    and making such information maintained by ERDA available under 
    provisions of the Freedom of Information Act for public inspection, 
    an amendment to prohibit the disclosure of proprietary information 
    obtained by compulsory process by any federal agency and maintained 
    by ERDA was subject to the interpretation that such information, 
    wherever situated, would not be subject to disclosure--thereby 
    affecting the confidentiality of information held by other 
    agencies, and was held to be not germane.

    On June 20, 1975,(14) during consideration of the Energy 
Research and Development Administration authorization bill for fiscal 
1976 (15) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained 
a point of order in the circumstances described above. The section of 
the bill and the amendment offered thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 19934, 19966, 19967, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 3474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 307. The Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and 
    Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1878; 42 U.S.C. 5901) is amended 
    by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
        ``Sec. 17. The Administrator shall establish, develop, acquire, 
    and maintain a central source of information on all energy 
    resources and technology, including proved and other reserves, for 
    research and development purposes. This responsibility shall 
    include the acquisition of proprietary information, by purchase, 
    donation, or from another Federal agency, when such information 
    will carry out the purposes of this Act. In addition the 
    Administrator shall undertake to correlate, review, and utilize any 
    information available to any other Government agency to further 
    carry out the purposes of this Act. The information maintained by 
    the Administrator shall be made available to the public, subject to 
    the provisions of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, and 
    section 1905 of title 18, United States Code, and to other 
    Government agencies in a manner that will facilitate its 
    dissemination.''. . .
        Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Goldwater: Page 43, line 6, before 
        the period, insert the following ``: Provided That any such 
        proprietary information obtained by compulsory process by any 
        Federal agency shall not be subject to the mandatory disclosure 
        provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552 and further, where the Administrator 
        so finds, any proprietary information

[[Page 8004]]

        obtained by other means shall be deemed to qualify for 
        exemption from mandatory disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)''. 
        . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The point of order is that the amendment is not germane. The 
    amendment appears to relate to the language of the bill at page 43, 
    line 6. In point of fact, the amendment seeks to amend the Freedom 
    of Information Act, 5 United States Code 552, which is cited 
    therein. It might appear that the amendment is subject to a number 
    of different meanings. I can think of at least two at the moment, 
    and perhaps three or four others. The first instance is that any 
    proprietary information received by compulsory process by any 
    Federal agency shall not be subject to the mandatory disclosure 
    provisions of 5 United States Code 552--and I am literally quoting 
    from the language of the amendment--and that being so, the 
    amendment is defective as seeking to amend legislation not 
    presently before the House and not within the jurisdiction of the 
    particular committee that is presenting the legislation before us, 
    and relating to entirely different matters.
        It is possible that it refers to earlier legislation or, 
    rather, refers to earlier clauses and sentences of the legislation 
    before us. It is also possible that the legislation that the 
    amendment would have the law amended is that once proprietary 
    information had fallen into the hands of the Federal Government by 
    compulsory process and had, through any methodology whatsoever, 
    arrived in the hands of ERDA, that the original Federal agency 
    which had ownership or custody of that information would thereupon 
    be sterilized in making that information available pursuant to the 
    provisions of 5 United States Code 552, the Freedom of Information 
    Act.
        In either the first instance or in the second instance the 
    amendment seeks to amend legislation not properly before us at this 
    time, the Freedom of Information Act, which is not under the 
    jurisdiction of the committee or which, by notice, has not properly 
    been available to the Members as to the offering of this amendment.
        The amendment is, therefore, in my view, on at least two of the 
    three interpretations violative of the Rules of the House, and 
    violative of the rules of germaneness, and is subject to a point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Goldwater: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the 
    gentleman from Michigan that if the gentleman will read the 
    amendment it refers to not all proprietary information, but any 
    such proprietary information, specifically narrowing it to ERDA as 
    this particular bill addresses itself.
        This amendment does not seek to amend the Freedom of 
    Information Act, but merely to apply the Freedom of Information 
    Act. It is, in essence, a limitation upon ERDA and as specifically 
    authorized by the Freedom of Information Act under subsection (d), 
    subsection (3). That this section, in other words, the Freedom of 
    Information Act, does not apply to matters that are specifically 
    exempted from disclosure by statute. The other statute is what, in 
    essence, I am speaking. It is not an amendment to the Freedom of 
    Information Act, but in essence is a

[[Page 8005]]

    limitation on the activities of ERDA, and merely applies the 
    regulations of the Freedom of Information Act. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . The amendment states that 
    any such proprietary information obtained by a compulsory process 
    by a Federal agency shall not be subject to mandatory disclosure 
    under the Freedom of Information Act. Such information refers back 
    to the sentence immediately preceding the amendment in the bill on 
    page 43, beginning in line 2:

            This responsibility shall include the acquisition of 
        proprietary information, by purchase, donation, or from another 
        Federal agency.

        So if information is obtained from another Federal agency, and 
    that Federal agency has obtained such by compulsory process, such 
    purports to say that such information, wherever it may appear, is 
    excluded from the effect of the Freedom of Information Act. The 
    Freedom of Information Act provides that each agency in accordance 
    with published rules shall make available for public inspection and 
    copying any information of the type described here which appears in 
    a final opinion or statement of policy on administrative staff 
    manual or instructions to staff, et cetera. If that information has 
    ultimately found its way to ERDA, it becomes such information, and 
    under the terms of the amendment would, thus, be insulated from the 
    Freedom of Information Act wherever it might appear. That, I think, 
    clearly alters the Freedom of Information Act which specifically 
    states in its last clause that the exceptions to the Freedom of 
    Information Act do not authorize withholding of information or 
    limit the availability of records to the public except as 
    specifically stated in this section.
        This adds another exception, and that is the exception of 
    information that has passed into the hands of ERDA.
        If the language is ambiguous, or if it is reasonably subject to 
    more than one construction, and if a reasonable construction of the 
    language alters another act, then it is the burden of the person 
    offering the amendment to clarify the amendment to make absolutely 
    certain that the amendment does not affect the other act.
        The gentleman has not done so. The language is, therefore, 
    subject reasonably to the construction of changing processes of 
    other agencies and is, therefore, not germane.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    this rather difficult question which confronts the committee at 
    this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The burden of sustaining the germaneness of the amendment lies 
    with the author. In the opinion of the Chair, the author of the 
    amendment has not sustained that burden, and it does appear to the 
    Chair that the amendment as presently offered would possibly mean 
    that this restriction on the information would apply wherever the 
    information might reside not just within ERDA. The amendment is, 
    therefore, ambiguous and could be construed to go beyond the scope 
    of the bill before the committee at this time.
        The point of order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the language of the

[[Page 8006]]

amendment, ``any such proprietary information'' in one interpretation, 
applied only to information held by ERDA, the Chair felt that an 
equally logical interpretation of the language substantially broadened 
its impact and rendered it not germane.

Crude Oil Pricing--Substitute Limiting Price of All Petroleum Products

Sec. 9.42 An individual proposition may not be amended by a proposition 
    more general in scope, and a substitute for an amendment must be 
    confined in scope to the subject of the amendment; thus, for an 
    amendment prohibiting the Administrator from setting ceiling prices 
    for domestic crude oil above a certain level in the exercise of the 
    authority transferred to him in a bill creating a new Federal 
    Energy Administration, a substitute directing the Administrator to 
    set ceiling prices on crude oil and on petroleum products at 
    designated levels was held to go beyond the scope of the pending 
    amendment and was ruled out as not germane.

    During consideration of the Federal Energy Administration Act (H.R. 
11793) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 6, 1974,(17) 
the following amendment was ruled out as not being germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 5448, 5449, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Eckhardt to the amendment offered by Mr. Dingell: On page 20, 
        after line 2, add the following: ``In exercising the functions 
        provided in item (5), above, the Administration shall take the 
        following action:
            ``(A) Immediately upon the enactment of this Act, the 
        Administrator shall issue an order to establish a ceiling on 
        prices of crude oil and petroleum products at levels not 
        greater than the highest levels pertaining to a substantial 
        volume of actual transactions by each business enterprise or 
        other person during the fourteen-day period ending January 19, 
        1974, for like or similar commodities, or if no transactions 
        occurred during such period, then the highest applicable level 
        in the nearest preceding fourteen-day period.
            ``(B) The ceiling on prices required under subsection (a) 
        shall be applicable to all retail prices and to wholesale 
        prices for unfinished, or processed goods.
            ``(C) As soon as practicable, but not later than thirty 
        days after the date of enactment of this section, the 
        Administrator shall by written order stating in full the 
        considerations for his actions, roll back prices for crude oil 
        and petroleum products to levels no higher than those 
        prevailing in the seven-day period ending Novem

[[Page 8007]]

        ber 1, 1973, in order to reduce inflation. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment and offer that the amendment is 
    nongermane to this bill under rule XVI, clause 7.
        The amendment deals with subjects not included in this bill and 
    also affecting policy which is not the subject of section 5 but, 
    rather, other matters like petroleum products. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . Realizing, of course, that germaneness, 
    like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder, nevertheless, it seems 
    to me to be clear that, when an amendment is before this body which 
    amendment would have the effect of rolling back the price of crude 
    oil, all of it, without any attention as to whether or not that oil 
    is new oil produced at high prices or older oil produced at 
    relatively low prices, it simply must be germane to the original 
    amendment to put in a limitation with respect to that amendment to 
    provide that there be reason respecting the rollback and that the 
    rollback should not be applicable in such a way as to prohibit the 
    production of new discoveries. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) has offered a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell). The opening lines of the substitute for the 
    amendment read as follows:

            In exercising the functions so provided in item 5 above, 
        the Administrator shall take the following action: (a) 
        immediately upon the enactment of this act the Administrator 
        shall issue an order to establish a ceiling on prices of crude 
        oil and petroleum products at levels not greater than the 
        highest levels pertaining to substantial volume of actual 
        transactions.

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has made a point of 
    order against the substitute amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell).
        The Chair rules that in order to qualify as a substitute for an 
    amendment such substitute must treat in equal manner the same 
    subject matter carried by the amendment for which proposed. The 
    pending amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell), and the Chair reads from the language of that amendment, 
    pertains only to the price for domestic crude oil. The substitute 
    for the amendment goes beyond the scope of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and goes beyond the 
    subject matter contained in the amendment.
        For the reasons given by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Horton) in support of his point of order and for the reasons 
    stated, the Chair sustains the point of order to the substitute for 
    the amendment.

Provisions Relating to Production Goals for Synthetic Fuels To Meet 
    Defense Needs--Amendment Requiring That Any Fuel Sold in Commerce 
    Contain Specified Percentage of Synthetic Fuel

Sec. 9.43 Where a bill pending before the Committee of the

[[Page 8008]]

    Whole amended the Defense Production Act to direct the President to 
    achieve a national production goal of synthetic fuels to meet 
    defense purposes, and there was pending an amendment only to 
    increase the amount of that goal and to provide funding to meet 
    that goal, a substitute for the amendment requiring that any fuel 
    sold in commerce contain a certain percentage of synthetic fuel, 
    and requiring the Secretary of Energy to promulgate regulations 
    setting such percentage, was held not germane as going beyond the 
    scope of the amendment and containing matter not within the 
    jurisdiction of the reporting committee (Banking, Finance and Urban 
    Affairs).

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (H.R. 3930) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 
1979,(19) amendments offered as a substitute for pending 
amendments were ruled out as going beyond the scope of the pending 
amendment and therefore not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 16663, 16668, 16673, 16674, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                  expansion of productive capacity and supply

            Sec. 3. (a) Section 301(a) of the Defense Production Act of 
        1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2091). . . .
            (e) Title III of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 
        U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 305. (a) The President, utilizing the provisions of 
        this Act and any other applicable provision of law, shall 
        attempt to achieve a national production goal of at least 
        500,000 barrels per day crude oil equivalent of synthetic fuels 
        and synthetic chemical feedstocks not later than five years 
        after the effective date of this section. The President is 
        authorized and directed to require fuel and chemical feedstock 
        suppliers to provide synthetic fuels and synthetic chemical 
        feedstocks in any case in which the President deems it 
        practicable and necessary to meet the national defense needs of 
        the United States. . . .

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Wright: Page 5, line 2, strike 
        out the period after ``section'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``and at least 2,000,000 barrels per day crude oil equivalent 
        of synthetic fuels and synthetic chemical feedstocks not later 
        than ten years after the effective date of this section.''. . .
            Page 10, line 23, strike ``appropriated $2,000,000,000'' 
        and insert in

[[Page 8009]]

        lieu thereof ``appropriated from general funds of the Treasury 
        not otherwise appropriated or from any fund hereafter 
        established by Congress after the date of enactment of this 
        sentence not to exceed $3,000,000,000.'' . . .

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments as a substitute for the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Jeffords as a substitute for the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Wright: Page 5, line 8, add new 
        subsections ``b'' through ``(f)''.
            ``(b) Of the total quantity of gasoline and diesel fuel 
        sold in commerce during any of the following years by any 
        refiner (including sales to the Federal Government), 
        replacement fuel shall constitute the minimum percentage 
        determined in accordance with the following table: . . .
            1987, 1988, and 1989-10 percent. . . .
            (c) Not later than July 1, 1981, the Secretary shall 
        prescribe, by rule, the minimum percentage replacement fuel, by 
        volume, required to be contained in the total quantity of 
        gasoline and diesel fuel sold each year in commerce in the 
        United States in calendar years 1982 through 1986 by any 
        refiner for use as a motor fuel. Such percentage shall apply to 
        each refiner, and shall be set for each such calendar year at a 
        level which the Secretary determines--
            (1) is technically and economically feasible, and
            (2) will result in steady progress toward meeting the 
        requirements under this section for calendar year 1987. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, as 
    much as I support the concept of the substitute of the gentleman 
    from Vermont--I believe I am a cosponsor of his bill--I do not 
    believe it is a proper part of this legislation in that it is not 
    germane.
        First, it is not germane to the Wright amendment which is a 
    production amendment and a defense production amendment.
        This amendment is a regulatory amendment dealing with 
    ``replacement fuels sold in commerce.'' It is not a production 
    bill.
        The same language is contained further down. It regulates the 
    amount of synthetic fuel and diesel fuel sold each year in commerce 
    in the United States and the guts of the bill are regulatory, 
    rather than production aimed. Therefore, this amendment is not 
    germane to the Wright amendment or to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that once the Wright 
    amendment has been agreed to as being part of the bill, then a 
    substitute which goes well beyond the original concept of the bill 
    is also germane and in order.
        I would point out that the Wright amendment, as I have said 
    before, takes us totally out of just the needs for the Federal 
    Government and goes out into the area of sales in commerce. I think 
    because the Wright amendment is being considered as germane, the 
    substitute should also.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas goes to goals 
    for defense production of synthetic fuels and

[[Page 8010]]

    to the funds to achieve those goals. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Vermont, for reasons stated by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, is not solely related to defense production but 
    rather goes to all diesel fuel and gasoline sold in commerce 
    whether defense related or not and does not speak solely to the 
    production of synthetic fuels for defense purposes. It is therefore 
    beyond the scope of the Wright amendment and is not germane, and 
    the Chair is also constrained to point out the subject matter of 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont does not lie 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
    Urban Affairs.
        For the foregoing reasons the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Suspension of One Environmental Law--Suspension of All Other 
    Environmental Requirements in Certain Instances

Sec. 9.44 To a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    authorizing the Federal Energy Administrator to temporarily suspend 
    stationary source fuel or emission limitations under the Clean Air 
    Act where compliance with the limitations would be impossible due 
    to unavailability of certain fuels, an amendment authorizing 
    temporary suspension of those limitations ``or other environmental 
    protection requirements'' if energy-producing facilities are unable 
    to construct antipollution systems due to unavailability of 
    materials was held to go beyond the scope of that section and was 
    held to be not germane.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(1) during consideration of the Energy 
Emergency Act (H.R. 11450) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
ruled that 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 not 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 41751, 41752, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      sec. 201. suspension authority.

        Title I of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.) is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

    ``temporary authority to suspend certain stationary source emission 
                            and fuel limitations

        ``Sec. 119. (a)(1) The Administrator may, for any period 
    beginning on or after the date of enactment of this section and 
    ending on or before May 15, 1974, temporarily suspend any 
    stationary source fuel or emission limitation as it applies to any 
    person, if the Administrator finds that such person

[[Page 8011]]

    will be unable to comply with such limitation during such period 
    solely because of unavailability of types or amounts of fuels. Any 
    suspension under this paragraph and any interim requirement on 
    which such suspension is conditioned under subsection (b) shall be 
    exempted from any procedural requirements set forth in this Act or 
    in any other provision of local, State, or Federal law. The 
    granting or denial of such suspension and the imposition of an 
    interim requirement shall be subject to judicial review only on the 
    grounds specified in paragraphs (2)(B) and (2)(C) of section 706 of 
    title 5, United States Code, and shall not be subject to any 
    proceeding under section 304(a)(2) of this Act. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: 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. Edwards of Alabama to the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Staggers:
            On page 46, line 16, delete the word ``paragraph'' and 
        insert the word ``section.''
            On page 47, line 1, add a new section 119(a)(2) as follows:
            ``The Administrator shall, for any period beginning on or 
        after the date of enactment of this section, temporarily 
        suspend any stationary source fuel or emission limitation or 
        other environmental protection requirement as it applies to any 
        energy producing facility or refinery, if the Administrator 
        finds that such facility or refinery will be unable to comply 
        with such limitation during such period because of the 
        unavailability of plant equipment or materials needed to 
        construct an emission reduction system or other antipollution 
        system and that such facility or refinery has entered into a 
        contractual obligation to obtain the plant equipment or 
        materials needed for such a system. . . .
            On page 52, line 7, delete subsection (e) of section 119 
        and add a new subparagraph (e) as follows: ``No State or 
        political subdivision may require any person, energy producing 
        facility or refinery, to whom a suspension has been granted 
        under subsection (a) to use any fuel the unavailability of 
        which is the basis of such person's suspension or to meet any 
        requirement the compliance with which is prevented by the 
        unavailability of plant equipment or materials needed to 
        construct an emission reduction or other antipollution system. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I must be 
    constrained to make a point of order against this amendment. In 
    checking the amendment, if one examines it carefully, it would 
    amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Occupational 
    Health and Safety Act, the Ocean Dumping Act; the Public Works 
    Committee would be infringed upon; the Committee on Education and 
    Labor would be infringed upon; the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries would be infringed upon.
        It is not germane. It also would amend the Solid Waste Disposal 
    Act and the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. It is not limited in 
    time, nor constrained by any relationship to fuel shortage.
        For all these reasons, a careful examination, I would think, 
    would show that it is not germane and, furthermore, these matters 
    have been already handled in the bill.
        The Chairman: (2) Will the gentleman from Florida 
    cite the specific

[[Page 8012]]

    language? The Chair is concerned, because he has reference to page 
    46 of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, title 
    II, and the language appearing on that page and thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I think if the Chair would direct its 
    attention to about the sixth line of the amendment, where it says, 
    ``Or other environmental protection requirement,'' which violates 
    all of these other laws that this does not apply to at all, ``To 
    any energy producing facility or refinery.''
        The Chair can also direct its attention on the bottom, about 
    four lines up, where it begins, ``To meet any requirement the 
    compliance with which is prevented by the unavailability of plant 
    equipment or materials needed to construct an emission reduction or 
    other antipollution system,'' so the language here is so broad it 
    goes far beyond this act. It is an infringement on all of these 
    other laws and on all the jurisdiction of these other committees. . 
    . .
        Mr. Edwards of Alabama: . . . This comes under the section 
    called Suspension Authority, and in that section the Administrator 
    is empowered to suspend the type of fuel an industry is required to 
    use if it is not available.
        By the same token, my amendment is limited to energy producing 
    facilities or refineries which we desperately need now. And all it 
    simply says is that if, in an effort to comply with EPA 
    requirements, the Administrator finds that the material is not 
    available, the Administrator has the right to suspend the 
    requirement until the material is available if, in fact, the 
    industry has made a good faith effort and a contract to obtain this 
    equipment.
        Mr. Chairman, to me this is a vital part of this particular 
    legislation, trying to find ways to conserve fuel under the 
    Emergency Energy Act. I think it is right on all fours with what 
    this section is designed to do.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        While the language in the bill is broad, suspending certain 
    procedural requirements of law, the Chair, in the absence of 
    specific knowledge as to all of the other environmental protection 
    requirements that are involved in the language of the amendment, 
    feels constrained to sustain the point of order.
        The Chair believes he will sustain the point of order on the 
    ground that this language is simply so broad as to suspend 
    virtually every requirement of law, and the Chair out of caution 
    sustains it for fear of further broadening a bill which is already 
    very broad.

Precise Change in One Subsection of Existing Law--Comprehensive 
    Amendment Affecting Provisions and Classes of Persons Not Within 
    Scope

Sec. 9.45 A bill narrowly amending one subsection of existing law for a 
    single purpose does not necessarily open the entire section of the 
    law to amendment; thus, to a bill narrowly amending one subsection 
    of existing law relating to one specific criminal activity, an 
    amendment postponing the effective date of

[[Page 8013]]

    the entire section, affecting other criminal provisions as well as 
    the one amended by the bill, and affecting other classes of 
    persons, was held not germane.

    During consideration of S. 869(3) in the Committee of 
the Whole on May 16, 1979,(4) the Chair sustained a point of 
order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. A bill relating to clarification of conflict of interest 
        restrictions on former government employees.
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 11466, 11467, 11470, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

        Mr. [George] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    make the point of order now.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would add a section 2 
    to amend section 503 of Public Law 95-521 by striking ``July 1, 
    1979'' and inserting ``July 1, 1980'' in lieu thereof. I 
    respectfully point out that the bill before us does not deal with 
    section 503 of Public Law 95-521. It does not deal with that 
    section and, therefore, the gentleman's amendment would not be 
    germane to the bill before us. . . .
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I have offered 
    relates to Public Law 95-521, which is the law which is referred to 
    in the legislation which we have under consideration at the present 
    time. The amendment which I have offered would delay the effective 
    date of the entire legislation, including the section to which the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Danielson) has made reference, and 
    which is referred to specifically in the measure, and would keep 
    that part and the rest of the legislation from becoming effective 
    until January 1, 1979.
        It is, in my view, entirely germane. It is precisely relevant 
    to the subject about which we are giving consideration now. Instead 
    of papering over something with a so-called technical amendment, 
    what we are doing is to delay the effective date of the entire act 
    in order that we can handle the subject not only technically but 
    substantively as well. I urge that the Chairman overrule the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (5) . . . This act applies to 
    subsection (b) of section 207 of

[[Page 8014]]

    title 18, and it is a very narrowly drafted and defined bill as 
    amended at this point. The amendment which the gentleman has 
    offered seeks to extend the time for the entire act covering 
    categories of persons other than those under subsection (b) of 
    section 207, and under the precedents that the Chair has examined, 
    the Chair will sustain the point of order accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. E de la Garza (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Broadcasting to Cuba--To All Dictatorships in Caribbean

Sec. 9.46 A specific proposition may not be amended by a proposition 
    more general in scope; thus, to a bill authorizing funds for radio 
    broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment broadening the bill to include 
    broadcasting to all dictatorships in the Caribbean Basin was held 
    to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 5427 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Aug. 10, 1982,(6) Chairman William R. Ratchford, of 
Connecticut, sustained a point of order against an amendment as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 128 Cong. Rec. 20263, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin: Page 2, beginning in line 
        4, strike out ``Radio Broadcasting in Cuba Act'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``Radio Broadcasting to Dictatorships in the 
        Caribbean Basin''. . . .

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: . . . Mr. Chairman, let me 
    make a point of order against this amendment under clause 7, rule 
    XVI, because this is an amendment which is obviously an attempt to 
    broaden the subject matter of this bill to include dictatorships in 
    the Caribbean basin and to set other parameters that are just not 
    in this bill and, therefore, it is not germane.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa wish to be heard on 
    the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair is prepared to sustain the point of order on the 
    basis that the amendment, as proposed, is more general in scope and 
    is not germane to the relatively narrow purpose of the bill.

Economic Sanctions Against One Country--Sanctions Against Any Other 
    Country Violating Human Rights

Sec. 9.47 To a bill dealing with enforcement of United Nations 
    sanctions against one country in relation to a specific trade 
    commodity, an amendment permitting the President to suspend all 
    economic relations and communications between the United States and 
    any other country, on the basis of human rights violations as 
    determined by the President, was held to be not germane.

[[Page 8015]]

    On Mar. 14, 1977,(7) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 1746, amending the United Nations 
Participation Act of 1945 to halt the importation of Rhodesian chrome. 
The bill permitted the President to enforce United States compliance 
with United Nations Security Council sanctions against trade with 
Rhodesia particularly with reference to the importation of Rhodesian 
chrome. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 123 Cong. Rec. 7432, 7446, 7447, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it amended by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 5 of 
    the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287c) is 
    amended--
        (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following new 
    sentence: ``Any Executive order which is issued under this 
    subsection and which applies measures against Southern Rhodesia 
    pursuant to any United Nations Security Council Resolution may be 
    enforced, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law; and
        (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
        ``(c)(1) During the period in which measures are applied 
    against Southern Rhodesia under subsection (a) pursuant to any 
    United Nations Security Council Resolution, a shipment of any steel 
    mill product (as such product may be defined by the Secretary) 
    containing chromium in any form may not be released from customs 
    custody for entry into the United States if--
        ``(A) a certificate of origin with respect to such shipment has 
    not been filed with the Secretary; or
        ``(B) in the case of a shipment with respect to which a 
    certificate of origin has been filed with the Secretary, the 
    Secretary determines that the information contained in such 
    certificate does not adequately establish that the steel mill 
    product in such shipment does not contain chromium in any form 
    which is of Southern Rhodesian origin. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

[[Page 8016]]

        the United States or any person subject to the jurisdiction 
        thereof, or involving any property subject to the jurisdiction 
        of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order the amendment is not germane.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill deals only with United Nations sanctions against 
    importation of chrome, while the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Georgia deals with embargoes and other economic sanctions on 
    any material or commercial transaction. Also, the bill deals only 
    with sanctions against Rhodesia, both in the title and in the body 
    of the bill. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
    permits U.S. rather than U.N. sanctions to be imposed on products 
    or communications from any foreign country. It is the opinion of 
    the Chair that the amendment is not germane, and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.
        There being no further amendments, under the rule, the 
    Committee rises.

Restricting Aid to One Nation--Restricting Aid to Others

Sec. 9.48 To an amendment restricting the use of funds for military 
    operations in South Vietnam, an amendment extending that 
    restriction to other countries in Indochina was held to be more 
    general in scope and was ruled out as not germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(9) during consideration of the Vietnam 
Humanitarian Assistance and Evacuation Act,(10) 10 in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was held that to a proposition dealing with 
a specific issue, an amendment more general in scope was not germane. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 11514, 11521, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H.R. 6096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz: Page 1, line 5, insert 
        ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 2.'', and page 2, immediately 
        after line 2, add the following new subsection:
            (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no 
        funds authorized or made available under this Act may be used 
        to finance, directly or indirectly, any combat activity, any 
        involvement in hostilities, or any military or paramilitary 
        operation, by the Armed Forces of the United States in, over, 
        or off the shores of South Vietnam after the end of the 30-day 
        period beginning on the first date after the date of enactment 
        of this Act on which any American ground combat forces are 
        introduced into South Vietnam in conjunction with any program 
        of evacuation as defined by Section 4 of this Act. . . .

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 8017]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Solarz:
            Amend the Solarz amendment as follows: After the word 
        ``Vietnam'' used for the first time, insert the following: ``, 
        Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam''.

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. It seems to me it goes much 
    farther geographically than anything in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Harkin: . . . I think the amendment is well in order 
    because it is speaking directly to this section about involvement 
    in a military or paramilitary operation and we are talking about 
    limiting those uses to a 30-day period. I think the amendment is in 
    order because it does meet the limitations imposed on the bill by 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solarz).
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) 
    does go in scope beyond the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Solarz), whose amendment is limited to the area of 
    Vietnam. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa goes 
    beyond that by inserting Cambodia and Laos and North Vietnam.

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Provision Relating to Official Conduct of Federal Employees--Amendment 
    Relating to All Conduct

Sec. 9.49 To a proposition relating only to official conduct of federal 
    employees, an amendment concerned with any criminal conduct of 
    those officials, whether or not related to the performance of 
    official duties, was held nongermane as addressing a broader 
    category of conduct.

    On Oct. 12, 1978,(12) during consideration in the House 
of S. 555, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, a point of order was 
sustained against a provision contained in the conference report. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 36459-61, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against title VI of the conference report. That, for 
    the Speaker's information, is the title dealing with the special 
    prosecutor language in the conference report. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, my point of order is based upon rule XXVIII, which 
    is the germaneness section. It is my position, Mr. Speaker, that 
    title VI is a nongermane Senate amendment and it violates that 
    section of the House rules which I have cited. . . .
        [T]he language in the special prosecutor amendment added by the 
    Sen

[[Page 8018]]

    ate is so broad and sweeping that it covers in several respects 
    private individuals, that is to say, new classes of people who are 
    not covered under the sweep of the ethics bill. . . .
        The special prosecutor bill, which is tacked on to the ethics 
    bill, is a complicated and important piece of legislation. It was 
    considered in detail by a different subcommittee in the Committee 
    on the Judiciary which did not consider the ethics bill. It is true 
    that the Committee on the Judiciary reported out a special 
    prosecutor bill but it was never brought to the floor of the House 
    and, indeed, has never been debated nor subject to amendment by 
    Members of this House.
        It is a far-reaching piece of legislation, it is complicated, 
    different in form, different in purpose, different in all respects 
    from the ethics bill which we did consider several days ago.
        I hope that the Speaker, when the Speaker is prepared to rule, 
    will recognize that germaneness, if it is to have any meaning at 
    all, is offended in a fundamental way by allowing the Senate to 
    tack on an issue which is so basically different and unrelated to 
    the ethics bill which we considered earlier. . . .
        Mr. [James R.] Mann [of South Carolina]: . . . The House 
    amendment to S. 555 is actually the text of H.R. 1 as passed by the 
    House. The text of H.R. 1, as finally approved, was actually the 
    text of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. 
    Thus, the issue, as I understand it, is whether the provisions of 
    title VI of the conference report would have been germane to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute which eventually became the 
    text of House bill, H.R. 1, had the provisions of title VI been 
    offered as an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. I believe that the provisions of title VI would have 
    been germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute and 
    that the chair should therefore overrule the point of order. . . .
        The basic test for determining germaneness is whether the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment is germane to the fundamental 
    purpose of the bill. The question here, then, is whether the 
    fundamental purpose of title VI is germane to the fundamental 
    purpose of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I submit 
    that it is. The purpose of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, which is subtitled the ``Ethics in Government Act,'' is 
    to promote ethical conduct by Federal Government officials and 
    certain other private citizens. The purpose of title VI of the 
    conference report is also to promote ethical conduct.
        A second test for germaneness is whether the subject matter of 
    the amendment relates to the subject matter of the bill. The 
    question here is whether the subject matter of title VI of the 
    conference report relates to the subject matter of the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. I submit that it does.
        The subject matter of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was broad. It encompassed ethical standards and conduct 
    involving officials in all three branches of the Federal 
    Government--legislative, executive, and judicial--as well as 
    certain private citizens.
        With regard to Federal Government employees and officials, it 
    required de

[[Page 8019]]

    tailed financial disclosure statements to be filed by people in all 
    three branches of Government. It established an Office of 
    Government Ethics with broad authority, including the power to 
    promulgate regulations pertaining to ``conflicts of interest and 
    ethics in the executive branch.'' It amended our Federal criminal 
    law in the area of conflicts of interest. . . .
        The gentleman from California concedes that the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute encompasses private citizens. He argues, 
    however, that those private citizens are connected in some way with 
    the Government.
        Mr. Speaker, I submit that the private citizens covered in 
    title VI of the conference report encompass only one narrow group. 
    The President's campaign manager is connected to the Government 
    just as much as the partner of some Government employee who may be 
    violating some law in appearing before some Government agency. He 
    is connected in the same way as the business partner of a 
    Government employee would be connected. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) . . . In looking at 
    the gentleman's point of order in this instance the gentleman from 
    California makes two points, one as title VI relates to new classes 
    of persons not covered by the House-passed bill, and the other in 
    terms of the breadth of the types of conduct subject to 
    investigation by the special prosecutor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.  Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It seems that under what is being considered here, the breadth 
    of the investigation which the special prosecutor may undertake, 
    goes far beyond the scope of the activity regulated by the House-
    passed bill. In looking at title VI, it authorizes the special 
    prosecutor to investigate any violation of any Federal criminal law 
    other than a violation constituting a petty offense--conduct which 
    may or may not directly relate to the official duties of the 
    persons covered. For that reason . . . the Chair does sustain the 
    point of order.

Bill Governing Rights and Obligations Under Federal Employment System 
    of Employees Engaging in Political Activities--Amendment To 
    Prohibit Compensation From Any Employment Public or Private

Sec. 9.50 To a bill reported from the Committee on Post Office and 
    Civil Service governing the political activities of federal 
    employees and containing certain restrictions on federal employment 
    relative to such activities, language in an amendment requiring 
    federal employees who wish to become candidates for elective office 
    to obtain leaves of absence, and also prohibiting them from 
    receiving compensation from employment public or private during the 
    period of their candidacy, was held to be beyond the scope of the 
    bill and to be not germane.

[[Page 8020]]

    On June 7, 1977,(14) during consideration of H.R. 10 
(15) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman James R. Mann, 
of South Carolina, sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 17711, 17712, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The Federal Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Allen: Delete from section 7326 
        subsections (b) and (c) thereof, substituting therefor a new 
        subsection (b), below and change the designation of subsection 
        (d) to ``(c)'':
            ``(b) An employee who desires to become a candidate for any 
        elective office must first obtain a leave of absence and shall 
        not work and/or earn compensation or other privileges of 
        employment for a period beginning with the last workday 
        preceding the day said employee shall either qualify as a 
        candidate or announce his or her candidacy for such elective 
        office, and ending with the day after said election, or the day 
        after said employee withdraws as a candidate for elective 
        office, whichever is sooner; and no such employee shall be 
        entitled to use, during this period, any entitlement to sick 
        leave or any other form of leave, except that said employee may 
        be entitled to be paid during the foregoing period of absence 
        from his employment for any period of accrued annual leave or 
        compensatory time to which he was entitled on the day the 
        foregoing period of absence commences, at the election of said 
        employee.''. . .

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to my 
    reservation of a point of order, I would like to ask the gentleman 
    in the well, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Allen), if he could 
    explain to us the meaning of the words beginning on lines 2 and 3 
    of paragraph (b) of his amendment which read ``shall not work and/
    or earn compensation or other privileges of employment for a period 
    beginning with the last workday preceding the day said employee 
    shall either qualify as a candidate.''
        What does the gentleman mean that ``an employee who desires to 
    become a candidate--shall not work and/or earn compensation'' 
    during his leave of absence?
        Mr. Allen: It means if he is on a leave of absence without pay 
    in order to make a political campaign for office, that he shall not 
    work in the agency nor shall he withdraw pay or be entitled to any 
    other emoluments or compensation during that period until the 
    campaign is over or until he has withdrawn as a candidate. . . .
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order 
    on the ground that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Tennessee is in violation of clause 7 of House Rule XVI which 
    provides: ``no motion or proposition on a subject different from 
    that under consideration shall be admitted under color of 
    amendment.''
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment under consideration is far broader 
    than the Act which it attempts to amend and would not only affect 
    the rights of the proposed candidate as an employee of the Federal 
    Government but it also places a restriction on his ability to

[[Page 8021]]

    otherwise provide support for himself and his family, particularly 
    that language that talks about not working or earning any 
    compensation or seeking any privileges of employment, and for that 
    reason I believe the amendment is subject to a point of order as 
    not germane to the bill before us. . . .
        Mr. Allen: . . . The present language of the bill is that:

            (b) An employee who is a candidate for elective office 
        shall, upon the request of such employee, be granted leave 
        without pay for the purpose of allowing such employee to engage 
        in activities relating to such candidacy.
            (c) Notwithstanding section 6302(d) of this title, an 
        employee who is a candidate for elective office shall, upon the 
        request of such employee, be granted accrued annual leave for 
        the purpose of allowing such employee to engage in activities 
        relating to such candidacy. Such leave shall be in addition to 
        leave without pay to which such employee may be entitled under 
        subsection (b) of this section.

        The language is certainly germane. It simply says that instead 
    of him having to apply for the leave of absence--I mean, instead of 
    being permitted to, he shall be required to ask for a leave of 
    absence and during that period the Federal Government will pay him 
    no money other than what he has already earned, or any other 
    emoluments.
        I understand the gentleman making the point of order is 
    undertaking to read into the amendment what is not there and that 
    is that it would prevent him from working outside. We are talking 
    about working for the Federal Government and drawing pay from an 
    agency of the Federal Government in which he is a civil service 
    employee.
        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, in response to the 
    gentleman, that is in effect the way the amendment reads; but, in 
    addition to that, the gentleman has now further explained the 
    amendment making it clear that the gentleman intends that the 
    obtaining of a leave of absence from one's supervisory employer, I 
    assume, is a condition precedent to seeking any elective public 
    office, whether partisan or nonpartisan. I think that goes beyond 
    the scope of this bill. That would amount to a restriction on the 
    ability of an employee to participate in a right or privilege that 
    he has contingent upon receiving permission from another employee 
    and there is no such restriction now or ever before in the Hatch 
    Act, nor in the Hatch Act amendment now before us, as amended, and 
    it is still not germane for that reason.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Michigan makes a point of order [against]) the language contained 
    in the amendment, which is actually ``shall not work and/or earn 
    compensation or other privileges of employment for a period 
    beginning with the last work day preceding the day said employee 
    shall either qualify as a candidate or announce his or her 
    candidacy for such elective office,''.
        The amendment goes beyond the scope and purpose of H.R. 10, in 
    that it is not limited to compensation from or privileges 
    incremental to Federal employment.

        A plain reading of the language indicates that such limitation 
    is not implicit in that language. The amendment would prevent 
    Federal employees from obtaining any compensation, pub

[[Page 8022]]

    lic or private, and thus inhibit conduct of an employee that is not 
    political--the earning of compensation, and that is not necessarily 
    connected to Federal employment.
        The Chair does not find it necessary to rule on the point 
    concerning leave of absence as a prerequisite. Because of the 
    language with reference to employment, which the Chair might also 
    state could easily be corrected, the pending amendment provides 
    language and regulates conduct beyond the scope of the committee 
    bill and is not germane.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Provision Waiving Laws Governing Removal of Government Employees--
    Amendment Proposing Removal of Noncitizens from Government

Sec. 9.51 To that section of a bill permitting, upon approval by the 
    Secretary of War, waiver of certain provisions of law regarding 
    removal of government employees, an amendment proposing that all 
    government employees who are not American citizens shall be 
    discharged was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (16) to strengthen national 
defense was under consideration which stated in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 9850 (Committee on Military Affairs).
17. See 86 Cong. Rec. 6852, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 24, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Provided further, That in connection with the defense 
    program of the United States the provisions of section 6 of the act 
    of August 24, 1912 (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 5, sec. 652), may be 
    waived in any case when approved by the Secretary of War. . . .

    An amendment was offered (18) which stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 6854.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [E]very officer, official, and employee of the United 
    States Government and of each and every department, bureau, and 
    agency thereof, regardless of position, class, grade, rating, or 
    duties, who is not an American citizen, shall be discharged and 
    removed from the Government service within 60 days after the 
    passage of this act.

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

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it deals 
    with agencies that do not come within the scope of this bill. 
    Therefore it is not germane.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent said:

        Mr. [Stephen] Pace [of Georgia]: . . . Section 6 is the section 
    dealing with the removal for cause of a person engaged in the 
    classified civil service. It applies only, Mr. Chairman, to one 
    branch of the Government service, that is, to the War Department. . 
    . .
        [T]his amendment simply provides that instead of merely the 
    Secretary of

[[Page 8023]]

    War having the right to waive the provisions of section 6, the fact 
    that a person in the Government service or in the classified civil 
    service is not an American citizen, is declared to be cause for his 
    removal for cause.

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. Boehne, Jr. (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is . . . of the opinion that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Georgia goes entirely beyond the scope of the 
    bill under consideration, and therefore sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Affecting Federal Employees' Retirement Benefits--Amendment 
    Affecting State and Local Retirement Benefits

Sec. 9.52 To a bill which related to retirement benefits of federal 
    employees and which sought to exempt annuity payments from 
    taxation, an amendment affecting recipients of state and local 
    retirement benefits was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (20) was under 
consideration to amend the Civil Service Retirement Act to exempt 
annuity payments under such act from taxation. The bill stated: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 2948 (Committee on Civil Service).
 1. 91 Cong. Rec. 9093, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That section 18 of the Civil Service 
    Retirement Act approved May 29, 1930, as amended, is amended to 
    read as follows:
        Sec. 18. None of the moneys mentioned in this act shall be 
    assignable, either in law or equity, or be subject to execution, 
    levy, or attachment, garnishment, taxation, or other legal process: 
    Provided however, That the exemption from taxation as provided 
    herein shall apply only to so much of any annuity as does not 
    exceed $1,440 in any calendar year.

    The following amendment was offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 9095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Amendment offered by Mr. [Reid F.] Murray [of Wisconsin]: Page 
    1, line 6, after the word ``act'', insert ``or moneys received by 
    recipients of State, county, city, or village retirement 
    payments.''

    Mr. Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(3) in 
sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration deals strictly with civil-service 
    retirement benefits to Federal employees. The gentleman's amendment 
    would include all recipients of State, county, city, and village 
    retirement benefits. It is very clearly outside of the scope of the 
    bill.

[[Page 8024]]

Provision Improving Research Facilities of Library of Congress--
    Amendment To Create Office of Technology Assessment

Sec. 9.53 To a provision designed to improve the research facilities of 
    Congress and concerned primarily with restructuring the appropriate 
    department in the Library of Congress, an amendment creating a new 
    Office of Technology Assessment comprised partly of personnel 
    outside the legislative branch was held to be not germane.

    The following exchange, in which the proponent of the amendment, 
Mr. Emilio Q. Daddario, of Connecticut, explained the purposes of the 
amendment, took place on Sept. 16, 1970: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 32210, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 17654, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 
        (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Daddario: Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment as a 
    proper part of the reorganization bill. It really is an extension 
    of something that the Reorganization Act attempts to do and that is 
    to change the Legislative Reference Service into the Congressional 
    Research Service. . . . It adds to the ability of a Congress to 
    have research done for it through the Congressional Research 
    Service. . . .
        It appears to me that while we are talking about the 
    reorganization of the Congress, that is an all-encompassing term. . 
    . . This amendment, because it is a part of the reorganization, 
    does give to the Congress strengths and abilities it does not have. 
    . . .

    The Chairman, (5) in ruling that the amendment was not 
germane, stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 32210, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 16, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment proposes the establishment of an Office of 
    Technology Assessment, in the legislative branch of Government, 
    responsible to the Congress.
        The Office is to consist of a Technology Assessment Board and a 
    Director. The Board is broadly constituted, drawing its membership 
    from the Congress and including in addition . . . the Comptroller 
    General, the Director of the Congressional Research Service, and 
    six public members. . . .
        All . . . agencies of the executive branch . . . are directed 
    to furnish the Office, upon the request of the Director, such 
    information as the Office deems necessary. The Office is directed 
    to maintain a continuing liaison with the National Science 
    Foundation and to report to the President and the Congress annually 
    on its findings and recommendations. It would also provide the 
    Board with subpena powers, authority to hire consultants, and to 
    contract for studies and research. . . .

[[Page 8025]]

        The Chair feels that the creation of this new Office, with the 
    broad authority conferred on it by this amendment, goes beyond the 
    scope of the bill before the committee and is not germane.

Bill Extending Subsidy of Certain Nonprofit Mail--Amendment To 
    Establish New Class of Mail and Postal Rate

Sec. 9.54 A bill extending the phased subsidization of certain 
    categories of nonprofit mail was held insufficiently broad in scope 
    to admit as germane an amendment establishing a new class of mail 
    and postal rate therefor.

    During consideration of S. 411 in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 19, 1974,(7) it was held that, to a bill extending the 
phasing period during which nonprofit mailers in certain categories may 
absorb increased postal rates, and providing that all Postal Service 
appropriations requests be submitted directly to Congress without 
revision by the President, an amendment adding a new section to provide 
a one-cent postage rate for post cards was ruled out as not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 19817, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: Page 3, immediately 
        after line 8, add the following new section:

            Sec. 4. (a) Subchapter V of chapter 36 of title 39, United 
        States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 3686. One cent postage rate for postal and post 
        cards
            ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or of 
        any other law, the rate of postage for the use (other than any 
        use which is related to a trade or business) of each single 
        postal card and for each portion of a double postal card, 
        including the cost of manufacture, and for each post card and 
        the initial portion of each double post card is 1 cent until 
        otherwise provided by law. . . .

        Mr. [Thaddeus J.] Dulski [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill. . . .
        [T]he question is whether the matter contained in the amendment 
    is in violation of House rule XVI, clause 7, which provides, in 
    part, that--

            No motion or proposition on a subject different from that 
        under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

        The bill under consideration, S. 411, relates to the following 
    subject matters.
        The first section amends section 3626 of title 39, United 
    States Code, to extend the rate phasing for certain classes of 
    mail, namely:
        First, from 10 to 16 years for nonprofit and preferred rate 
    second-class mail, nonprofit third-class, and the special library 
    fourth-class rate, and
        Second, from 5 to 8 years for regular second and third-class 
    mail, controlled

[[Page 8026]]

    circulation mail, and special commercial books and records fourth-
    class mail. . . .
        The instant amendment proposes to add a new section to chapter 
    36 of title 39 relating to the establishment of a new class of mail 
    and thus attempts to establish postal rates.
        In my opinion, the subject matter of the amendment is not 
    similar to any of the subject matters involved in S. 411 which I 
    have just outlined and is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Gonzalez: . . . This whole transaction is concerned with 
    the matter of postal rates. The whole thrust of this legislation 
    before the House is that point, a decision made by the Postal Rate 
    Commission.
        My amendment goes to the heart of germaneness . . . It merely 
    says, as my predecessor attempted to do in his amendment in this 
    particular category, as it has been known as a post card, that we 
    shall stimulate for private use, family use, noncommercial use, the 
    penny postcard. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Joseph P. Addabbo (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has listened to the point of order and has studied 
    the bill and the report. In the opinion of the Chair, the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Dulski) has properly characterized the bill. It 
    is very narrow in scope and relates only to a period of phasing of 
    certain classifications of mail and of budget submission.
        It certainly is not broad enough to open the whole subject of 
    postal rate adjustments. The amendment would establish a 1-cent 
    post card, a subject not within the scope of the bill.
        The Chair is not against the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Texas, but the Chair must hold that the amendment is not germane, 
    and sustains the point of order.

Bill Authorizing President To Reactivate Reserve and Retired Military--
    Amendment Restricting Authority Under Bill or Any Other Law

Sec. 9.55 To a bill authorizing the President to order reservists and 
    retired army personnel into active service, an amendment providing 
    that nothing in the bill ``or in any Federal statute or rule or 
    regulation of any Federal department'' shall authorize the 
    President to interfere in any manner with the duties of any 
    federal, state or municipal election official was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill (9) 
relating to compulsory military training, an amendment was offered 
(10) as described above. Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, 
raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane. In 
defense

[[Page 8027]]

of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 10132 (Committee on Military Affairs).
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 11723, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 7, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: [The amendment] is a 
    limitation upon authority. . . .
        . . . (I)t takes out of the class over which the President is 
    given authority, certain officials, State and Federal, which are 
    referred to in the first part of the paragraph.

    The Chairman,(11) stating that the amendment ``goes far 
beyond the purview of the pending bill,'' sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Stimulate Volunteer Enlistments in Regular Military and Naval 
    Establishments--Amendment Relating Generally to Discharge of 
    Military Personnel

Sec. 9.56 The Chair ruled that, to a bill proposing to stimulate 
    volunteer enlistments in the Regular Military and Naval 
    Establishments, an amendment dealing generally with the discharge 
    of United States military personnel was not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 3951 (Committee on Military Affairs), Armed Forces Voluntary 
        Recruitment Act of 1945.
13. See 91 Cong. Rec. 8646, 8647, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 17, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That this act may be cited as the ``Armed 
    Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945.''
        Sec. 2. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy are 
    authorized and directed to initiate and carry forward intensive 
    recruiting campaigns to obtain volunteer enlistments and 
    reenlistments in the Regular Military and Naval Establishments.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Page 1, 
    after line 9, insert a new section to read as follows:
        ``That there shall be discharged from, or released from active 
    duty in, the military and naval forces of the United States, as 
    rapidly as discharge facilities will permit, all members of such 
    forces whose active duty therein has been of a duration of 18 or 
    more months since September 16, 1940, except that no commissioned 
    officer of the Regular Military or Naval Establishment shall be 
    discharged or released under this act, and no member of the 
    military or naval forces who is serving therein under an enlistment 
    need be discharged or released from such forces under this act 
    prior to the expiration of the contract period of enlistment.''
        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .

    The Chairman (14) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Kentucky makes the point of order against 
    the

[[Page 8028]]

    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York that it is not 
    germane. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    applies to and affects the Army of the United States, whereas the 
    bill before the Committee is more limited in scope and applies only 
    to volunteer enlistments in the Regular Army. Therefore the 
    amendment is not germane, and the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Bill Authorizing Reactivation of Reservists and Retired Army 
    Personnel--Amendment Authorizing Prohibition on Liquor Sale to all 
    Armed Forces

Sec. 9.57 To a bill authorizing the President to order reservists and 
    retired army personnel into active service, an amendment 
    authorizing the President to prohibit the sale of liquor to all men 
    of the land and naval forces of the United States was held not 
    germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(15) relating to compulsory military training, an amendment 
was offered (16) as described above. Mr. Andrew J. May, of 
Kentucky, raised the point of order that the amendment was not 
germane.(17) The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the 
point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 10132 (Committee on Military Affairs).
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 11740, 11741, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 7, 1940.
17. Id. at p. 11741.
18. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the gentleman from Kansas had confined his amendment to 
    affect only those covered by the pending bill, it would have 
    undoubtedly been germane. . . . However, the amendment is all-
    inclusive and covers the officers and enlisted men of the land and 
    naval forces of the United States. It goes far beyond the scope of 
    this bill. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Provision Funding Training Vessel for One State Maritime Academy--
    Amendment Affecting All Maritime Academies' Use of Training Vessels

Sec. 9.58 To a Senate amendment providing for a training vessel for one 
    state maritime academy, a proposed House amendment relating to 
    training vessels for all state maritime academies was held not 
    germane as more general in scope.

    During consideration of H.R. 1827 (supplemental appropriations for 
fiscal 1987) in the House on June 30, 1987, (19) it was 
demonstrated that a specific proposition may not be amended by a

[[Page 8029]]

proposition more general in scope, when a point of order against the 
following motion was conceded and sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 133 Cong. Rec. 18297, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 33: Page 8, after line 21, insert:

                            operations and training

            Funds appropriated under this head in Public Law 98-396 for 
        a training vessel for the State University of New York Maritime 
        College shall be available for acquisition, preconversion and 
        conversion costs of such vessel.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Clerk will 
    designate the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the motion is as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 33 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert 
        the following:
            Funds appropriated under this head in Public Law 98-396 for 
        a training vessel for the State University of New York Maritime 
        College shall be available for acquisition, preconversion and 
        conversion costs of such vessel: Provided, That prior to the 
        obligation of such funds and prior to the obligation of 
        unobligated funds appropriated under this head for state 
        maritime academies in Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 99-591, 
        except for obligations necessary to complete current shipyard 
        work and voyages in progress, all state maritime academies 
        furnished a training vessel shall agree to such sharing of 
        training vessels as shall be arranged by the Maritime 
        Administration: Provided further, That the Maritime 
        Administration shall submit its final plans for such a ship-
        sharing arrangement to the state maritime academies by October 
        1, 1987. . . .

        Mr. [Gerry E.] Studds [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion on the ground that the amendment 
    that it purports to add to the Senate amendment is not germane to 
    said amendment. The Senate amendment deals solely with the New York 
    State Maritime Academy. The amendment proposed on the part of the 
    House to the Senate amendment deals with the full range of all the 
    state maritime academies and as such is beyond the scope of the 
    Senate amendment and is not germane thereto. . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman concedes the point of 
    order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Bill Authorizing President To Requisition Materials and Provide 
    Compensation Therefor--Amendment Providing That Compensation to 
    Certain Foreign Governments Be in Form of Credit on Indebtedness

Sec. 9.59 To a bill authorizing the President to requisition materials 
    for the use of the United States, and con

[[Page 8030]]

    taining a provision for compensation of the owners of such 
    materials, an amendment was held to be not germane which provided 
    that when such material is obtained from a foreign government that 
    is in default of its obligations to the United States, a receipt 
    for partial payment of the obligations shall be given as 
    compensation.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
which stated in part: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 10339 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 10767, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 22, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. Whenever the President shall requisition and take over 
    any article or material pursuant to the provisions of this act, the 
    owner thereof shall be paid as compensation therefor such sum as 
    the President shall determine to be fair and just.

    An amendment was offered prohibiting payments to any foreign 
government that is in default in its obligations to the United States, 
and providing instead for credits as described above. Mr. Andrew J. 
May, of Kentucky, raised the point of order that the amendment was not 
germane to the bill. The Chairman,(3) in sustaining the 
point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Clyde Williams (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I think the provisions of the amendment are entirely too 
    broad and beyond the scope entirely of this bill, because it says 
    that no payment shall be made to any government, which would cover 
    the entire field of governmental debts. . . .

Provision Making Teachers in Peace Corps Eligible for Partial 
    Cancellation of Education Loans--Amendment To Permit Loan 
    Recipients To Choose Repayment Plan Based on Income

Sec. 9.60 To an amendment adding teachers in the Peace Corps to those 
    eligible for partial cancellation of certain education loans, an 
    amendment permitting loan recipients to choose an alternative 
    repayment plan based on a percentage of their net taxable incomes 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
comprising the National Defense Education Act Amendments of 1964. The 
bill stated in part: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 12363 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 5. See 110 Cong. Rec. 19678, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 14, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (3) not to exceed 50 per centum of any such loan (plus 
    interest) shall be cancelled for service as a full-time (A)

[[Page 8031]]

    teacher in a public or other nonprofit elementary or secondary 
    school in a State, in an institution of higher education, or in an 
    elementary or secondary school overseas of the Armed Forces of the 
    United States. . . .

    Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, offered an 
amendment.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 19685.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Page 6, line 21, 
    after education, strike out ``or''; and on line 23 after the word 
    ``States'' insert ``or in a Peace Corps project as a Peace Corps 
    volunteer''.

    The following amendment was then offered as a substitute for the 
O'Hara amendment: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 19686.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa as a substitute 
    for the amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: On page 8 
    between lines 7 and 8 add a new subsection as follows:

            (D) In lieu of other provisions in this Act relative to the 
        rate of repayment of such a loan, the recipient shall be given 
        an alternative of entering into a written agreement providing 
        that each year beginning with the second taxable year that a 
        scholar who received a loan under this Act is no longer a full-
        time student . . . the recipient shall pay to the Commission a 
        sum equal to 5 percentum of his personal net taxable income. . 
        . .

    Mr. Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen, Jr., of New Jersey, raised the point 
of order that the amendment was not germane to the bill. The 
Chairman,(8) noting that the O'Hara amendment ``deals with 
the problem of forgiveness,'' sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specific Aircraft Flight Restrictions--General Amendment to Federal 
    Aviation Act

Sec. 

     9.61 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,(9) during consideration of H.R. 4430 
in the Committee of the Whole, the 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 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. 
    . . .

[[Page 8032]]

                    sec. 3. grand canyon national park.

        (a) Noise associated with aircraft overflight 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. . . .
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            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: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 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.

Bill Exempting Certain Instances of Joint Operation of Newspapers From 
    Antitrust Laws--Amendment To Prevent Publication of More Than One 
    Newspaper Using Subsidized Class of Mail

Sec. 9.62 To a bill exempting certain instances of joint operation of 
    newspapers from the antitrust laws, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which sought in part to prevent single owners from 
    publishing more than one newspaper within a normal circulation area 
    if the newspaper ``utilizes any subsidized class of U.S. mail'' for 
    delivery.

[[Page 8033]]

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Newspaper 
Preservation Act, (11) the following amendment was offered: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 279 (Committee on the Judiciary).
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 23174, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 8, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (d) It shall be unlawful for any one owner to publish or offer 
    for sale more than one daily or weekly newspaper in any one normal 
    circulation area if the newspaper utilizes any subsidized class of 
    U.S. mail for delivery of any of its papers anywhere or if the sale 
    of any of the papers affect interstate commerce.

    Mr. Robert W. Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin, made the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane. The Chairman,(13) 
sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas J. Steed (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill deals with a very narrow area of joint operation of 
    newspapers in relation to the antitrust law. The gentleman's 
    amendment obviously goes far beyond the matter covered in the bill 
    and brings into consideration matters of the ownership of 
    newspapers, which is not concerned in the bill. It also brings in 
    the involvement of subsidized mail.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 10. Specific Amendments to General Propositions; Amendments as 
    Within Scope

    A general subject may be amended by specific propositions of the 
same class.(14) Thus, where a bill has a broad objective, an 
amendment prescribing a specific endeavor may be germane; 
(15) and where a bill seeks to accomplish a general purpose, 
by diverse methods, an amendment providing a specific method has been 
held germane.(16) Similarly, to a proposition conferring a 
broad authority to accomplish a particular result, an amendment 
authorizing and directing a specific approach to be taken in the 
exercise of such authority is germane.(17) The precedents 
included in this section are those in which the issue of germaneness 
was raised following the introduction of an amendment, relatively 
narrow in its terms, during consideration of a proposition of a more 
comprehensive nature. The question to be decided in such cases, of 
course, is whether the amendment falls within the scope of the broader 
subject or subjects addressed in the proposition sought to be amended. 
The section includes several examples of amendments which can be seen 
to comprise subtopics of the broader topic covered in the bill to which 
offered. (18)

[[Page 8034]]

                          -------------------14. Compare the principles 
        stated in Sec. 9, supra.
15. See Sec. 10.10, infra.
16. See Sec. 10.12, infra.
17. See Sec. 10.10, infra.
18. See, for example, Sec. 10.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defining a Term in Bill

Sec. 10.1 An amendment defining a term in a bill may be germane so long 
    as it relates to the bill and not to portions of laws being amended 
    which are not the subject of the bill; thus, to a bill amending 
    several laws only to clarify the definition of a recipient of 
    federal financial assistance who by practicing discrimination 
    becomes subject to the penalties of those laws, an amendment to 
    expand the definition of recipient persons to include unborn 
    children from the moment of conception, but not expanding the 
    definition of persons who are the objects of discrimination, was 
    held germane as merely defining a term in the bill and not relating 
    to terms of the law not amended by the bill.

    During consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 1984 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 1984, the 
Chair held the following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 5490.
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 18865, 18866, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        This is different in wording from the previous amendment 
    (1) but the same point of order rests against this 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The previous amendment was ruled out as not germane since it 
        enlarged the class of persons covered under the Act being 
        amended by the bill. See Sec. 35.65, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is an attempt to expand with a new definition beyond the 
    scope of this act. It is not germane as the previous amendment was 
    not germane. . . .
        Mr. Siljander: Chapter 28 of the procedures of the House, 
    section 9.12, says ``. . . to a bill containing definitions of 
    several of the terms used therein, an amendment modifying one of 
    the definitions and adding another may be germane.''
        On page 3, on page 6 and page 8 and page 10 the word ``person'' 
    is used, which is substantially different from the former 
    amendment.
        I yield to the chairman.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On page 8, line 24, the bill uses the term ``person.''
        In the gentleman's amendment he says for the purposes of this 
    bill the term ``person'' shall, and defines the term ``person'' 
    and, therefore, the amendment is germane.

[[Page 8035]]

Bill Admitting Displaced Persons as Permanent Residents--Amendment 
    Defining ``Displaced Persons''

Sec. 10.2 To a bill to authorize the admission of displaced persons 
    into the United States for permanent residence, an amendment 
    providing that the term ``displaced person'' include persons of 
    German ethnic origin, who prior to Apr. 21, 1947, were transferred 
    or fled to Germany or Austria from Poland or certain other 
    countries was held germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
to authorize admission into the United States of displaced persons. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 6396 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 4. 94 Cong. Rec. 7871, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles J.] Kersten of Wisconsin:
        Amend H.R. 6396 on page 2 by inserting after the semicolon in 
    line 14, the following: . . . [T]he term ``displaced person'' shall 
    also include a person of German ethnic origin, who prior to April 
    21, 1947, was transferred or fled to Germany or Austria from 
    Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, or Yugoslavia, provided 
    that such person is otherwise qualified as a displaced person under 
    the provisions of this act.
        And further amend H.R. 6396 by [providing that] for the 
    purposes of this subsection persons of German ethnic origin who are 
    referred to in paragraph 4 of part II of annex I of the 
    constitution of the International Refugee Organization shall be 
    included as one of such elements or groups; and (that) the number 
    of such persons to whom visas may be issued shall not exceed 
    100,000.

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. In a 
    word, it provides that those of German ethnic origin, regardless of 
    their place of birth, shall be admissible under our quota laws. Our 
    quota laws are based upon the theory of national origin, and that 
    the place of birth governs the quota. This amendment would change 
    the theory of our immigration laws and provide that ethnic blood 
    would determine the quota rather than place of birth.
        For that reason the amendment is not germane to this bill which 
    has for its purpose the solving of the displaced-persons problem 
    regardless of quotas.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Kersten, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, there is no reference whatsoever in my amendment 
    to

[[Page 8036]]

    quotas. There is merely a reference to the definition as contained 
    in the Fellows bill of the International Refugee Organization. It 
    merely pertains to the description of displaced persons. There is 
    no attempt to alter the immigration laws whatsoever. It merely 
    pertains to the definition of displaced persons.
        The Chair will note that in the bill as it is presented to the 
    House the description of a displaced person refers to the 
    definition contained in the IRO. My amendment merely affects that 
    section of the bill and is not an attempt to alter the immigration 
    laws.

    The Chairman, (5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. George A. Dondero (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the language of the 
    gentleman's amendment does apply to displaced persons.
        The point of order is overruled.

Armed Services: More Precise Definition or Description of Terms in Bill

Sec. 10.3 To that paragraph of the Selective Service Act of 1948 
    declaring that the obligation of military service should be shared 
    generally in accordance with a fair and just system of selection, 
    an amendment proposing to add the words, ``and without 
    discrimination in selection or service, or segregation on account 
    of race, creed, color, or national origin'' was held to be germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (6) was under consideration 
which stated in part: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
 7. See 94 Cong. Rec. 8388, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (e) The Congress further declares that in a free society the 
    obligations and privileges of (military) service should be shared 
    generally in accordance with a fair and just system of selection as 
    hereinafter provided.

    An amendment was offered (8) as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 8389.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane. In defense of the amendment, the 
proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: . . . (T)he bill itself 
    provides that service should be shared in accordance with a fair 
    and just system of selection. I respectfully submit that the 
    amendment I have offered stated in more specific terms what is a 
    fair and just system of selection.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the language proposed by the 
    amendment clearly follows the suggestion of a fair and just system 
    in the declaration of policy. The Chair therefore overrules the 
    point of order.

[[Page 8037]]

Adding Another Finding to Bill Containing Diverse Findings and Purposes

Sec. 10.4 To that portion of a bill containing diverse findings and 
    purposes related to a general subject, an amendment adding another 
    finding or purpose related to that subject is germane; thus, to a 
    title of a bill establishing a new Department of Education, stating 
    a wide range of findings and educational purposes for the creation 
    of the Department, including a finding that there is a need to 
    insure equal access to educational opportunities, an amendment 
    adding the finding that no individual should be denied such 
    opportunities by regulations which utilize quotas or other 
    numerical formulas based on race, creed, color, national origin or 
    sex, was held germane as adding a related finding to the diverse 
    class of educational policies stated in the title.

    On June 12, 1979,(10) during consideration of the 
Department of Education Organization Act of 1979 (11) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order and held 
the following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 14460, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 2444.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 54, in line 21, 
        strike out the ``;'', and insert the following: ``and that no 
        individual should be denied such education opportunities by 
        rules, regulations, standards, guidelines, and orders which 
        utilize any ratio, quota, or other numerical requirement 
        related to race, creed, color, national origin or sex.''. . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order against this amendment, since it is on a subject that is 
    different from that which is under consideration and, thus, it 
    fails to meet the test that is imposed by rule 16, clause 7.
        We are considering a reorganization statute, that is H.R. 2444, 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations. 
    That committee has reported this bill.
        The gentleman is introducing a new subject by way of his 
    amendment which affects education programs. If such an amendment 
    were introduced as a bill, it would not even be referred to the 
    Committee on Government Operations.
        In order to be germane, an amendment must have the same 
    fundamental purpose as the bill under consideration. The purpose of 
    H.R. 2444 deals only with the organizational structure of a new 
    Department of Education.

[[Page 8038]]

        The amendment raises a controversial subject of public policy 
    and gets into substantive issues. Thus, the fundamental purpose of 
    the amendment is not germane to the fundamental purpose of the 
    bill. . . .
        This amendment goes into substantive issues which are not 
    involved in this committee. We have had no hearings on this 
    subject; we have had no opportunity to discuss it; we have had no 
    testimony on it. Whether I agree with the position of the gentleman 
    is something else. I tend to agree with the gentleman's personal 
    views. However, it is not something that is involved in the bill in 
    the creation of a new Department. Somewhere we must draw the line 
    as to what is germane in this bill. This in my judgment is not 
    germane, it is not involved with the organization of this 
    Department and therefore I urge that the amendment be ruled out of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . I would say that [the amendment] is germane 
    in its own right. What I am simply doing in this particular 
    amendment is further defining findings which are already stated 
    under the findings and purposes section of this bill.
        The present findings says:

            There is a continuous need to insure equal access for all 
        Americans to educational opportunities of high quality.

        All this language does is expand upon that particular 
    phraseology by saying that no individual should be denied such 
    educational opportunities by rules, regulations, standards, 
    guidelines, or orders which utilize any ratio, quota, or other 
    numerical requirement related to race, creed, color, national 
    origin or sex.
        It simply defines material which is already stated in the bill. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to remind the Member that title I of H.R. 
    2444 in section 102 contains a diverse statement of purposes and 
    findings applicable to the newly created Department of Education. 
    These findings, while not affecting or creating new authorities 
    which are to be transferred to the Department, are extremely 
    diverse in character and emphasize several aspects of the question 
    of the extent of Federal Government involvement in educational 
    programs. Since it is difficult to group into one class all of the 
    stated purposes and findings for the new Department, and since the 
    pending amendment does not directly address new substantive 
    authorities to be conferred upon or withheld from the Department, 
    the Chair will rule that the amendment stating an additional 
    finding relative to Federal educational policy is germane to title 
    I of the bill.
        The Chair would cite a relevant precedent contained in Cannon's 
    precedents, volume VIII, section 3011, where, to a section 
    embodying a declaration of policy and including a number of 
    purposes, an amendment proposing to incorporate an additional 
    purpose was held germane. There, the Chair emphasized that the 
    declaration of policy section did not have any particular effect 
    upon the bill, and that the section contained several diverse 
    proposals.
        Accordingly, the Chair overrules the point of order, and the 
    gentleman from

[[Page 8039]]

    Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
    amendment.

Military Procurement, Including Food--Establishment of Department of 
    Defense Grain Reserve

Sec. 10.5 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizing 
    appropriations for diverse military procurement programs for one 
    fiscal year, including provisions relating to purchase of food 
    supplies, an amendment authorizing establishment in that fiscal 
    year of a military preparedness grain reserve was held germane as 
    confined to military procurement and as a more specific 
    authorization within the general authorization contained in the 
    substitute.

    During consideration of H.R. 6030 (13) in the Committee 
of the Whole on July 20, 1982,(14) the Chair, in overruling 
a point of order against an amendment, demonstrated that a general 
proposition may be amended by a proposition more specific in scope if 
within the same class:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The Military Procurement Authorization, fiscal 1983.
14.  128 Cong. Rec. 17073, 17074, 17092, 17093, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Dellums. Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Department of 
        Defense Authorization Act, 1983''.

                      TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                        authorization of appropriations

            Sec. 301. (a) Funds are hereby authorized to be 
        appropriated for fiscal year 1983 for the military functions of 
        the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance in the 
        amount of $62,267,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Dellums: On page 14, 
        after line 21, insert a new section 902:
            The Secretary is hereby authorized to establish a military 
        preparedness grain reserve. The sum of $2,000,000,000 is hereby 
        authorized to be appropriated in fiscal year 1983 to purchase 
        corn, wheat, and soybeans and to construct storage facilities. 
        The Secretary may use for guidance in such purchases the 
        amounts of corn, wheat, and soybeans purchased by the Union of 
        Soviet Socialist Republics in calendar year 1982. . . .

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: I make the point of 
    order, Mr.

[[Page 8040]]

    Chairman, that the amendment is not germane to the authorization 
    bill now under discussion.
        Mr. Chairman, I can hardly add to that. This authorizes the 
    Secretary to establish a grain reserve of some $2 billion for the 
    purchase of grain. As a matter of fact, if the soybeans are bought 
    from the Second District of Alabama, it might improve our economy, 
    but I think this is not germane to the authorization matters under 
    discussion, and I make a point of order against it. . . .
        Mr. Weaver: Mr. Chairman, I simply say that the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute contains, as does the bill before us, 
    authorization to purchase food supplies for the military. This is 
    just an additional procurement, a reserve of food supplies for the 
    military.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule on the gentleman's point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Les AuCoin (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair views the amendment as described by its author as an 
    additional fiscal year 1983 military procurement amendment which 
    does not affect any law or program within another committee's 
    jurisdiction. The amendment is germane, the point of order is 
    overruled and the gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes 
    in support of his amendment.

Bill Mandating Diverse Studies--Amendment Directing Specific 
    Investigations

Sec. 10.6 To a bill requiring that a certain percentage of automobiles 
    sold in the United States be manufactured domestically, imposing an 
    import restriction on any person violating that requirement, and 
    including diverse studies of the impact of the bill and of factors 
    that affect domestic production of automobile products, an 
    amendment directing the study of the impact of currency exchange 
    rates on vehicle manufacturers and on domestic production of 
    automotive products was held germane as a further study requirement 
    within the more general class of study already contained in the 
    bill.

    An example of the principle that a specific proposition may be 
germane to a proposition of the same class which is more general in 
scope may be found in the proceedings of Nov. 3, 1983,(16) 
during consideration of the Fair Practices and Procedures in Automotive 
Products Act of 1983. (17) The proceedings, wherein the 
Chair overruled a point of order against the amendment described above, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 30782, 30783, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 1234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 8041]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Florio: Page 36, after line 4 
        insert the following:

            sec. 11. study of impact of currency exchange rates on 
                  competitiveness among vehicle manufacturers.

            The Secretary shall promptly appoint a task force 
        consisting of the chief officers of the appropriate Federal 
        agencies to study the impact of unbalanced and fluctuating 
        rates of currency exchange on vehicle manufacturers and on the 
        extent to which such rates affect domestic production of 
        automotive products for sale and distribution in interstate 
        commerce. The Secretary shall report to the Congress, within 
        one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, on 
        findings of the task force. The report shall include such 
        recommendations as the task force deems appropriate for 
        promoting fair competition among vehicle manufacturers. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    believe this amendment is subject to a point of order. Again, I 
    cite rule XVI, clause 7, the germaneness rule.
        Under the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
    (Mr. Florio), we have a Secretary of Transportation appointing a 
    task force of the chief officers of the appropriate Federal 
    agencies to study the impact of fluctuating rates of currency on 
    vehicle manufacturers, and on the extent to which rates affect 
    competition.
        This business of the rates of currency and the fluctuation 
    thereof is a matter that has been studied by competent agencies: 
    The Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and others.
        It is not within the competence of the Secretary of 
    Transportation, nor is it within this committee's jurisdiction.
        As a matter of fact, the exchange rate is something that is a 
    shared jurisdiction among a number of committees, probably Banking, 
    undoubtedly Foreign Affairs, and certainly the gentleman's own 
    committee and probably Ways and Means as well.
        In any case, it does not direct itself toward the bill which 
    again is talking about domestic content, not about the yen-dollar 
    rate.
        As a matter of fact, the bill solves the yen-dollar problem by 
    simply not admitting Japanese automobiles. . . .
        [The amendment] is not germane to the item in question which is 
    the domestic content of automobiles sold in the United States.
        The purpose of this bill is to keep any yen values out of the 
    United States, and, therefore, this amendment can have no 
    relationship to the main bill. . . .
        Mr. Florio: . . . Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that section 4 
    provides for an advisory council to undertake an analysis for the 
    factors impacting on the domestic production of the automobile 
    products for sale and distribution in interstate commerce. That 
    language is tracked in this amendment and accordingly, it is within 
    the scope of the bill and is germane. . . .
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, the issues concerning currencies are not within the 
    purview of this bill as presently contained in this bill, and the 
    studies that are requested by this amendment are not consistent 
    with the studies that are requested by the bill.

[[Page 8042]]

        As has been pointed out already, the bill deals with the 
    production of the automobiles and deals with the percentage of 
    domestic content of those automobiles that are produced in the 
    United States, and has nothing to do with any determination of the 
    value of the dollar versus foreign currencies.
        The Chairman: (18) . . . [T]he test of germaneness 
    is whether the amendment relates to the basic subject matter 
    covered by the bill. The bill on page 20, section 4, calls for a 
    domestic automotive product strategy study. In part, the strategy 
    that is to be developed by the Secretary is to consider on a 
    regular basis, and I quote section (B) of section 4:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Those factors that significantly affect domestic production 
        of automotive products for sale and distribution in interstate 
        commerce.

        The amendment that has been presented by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey (Mr. Florio) refers to a study on currency rates that, and 
    again, I quote from the amendment: ``. . . affect domestic 
    production of automotive products for sale and distribution in 
    interstate commerce,'' and, therefore, tracks the same language 
    that is included within the bill itself.

        Therefore, it is the finding of the Chair that the amendment is 
    germane, and the point of order is not sustained.

Bill Funding Diverse Studies--Amendment Authorizing Specific Inquiry

Sec. 10.7 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, (19) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (20) 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

[[Page 8043]]

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 28763, 28764, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 3000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 8044]]

    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 . . 
    . 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: (1) 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 coat 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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 to study 
    energy conservation consequences of certain tax proposals than 
    those currently required by law, but nevertheless a 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.

[[Page 8045]]

        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.

Bill Relating to Conversion From Oil and Gas to Coal--Amendment 
    Providing for Assistance to Industry for Construction of Coal 
    Liquefaction Facilities

Sec. 10.8 To a bill designed to increase supplies of fossil fuels, and 
    increase the use of domestic energy supplies other than petroleum 
    through conversion to coal, and containing an entire title dealing 
    with industrial conversion from oil and gas to coal, an amendment 
    adding a new title providing government loans and other assistance 
    to private industry for the construction and operation of 
    facilities for the liquefaction and gasification of coal was held 
    germane as within the scope of the bill.

    On Sept. 18, 1975, (2) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 
(H.R. 7014), an amendment was offered to add a new title to the bill to 
which a point of order was raised and overruled. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 29338-41, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the form of a new title to title VIII.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Carter: On page 356, line 6, 
        insert the following new Title and renumber subsequent Titles 
        accordingly:

         TITLE VIII--COAL GASIFICATION AND LIQUEFACTION DEVELOPMENT

            Sec. 801. (a) The Administrator shall establish a program 
        of assistance to private industry for the construction and 
        operation of one or more facilities for the liquefaction and 
        gasification of coal. In order to effectuate such program, the 
        Administrator may make loans and issue guarantees to any person 
        for the purpose of engaging in the commercial operation of 
        facilities designed for the liquefaction or gasification of 
        coal.
            (b)(1) For the purpose of making loans or issuing 
        guarantees under this section, the Administrator shall consider 
        (A) the technology to be used by the person to whom the loan or 
        guarantee is made or issued, (B) the production expected, (C) 
        reasonable prospect for repayment of the loans. . . .
            Sec. 802. (a) The Administrator is authorized . . .
            (3) Each lease shall further provide that the lessee shall 
        have options to purchase the facilities at any time within ten 
        years after the date of the respective lease at a price to be 
        agreed upon by the parties. Each

[[Page 8046]]

        option shall be conditioned, however, upon the right of the 
        Administrator within the ten-year term to offer the facilities 
        for sale at public auction and the lessee shall be entitled to 
        purchase the facilities if he meets the highest bona fide offer 
        in excess of the agreed option price. In order that an offer 
        may be considered bona fide, it shall be offered by a bidder 
        who shall have been determined by the Administrator to be 
        financially and technically qualified to purchase and operate 
        the facilities. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        The point of order is as follows: A reading of the amendment 
    will show that under subsection 801(a), it would authorize a very 
    large program of loans and grants for the construction and 
    operation of facilities for the liquefaction and gasification of 
    coal.
        Nowhere else in the bill are there loans and grants, and 
    nowhere else in the bill are there provisions for that kind of 
    stimulus for the construction of facilities for the liquefaction or 
    gasification of coal.
        In addition to these loans and guarantees, the Administrator is 
    vested with authority to guarantee performance of contracts of 
    persons receiving loans from the administration for the purchase, 
    construction, and acquisition of equipment and supplies necessary 
    to construct and operate such a facility. This again, Mr. Chairman, 
    is not within the purview of the bill.
        In addition to this, construction plans and construction of 
    facilities, further down under (d)(2), could be financed in whole 
    or in part, including exploration and development.
        In addition to this, the possibility of exemptions and 
    exceptions from the air and water pollution laws are included under 
    (c)(2)(d), or, rather, under paragraph (d).
        To go along further, by no stretch of the imagination could my 
    colleagues be anticipated to anticipate an amendment of this kind 
    and character coming to this bill and relating to the air and water 
    pollution laws. Indeed the language is sufficiently broad to make 
    this exempt from State statutes, as well as from Federal statutes, 
    and that is a matter clearly not before the committee at this 
    particular time. Then we have the question of compliance with 
    Federal and State air pollution laws. . . .
        In addition to this, under section 802(a)(3), the amendment 
    provides for acquisition of private interests in all such 
    facilities as may have heretofore been constructed or acquired 
    relating to gasification of coal and other types of energy uses. 
    Again this goes far beyond the scope and sweep of the bill before 
    the committee.
        Again, under section 802(b)(1), these facilities could then be 
    leased or rented under conditions and terms as agreed on by and 
    between the parties, apparently without regard to existing Federal 
    statutes relating to the sale, leasing, or disposal of real estate, 
    and that is a matter which is under the jurisdiction of other 
    committees and which is the subject of control under other statutes 
    not presently before the House and not mentioned or alluded to in 
    the provisions of H.R. 7014 now before the committee. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: As much as I am reluctant to 
    do so, I

[[Page 8047]]

    would have to suggest to the chairman of the subcommittee that I 
    think that the gentleman's amendment is germane.
        I would like to cite the provisions of the purposes of the act, 
    section 102. Item (3) in that section says, ``to increase the 
    supply of fossil fuels in the United States, through price 
    incentives and production requirements.''

        The gentleman's amendment squares, it seems to me, specifically 
    with that. As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carter) has pointed 
    out, item (6) says ``to increase the use of domestic energy 
    supplies other than petroleum products and natural gas through 
    conversion to the use of coal.''
        This would certainly encourage the use of coal.
        Section 606 in the bill provides similar incentives to those 
    provided by the amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
    Carter) for coal mines. Pollution requirements would not be 
    overridden by the legislation or the legislative modification of 
    the gentleman from Kentucky unless specified, that is, those 
    existing pollution requirements would not be overridden unless they 
    were specified in the amendment, and they are not specified in the 
    amendment. They would, therefore, continue to apply.
        It seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky specifically does encourage the development and use of 
    additional fossil fuels by the various provisions in his amendment 
    and that those provisions are in the bill and have been added by 
    other amendments, and, therefore, would be germane to this 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For substantially the reasons just outlined by the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and in view of the fact that title III has 
    several provisions going to the general issue of maximizing 
    availability of energy supplies, including coal, and, as pointed 
    out, title VI encourages industrial conversion from oil and gas to 
    coal, for example, by a similar loan guarantee mechanism as 
    proposed in the amendment, the Chair finds that the amendment 
    inserting a new title is germane to the bill under consideration 
    and overrules the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Broad Program of Energy Research and Development--
    Amendment Directing Specific Emphasis

Sec. 10.9 To a bill authorizing a broad program of research and 
    development, an amendment directing specific emphasis during the 
    administration of that program is germane; thus, to a portion of a 
    bill directing the Administrator of Energy Research and Development 
    to undertake research and development of the uses of energy from 
    several enumerated or other energy sources, an amendment directing 
    a fully funded program of research and development in 
    ``unconventional energy sources and technologies'' and further 
    delineating those energy

[[Page 8048]]

    sources to be emphasized was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 11510 (4) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Dec. 19, 1973,(5) Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, 
of Illinois, overruled a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1973.
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 42607, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 33, lines 11-15, 
        strike subsection (3) and insert in lieu thereof a new 
        subsection (3) as follows:
            (3) conducting an aggressive and fully funded program of 
        energy research and development, including demonstration 
        projects, in unconventional energy sources and technologies 
        including but not limited to solar energy, geothermal energy, 
        magnetohydrodynamics, fuel cells, low head hydroelectric power, 
        use of agricultural products for energy, tidal power and 
        thermal gradient power, wind power, automated mining methods, 
        in situ conversion of fuels, cryogenic transmission of electric 
        power, electric energy storage methods, alternatives to the 
        internal combustion engine, solvent refined coal, shale oil, 
        coal gasification and liquefaction, utilization of waste 
        products for fuel, hydrogen gas systems, advanced power cycles 
        including gas turbines, and stack gas cleanup. . . .

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground it is not 
    germane, and seeks to invade the province of another committee, to 
    wit, the Committee on Appropriations and an authorizing committee, 
    in that it requires that such programs as are listed be fully 
    funded, and full funding is the province of another committee, or 
    partial funding or no funding. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will rule the amendment goes to the 
    sources of energy and to the types of research and development that 
    are in the bill and delineates further sources and programs. In 
    view of the broad scope of the legislation, the amendment is 
    germane.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Provision Conferring Broad Authority--Amendment Directing Specific 
    Approach

Sec. 10.10 To a proposition conferring a broad authority to accomplish 
    a particular result, an amendment authorizing and directing a 
    specific approach to be taken in the exercise of such authority is 
    germane; thus, to a section of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute directing the president to minimize any adverse impact 
    upon employment because of actions taken under that Act to conserve 
    energy resources, an amendment authorizing grants to states for 
    assistance to individuals unem

[[Page 8049]]

    ployed as the result of administration of that Act and not eligible 
    for assistance under other unemployment compensation programs was 
    held to be germane.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(6) during consideration of H.R. 11450 
(7) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that 
a specific proposition is germane to a proposition more general in 
scope, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, holding an amendment to 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute to be germane, as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 41732, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The Energy Emergency Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Sec. 122. Employment Impact and Worker Assistance

        (a) Carrying out his responsibilities under this Act, the 
    President shall take into consideration and shall minimize, to the 
    fullest extent practicable, any adverse impact of actions taken 
    pursuant to this Act upon employment. All agencies of government 
    shall cooperate fully under their existing statutory authority to 
    minimize any such adverse impact.
        (b) On or before the sixtieth day following the date of 
    enactment of this Act, the President shall report to the Congress 
    concerning the present and prospective impact of energy shortages 
    upon employment. Such report shall contain an assessment of the 
    adequacy of existing programs in meeting the needs of adversely 
    affected workers and shall include legislative recommendations 
    which the President deems appropriate to meet such needs, including 
    revisions in the unemployment insurance laws.
        Mr. [Ronald A.] Sarasin [of Connecticut]: 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. Sarasin to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 44, after 
        line 12, insert the following:
            (b) The President is authorized and directed to make grants 
        to States to provide to any individual unemployed, if such 
        unemployment resulted from the administration and enforcement 
        of this Act and was in no way due to the fault of such 
        individual, such assistance as the President deems appropriate 
        while such individual is unemployed. Such assistance as a State 
        shall provide under such a grant shall be available to 
        individuals not otherwise eligible for unemployment 
        compensation and individuals who have otherwise exhausted their 
        eligibility for such unemployment compensation, and shall 
        continue as long as unemployment in the area caused by such 
        administration and enforcement continues (but not less than six 
        months) or until the individual is reemployed in a suitable 
        position, but not longer than two years after the individual 
        becomes eligible for such assistance. Such assistance shall not 
        exceed the maximum weekly amount under the unemployment 
        compensation program of the State in which the employment loss 
        occurred. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of

[[Page 8050]]

    order against the amendment, that the amendment is not germane to 
    the bill.
        I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane to 
    the section. . . .
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, my point in 
    supporting the point of order raised by the gentleman from Michigan 
    is that the Unemployment Compensation Act is not being amended in 
    any place in this act. The gentleman in the well is attempting to 
    amend the Unemployment Compensation Act.
        I happen to be rather familiar with it; it is one of the acts 
    that is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    and I am sure it is not within the scope of this act at all. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: . . . As the Chair will note, the bill in 
    subsection (a) of section 122, which is amended, provides for the 
    President taking certain actions to minimize the impact of the 
    adverse effect of the act. In the second part, the President is 
    directed to perform a study.
        As the Chair will note, the amendment offered by my good friend 
    from Connecticut--and I commend him for offering it; it is an 
    amendment that appears to have a great deal of merit--but I would 
    point out it is not an amendment which is germane, because the 
    amendment directs the President and the States to provide for 
    individual unemployed and to make payments for unemployment.
        It relates to the eligibility of unemployed for compensation 
    and Federal grants which in turn support the unemployment 
    compensation, and also authorizes appropriations, which is not 
    authorized in the act before us.
        It is for those reasons, since some of the provisions are 
    carried elsewhere in the bill or in the section before us, it is 
    obvious the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Sarasin: . . . On line 7, page 44, the first section of 
    paragraph A, it says:

            Carrying out his responsibilities under this Act, the 
        President shall take into consideration and shall minimize, to 
        the fullest extent practicable, any adverse impact of actions 
        taken pursuant to this Act upon employment.

        It is the responsibility of various agencies. I do not see that 
    this amendment I have offered to authorize the President to make 
    grants to States providing assistance to any individual unemployed, 
    if such unemployment is resulting from the administration and 
    enforcement of this act, is nongermane.
        It would seem to me that it certainly is a logical extension of 
    what is in here within section 122 as it now stands.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair will state that the section sought to be amended by 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    Sarasin), as he has just read it, directs the President, in 
    carrying out his responsibilities under this act, that he shall 
    take into consideration and shall minimize, to the fullest extent 
    practicable, any adverse impact of actions taken pursuant to this 
    act upon unemployment.
        The amendment does not amend another act. It seeks to provide 
    an authorization for a specific approach for the carrying out of 
    the broad authority bestowed upon the President to ``minimize'' 
    adverse impact of actions taken under the act.

[[Page 8051]]

        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order, and, under 
    clause 6 of rule XXIII, recognizes the gentleman for 5 minutes.

Mandate for Restrictive Policy in Purchase of Government Vehicles--
    Amendment Imposing Numerical Limitation

Sec. 10.11 To a portion of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    directing the president to require all government agencies to use 
    economy model motor vehicles, an amendment limiting the number of 
    ``fuel inefficient'' passenger motor vehicles which the government 
    could purchase was held germane as a further delineation of the 
    broad restriction imposed by the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(8) during consideration of H.R. 11450 
(9) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, 
of Missouri, overruled a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 41722, 41723, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. The Energy Emergency Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: 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. Anderson of California to the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Staggers: On page 31, line 21, strike out the period and insert 
        the following:'', Provided, That the aggregate number of fuel 
        inefficient passenger motor vehicles purchased by all executive 
        agencies in fiscal year 1975 may not exceed 30 per centum of 
        the aggregate number of passenger motor vehicles purchased by 
        all executive agencies in such year; and the aggregate number 
        of fuel inefficient passenger motor vehicles purchased by all 
        executive agencies in fiscal year 1976 may not exceed 10 per 
        centum of the aggregate number of passenger motor vehicles 
        purchased by all executive agencies in such year. For purposes 
        of this subsection, the term ``fuel inefficient passenger motor 
        vehicle'' for fiscal year 1975 means an automobile which does 
        not achieve at least seventeen miles per gallon as certified by 
        the Department of Transportation; for fiscal year 1976, and 
        thereafter, the term ``fuel inefficient passenger motor 
        vehicle'' means an automobile which does not achieve at least 
        twenty miles per gallon, as certified by the Department of 
        Transportation.''. . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    I make a point of order against this amendment, inasmuch as it 
    deals with the specifications of certain equipment on American-made 
    automobiles, and it is not under the jurisdiction of this 
    committee, nor under the jurisdiction of any committee of the 
    House. . . .
        Mr. Anderson of California: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would just 
    like to read a portion of the present bill. All we are doing is 
    extending the provisions of the bill.

[[Page 8052]]

        The present bill provides as follows:

            As an example to the rest of our Nation's automobile users, 
        the President of the United States shall take such action as is 
        necessary to require all agencies of government, where 
        practical, to use economy model motor vehicles.

        Mr. Chairman, we are simply amending and extending the same 
    provision.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair points out that taken as an isolated point, the 
    argument made by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill) 
    might have some validity, but the answer made by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Anderson) is in direct response to the point. The 
    subject is in the bill.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Creating Task Force To Investigate Relationship Between 
    Environmental Pollution and Certain Diseases--Amendment Directing 
    Task Force To Consider Impact of Personal Health Habits

Sec. 10.12 To that portion of a bill creating a task force to 
    investigate the relationship between environmental pollution and 
    cancer and heart and lung diseases, an amendment directing that 
    task force to consider the impact of personal health habits, 
    including cigarette smoking, on that relationship was held germane.

    On Sept. 15, 1976,(10) during consideration of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1976 (11) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order against an amendment, 
demonstrating that to a proposition general in scope an amendment more 
limited and specific may be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 30496-98, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.R. 10498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 310. Title I of the Clean Air Act as amended by sections 
    107 and 108 is further amended by adding the following new subtitle 
    at the end thereof:

    ``Subtitle D--Prevention of Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung 
                                  Disease

      ``PREVENTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER AND HEART AND LUNG DISEASE

        ``Sec. 170. (a) Not later than three months after date of 
    enactment of this section, there shall be established a Task Force 
    on Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease (hereinafter 
    referred to as the ``Task Force''). The Task Force shall include 
    representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
    National Cancer Institute, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
    Institute, and the National Institute on Environmental Health 
    Sciences, and shall be chaired by the Administrator (or his 
    delegate).

[[Page 8053]]

        ``(b) The Task Force shall--
        ``(1) develop and implement a comprehensive research program to 
    determine and quantify the relationship between environmental 
    pollution and human cancer and heart and lung disease;
        ``(2) make recommendations for comprehensive strategies to 
    reduce or eliminate the risks of cancer (or such diseases) 
    associated with environmental pollution;
        ``(3) engage in such other research and recommend such other 
    measures as may be appropriate to prevent or reduce the incidence 
    of environmentally related cancer and heart and lung diseases. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Gary] Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Page 331, 
        line 24, strike out the closing quotation marks and period and 
        insert:
            ``(c) In developing and implementing its research program 
        and making its recommendations, the Task Force shall consider 
        the impact of personal health habits, including tabacco 
        smoking, on the relationship between environmental pollution 
        and human cancer and heart and lung disease.''.
            Renumber succeeding sections accordingly. . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: . . . [T]his 
    amendment would apply not to the standards and regulations that are 
    being promulgated by the Administrator of EPA, that is in regard to 
    the ambient air quality standards, but it would apply to 
    agricultural products such as tobacco. Thus I make the point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane to the title or to the bill 
    as written in that it imposes additional duties and functions on 
    the Administrator and directs him to make regulations on certain 
    products which are not within the purview of this bill and also 
    products which are generally thought to be under the jurisdiction 
    of other committees. . . .
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: . . . This amendment deals with the 
    section of the bill which mandates a comprehensive study, and I 
    read from the section of the bill numbered section 170 which 
    indicates as follows:

            Not later than three months after date of enactment of this 
        section, there shall be established a Task Force on 
        Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease . . .

        On page 331 the bill goes on and some of the directions to the 
    task force are stated in this way:

            The Task Force shall--
            (1) develop and implement a comprehensive research program 
        to determine and quantify the relationship between 
        environmental pollution and human cancer and heart and lung 
        disease;

        Paragraph (2) indicates once again as follows, that the task 
    force shall:

            (2) make recommendations for comprehensive strategies to 
        reduce or eliminate the risks of cancer (or such diseases) 
        associated with environmental pollution;

        Also paragraph (3) of the bill says that the task force shall:

            (3) engage in such other research and recommend such other 
        measures as may be appropriate to prevent or reduce the 
        incidence of environmentally related cancer and heart and lung 
        diseases;

        Also paragraph (4) once again mentions appropriate studies and 
    says they

[[Page 8054]]

    shall be made to evaluate environmentally related cancer and heart 
    and lung diseases.
        Last week when we discussed the bill before the House I brought 
    up the fact that there appears to be a relationship between the use 
    of tobacco and habits such as smoking and the interrelationship of 
    environmental pollutants with the incidence of cancer. I see no way 
    in which a comprehensive study could be made without the outright 
    assumption by the Congress at this point that there is an 
    interrelationship because of the fact that there appear to be 
    statistics showing some relationship, and I do not think this 
    amendment directs the task force to do anything other than to be as 
    comprehensive as possible and not to ignore this facet. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A point of order has been made against an amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers). The amendment inserts 
    the following language:

            (c) In developing and implementing its research program and 
        making its recommendations, the Task Force shall consider the 
        impact of personal health habits, including tobacco smoking, on 
        the relationship between environmental pollution and human 
        cancer and heart and lung disease.

        The section which this seeks to amend is entitled ``Prevention 
    of Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease.'' This section 
    imposes upon a task force a duty to make certain general findings.
        It occurs to the Chair that the amendment is a specific 
    proposition which is germane to a more general requirement imposed 
    within the bill itself and that it is within the categories of 
    findings which must be made by the task force.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order and does overrule the point of order.

Bill Providing Loan Guarantees to All States--Amendment Concerning 
    Loans to One State

Sec. 10.13 A general proposition may be amended by a related 
    proposition which is more limited or restricted in nature; thus, to 
    a bill providing loan guarantee programs for all states and 
    subdivisions, an amendment in the nature of a substitute providing 
    direct loans and limited to New York was held germane.

    The proceedings of Dec. 2, 1975, relating to H.R. 10481, the 
Intergovernmental Emergency Assistance Act, are discussed in 6.4, 
supra.

Comprehensive Grant Program--Restriction on State Funding Until 
    Specific Program Has Been Put in Operation

Sec. 10.14 To a bill authorizing the funding of a variety of

[[Page 8055]]

    programs which satisfy several stated requirements, in order to 
    accomplish a general purpose, an amendment conditioning the 
    availability of those funds upon implementation by their recipients 
    of another program related to that general purpose is germane; 
    thus, to a bill providing a comprehensive grant program for 
    improvement of state and local law enforcement and criminal justice 
    systems, including within its scope the subject of welfare of law 
    enforcement officers, an amendment requiring states to enact a law 
    enforcement officers' grievance system as a prerequisite to 
    receiving grants under the bill was held to come within the general 
    subject of law enforcement improvement covered by the bill and was 
    held germane.

    During consideration of the Law Enforcement Assistance 
authorization bill (13) in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 18, 1973,(14) the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 8152.
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 20099-101, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Biaggi: Page 15, line 8, strike 
        out ``and''.
            Page 15, immediately after line 8, insert the following:
            ``(13) provide a system for the receipt, investigation, and 
        determination of complaints and grievances submitted by law 
        enforcement officers of the State, units of general local 
        government and public agencies. . . .

        ``Part J--Law Enforcement Officers'' Grievance System and Bill 
                                   of Rights

            ``Sec. 701. Beginning one year after the date of enactment 
        of this section, no grant under part B or part C of this title 
        shall be made to any State, unit of general local government or 
        public agency unless such State, unit of general local 
        government, or public agency has established and put into 
        operation a system for the receipt, investigation, and 
        determination of complaints and grievances submitted by law 
        enforcement officers of the State, units of general local 
        government, and public agencies operating within the State and 
        has enacted into law a ``law enforcement officers'' bill of 
        rights' which includes in its coverage all law enforcement 
        officers of the State, units of general local government and 
        public agencies operating within the State.

                                ``Bill of Rights

            ``The law enforcement officers' bill of rights shall 
        provide law enforcement officers of such State, units of 
        general local government, and public agencies statutory 
        protection for certain rights enjoyed by other citizens. The 
        bill of rights shall provide, but shall not be limited to, the 
        following:
            ``(a) Political Activity by Law Enforcement Officers.--
        Except when on duty or when acting in his official capacity, no 
        law enforcement officer shall be prohibited from engaging in

[[Page 8056]]

        political activity or be denied the right to refrain from 
        engaging in political activity. . . .
            ``(i) In addition to any procedures available to law 
        enforcement officers regarding the filing of complaints and 
        grievances as established in this section, any law enforcement 
        officer may institute an action in a civil court to obtain 
        redress of such grievances.''. . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is based on the nongermaneness of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York. . . .
        On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, on germaneness, this 
    embarks on an entirely new direction. It establishes rights and 
    duties for law enforcement officers and personnel which are not a 
    part of the thrust of the LEAA law. . . .
        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: . . . The fact of the matter 
    is that this is consistent with the proposal being made today, as 
    to establishing guidelines. Guidelines have been established in the 
    past. . . .
        This is a question of civil rights as much as any other 
    question is, as it relates to anybody else.
        So far as germaneness is concerned, I obviously have to 
    disagree with the gentleman. We have many guidelines already 
    established. This will establish another guideline. There is no 
    imposition here on any State or political subdivision. It is a 
    prerogative they can exercise.
        If they seek Federal funds they must comply. Right now the same 
    obligation is imposed upon them. If they seek Federal funds they 
    must comply with the civil rights law and all the prohibitions we 
    have imposed upon them. All we are doing is including the law-
    enforcement officers. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As indicated on page 4 of the committee report, a fundamental 
    purpose of H.R. 8152 is to authorize Federal funding of approved 
    State plans for law enforcement and criminal justice improvement 
    programs. The bill attempts to address ``all aspects of the 
    criminal justice and law enforcement system--not merely police, and 
    not merely the purchase of police hardware' and requires State 
    plans to develop ``a total and integrated analysis of the problems 
    regarding the law enforcement and criminal justice system within 
    the State.''
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would 
    require that State plans submitted for LEAA approval contain, in 
    addition to the 13 requirements spelled out in the committee bill 
    as amended, provisions for a system of receipt, investigation, and 
    determination of grievances submitted by State and local law 
    enforcement officers. The second amendment would insert on page 52 
    a provision spelling out a ``law enforcement officers' bill of 
    rights'' which must be enacted into law by any State seeking LEAA 
    grants under that act in order to be eligible for such grants.
        The committee bill seeks to establish a comprehensive approach 
    to the financing of programs aimed at improving State and local law 
    enforcement systems. Included in this comprehen

[[Page 8057]]

    sive approach is the subject of the welfare of law enforcement 
    officers as it relates to their official duties, including their 
    salaries, equipment, et cetera. The issue of a grievance system for 
    law enforcement officers is within the general subject of the 
    improvement of State and local law enforcement systems, and the 
    amendments are, therefore, germane to the pending bill.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Reorganization of Government Agencies--Amendment 
    Relating To One Agency

Sec. 10.15 To a bill authorizing the President to submit to the 
    Congress plans for the reorganization of agencies of the 
    government, an amendment was held to be germane which provided in 
    part that ``in the first such plan submitted the President shall 
    include an agency wherein shall be consolidated . . . all functions 
    relating to relief and rehabilitation of foreign countries,'' and 
    which required the President to transfer to such agency certain 
    functions of specified agencies and offices.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill(16) was under consideration 
which provided in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 4129 (Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments).
17. See 91 Cong. Rec. 9419, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 4, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 4. Any reorganization plan, transmitted by the President 
    under section 3-- . . .
        (3) shall make provisions for the transfer or other disposition 
    of the records, property (including office equipment), and 
    personnel affected by such transfer, consolidation, or abolition . 
    . .
        (5) shall make provisions for winding up the affairs of any 
    agency abolished.

    An amendment was offered (18) as described above. Mr. 
William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill and not germane to the 
section under consideration. In the course of the debate on the point 
of order, he stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 9420 (Dirksen amendment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This amendment was never presented to the committee. It is a 
    most far-reaching amendment. . . .
        Moreover . . . this amendment deals with . . . agencies 
    established . . . under the First War Powers Act. The bill under 
    consideration does not provide for the consideration of those 
    agencies. We deal with the permanent executive agencies of the 
    Government, rather than the war agencies of the Government.

[[Page 8058]]

    Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, responding to the point of 
order, stated:

        The first point is that the amendment deals with nothing except 
    executive agencies. The second point is that on page 2 of the 
    pending bill there is this language:

            To create, coordinate, and consolidate agencies and 
        functions of the Government as nearly as can be according to 
        major purposes.

        This is an effort to coordinate activities in consonance with a 
    major purpose.

    The Chairman(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 9420, 9421, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 4, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment in comparison with 
    language contained in the pending bill and invites attention to the 
    fact that under ``Definition of Agencies'', as provided in section 
    7 on page 9 of the pending bill, it is observed:

            When used in this act the term ``agency'' means any 
        executive department, commission, independent establishment, 
        corporation wholly or partly owned by the United States which 
        is an instrumentality of the United States, board, bureau, 
        division, service, office, officer, authority, or 
        administration, in the executive branch of the Government.

        The Chair is of the opinion that the agencies enumerated in the 
    amendment would come within the scope of the definition stated in 
    the bill to which the Chair has invited attention. The Chair feels 
    that the amendment is germane, and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Government Employees in Executive Branch--Amendment Relating to 
    Specific Department

Sec. 10.16 To that title of a government reorganization bill 
    authorizing inclusion in the civil service of officers and 
    employees of the government, and exempting certain positions from 
    the operation of the title's provisions, an amendment prescribing 
    standards to be followed in making selections for positions in the 
    Post Office Department was held to be germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a government 
reorganization bill,(1) the following amendment was offered: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. S. 3331 (Select Committee on Government Operations).
 2. 83 Cong. Rec. 5103, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 8, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Claude A.] Fuller [of Arkansas]: Page 
    77, line 7, after the period at the end of the sentence, insert a 
    new paragraph, as follows:
        (a) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, 
    hereafter all vacancies in the offices of postmasters of

[[Page 8059]]

    the first, second, and third classes shall be filled as hereinafter 
    provided, by appointment by the President, by and with the advice 
    and consent of the Senate, and such postmasters so appointed shall 
    hold their offices for a term of 4 years. Whenever a vacancy occurs 
    in the office of postmaster of the first, second, or third class . 
    . . [the President] may appoint a classified civil-service employee 
    serving in the post office in which the vacancy occurs and having 
    qualified in a noncompetitive examination held by the Civil Service 
    Commission, to fill the vacancy, or the President . . . may request 
    the Civil Service Commission to hold an open competitive 
    examination and the Civil Service Commission shall certify the 
    results thereof to the President who shall appoint, by and with the 
    advice and consent of the Senate, one of the three highest 
    eligibles to fill the vacancy. . . .

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

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the title to 
    which it is offered or to the bill itself. The title refers to the 
    civil-service classification. The amendment deals with appointments 
    not made by the civil service but made on a patronage basis. . . .

    The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 4. 83 Cong. Rec. 5104, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 8, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This title deals generally with the personnel of the executive 
    departments of the Government. . . .
        The title now under consideration authorizes the covering into 
    the civil service of officers and employees of the Government, as 
    well as exempting from the operations of the provisions of the 
    title certain other positions. The pending amendment pertains to 
    the appointment of personnel in the Post Office Department and 
    provides the standards to be followed in making selections for 
    positions in that Department.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment is germane to 
    the title. . . .

Bill Providing for Methods of Disposition of Surplus Government 
    Property--Amendment Relating to Specific Kind of Property

Sec. 10.17 To that paragraph of a bill providing for methods of 
    disposition of surplus government property, an amendment providing 
    that certain property appropriated for educational use be disposed 
    of under regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Education 
    was held germane.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
which related to disposal of surplus government property and which 
stated in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 5125 (Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments).
 6. See 90 Cong. Rec. 7123, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 18, 1944.

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

[[Page 8060]]

                           Methods of Disposition

        Sec. 10. (a) Wherever any Government agency is authorized to 
    dispose of property under this act, then, notwithstanding the 
    provisions of any other law but subject to the provisions of this 
    act, the agency may dispose of such property by sale, exchange [and 
    the like].

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of New York]: On 
    page 32, after line 6, insert the following:
        Surplus property that is appropriate for educational use . . . 
    may be transferred to the United States Office of Education for 
    allocation . . . to the public schools and educational 
    institutions. . . .

    Mr. John Taber, of New York, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to that part of the bill. The Chairman 
(7) overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Robert E. Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Making Appropriations for Public Works--Amendment To Make 
    Appropriation for Post Office Buildings

Sec. 10.18 To a bill making appropriations for work relief and public 
    works, including provisions relating to highways, roads, public 
    buildings, and other facilities, an amendment proposing an 
    appropriation for obtaining sites and erecting public buildings for 
    post offices was held germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of the Work Relief and 
Public Works Appropriations of 1939,(8) an amendment was 
offered (9) as described above. A point of order was raised 
against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.J. Res. 326 (Committee on Appropriations).
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 7304, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 16, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: [The amendment] provides 
    for a project that calls for the purchase of land, which does not 
    furnish employment of people. It is not within the purpose of the 
    concepts of the bill; it is not germane to the general principles 
    of the bill.

    The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the present bill covers a very 
    broad field. For example, paragraph (b) of section 1 relates to 
    highways . . . public buildings, parks, and other recreational 
    facilities, including buildings thereon, public utilities, electric 
    transmission and distribution lines or systems to serve persons in 
    rural areas, and so forth, and in another section of the bill it 
    provides for the allocation of funds for public-works purposes. The 
    amendment . . . provides for further alloca

[[Page 8061]]

    tions, the administration to be carried on through the agency 
    provided for in the pending bill. The Chair is of the opinion that 
    the amendment is germane. . . .

Provisions Describing Requirements for Receiving Social Security 
    Benefits--Amendment Adding Requirement

Sec. 10.19 To that title of a bill containing miscellaneous provisions 
    and describing several requirements for receiving benefits under 
    the Social Security Act, an amendment adding another requirement 
    was held germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(11) to amend the Social Security Act, the following 
amendment was offered:  (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 6635 (Committee on Ways and Means).
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 6969, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 10, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: 
    Page 104, line 3, insert a new section, as follows:
        Sec. 904. Beginning with January 1, 1941, no provisions of the 
    Social Security Act shall be operative or effective for foreign-
    born aliens who have not taken out their full American citizenship 
    papers by that date. . . .

    Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman (13) 
overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Authorizing Construction of Channel as Part of Intracoastal 
    Waterway--Amendment To Authorize Additional Channel

Sec. 10.20 To a bill authorizing construction of a pipe line and 
    navigable barge channel across Florida as part of the Intracoastal 
    Waterway, an amendment proposing to construct another channel as 
    part of the same Intracoastal Waterway was held to be germane.

    In the 77th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration authorizing construction of a pipe line and navigable 
barge channel across Florida. An amendment was offered (15) 
as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 6999 (Committee on Rivers and Harbors).
15. 88 Cong. Rec. 5305, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 5306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman,(17) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John M. Costello (Calif.).

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

[[Page 8062]]

        [T]he amendment provides an additional location for an 
    additional canal. It is, however, part of the same waterway, as the 
    gentleman from Florida has so well pointed out, part of the 
    Intracoastal Waterway. The amendment simply provides for a second 
    connecting link in the waterways. The Chair is therefore 
    constrained . . . to overrule the point of order.

Bill To Strengthen Relations With Greece and Turkey in Diverse Ways--
    Amendment Adding Negotiations Relating to Opium Trade

Sec. 10.21 A section of a bill designed to strengthen the United 
    States-North Atlantic Treaty Organization relationships with Turkey 
    and Greece in diverse ways by promoting a peaceful solution to the 
    Cyprus dispute, by easing the embargo on arms shipments to Turkey, 
    by requesting negotiations with Greece to determine its economic 
    and military needs, and by providing refugee assistance to Cyprus, 
    was held sufficiently broad in scope to admit as germane an 
    amendment requesting negotiations with Turkey to prevent diversion 
    of opium poppy into illicit channels.

    During consideration of S. 2230 (18) in the Committee of 
the Whole on Oct. 2, 1975,(19) the Chair overruled a point 
of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. A bill authorizing appropriations for the Board for International 
        Broadcasting for fiscal 1976, and to promote improved relations 
        between the United States, Greece and Turkey.
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 31492, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rangel: Page 4, line 9, strike out 
    ``(2)'' and all that follows thereafter up to and including line 15 
    on page 4, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        ``(C) the President is requested to initiate discussions with 
    the Government of Turkey concerning effective means of preventing 
    the diversion of opium poppy into illicit channels.
        ``(2) The President is directed to submit to the Speaker of the 
    House of Representatives and to the Foreign Relations and 
    Appropriations Committees of the Senate within sixty days after the 
    enactment of this Act a report on discussions conducted under 
    subsections (b)(1)(B) and (C), together with his recommendations 
    for economic and military assistance to Greece for the fiscal year 
    1976.''
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York has presented an 
    amendment similar to one that was defeated earlier today. . . .
        [The] amendment, Mr. Chairman, I submit is not in order 
    because, as I

[[Page 8063]]

    said in the argument on the point of order raised earlier, it 
    violates rule XVI, clause 7 of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives. In the precedents cited under rule XVI, clause 7 
    there is contained a perfect example to sustain this point of 
    order. On December 11, 1973, the Chair ruled that an amendment to 
    the bill authorizing military assistance to Israel and funds for 
    the U.N. emergency force in the Middle East, which expressed the 
    sense of Congress that the President conduct negotiations to obtain 
    a peace treaty in the Middle East and the resumption of diplomatic 
    and trade relations between the Arab nations and the United States, 
    was out of order.
        This amendment attempts to address issues which are equally 
    dissimilar. The title of the bill clearly states that the endeavor 
    is to promote improved relations between the United States, Greece, 
    and Turkey, to assist in the solution of the refugee problem on 
    Cyprus, and to otherwise strengthen the North Atlantic Alliance. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Charles B.] Rangel [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    previous point of order was ruled in favor of the gentleman 
    (20) but that related to an amendment to an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 8.23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Here we have an amendment to the bill which clearly in section 
    2 indicates that this bill is to improve and harmonize the 
    relations among the allies of the United States and between the 
    United States and its allies in the interest of mutual defense and 
    national security. . . .
        [The] amendment indicates that the Congress is directing the 
    President of the United States to initiate discussions with the 
    Government of Greece for the purpose of determining their military 
    and economic needs.
        It appears to me that there is no more serious question that is 
    affecting our urban communities than drugs. This amendment merely 
    directs the President to initiate discussions with the Government 
    of Turkey for the purpose of or concerning the effective means of 
    preventing the diversion of opium poppies into this country.
        It is the same language. We are asking the President of the 
    United States to initiate discussions with the Government of Greece 
    in order to determine their needs. So I believe this is germane to 
    the bill. I have discussed it with other members of the committee 
    and I believe they share with me in my understanding of the germane 
    question.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    question is whether or not the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Rangel) is germane to the text of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair observes on page 4 of the bill, subsection (2), the 
    following language:

            (B) the President is requested to initiate discussions with 
        the Government of Greece to determine the most urgent needs of 
        Greece for economic and military assistance.
            (2) The President is directed to submit to the Speaker of 
        the House of Representatives and to the Foreign Relations and 
        Appropriations Committees of the Senate within sixty days after 
        the enactment of this Act a report on discussions conducted 
        under subsection (b)(1)(B), together with his recommendations 
        for

[[Page 8064]]

        economics and military assistance to Greece for the fiscal year 
        1976.

        The language of the gentleman's amendment is similar to 
    paragraph (B).

        Now, as to the germaneness of the amendment to the text of 
    section 2 of the bill the principal purposes of that section are 
    stated in paragraphs 1 through 6 on page 5 of the committee report, 
    and they are fairly diverse in scope to the extent that they all 
    have as their primary purpose continuation of our NATO relationship 
    with Turkey and Greece. Viewed in that context, and in the context 
    of section 2, the Chair feels that the amendment of the gentleman 
    from New York adds a further requirement of negotiations to that 
    already contained in section 2, which does not go beyond the 
    purposes outlined in the bill.

        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order and holds 
    that the amendment is germane to section 2.


 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 11. Amendment Adding to Two or More Propositions of Same Class

    A proposition concerning a number of subjects may be amended by the 
addition of another subject of the same class. An early example of this 
principle can be found in Cannon's Precedents (2) where to a 
bill admitting several Territories into the Union, an amendment adding 
another Territory was held germane. Similarly, where a bill covers two 
or more subjects, a third subject of a related nature is in order as an 
amendment thereto.(3) As an example, where a bill defines 
several unlawful acts, an amendment proposing to include another 
unlawful act of the same class is germane.(4) Similarly, to 
a bill bringing two new categories within the coverage of existing law, 
an amendment to include a third category, of the same class, was held 
to be germane.(5)

 2. See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 5838.
 3. See Sec. 11.24, infra.
 4. See Sec. 11.21, infra.
 5. See Sec. 11.16, infra.

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

Title Containing Diverse ``Miscellaneous'' Provisions--Amendment 
    Imposing Flat Percentage Limitation on Funds Authorized in Bill

Sec. 11.1 While the heading of a title of a bill as ``miscellaneous'' 
    does not necessarily permit amendments to that title which are not 
    germane thereto, the inclusion of sufficiently diverse provisions 
    in such title may permit further amendment which in effect need 
    only be germane to the bill as a whole; accordingly, where the 
    final title of a foreign aid bill as perfected

[[Page 8065]]

    contained a variety of unrelated provisions, such as provisions 
    establishing effective dates for all portions of the bill, 
    provisions stating requirements that authority to make payments in 
    the bill be subject to advance appropriations, as well as 
    provisions postponing the submission date for a report on foreign 
    service personnel, relating to human rights reports, imposing 
    language requirements for personnel in the foreign service, and 
    prohibiting foreign aid to certain countries, an amendment limiting 
    the expenditure of funds authorized in each title of the bill to a 
    certain percentage was held germane. On Apr. 10, 
    1979,(6) during consideration of H.R. 3324, the 
    International Development Cooperation Act of 1979, the following 
    amendments had been agreed to, whereupon a further amendment was 
    offered by Mr. Robert Bauman, of Maryland, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 125 Cong. Rec. 8032, 8034-37, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

                              effective dates

        Sec. 601. The amendments made by titles I, II, III, and V and 
    the provisions of title IV shall take effect on October 1, 1979.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a technical amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 46, immediately 
        after line 9, insert the following new section:

                            unified personnel system

            Sec. 602. Section 401(a) of the International Development 
        and Food Assistance Act of 1978 is amended by striking out 
        ``March 15'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``May 1''.

            (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective 
        as of March 15, 1979. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 46, immediately 
        after Section 601, insert the following new section:

                            budget act requirements

            Sec. 603. (a) The authority to make payments which is 
        provided in sections 405(a), 406(a), 406(c), 407(e), 408(d), 
        and 412 of this Act shall be effective only to the extent that 
        the budget authority to make such payments is provided for in 
        advance by appropriation Acts.

            (b) Appropriations may not be made for the fiscal year 1979 
        under the authority of section 501(d). . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino [of 
        California]: Page

[[Page 8066]]

        46, immediately after section 603, insert the following new 
        section:

                              human rights reports

            Sec. 604. Paragraph (1) of section 116(d) of the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) the status of internationally recognized human 
        rights, within the meaning of subsection (a)--
            ``(A) in countries that receive assistance under this part, 
        and
            ``(B) in all countries which are members of the United 
        Nations and which are not otherwise the subject of a human 
        rights report under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph or under 
        section 502B(b); and''. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: 
        Page 46, after section 604, insert the following:

                foreign language and area knowledge requirement

            Sec. 605. The heads of affected departments and agencies, 
        in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall review every 
        personnel position in the U.S. Government involving service in 
        foreign countries which are authorized by this Act, the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961, the Agricultural Trade Development and 
        Assistance Act of 1954, the Peace Corps Act, or the Arms Export 
        Control Act, whose incumbent should have a useful knowledge of 
        the language or dialect and the history and culture common to 
        such country. Each position reviewed and designated as 
        requiring language competence and area knowledge shall, within 
        two years after enactment of this Act, be filled only by an 
        individual with appropriate language and area knowledge, except 
        that the heads of affected agencies and departments, in 
        consultation with the Department of State, may make exceptions 
        to this requirement when special or emergency conditions exist. 
        The Secretary, in consultation with the heads of other affected 
        departments and agencies, shall establish foreign language and 
        area studies standards for officers and employees of the U.S. 
        Government who are assigned duties involving service abroad 
        under such Acts. The heads of affected departments and agencies 
        shall arrange for appropriate language training or area studies 
        for such officers and employees. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 46, immediately after 
        line 9, insert the following new section:

            prohibition on assistance to vietnam, cambodia, and cuba

            Sec. 606. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
        this Act, funds authorized to be appropriated in this Act shall 
        not be used for any form of aid, either by monetary payment or 
        by the sale or transfer of any goods of any nature to the 
        Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Cambodia, or Cuba.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The Zablocki substitute for the Ashbrook amendment was agreed to, 
        and the Ashbrook amendment as amended was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 46, line 7 after 
        Sec. 601 insert (a) and add the following new paragraph:
            ``(b) Provided, That, No more than 90 percent of the funds 
        authorized to be appropriated by each title of this act shall 
        be expended, excluding those funds authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 111, all of title II and section 
        302.''. . .

[[Page 8067]]

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    listened to the Clerk read the amendment, and I read the amendment, 
    it appears that the amendment provides a limitation on 
    authorization of funds in section 111, all of title II, and section 
    302.
        I believe the gentleman's amendment, therefore, is not in order 
    and is subject to a point of order since he is authorizing to be 
    appropriated by each title no more than 90 percent of the funds. . 
    . .
        Mr. Bauman: . . . The amendment is germane to title VI. Title 
    VI clearly refers to the effective dates of all titles, and this 
    amendment simply has the effect, with three exceptions, of cutting 
    by 10 percent the amount of the funds made effective on those 
    dates.
        Mr. Chairman, it is a simple cut in funding. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: If I may be heard further, Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman's amendment is to title VI, section 601.
        Section 601 sets forth the effective dates of the various 
    titles in the legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland provides a 
    percentage limitation on funds authorized to be appropriated by the 
    bill now pending, with the exception of certain specified sections 
    of authorized funds. Title VI of the bill, entitled ``Miscellaneous 
    Provisions'' has by amendment already been substantially expanded 
    in its scope, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Maryland need be germane only to the title as a whole, since the 
    bill is being read by title.
        Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair, and the ruling of 
    the Chair, that the amendment is germane to title VI, and the point 
    of order is overruled.

Bill Amending Bankruptcy Act To Provide Procedure for Adjustment of 
    Municipal Debt--Amendment Defining Certificates of Indebtedness 
    Under Bill as Among Those Eligible for Federal Guarantees

Sec. 11.2 To a section of a bill defining certain terms used in the 
    bill, an amendment further defining other terms used in the bill 
    may be germane; thus, to a bill amending the Bankruptcy Act to 
    provide a judicial procedure for the adjustment of debts of public 
    municipalities, and authorizing courts to issue certificates of 
    indebtedness under general conditions determined by the courts to 
    assure their marketability, an amendment defining such certificates 
    to permit federal guarantee of principal and interest was held 
    germane as a further definition relating to a specific power being 
    added to those general powers already contained in the bill in 
    order to accomplish a

[[Page 8068]]

    fundamental purpose of the bill.

    On Dec. 9, 1975,(9) during consideration of H.R. 10624 
(a bill to revise chapter IX of the Bankruptcy Act), the Chair 
overruled a point of order against the amendment described above. The 
proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 39415, 39419, 39426, 39427, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Lindy Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 10624

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        chapter IX of the Bankruptcy Act is amended to read as follows:

                                  ``Chapter IX

          ``adjustment of debts of political subdivisions and public 
                         agencies and instrumentalities

            ``Sec. 81. Chapter IX Definitions.--As used in this chapter 
        the term--
            ``(1) `claim' includes all claims of whatever character 
        against the petitioner or the property of the petitioner, 
        whether or not such claims are provable under section 68 of 
        this Act and whether secured or unsecured, liquidated or 
        unliquidated, fixed or contingent . . .
            ``(3) `creditor' means holder (including the United States, 
        a State, or subdivision of a State) of a claim against the 
        petitioner;
            ``(4) `claim affected by the plan' means claim as to which 
        the rights of its holder are proposed to be materially and 
        adversely adjusted or modified by the plan;
            ``(5) `debt' means claim allowable under section 88(a) . . 
        .
            ``(2) during the pendency of a case under this chapter, or 
        after the confirmation of the plan if the court has retained 
        jurisdiction under section 96(e), after hearing on such notice 
        as the court may prescribe and for cause shown, permit the 
        issuance of certificates of indebtedness for such consideration 
        as is approved by the court, upon such terms and conditions, 
        and with such security and priority in payment over existing 
        obligations, secured or unsecured, as in the particular case 
        may be equitable. . . 

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: Page 2, line 24, strike 
        out ``and''.
            Page 3, strike out the period in line 5 and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``; and''.
            Page 3, immediately after line 5, insert the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(10) `certificate of indebtedness' means certificate 
        issued under section 82(b)(2), the payment of interest and 
        principal of which may be guaranteed by the United States. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Madam Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the basis that the 
    amendment is not germane.
        The amendment is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI of the 
    Rules of the House. This amendment violates several well settled 
    principles of germaneness under a scheme that is no more than a 
    subterfuge.

[[Page 8069]]

        One traditional test of germaneness has been whether the 
    subject being dealt with is defined in the bill. This amendment 
    avoids that hurdle by inserting a self-serving circular substantive 
    definition of ``certificate of indebtedness.'' Putting the 
    substantive power to guarantee certificates of indebtedness in the 
    definition section of the bill cannot be relied upon as a basis for 
    establishing germaneness.
        Of greater significance, this amendment violates the principle 
    stated in chapter 28, section 3.21, of Deschler's Procedure. . . .
        Ms. Holtzman: . . . Just to clarify for the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Kindness), the amendment that has been issued simply deals 
    with the definition of the term ``certificate of indebtedness'' and 
    says, `` `certificate of indebtedness' means certificate issued 
    under section 82(b)(2), the payment of interest and principal of 
    which may be guaranteed by the United States.''. . .
        Madam Chairman, my amendment, which only deals with the 
    definition, is very germane to the bill.
        What this amendment does is to say that a certificate of 
    indebtedness, which is in essence a bond issued by a municipality 
    in bankruptcy, can be defined as a certificate which is guaranteed 
    by the United States.
        Madam Chairman, there is no question that the bill does deal 
    with a certificate of indebtedness. It is possible that there may 
    be guarantees issued by the United States under other statutes. 
    There is no question, therefore, that the definition which does 
    allow the certificate of indebtedness to include one that is 
    guaranteed is an amendment and a definition that is germane to the 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
    Holtzman) on the grounds that it is not germane to the bill.
        The amendment would add a new definition to those contained in 
    the bill, to define certificates of indebtedness which may be 
    issued under section 82 of the bill as a certificate which may be 
    guaranteed by the United States.
        The Chair would first state that the committee jurisdiction 
    over the subject of an amendment is not an exclusive test of 
    germaneness--Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 4.16. But in 
    any event, the pending amendment does not, in the form in which it 
    is offered, present an issue exclusively within another committee's 
    jurisdiction.
        As to the subject matter and methodology of the pending bill, 
    section 82 thereof allows the bankruptcy court to permit the 
    issuance of certificates of indebtedness, with such security and 
    priority of payment as may be equitable. The committee report, on 
    page 9, specifically states that the court can supply assurance of 
    payment on certificates of indebtedness, to make them marketable, 
    by permitting security and priority of payment on such 
    certificates.
        Therefore, the concept of bankruptcy procedures insuring the 
    marketability of certificates of indebtedness is included in the 
    bill. Defining a term used in the bill in such a way as to allow 
    the further option of Federal guarantees is germane to the 
    fundamental

[[Page 8070]]

    purposes of the bill, since the amendment merely adds to the 
    definition provision and grants to the bankruptcy court an 
    additional specific option to assure security for certificates of 
    indebtedness--a concept already contained in a more general form in 
    the bill.
        The Chair will distinguish the situation presented on December 
    2 and that presently before the Chair for determination. The 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Holtzman) 
    adds a further definition relating to specific power to those 
    general powers granted to the court in the bill; the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute which was offered to the 
    Intergovernmental Assistance Act the other day entirely substituted 
    one program for another. In the present instance, the appropriate 
    test is not whether the amendment proposes to substitute one method 
    for a closely allied method, but whether the amendment adds a 
    specific provision which is germane to the provisions already in 
    the reported bill.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Federal Energy Administration Act--Amendment Containing ``Definitions'' 
    Providing Exemption From Limitation on Authority

Sec. 11.3 To a section containing ``definitions'' of two terms referred 
    to in a bill, an amendment adding a further definition of other 
    terms contained in the bill (and whose effect was to provide an 
    exemption from a limitation on authority contained in another 
    section of the bill) was held to be germane.

    On Mar. 7, 1974,(11) during consideration of the Federal 
Energy Administration Act (H.R. 11793) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman John J. Flynt, Jr., of Georgia, held the following amendment 
to be germane to the section to which it was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 5640, 5641, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Louisiana: Page 30, line 
        15, strike out the period and insert, in lieu thereof, the 
        following: ``; and (3)) any reference to ``domestic crude 
        oil'', ``crude oil'', ``energy prices'', or ``profits'' shall 
        not be deemed to refer to royalty oil or the shares of oil 
        production owned by a State, State entity or political 
        subdivision of a State or to the prices of or revenues from 
        such royalty oil or shares.''. . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this matter is 
    not the subject matter within section 11. Section 11 is a 
    definition section. I realize that the gentleman is attempting to 
    define certain words, but it seems to me that the language he uses 
    is to add new authority or subtract authority from existing law. I 
    certainly understand the gentleman's concern, but these words 
    included are probably included in statutes. It seems to me

[[Page 8071]]

    what he is doing is expanding or changing laws which are now in 
    existence.
        Also, we do not know the effect of the amendment on the rules 
    of the House.
        Mr. Chairman, I feel it is inappropriate to this section and 
    nongermane and for that reason ask that it be ruled out of order.
        Mr. Long of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of order that what I am 
    attempting to do by this amendment is to define a term, which is 
    what I am attempting to do by this amendment. And it appears to me 
    to be completely within the purposes of this particular section to 
    do so, and it seems to me that it is a perfectly valid place and a 
    correct and specific place for an amendment of this type to be 
    introduced.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Long) has offered an 
    amendment to add a new subsection to section 11 of the bill, which 
    is the definitions section.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has made a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it refers to matters 
    not contained in the language of the section as written.
        The Chair has carefully examined both the section as it appears 
    in the bill, and also the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Long).
        The Chair will state that subsection (1) of section 11 reads as 
    follows:

            Any reference to ``function'' or ``functions'' shall be 
        deemed to include--

        and so forth.
        The amendment sought to be offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Long) starts as follows:

            Any reference to ``domestic crude oil'', ``crude oil'', 
        ``energy prices'', or ``profits'' shall not be deemed to refer 
        to--

        And so forth.
        The Chair is constrained to feel that if the language of one 
    subsection of the bill states clearly that certain references shall 
    be deemed to include references, and there are two sections already 
    appearing in the bill, the Chair is constrained to rule that the 
    adding of the third section falls clearly within the reasonable 
    interpretations of the word ``Definitions,'' and therefore holds 
    the amendment is germane and overrules the point of order.

Bill Defining and Promoting Development of Synthetic Fuels--Amendment 
    Adding Methane to Definition

Sec. 11.4 To a bill promoting the development of synthetic fuels, 
    defined as ``fuels and chemical feedstocks produced by the 
    conversion of renewable and nonrenewable resources,'' an amendment 
    including, within the definition of such fuels, methane produced 
    from coal seams, geopressurized brine, tight sands and devonian 
    shale was held germane as adding another subject to subjects of the 
    same class.

[[Page 8072]]

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (12) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 
1979,(13) Chairman Gerry E. Studds, of Massachusetts, 
overruled a point of order and held the following amendment to be 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 3930.
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 16687, 16688, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Timothy E.] Wirth [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wirth: Page 10, line 6, insert 
        after the first period the following new sentence: ``Such terms 
        also include methane produced from such sources as coal seams, 
        geopressurized brine, tight sands and Devonian shale.''.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]he bill deals with production of synthetic fuels. The 
    amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado, 
    deals with production from conventional sources of hydrocarbons 
    from within the Earth. Given that circumstance, regretfully, I 
    observe that the amendment does not conform with the requirements 
    of the rules relating to germaneness.
        The bill also deals with creating synthetic feedstocks. The 
    particular section, section 3, with which we deal at this time, 
    deals with synthetic feedstocks.
        The proposal that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Wirth) has 
    before us deals with a broad series of productions from 
    conventional or semiconventional sources of hydrocarbon from within 
    the Earth and, as such, it is therefore not germane. . . .
        Mr. Wirth: Mr. Chairman, at the bottom of page 9, line 24 in 
    the bill is the definition of what is intended by the committee to 
    be covered by the legislation in H.R. 3930. That definition in the 
    amendment which I have offered is broadened to include coverage by 
    the provisions of this act for hard-to-obtain natural gas.
        The purpose of the legislation, as I understand the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania and the committee, is to increase production of 
    energy and the area of hard-to-get natural gas. That which is 
    described in the amendment which I offered clearly is a matter of 
    the kind of stimulus that the gentleman from Pennsylvania and 
    members of the committee have defined in the bill, and in 
    broadening the definition offered by the committee, this is 
    consistent with the purposes of H.R. 3930.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The section of the bill which defines synthetic fuels, page 9, 
    line 24 reads as follows:

            The term synthetic fuels--``. . . means fuels and chemical 
        feedstocks produced by the conversion of renewable and 
        nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, . . .'' 
        a consecutive category of resources.

        In the opinion of the Chair, the definition is sufficiently 
    broad as to allow the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Colorado.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8073]]

Bill Prescribing Functions of Federal Energy Administration--Amendment 
    Directing Administrator To Issue Guidelines for Fuel Use

Sec. 11.5 To a proposition conferring discretionary authority, an 
    amendment adding a related function or limiting the exercise of 
    that authority is germane; thus, to a section of a bill prescribing 
    the functions of a new Federal Energy Administration by conferring 
    wide discretionary powers upon the Administrator, an amendment 
    directing the Administrator to issue preliminary summer guidelines 
    for citizen fuel use was held germane as a further delineation of 
    those functions.

    On Mar. 5 (14) and 6,(15) 1974, the Committee 
of the Whole had under consideration a section of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act (H.R. 11793) setting forth the responsibilities of 
the Administrator and stating in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 5301, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
15.  Id. at pp. 5436, 5437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 5. To meet the energy needs of the Nation for the 
    foreseeable future, the Administrator shall--
        (1) advise the President and the Congress with respect to the 
    establishment of a comprehensive national energy policy for the 
    balance of the twentieth century, and in coordination with the 
    Secretary of State, the integration of domestic and foreign 
    policies relating to energy resource management;
        (2) assess the adequacy of energy resources in meeting demands 
    for the immediate and long-range future for all sectors of the 
    economy and for the general public;
        (3) develop effective arrangements for the participation of 
    State and local governments in the resolution of energy problems;

        (4) develop plans and programs for dealing with energy 
    production shortages;
        (5) 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;
        (6) assure that programs are designed and implemented in a fair 
    and efficient manner so as to minimize hardship and inequity while 
    assuring that the priority needs of the Nation are met;
        (7) develop and oversee the implementation of equitable 
    voluntary and mandatory energy conservation programs and promote 
    efficiencies in the use of energy resources;
        (8) develop and recommend policies on import and export of 
    energy resources;
        (9) collect, evaluate, assemble, and analyze energy information 
    on reserves, production and demand and related economic data;
        (10) identify the need for and take action to expedite the 
    development of energy resources;

[[Page 8074]]

        (11) work with business, labor, consumer and other interests 
    and obtain their cooperation; and
        (12) perform such other functions as may be prescribed by law.
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 5 be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. . 
    . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Gunter [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Gunter: Page 19, line 23, add the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(11) Issue preliminary summer guidelines for citizen fuel 
        use within 30 days of the enactment of this Act.
            Page 19, line 23, strike out ``(11)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``(12)''.
            Page 20, line 1, strike out ``(12)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``(13)''.

        Mr. Horton: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendments. Basically they are the same arguments I made before and 
    also this sets up a policy or program which is outside the section 
    and not a subject matter of this bill.
        The Chairman: (16) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gunter: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment is rather simple and easy to 
    understand. It requires the Administrator to issue within 30 days, 
    upon enactment of this act, a preliminary summary. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment as stated would simply require the 
    Administrator, to issue within 30 days upon enactment of this act, 
    preliminary summer guidelines for fuel use which, Mr. Chairman, I 
    think falls within the framework of the section specifying the 
    functions. I do not interpret this particular specification as 
    outside of those programs which are spelled out in the committee 
    report, and in the body of the act.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gunter) has offered an 
    amendment to section 5 of the bill, to which amendment the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of order.
        The Chair has carefully read the language of the amendment, and 
    has carefully listened to the arguments made by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Horton), in support of his point of order, and the 
    arguments made by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gunter), in 
    opposition to the point of order.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the language of the amendment as 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida clearly relates to the 
    functions of the Administrator, which are otherwise enumerated and 
    defined within the section now under consideration.
        The Chair finds nothing in the language of the amendment which 
    mandates the Administrator any more than do the other functions 
    enumerated, nor does the Chair find anything in the amendment which 
    would in any way amend or seek to amend existing law.
        The Chair does not rule now or at any other time on the 
    consistency of amendments; the Chair, therefore, after analyzing 
    the amendment and

[[Page 8075]]

    listening to the argument, rules that the amendment is germane and, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Transferring Functions of Government Affecting Energy to New 
    Department of Energy--Amendment Transferring Additional Function

Sec. 11.6 To a bill transferring to a new Department a variety of 
    governmental authorities relating to energy, an amendment 
    transferring another existing authority within the same class is 
    germane; thus, to a bill creating a new Department of Energy and 
    transferring to it functions of the federal government affecting 
    energy under existing law, an amendment adding a new title to 
    create a public energy administration within the department and to 
    authorize the President to transfer to the administration his oil 
    import purchase authority under existing law was held germane.

    On June 3, 1977,(17) during consideration of H.R. 6804 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 17419, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The Department of Energy Organization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conyers: On page 129, after line 
        6, insert the following new title:

                    TITLE VIII--PUBLIC ENERGY ADMINISTRATION

            Section 801. (a) There is established within the Department 
        of Public Energy Administration, at the head of which shall be 
        an administrator appointed by the Secretary.
            (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 205 of this 
        Act, the President, in the exercise of his authority under 
        section 13 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, 
        may provide in the regulations promulgated under such section 
        for the delegation of his functions under such section to the 
        Public Energy Administration. The Administrator shall by rule 
        provide for a separation of regulatory and enforcement function 
        assigned to him. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, first of all the language I have says that:

            There is established within the Department of Public Energy 
        Administration--

        And I am not clear I understand what that means. Perhaps the 
    amendment at the desk is different from the one I have, but if that 
    is the way the amendment reads, I think there is a clarification 
    needed in the amendment.
        But the point of order I make refers to subparagraph (b) which 
    says:

[[Page 8076]]

            Notwithstanding the provisions of section 205 of this Act, 
        the President, in the exercise of his authority under section 
        13 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, may 
        provide in the regulations promulgated under such section for 
        the delegation of his functions under such section to the 
        Public Energy Administration.

        It seems to me we are extending the provisions of section 13 of 
    the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 and I do not think 
    we have the authority to do that in this legislation.
        Therefore I make a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Conyers: . . . This amendment, as the Committee knows, is a 
    revision from the original amendment that was debated in the 
    Committee on Government Operations.
        I would argue very strongly that it is merely taking a 
    responsibility and a duty specifically provided in law. It really 
    does not matter which law. If we will examine the act, we will find 
    that we have borrowed authorities from agencies and Departments 
    that have been created by law from before 1973 and after 1973, so 
    that that has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.
        The point that I think is critical to whether this amendment is 
    germane or not is whether or not it transfers an existing 
    authority, which the gentleman by admission that it is already 
    existing in the statute concedes. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment proposes to permit the President to exercise 
    discretionary authority and does not really change the Allocation 
    Act, because the President now has authority under that act. All 
    the amendment, it seems to me to do, is permit him to exercise 
    authority under existing legislation in a new way and in a way 
    comparable to the manner in which he is permitted permissively to 
    grant authority under the act. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has listened very carefully to the arguments made on 
    behalf of the point of order and against it and is in agreement 
    with the gentleman from Michigan, that the purpose of the bill is 
    merely to transfer certain authorities that exist in other agencies 
    and departments of Government and finds that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Michigan is consistent with that intent and, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Directing Use of Operating Expenses for Department of Energy--
    Amendment Relating to Use of Alternative Fuels by Department

Sec. 11.7 To a title of the annual Department of Energy authorization 
    bill, providing limitations and directions on the use of operating 
    expenses for the entire Department funded throughout the bill, and 
    specifically limiting the use of funds for physical facilities and 
    for the purchase of gasoline for use of the Department, an 
    amendment providing procedures

[[Page 8077]]

    for the Department to follow in purchasing alternative fuels for 
    use in its vehicles during the fiscal year covered by the bill, was 
    held germane as a further related restriction or direction on the 
    use of operating funds for the fiscal year.

    On Oct. 18, 1979,(20) during consideration of H.R. 3000 
(1) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 28795, 28796, 28798-800, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. The Department of Energy Authorization Act for fiscal years 1980 
        and 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               TITLE VIII--PROVISIONS REGARDING USE OF FUNDS

                    limitation of reprogramming of funds

        Sec. 801. (a)(1) Subject to the limitations of sections 201(b) 
    and 802, no amount appropriated pursuant to this Act (other than 
    title I) may be used for any program, function, or purpose in 
    excess of the amount expressly authorized to be appropriated for 
    that program, function, or purpose by this Act. . . .

        limitation of funds for facilities for department of energy

        Sec. 809. No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
    may be used for the renovation, furnishing, or repair of facilities 
    to provide temporary or permanent space for personnel relocated as 
    a result of the establishment and activation of the Department of 
    Energy and for which funds were appropriated by chapter V of title 
    I of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1978.

                limitation on use of gasoline by department

        Sec. 810. No funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to 
    this Act for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, may be used 
    to purchase motor gasoline or to reimburse any other Federal agency 
    for motor gasoline in an amount which exceeds 85 percent of the 
    amount of motor gasoline purchased (and for which reimbursement was 
    made to another Federal agency or entity) during the fiscal year 
    ending September 30, 1979, by any component of the Department for 
    which funds are authorized to be appropriated by this Act. . . .
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 78, line 11, 
        insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 810.''.
            Page 78, after line 20, insert the following new 
        subsection:
            (b)(1) The Secretary of Energy shall advertise in the 
        Federal Register to request bids from distributors of 
        alternative fuels produced in the United States for the 
        purchase of such alternative fuels for use during the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 1980, in motor vehicles owned by the 
        Department of Energy.
            (2) The Secretary shall require that each such distributor 
        who sub

[[Page 8078]]

        mits such a bid include in such bid an agreement--
            (A) to provide a quantity of an alternative fuel--
            (i) which will produce an amount of energy which is not 
        less than the amount of energy produced by 200,000 gallons of 
        motor gasoline, and
            (ii) the cost of which does not exceed the cost that the 
        Secretary would incur to purchase 200,000 gallons of motor 
        gasoline.
            (B) to pay any amount, as determined by the Secretary, by 
        which any cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining any 
        facility for the storage of such alternative fuel exceeds the 
        cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining any facility 
        for the storage of motor gasoline that would have been incurred 
        if such motor gasoline had been purchased by the Secretary in 
        lieu of such alternative fuel.

            (C)(i) to pay the cost of equipping such motor vehicles to 
        consume such alternative fuel, and
            (ii) to deposit in an escrow account established by the 
        Secretary funds sufficient to pay any cost of refitting such 
        motor vehicles to consume motor gasoline if the Secretary 
        determines that the utility of such alternative fuel is 
        inadequate or if such distributor fails to provide the quantity 
        of such alternative fuel specified in such bid, and
            (D) to pay any amount, as determined by the Secretary, by 
        which any cost of repairing or maintaining such motor vehicles 
        equipped to consume such alternative fuel exceeds the cost that 
        would have been incurred to repair and maintain such motor 
        vehicles if such motor vehicles had not been so equipped. . . .
            (5) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``alternative 
        fuel'' means any liquid fuel, other than motor gasoline, 
        consumable by a motor vehicle for propulsion, including 
        gasohol, liquefied methane, liquefied coal, and any liquid 
        hydride. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    insist on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House require that amendments to 
    legislation shall be germane, first, to the bill, and second, to 
    the portion of the bill to which they are directed.
        Mr. Chairman, without addressing at this particular moment 
    whether or not the amendment is germane to the bill, I will address 
    the second point, which is the lack of germaneness of the amendment 
    to the portion of the bill to which it is offered.
        Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will observe, the portion of the 
    bill to which the amendment is offered, it can be observed it is a 
    limitation on the use of gasoline by a department. It then is a 
    limitation on funds, which reads as follows:

            No funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this Act 
        for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, may be used to 
        purchase motor gasoline or reimburse any other Federal agency 
        for motor gasoline in an amount which exceeds 85 percent of the 
        amount of the motor gasoline purchase.

        In other words, we have here a limitation. The proposal that is 
    offered by my dear friend, the gentleman from California, is one 
    which would set up a rather large program which would require the 
    Secretary of Energy to do a whole series of things, none of which 
    are consistent with or which are relevant to this limitation. . . .
        I would ask the Chair to note that the section with which we 
    are dealing is a limitation on use of gasoline. This

[[Page 8079]]

    is for alternative fuels, which will have an equivalent energy 
    release of 200,000 gallons of gasoline.
        Now, whether the gentleman speaks of hydrogen or whether the 
    gentleman speaks of different alcohols or synthetic fuels produced 
    from other sources with which I might not presently be familiar, I 
    am not able to say; but the fuels here are much broader and are not 
    petroleum products necessarily, but are synthetics. . . .
        In addition to this, Mr. Chairman, there are other sections 
    relating to synthetics, relating to conservation, and relating to 
    procurement. Those are not the sections in question here, but I 
    would point out, Mr. Chairman, that I am unaware of any portion of 
    the bill to which this would be germane, because, as the Chair 
    would observe, it sets up a very large process for the Department 
    of Energy to procure synthetic fuels. That is something which is 
    not found elsewhere in the legislation. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, section 810 of the committee bill 
    which is before the committee now for its consideration contains a 
    restriction on the use of funds during the existing fiscal year for 
    the purchase of motor gasoline. That is in section 810 of the bill 
    before the committee.
        For instance, it provides that the Department of Energy is 
    required to reduce its consumption of gasoline by not less than 15 
    percent during this 1980 fiscal year.
        That is the very thrust of this proposed amendment. It is 
    designed also to reduce the quantity of gasoline that is being 
    consumed by the Department of Energy through the medium of 
    soliciting alternative sources of supply. It is not specific; it 
    just says, ``alternative fuels'' in the proposed amendment.
        It is submitted that the reduction of gasoline by 15 percent 
    which is mandated in the committee bill is consistent with the 
    thrust of the amendment which seeks delaying of the funds for 
    making available alternative fuels.
        In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, there is little difference between 
    reducing the use of gasoline by 15 percent, either by cost or other 
    means, and achieving that reduction of gasoline consumption by the 
    use of alternative fuels.
        On that basis, Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from California is, I believe, within the scope of 
    section 810 of the committee bill.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (2) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will observe that the rules of the House require that 
    the amendment first be germane to the pending portion of the bill 
    to which it is offered.
        Title VIII deals with operating funds and personnel expenses of 
    the entire Department of Energy for the fiscal year 1980. The 
    amendment appears to the Chair to be confined to fiscal year 1980 
    and to constitute an appropriate restriction or direction on how 
    the Department uses its operating funds for the fiscal year in 
    question, and it is, therefore, germane.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8080]]

Substitute Amendment Imposing Conditions on Use of Auto Stickers in 
    Energy Conservation Plan--Amendment Relating To Use of Stickers But 
    Affecting Different Page and Line Numbers

Sec. 11.8 An amendment to a substitute is not required to affect the 
    same page and line numbers as the substitute in order to be 
    germane, it being sufficient that the amendment is germane to the 
    subject matter of the substitute. Accordingly, to a substitute 
    requiring that certain emergency energy conservation plans 
    (entailing the use of auto stickers indicating certain days an auto 
    would not be operated) be established (1) only after consultation 
    with state governors, and (2) only after consideration of rural and 
    suburban needs, an amendment striking out and inserting language 
    elsewhere in the bill which also related to the use of auto 
    stickers as part of the energy conservation plans, was held germane 
    to the two diverse conditions already required by the substitute.

    During consideration of the Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 
1979 (3) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 1, 
1979,(4) Chairman Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, overruled a 
point of order against an amendment to a substitute and held that the 
amendment was germane to the substitute. The amendment and proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. 1030.
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 21939, 21944-47, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Moffett [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moffett as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Rinaldo: Page 45, after line 9, insert 
        the following new subsection:
            ``(d) Needs of Rural and Certain Other Areas.--Any system 
        under this section shall be established only after consultation 
        with the Governors of the States involved and shall provide 
        appropriate consideration of the needs of those in suburban and 
        rural areas, particularly those areas not adequately served by 
        any public transportation system, through the geographical 
        coverage of the system, through exemptions under subsection 
        (c)(8), or through such other means as may be appropriate.

        Mr. [Andrew] Maguire [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire to the amendment offered

[[Page 8081]]

        by Mr. Moffett as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Rinaldo: At the end insert the following: Page 43, beginning on 
        line 24, strike out ``day of each week that vehicle will not be 
        operated'' and insert ``day of each week the owner of that 
        vehicle has selected for that vehicle not to be operated''.

        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the Maguire amendment, although offered to the 
    Moffett amendment, is really a direct amendment to the bill before 
    us. Therefore, it is not germane to the Moffett substitute. In 
    addition, the Moffett substitute goes to page 45, line 9 of the 
    bill before us. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey (Mr. Maguire) goes to page 43, line 24.
        In addition, it is also not germane for that purpose.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: I do, Mr. Chairman, and I 
    am sure the gentleman from New Jersey desires to do so also.
        Mr. Chairman, the question of where the amendment might lie in 
    the bill with regard to page or section is not important. I would 
    observe to the Chair that the amendment offered originally by the 
    minority goes to several pages in the bill. I would point out that 
    what is involved here is the text of the amendments, and whether or 
    not the language and the purposes and the concepts of the amendment 
    are germane and are relative and relevant to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Connecticut.
        I believe that a reading of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut will show that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Maguire) is in fact germane to 
    it in terms of concept and in terms of purposes for which the 
    amendment happens to be offered. For that reason, I think that the 
    point of order should be rejected. . . .
        Mr. Maguire: Mr. Chairman, the key point is that this is a 
    refinement of the material that the Moffett substitute deals with. 
    Therefore, the page on which it appears is irrelevant, and the 
    point of order should be overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the substitute and the amendment, and 
    states that while the page references are different, the principal 
    matter of concern is the relationship between the amendment and the 
    substitute. Clearly, there is a substantive relationship that goes 
    beyond the question of the pages, since both deal with auto sticker 
    plans.

        On the matter of the scope of the amendment and its 
    germaneness, the Moffett substitute imposes conditions on the 
    entire auto sticker plan in the bill in two diverse aspects. One is 
    a requirement of consultation with Governors, and the other is a 
    special consideration which would be required for suburban and 
    rural areas. The amendment to the substitute clearly deals with 
    another diverse element of the plan itself, and, because of the 
    diverse scope of the substitute, is germane to the substitute.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8082]]

Bill Authorizing Construction of Several Pipelines--Amendment Adding 
    Another

Sec. 11.9 To a bill authorizing construction of pipe lines in one state 
    along a waterway, an amendment adding a similar pipeline along the 
    same waterway in another state was held germane.

    In the 77th Congress, the following amendment was offered to a bill 
(5) authorizing construction of pipelines: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 6999 (Committee on Rivers and Harbors).
 6. 88 Cong. Rec. 5302, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That in addition to the sum herein authorized, there is hereby 
    authorized the sum not to exceed $13,000,000 for the purpose of 
    constructing a crude oil pipe line from either Charleston, S.C., or 
    Savannah, Ga., whichever of the said cities, or both, on the inland 
    waterway meets with the approval of the Secretary of the Navy and 
    the Secretary of War, to the Tinsley oil field located in the 
    vicinity of Yazoo, Miss.
        The following exchange (7) concerned a point of 
    order made against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at pp. 5302, 5303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert E.] Carter [of California]: I make the point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. While it is 
    true that the bill does refer to one pipe line, the gentleman's 
    amendment refers to an altogether different pipe line in a 
    different place, to be constructed for a different sum of money. 
    While it is true they refer to similar subjects, I contend that the 
    gentleman's proposal is not germane to this particular paragraph. . 
    . .
        The Chairman (John M. Costello, of California): The Chair is 
    ready to rule.
        The gentleman from South Carolina has offered an amendment 
    which would provide for the building of an additional pipe line, 
    either in South Carolina or Georgia. The bill originally provided 
    for the building of a pipe line and has been amended now to provide 
    for the building of one or more pipe lines which should be built in 
    the interest of national defense to provide for the transportation 
    of materials and supplies for that purpose. The amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from South Carolina applies likewise to the 
    transportation of crude oil and such supplies for the carrying out 
    of national defense.
        It has been previously held in the House in connection with a 
    bill providing for an interoceanic route that an amendment 
    providing for another route was proper and germane.
        It appears to the Chair that the amendment which the gentleman 
    from South Carolina offers, since it provides for additional pipe 
    lines, is germane to the bill, and the Chair overrules the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from California.

Bill To Regulate Air Pollution From Various Sources--Amendment To 
    Regulate Bus Emissions

Sec. 11.10 To a proposition relating to several subjects within

[[Page 8083]]

    a general category, an amendment affecting an additional subject 
    within that same category is germane. Thus, to a title of a 
    comprehensive bill imposing clean air standards to regulate air 
    pollution from a variety of mobile sources, including motor 
    vehicles, an amendment inserting a new section proposing regulatory 
    standards for carbon monoxide emissions into buses was held germane 
    as regulation of the same category of air pollution sources.

    On Sept. 15, 1976,(8)) during consideration of H.R. 
10498 (9) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled 
a point of order against an amendment holding that to a bill being read 
for amendment by title, an amendment in the form of a new section need 
not be germane to a specific section therein, it being sufficient that 
it be germane to the title as a whole. Title II of the bill was before 
the Committee for amendment, and the diversity of the title is evident 
from the following table of contents:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 30476, 30477, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         TITLE II--AMENDMENTS RELATING PRIMARILY TO MOBILE SOURCES

        Sec. 201. Limitation on indirect source review authority.
        Sec. 202. Extension of transportation control compliance dates.
        Sec. 203. Light-duty motor vehicle emissions.
        Sec. 204. Emission standards for heavy duty vehicles or engines 
    and certain other vehicles or engines.
        Sec. 205. Aircraft emission standards.
        Sec. 206. Assurance of protection of public health and safety.
        Sec. 207. Test procedures for measuring evaporative emissions.
        Sec. 208. Railroad locomotive emission standards.
        Sec. 209. Motor vehicle parts certification and study by 
    Federal Trade Commission.
        Sec. 210. Vehicle inspection and maintenance. . . .
        Mr. [Edward I.] Koch [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Koch: Page 302, after line 7, 
        insert:

            Carbon Monoxide Standards for Schoolbus Passenger Areas

            Sec. 220. (a) Title II of the Clean Air Act (relating to 
        emission standards for moving sources) is amended by adding the 
        following new part at the end thereof:

          ``part d--carbon monoxide standards for schoolbus passenger 
                                     areas

                          ``establishment of standards

            ``Sec. 241. (a) The Administrator, in conjunction with the 
        Secretary of

[[Page 8084]]

        Transportation, shall study the problem of carbon monoxide 
        intrusion into buses and sustained-use motor vehicles. . . .
            (b) Not later than one year after the enactment of this 
        part, the Administrator shall issue proposed standards setting 
        forth the levels of carbon monoxide in the passenger areas of 
        schoolbuses which are requisite to protect, with an adequate 
        margin of safety, the health of passengers and to permit safe 
        operation of such buses.
            (c) Pursuant to the requirements of section 307(d), the 
        Administrator shall, by regulation, promulgate, with such 
        modifications as he deems appropriate, final standards 
        applicable to the presence of carbon monoxide in the passenger 
        areas of schoolbuses. . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        (T)his amendment would impose a number of additional duties on 
    the Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator of that 
    Agency and also on the Secretary of the Department of 
    Transportation.
        Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this act pertaining to 
    authority of any agency of the Federal Government to prescribe 
    standards for buses or to prescribe standards for school buses. . . 
    .
        The bill includes authority to prescribe standards for new 
    vehicles, not for those vehicles that are on the road and in 
    operation. . . .
        Mr. Koch: . . .Mr. Chairman, first, as I understand the 
    gentleman, it is just a colloquy on the imposition of standards on 
    heavy duty vehicles that is already in the bill.
        Second, I have a memorandum prepared by the Library of Congress 
    and I will just briefly recite from it, if I may:

            H.R. 10498 amends the Clean Air Act in several respects. 
        Title I of the bill contains 15 sections dealing with 
        amendments relating primarily to statutory sources. Title II 
        has 19 sections relating primarily to mobile sources. And title 
        III has 17 sections of miscellaneous amendments (e.g., 
        redesignation of air quality control regions, fine particulate 
        study, and study and report concerning economic approaches to 
        controlling air pollution). When a bill provides for numerous 
        changes of various sections in existing law, amendments to the 
        bill are sometimes held to be germane where the amendments 
        modify sections of the law not dealt with in the bill. . . .

        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order made by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Broyhill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Koch) has offered an amendment 
    which has as its title, ``Carbon Monoxide Standards for School Bus 
    Passenger Areas.'' The Chair would like to first point to the title 
    of the bill itself:

            This Act, together with the following table of contents, 
        may be cited as the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976.

        Then, the Chair would point to title II, and would emphasize 
    and point out the practical nature and the general nature of title 
    II, which is at this point open to amendment at any point. It is 
    entitled, ``Amendments Relating Primarily to Mobile Sources.'' An 
    examination of the table of contents within the title itself 
    indicates that ``mobile sources'' being regulated by title II are

[[Page 8085]]

    of many, many sorts, and very diverse including amendments to the 
    Clean Air Act mentioned by the gentleman from Florida and other 
    changes in that law.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that the gentleman's amendment 
    as a new section is germane to the title as a whole and that it 
    does not escape nor go beyond the purview of title II. The Chair, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Diverse Titles Relating to Hazardous Waste Cleanup--New Title To Create 
    Cause of Action for Victims of Improper Hazardous Waste Disposal

Sec. 11.11 To a bill containing diverse titles relating to hazardous 
    waste cleanup, including new uses of a trust fund to finance 
    removal and remedial actions, contemplating compensatory relief 
    through private suits, and containing provisions regarding 
    relocation costs, replacement of drinking water supplies and other 
    disaster relief, and amended to include a provision relating to 
    deed covenants in government surplus property conveyances (several 
    of such provisions containing subject matter within the 
    jurisdiction of committees other than the Committee on Energy and 
    Commerce which reported the bill), an amendment in the form of a 
    new title creating a new federal cause of action for victims of 
    improper disposal of hazardous waste, with amounts recovered from 
    the liable private parties to go toward reimbursement of the trust 
    fund for remedial expenses was held germane as within the general 
    diverse class of remedies covered by the bill as a whole, where 
    some of those remedies already contained in the bill were within 
    the jurisdiction of the committee (the Committee on the Judiciary) 
    having jurisdiction over the subject of the amendment.

    The proceedings of Aug. 10, 1984, relating to H.R. 5640 (the 
Superfund authorization), are discussed in Sec. 4.10, supra.

Transportation Facilities Eligible for Grants--Amendment Making 
    Additional Groups Within Same Category Eligible

Sec. 11.12 To a section of a bill defining eligibility for certain 
    grants affecting transportation, in terms of four diverse 
    classifications of facilities within the generic category of 
    railroad beds and

[[Page 8086]]

    facilities, an amendment adding two additional groups within the 
    same generic category was held germane.

    During consideration of the Emergency Rail Transportation 
Improvement Act of 1975 (11) in the Committee of the Whole 
on Oct. 23, 1975,(12) the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the amendment described above. The section of the bill pending 
and the amendment offered thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 8672.
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 33776, 33777, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 6. Roadbeds and facilities are eligible for project grants 
    pursuant to section 4 if they--
        (1) have been designated for transfer to the Consolidated Rail 
    Corporation in the final system plan approved by the Board of 
    Directors of the United States Railway Association under section 
    206(c) of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 
    716(c)); or
        (2) are utilized by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
    pursuant to the Rail Passenger Service Act (45 U.S.C. 501 et seq.) 
    for providing intercity rail passenger service or are part of 
    either the basic system or the experimental routes established 
    pursuant to such Act; or
        (3) are owned by a railroad in reorganization under section 77 
    of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 205) on the date of enactment of 
    this Act; or
        (4) are utilized for providing intercity rail passenger service 
    by any railroad which is not in reorganization under section 77 of 
    the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 205) or subject to reorganization as 
    provided in section 207(b) of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act 
    of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 717(b)). . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: On page 21, line 5 of H.R. 
        8672, delete the following: ``(45 U.S.C. 717(b)).'' And, in 
        lieu thereof, insert the following: ``(45 U.S.C. 717(b)); or
            ``(5) have been identified to the Secretary by any State, 
        political subdivision thereof, or regional commission as 
        significantly contributing to improvements in, or the 
        continuation of, essential present or anticipated 
        transportation needs, and the Secretary concurs in such 
        identification; or
            ``(6) are owned by a State or public entity.''. . .

        Mr. [Fred B.] Rooney [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    the amendment should be referred to the Committee on Public Works. 
    I have discussed this with the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
    Surface Transportation of the Committee on Public Works and I am 
    informed that at the present time they are working on this 
    legislation. Therefore I do not think it is germane to this 
    legislation and that this committee does not have that 
    jurisdiction. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jonathan B. Bingham (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) would add two categories to the

[[Page 8087]]

    eligible roadbeds and facilities in section 6 of the bill. The four 
    categories that are now included comprise a diverse group within 
    the generic category of railroad beds and facilities and do not 
    constitute any clearly discernible class different from the 
    categories proposed to be added by the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte). There is nothing in the 
    language of the amendment which would indicate that the facilities 
    covered thereby are within a different class.
        In addition, the Chair would refer to the fact that the 
    findings and purposes of the bill refer to railroad and railroad 
    beds and facilities without excluding any particular type of 
    roadbeds and facilities. For these reasons the point of order is 
    overruled.

Loan Guarantees to Chrysler Corporation--Amendment Imposing Additional 
    Conditions

Sec. 11.13 Where a proposal authorized loan guarantees to the Chrysler 
    Corporation, for purposes of enabling the corporation to remain 
    economically viable and to continue to furnish goods and services, 
    thereby avoiding adverse effects on the economy and domestic 
    employment, but set a variety of conditions on such loan guarantees 
    (such as a prohibition against paying dividends during the term of 
    the loan guarantee), an amendment providing that during that term 
    the corporation shall not purchase or develop manufacturing 
    facilities outside the United States was held germane as a further 
    condition related to the stated purposes of the bill as a whole.

    During consideration of H.R. 5860 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Dec. 18, 1979,(14) the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the amendment described above, which was offered to an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute that had been introduced by Mr. 
William S. Moorhead, of Pennsylvania. The Moorhead amendment stated in 
part: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 36791-93, 36818, 36819, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Id. at pp. 36791, 36792.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               authority for commitments for loan guarantees

        Sec. 4. (a) The Board, on such terms as it deems appropriate, 
    may make commitments to guarantee either the principal amount of 
    loans to a borrower or the principal amount of, and interest on, 
    loans to a borrower. A commitment may be made only if, at the time 
    the commitment is issued, the Board determines that--
        (1) there exists an energy-savings plan which--
        (A) is satisfactory to the Board;
        (B) is developed in consultation with other appropriate Federal 
    agencies;

[[Page 8088]]

        (C) focuses on the national need to lessen United States 
    dependence on petroleum; and
        (D) can be carried out by the borrowers;
        (2) the commitment is needed to enable the Corporation to 
    continue to furnish goods or services, and failure to meet such 
    need would adversely and seriously affect the economy of, or 
    employment in, the United States or any region thereof . . .
        (e) With respect to any borrower other than a borrower under 
    subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) of section 2, the 
    Board may make commitments to guarantee loans and may make loan 
    guarantees under this Act to any such borrower before the energy-
    saving plan required under subsection (a)(1) is developed if the 
    Board determines that such commitments or loan guarantees are 
    necessary to preserve the Corporation for the development of the 
    plan required under subsection (a)(1).
        (f)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(4), no 
    loan guarantee may be made under this Act unless--
        (A) the Corporation offers for sale not less than $100,000,000 
    of stock of the Corporation which--
        (i) was issued after October 17, 1979; or
        (ii) was held by the Corporation as treasury stock of the 
    Corporation before October 17, 1979;
        (B) the Corporation secures commitments to purchase not less 
    than $100,000,000 of such stock from persons with an existing 
    economic stake in the health of the Corporation; and
        (C) the commitments referred to in subparagraph (B) exceed such 
    persons' outstanding commitments to purchase such stock as of 
    October 17, 1979.
        (2) Any financial commitment or concession made under paragraph 
    (1) may be applied toward the requirements of subsection (c).

    Section 8 (16) of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute stated several terms and conditions of the loan guarantees, 
including a prohibition against paying dividends during the term of the 
loan guarantee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at pp. 36792, 36793.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        An amendment was offered to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 36818.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stark to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        At the end of section 4 [insert] . . .
            ``. . . During the period in which any loan guarantee is 
        outstanding under this Act, the Corporation shall not spend any 
        funds to purchase or expand manufacturing facilities which are 
        not located in the United States.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        (T)he rules of the House require that the amendment be germane 
    to both

[[Page 8089]]

    the bill and the amendment to which it is offered, as well as to 
    the particular portion of the amendment to which the proposal is 
    offered. This amendment, I think, fails to meet all three of these 
    requirements.
        The particular section of the amendment to which this amendment 
    is offered reads as follows: ``Authority for Commitments for Loan 
    Guarantees.'' This section deals with two things: No. 1, that the 
    builder of the automobile to receive the loan guarantee shall have 
    an energy savings plan. That is the first one. It shall have such a 
    plan as a part of both its operating and its financial plan.
        The section subsequently goes on and lays down what goes into a 
    satisfactory financing plan. If the Chair will follow this, he will 
    find that the particular section deals with the financing plan 
    clear through the section and deals with the actions of the 
    corporation which will be taken to satisfy a satisfactory financing 
    plan and a plan which will assure the protection of the United 
    States and the interest of the taxpayers in the loan.
        The proposal that is offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Stark) dictates what shall be done by Chrysler, not what will 
    respond to the requirements of this particular section which deal 
    with the financial capability and financial ability of the 
    corporation to repay and as to what constitutes a satisfactory 
    financing plan by the corporation. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I point out that the amendment is not germane 
    because it does not fall in the category of conditions that are met 
    in . . . the bill, the amendment to the bill or the particular 
    section to which it is made.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will bear with me, my 
    amendment, I believe, is to section 4. The gentleman from Michigan 
    is quite correct that that is the authority for commitments under 
    loan guarantees. On page 4 of the committee print of the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute, on line 14, under the sections which 
    the gentleman from Michigan stated:

            . . . the commitment is needed to enable the Corporation to 
        continue to furnish goods or services, and failure to meet such 
        need would adversely and seriously affect the economy of, or 
        employment in, the United States or any region thereof.

        Going along further, under the financial plan, which the 
    gentleman said should be submitted, on page 6, paragraph (8):

            . . . the financing plan submitted under paragraph (4) 
        provides that expenditures under such financing plan will 
        contribute to the domestic economic viability of the 
        corporation.

        I certainly presume that domestic economic viability of the 
    corporation relates to expenditures in the United States and not 
    overseas.
        So I would submit that my amendment deals directly with 
    assuring that the intent of section 4 will be carried out by the 
    Board and, therefore, is of the most germane nature and very 
    important to the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) . . . [T]he Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the argument made by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Stark) is to the point, that both the provisions 
    mentioned are perti

[[Page 8090]]

    nent, and that the amendment is pertinent to the general purposes 
    of the Moorhead amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
    indicated by related provisions in the section in question and 
    especially by the substitute as a whole.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Amending Two Provisions of Gold Reserve Act--Amendment Related To 
    Different Subject in Act

Sec. 11.14 To a bill seeking to amend the Gold Reserve Act in two 
    particulars, an amendment seeking to amend the act in a third 
    particular but not related to the purpose of the amendments under 
    consideration was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (19) was under 
consideration amending the Gold Reserve Act relative to the goal of 
achieving stabilization of domestic prices and the exchange value of 
the dollar. A proposed amendment sought to amend the act with regard to 
a matter not covered in the bill, the purchase of gold abroad by the 
Secretary of the Treasury and a requirement that the proceeds of such 
purchase be used only to ``Buy American'' products. A point of order 
was raised against the amendment on the grounds that it was not germane 
to the bill.(20) The point of order was raised by Mr. Howard 
W. Smith, of Virginia. In response to the point of order, the Chairman 
(1) summarized the issues and ruled as follows: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 3325 (Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures).
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 4628, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 21, 1939.
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 4629, 4630, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 21, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The pending bill has two objectives in view, as far as the bill 
    itself is concerned, in the present parliamentary situation. One, 
    the use of the stabilization fund, to extend the powers in the 
    President of the use of the stabilization fund for the purpose of 
    stabilizing the exchange value of the dollar. Two, to continue 
    power in the President by proclamation, to fix the weight of the 
    gold dollar, for the purpose of stabilizing domestic prices or to 
    protect commerce against the adverse effects of depreciated foreign 
    currency.
        The bill picks out two powers granted in the Gold Reserve Act 
    of 1934, from a number of other powers in that act, and it extends 
    the date of expiration of those powers vested in the President and 
    also in the Secretary of the Treasury, and continues those powers 
    for an additional period. . . .
        The Chair . . . finds in section 2947 of [vol. 8] of Cannon's 
    Precedents a ruling by . . . the late Speaker Frederick H. Gillett.

[[Page 8091]]

        The syllabus to that decision reads as follows:

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

        The present occupant of the Chair feels that (the precedents 
    cited) are very convincing, and . . . feels strongly inclined to 
    follow the precedent established by the rulings to which the Chair 
    has referred. For the reasons stated, recognizing that it is a 
    close question, the Chair feels constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Bill Prohibiting Various Activities Related to Consumer Credit--
    Amendment To Prohibit ``Loansharking''

Sec. 11.15 To a bill making unlawful a number of activities in the 
    field of interstate consumer credit transactions, an amendment 
    adding another activity, ``loansharking,'' to those prohibited in 
    the bill was held germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
requiring disclosure of finance charges and interest rates on credit 
sales, restricting the garnishment of wages, establishing a Commission 
on Consumer Finance and dealing generally with the subject of credit 
transactions. An amendment prohibiting ``loansharking''--the loaning of 
money at rates of interest above those permitted by state law--was held 
germane to such bill. The amendment, offered by Mr. Richard H. Poff, of 
Virginia, stated in part: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 11601 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 4. 114 Cong. Rec. 1605, 1606, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        b(1) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects 
    commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by 
    loan sharking or attempts so to do shall be fined not more than 
    $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. . . .
        (4) Whoever knowingly participates in any way in a wrongful use 
    of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear in connection with 
    a loan or forbearance in violation of subsections (1) and (2) of 
    this section, or attempted violation thereof, shall be fined not 
    more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years, or 
    both.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 1606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against this amendment. . . .
        . . . It involves the Federal enforcement of State usury 
    statutes and involves a lot of things like that which Members of 
    this House are entitled to know something about. There really 
    should be committee consideration of it. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id.

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

[[Page 8092]]

        I wish to call to the attention of the Chair reference to the 
    title of the bill, and particularly to the first two clauses 
    thereof which read as follows:

            To safeguard the consumer in connection with the 
        utilization of credit by requiring full disclosure of the terms 
        and conditions of finance charges in credit transactions or in 
        offers to extend credit; by establishing maximum rates of 
        finance charges in credit transactions . . .

        Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment is to fix a Federal 
    definition of the crime of usury as it is related to the State 
    statutes which deal with the subject of usury.
        Mr. Chairman, it is my feeling that the amendment is altogether 
    addressed to the subject matter of the bill and is properly 
    identified with its provisions.

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 1607, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration deals with credit, interest and 
    garnishment, and several other classifications of these fields.
        The Chair, in perusing the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Virginia, finds that it deals with interest, interest rates, 
    and refers to the matter of ``loan sharks''; this has to do with 
    the matter of interest - the excessive charge of interest. And it 
    appears to the Chair that this is another classification to add to 
    those under consideration in the original bill.
        The Chair, therefore, holds that the amendment is germane and 
    overrules the point of order.

Amendment Adding to Items Covered by Flammable Fabrics Act

Sec. 11.16 To a bill extending the coverage of the Flammable Fabrics 
    Act to include wearing apparel and household furnishings, an 
    amendment to bring children's toys within the mandate of the act 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
relating to fire hazards arising out of the condition of wearing 
apparel and household furnishings. The following exchange 
(10) concerned an amendment offered by Mr. James G. O'Hara, 
of Michigan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. S. 1003 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 33769, 33770, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 27, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hastings] Keith [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the consideration of this matter at this 
    point. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my objection is to the consideration of the 
    subject matter of the proposed amendments as not being pertinent 
    and as not being germane to this legislation, and I make a point of 
    order against the amendments on that ground.

    Mr. O'Hara responded to the point of order in the following 
language:

        Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to the Flammable Fabrics 
    Act.

[[Page 8093]]

    The Flammable Fabrics Act is rather extensively amended by the bill 
    before us. The Flammable Fabrics Act is amended to include interior 
    furnishings ``made in whole or in part of fabric or related 
    material'' and so on.
        Then, ``fabric'' is defined to mean ``any material--except 
    fiber, filament, or yarn for other than retail sale--woven, 
    knitted, felted, or otherwise produced from or in combination with 
    any natural or synthetic fiber, film, or substitute therefore,'' 
    and so on.
        Then we get to ``related material'' which is defined to mean 
    ``paper, plastic, rubber, synthetic film, or synthetic foam'' and 
    so on.

        Then the term ``product'' means ``any article of wearing 
    apparel or interior furnishing.''
        Mr. Chairman, I would submit that under the provisions of this 
    particular legislation we are simply adding a new category, made of 
    fabric and related material, a new category of items. Therefore, it 
    would be germane to this legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) . . . The bill which the 
    Committee has under consideration is designed to protect the public 
    against undue risk of fire leading to death, injury of property, 
    and damage, arising out of the condition of articles of wearing 
    apparel and interior or household furnishings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Donald M. Fraser (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This is the language of the bill which the Committee of the 
    Whole has under consideration, which deals with two classes of 
    subjects. The amendment which is proposed by the gentleman from 
    Michigan would seek to add a third class. It would appear that the 
    addition of a third class is a proper amendment and, therefore, 
    would be germane.
        There is the general proposition that a proposition dealing 
    with a number of subjects may be amended by the addition of another 
    subject of the same class.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Containing Diverse Provisions Relating to Authorities of 
    Department of Defense--Amendment Prohibiting Use of Certain Real 
    Property for Deployment of Weapons System

Sec. 11.17 To a bill containing diverse provisions relating to 
    authorities of the Department of Defense, an amendment adding a new 
    title precluding that department from utilizing certain real 
    property for deployment of a weapons system pending a study was 
    held germane as confined solely to activities of the Defense 
    Department and not extending to issues of the release of public 
    lands through another department.

    On May 21, 1980,(12) during consideration of H.R. 6974 
(13) in the

[[Page 8094]]

Committee of the Whole, Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, of Illinois, 
overruled a point of order in the circumstances described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 126 Cong. Rec. 11972, 11973, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. The Department of Defense Authorization for fiscal 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David D.] Marriott [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Marriott:

         TITLE X--RESPONSE TO MX/MPS SYSTEM IMPACT BY THE SECRETARY OF 
                                    DEFENSE

            Sec. 1000. The Secretary of Defense may not use any land 
        made available for the deployment of any part of the MX/MPS 
        system until the Secretary of Defense has provided Congress and 
        the States affected by the system with the following--
            (1) A report setting forth specific social, economic and 
        environmental impacts of the MX/MPS system on the people, 
        lands, and resources affected, and detailing the amount of 
        public land to be partially or completely closed to any or all 
        public use, and setting forth any circumstances which would 
        require the use of area security, rather than point security, 
        for the system;
            (2) A proposal outlining the methods of addressing the 
        social, economic, and environmental impacts of the MX/MPS 
        system so as to minimize the negative effects of such impacts, 
        including specific steps that can be taken to eliminate delays 
        in delivery of necessary impact aid funds to affected states, 
        counties, and communities;
            (3) A study of the feasibility of basing parts of the MX/
        MPS system in more than two States, so as to minimize the 
        social, economic, and environmental impacts on any single 
        State. . . .

        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: . . . I observe that the 
    amendment applies to the MX-MPS system which is contained in title 
    II and was fully debated by the committee.
        The gentleman sets up a new title X applying solely to MX 
    lands.
        Mr. Chairman, I would raise a point of order against the 
    amendment on two grounds. First, the amendment is not now in order 
    as a separate title X. It should have been offered to title II.
        The gentleman would have to ask unanimous consent to open up 
    the MX issue.
        Mr. Chairman, as a second ground, fully appreciating the good 
    and honorable intentions of the highly esteemed gentleman from Utah 
    in offering this amendment, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane to the legislation under consideration 
    today since this bill in even a remote respect, Mr. Chairman, does 
    not authorize the acquisition of public lands in any fashion, nor 
    are the agencies of Government concerned nor the public lands 
    within the jurisdiction of this bill.
        If we examine the amendment, the gentleman deals strictly with 
    three conditions for the withdrawal of land. Therefore, such an 
    amendment would not properly find its place in H.R. 6974. In fact, 
    Mr. Chairman, the law is such that if we make a withdrawal of land 
    over 5,000 acres it has to be done by other legislation. I am 
    constrained, even though appreciating the good intentions of the 
    gentleman from Utah, to make the point of order that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Marriott) is not germane to 
    the bill under the provisions of House rule XVI, clause 7. . . .

[[Page 8095]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair observes that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Marriott) 
    has offered his amendment as a new title X, which is an amendment 
    which must be germane to the bill as a whole and, the Chair feels 
    that the amendment certainly relates to the bill, and that under 
    the precedents a subject may be germane at more than one place in 
    the bill.
        The Chair also makes the observation that the amendment only 
    addresses the authority of the Secretary of Defense to use any 
    available lands for research on and deployment of the MX. Such an 
    amendment is germane since it is not addressed to the question of 
    the acquisition of public lands or the release of public lands by 
    the Department of the Interior and since other authorities of the 
    Defense Department are contained in the bill. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri.

Bill Embracing Different Subjects Relating to Prosecution of War--
    Amendment Adding Further Subject Affecting War Effort

Sec. 11.18 To a bill to expedite the prosecution of war, embracing 16 
    different titles upon unrelated subjects, an amendment proposing to 
    insert a new title on another subject but having for its purpose 
    the same general object was held germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the second war powers 
bill (14) the following amendment was offered as a new 
title: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. S. 2208 (Committee on the Judiciary).
15. 88 Cong. Rec. 1708, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Title IV-A

        That during the national emergency declared to exist by the 
    President on May 27, 1941, the following provisions of law, as 
    amended, are suspended, insofar as they--
        (a) Prescribe the maximum hours, days, or weeks of labor in any 
    specified period of time;
        (b) Require compensation at a rate higher than the usual rate 
    at which an employee is employed (1) for labor in excess of a 
    specified number of hours, days, or weeks in any specified period 
    of time, or (2) for labor on Sundays, holidays, or during the 
    night. . . .

    A point of order was made against the amendment as follows: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 1709.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Smith] on the ground that it is not germane to the 
    bill. . . .
        The Smith amendment provides for maximum hours of employment 
    and rates of pay. It suspends the operation of some 17 different 
    public acts. The bill before you has nothing to do with

[[Page 8096]]

    any or all of the acts thus sought to be suspended. It has naught 
    to do with hours of employment or rates of pay. It is not a labor 
    bill.

    The following additional remarks were made in support of the point 
of order: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 1710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Arthur D.] Healey [of Massachusetts]: . . . I submit, Mr. 
    Chairman, that the amendment deals with suspension of sections of 
    laws relating to hours and wages, and that there is no section of 
    the bill now under consideration, as reported by the committee, 
    that deals with that subject or any subject related to it.

    The proponent of the amendment defended it as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 1710, 1711.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, the Chair, and 
    everyone else, of course, recognize that this is an unusual 
    situation, because we are considering what is known as a war-powers 
    bill, a bill which has 16 separate titles, no two of which are 
    germane to each other. . . . [All that is] necessary in a situation 
    of this kind is that the fundamental purpose of [the amendment] 
    which is, namely, to expedite the war effort, shall be germane to 
    the fundamental purpose of the bill to which it is offered.

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
20. 88 Cong. Rec. 1712, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 26, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he Chair [endeavors] to point out that there is an 
    unusual situation presented in that the pending bill embraces 16 
    different titles, all titles on different and unrelated subjects. 
    Therefore the Chair is of the opinion that the only proper and 
    reasonable test that can be applied in a situation of this kind is 
    the subject matter and the purpose covered by the pending bill and 
    the pending amendment. The purpose of the pending bill is to 
    further expedite the prosecution of the war effort.
        Therefore the Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is 
    germane to the purposes of the bill, and the Chair therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

Provisions Requiring Nondiscrimination in Army Nurse Corps--Amendment 
    Proscribing Additional Form of Discrimination

Sec. 11.19 To a proposed requirement that officers in the Army Nurse 
    Corps be appointed irrespective of race, color, creed, national 
    origin, or ancestry, an amendment adding to such categories that of 
    ``membership or nonmembership in any labor organization'' was held 
    germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
to establish a permanent nurse corps of the Army and Navy and to estab

[[Page 8097]]

lish a Women's Medical Specialist Corps in the Army. Mr. Adam C. 
Powell, Jr., of New York, had offered an amendment which provided that 
commissioned officers of the Army Nurse Corps, Regular Army, be 
appointed from female citizens ``irrespective of race, color, creed, 
national origin, or ancestry.'' (2) During consideration of 
the Powell amendment, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, offered an 
amendment to the amendment for purposes of adding a requirement that 
the officers referred to be appointed irrespective of ``membership or 
nonmembership in any labor organization.'' (3) The following 
point of order was then raised against the Hoffman amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 1943 (Committee on Armed Services).
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 2011, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 13, 1947.
 3. Id. at p. 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment to the amendment is not germane. 
    The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York merely deals 
    with the question of race, creed, or color, and national origin. 
    The amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan deals with an entirely different subject. . . .

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled as follows 
on the point of order:

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Powell] provides generally that appointment in the Nurse Corps 
    shall be made irrespective of race, creed, color, or national 
    origin.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Hoffman) simply adds an additional category.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is germane, and the 
    Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Waiving State Laws Affecting Voting Rights of Armed Forces--
    Amendment Waiving Payment of Poll Tax as Requirement

Sec. 11.20 To that section of a bill concerning the right of members of 
    the armed forces to vote notwithstanding any state law relating to 
    elections, including requirements as to registration, an amendment 
    waiving the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to registration 
    was held merely to add another provision relating to the voting 
    rights in question and was held germane.

    On July 23, 1942, a bill (4) was under consideration 
which related to absentee voting in time of war by members of the armed 
forces. The bill stated in part: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 7416 (Committee on Election of President, Vice 
        President, and Representatives in Congress).
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 6561, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1942.

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

[[Page 8098]]

                  Special Method of Voting in Time of War

        Section 1. In time of war, notwithstanding any provision of 
    State law relating to elections (including requirements as to 
    registration), every individual absent from the State of his 
    residence and serving in the land or naval forces of the United 
    States in the continental United States (exclusive of Alaska), who 
    is otherwise qualified to vote under the law of the State of his 
    residence, shall be entitled, as provided in this act, to vote for 
    electors of President and Vice President of the United States, 
    United States Senators and Representatives in Congress.

    An amendment offered by Mr. Estes Kefauver, of Tennessee, sought 
specifically to include payment of a poll tax among the state 
requirements relating to elections which were to be deemed inapplicable 
to members of the armed forces as described. Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, made the point of order that the amendment was not 
germane; the point of order, however, was overruled. The Chairman 
(6) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair invites attention to the provision of the bill where 
    the amendment is offered, including requirement as to registration. 
    The amendment seeks to add another provision relating to the right 
    of the men to vote.
        Therefore, the Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is 
    germane and overrules the point of order.

Bill Prohibiting Interference With Officials Attempting To Enforce 
    Civil Rights--Amendment Proscribing Interference Under Additional 
    Circumstances

Sec. 11.21 To a bill making it a criminal offense to interfere with 
    enjoyment of certain enumerated civil rights and prohibiting 
    interference with public officials attempting to enforce these 
    rights without discrimination, an amendment proscribing 
    interference with a public official, law enforcement officer, or 
    fireman who is attempting to carry out the purposes of the bill or 
    prevent civil disturbances, riots, or the destruction of property 
    was held germane.

    The following exchange (7) in the 90th Congress 
concerned an amendment to a bill (8) prescribing penalties 
for interference with civil rights:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 22757, 22758, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 16, 1967.
 8. H.R. 2516 (Committee on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            . . . [It shall be a criminal offense to injure, interfere 
        with, or the like]

[[Page 8099]]

        any law enforcement officer making or attempting to make a 
        lawful arrest to carry out the purposes of this act or to 
        prevent or abate a riot or violent civil disturbance . . . or . 
        . . any fireman attempting to extinguish a fire created by any 
        disturbance resulting from a civil rights protest. . . .

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        The fundamental purpose of this bill is to prescribe penalties 
    for the forcible interference because of race, color, or creed or 
    national origin with the enjoyment of civil rights.
        Those rights are Federal rights. They stem from the 14th 
    amendment, and from the laws passed by the Congress. . . .
        The question of protection of policemen and firemen is a matter 
    I doubt very much whether we would have the constitutional right to 
    adopt, or pass.
        The congressional power in this respect could not stem from the 
    14th amendment. It could not stem from the commerce clause.
        That is not the case with policemen and firemen. In my 
    estimation this is purely a State or local matter and not for the 
    Congress. . . .
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Chairman, it is a well-established principle 
    fully recognized in the rules of this House and in its precedents 
    and rulings of the Chair that an amendment is germane when it does 
    no more than to add an additional category to the list of 
    punishable offenses prescribed in the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (9) . . . The bill before the 
    Committee of the Whole enumerates eight areas of civil rights 
    activity and is designed to prevent or punish interference with 
    these activities. It does this by defining three new crimes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill makes it a crime:
        First, to interfere with any person, because of his race, 
    color, religion, or national origin, while he is lawfully engaging 
    or seeking to engage in these activities;
        Second, to interfere with any person to discourage lawful 
    participation by such person in any of the eight activities, and, 
    more particularly, to interfere with related free speech and 
    assembly;
        Third, for any person to interfere with any public official to 
    discourage such official from affording equal treatment to those 
    participating in the eight activities.
        The amendment adds a fourth category of criminal activity 
    closely related to the last of these three crimes. It also relates 
    to interference with public officials in the performance of their 
    duties and proscribes any attempt to injure, intimidate or 
    interfere with a public official attempting to carry out the 
    purpose of this act or attempting to prevent certain civil 
    disturbances.
        The Chair feels that this amendment falls within the general 
    proposition that where a section of a bill defines several unlawful 
    acts an amendment proposing to include an additional unlawful act 
    of the same class is germane.

Bill Authorizing Investigation of Civil Rights Violations--Amendment 
    Adding Further Discriminatory Practice To Be Investigated

Sec. 11.22 To a bill authorizing a commission to investigate

[[Page 8100]]

    abridgment of civil rights, an amendment making discrimination on 
    the basis of political affiliation a subject of such investigation 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration which provided in part that a commission should 
investigate allegations that certain citizens were being deprived of 
their right to vote or being subjected to unwarranted economic 
pressures by reason of their color, race, religion, or national 
origins. The following amendment was offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 627 (Committee on the Judiciary).
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 13730, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri: On page 
    21, line 12, after the word ``religion'', insert ``political 
    affiliation.''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 13730, 13731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that this amendment is not germane to this bill. 
    The prohibition against discrimination on the grounds of color, 
    race, religion, and [national] origin is envisioned within the 
    terms of the bill now and it says nothing about political 
    affiliations. We do not want to change the entire character of this 
    commission, as it is set up here, by providing that they are to get 
    into an investigation of how people vote and why. It would involve, 
    or at least could involve, investigation of the so-called Communist 
    Party and other subversive groups. It completely changes the 
    character of the bill. It is not within the purview of either this 
    section or the title of the bill in any way, it seems to me.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 13731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I think it is apparent to 
    anyone if they read the bill, that it says it is to investigate the 
    allegation that certain citizens of the United States are being 
    deprived of their right to vote. . . .
        I think [it] is well recognized, that political affiliation is 
    something that excludes some people from the right of franchise in 
    this country.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
15. 102 Cong. Rec. 13731, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined both the language of the amendment and 
    the language of the bill and finds, for the reason that the word 
    ``sex'' was germane yesterday, ``political affiliation'' is germane 
    to the section that the gentleman has offered his amendment, and 
    the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8101]]

Bill Establishing Department of Education and Containing Findings--
    Amendment Adding Finding With Regard to Use of Quotas Based on Race 
    or Other Factors

Sec. 11.23 To that portion of a bill containing diverse findings and 
    purposes related to a general subject, an amendment adding another 
    finding or purpose related to that subject is germane; thus, to a 
    title of a bill establishing a new Department of Education, stating 
    a wide range of findings and educational purposes for the creation 
    of the Department, including a finding that there is a need to 
    insure equal access to educational opportunities, an amendment 
    adding the finding that no individual should be denied such 
    opportunities by regulations which utilize ratios, quotas, or other 
    numerical requirements based on race, creed, color, national origin 
    or sex, was held germane as adding a related finding to the diverse 
    class of educational policies stated in the title.

    On June 12, 1979,(16) during consideration of H.R. 2444 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Lucien N. 
Nedzi, of Michigan, overruled a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 14460, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Department of Education Organization Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 54, in line 21, 
        strike out the ``;'', and insert the following: ``and that no 
        individual should be denied such education opportunities by 
        rules, regulations, standards, guidelines, and orders which 
        utilize any ratio, quota, or other numerical requirement 
        related to race, creed, color, national origin or sex.''. . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order against this amendment, since it is on a subject that is 
    different from that which is under consideration and, thus, it 
    fails to meet the test that is imposed by rule XVI, clause 7.
        We are considering a reorganization statute, that is H.R. 2444, 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations. 
    That committee has reported this bill.
        The gentleman is introducing a new subject by way of his 
    amendment which affects education programs. If such an amendment 
    were introduced

[[Page 8102]]

    as a bill, it would not even be referred to the Committee on 
    Government Operations.
        In order to be germane, an amendment must have the same 
    fundamental purpose as the bill under consideration. The purpose of 
    H.R. 2444 deals only with the organizational structure of a new 
    Department of Education.
        The amendment raises a controversial subject of public policy 
    and gets into substantive issues. Thus, the fundamental purpose of 
    the amendment is not germane to the fundamental purpose of the 
    bill.
        I know yesterday there was a ruling of the chair with regard to 
    one of the other amendments that were offered that made reference 
    to the inclusion in this bill of section 103, namely prohibition 
    against Federal control of education. That provision is the 
    restatement of the present law which prohibits the Federal 
    Government from controlling or getting into the control of local 
    education. In other words, that is a restatement of what the 
    present law is. It was put in this bill so it would make certain to 
    those who were involved with the Department of Education in the 
    bill that they would know that it is not the intention of the 
    Federal Government to direct or control education at the local 
    level.
        This amendment goes into substantive issues which are not 
    involved in this committee. We have had no hearings on this 
    subject; we have had no opportunity to discuss it; we have had no 
    testimony on it. . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . What I am simply doing in this particular 
    amendment is further defining findings which are already stated 
    under the findings and purposes section of this bill.
        The present findings says:

            There is a continuous need to insure equal access for all 
        Americans to educational opportunities of high quality.

        All this language does is expand upon that particular 
    phraseology by saying that no individual should be denied such 
    educational opportunities by rules, regulations, standards, 
    guidelines, or orders which utilize any ratio, quota, or other 
    numerical requirement related to race, creed, color, national 
    origin or sex.
        It simply defines material which is already stated in the bill. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to remind the Member that title I of H.R. 
    2444 in section 102 contains a diverse statement of purposes and 
    findings applicable to the newly created Department of Education. 
    These findings, while not affecting or creating new authorities 
    which are to be transferred to the Department, are extremely 
    diverse in character and emphasize several aspects of the question 
    of the extent of Federal Government involvement in educational 
    programs. Since it is difficult to group into one class all of the 
    stated purposes and findings for the new Department, and since the 
    pending amendment does not directly address new substantive 
    authorities to be conferred upon or withheld from the Department, 
    the Chair will rule that the amendment stating an additional 
    finding relative to Federal educational policy is germane to title 
    I of the bill.
        The Chair would cite a relevant precedent contained in Cannon's 
    precedents, volume VIII, section 3011,

[[Page 8103]]

    where, to a section embodying a declaration of policy and including 
    a number of purposes, an amendment proposing to incorporate an 
    additional purpose was held germane. There, the Chair emphasizes 
    that the declaration of policy section did not have any particular 
    effect upon the bill, and that the section contained several 
    diverse proposals.
        Accordingly, the Chair overrules the point of order, and the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes in support 
    of his amendment.

Bill Prohibiting Certain Activities in Political Campaigns--Amendment 
    To Prohibit Certain Political Activities on Part of Employees of 
    Public Utility Holding Companies

Sec. 11.24 To a bill making it unlawful for persons, corporations, and 
    the like to engage in certain ``pernicious political activities,'' 
    an amendment making unlawful certain ``pernicious political 
    activities'' on the part of employees of public utility holding 
    companies was held to be germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration that sought to prevent pernicious political activities by 
making it unlawful for any person to make contributions in excess of 
$5,000 to political campaigns. The bill also declared it to be unlawful 
for any person, partnership, corporation, or the like, to purchase any 
goods, commodities, or advertising, where the proceeds of such purchase 
would inure to the benefit of any political campaign. The following 
amendment was offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. S. 3046 (Committee on the Judiciary).
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 9453, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., July 10, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 21, after line 7, insert: ``it is further declared to be a 
    pernicious political activity, and it shall hereafter be unlawful, 
    for any officer or employee of a public utility holding company 
    registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the 
    Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, or of any subsidiary 
    company thereof, (1) to take any active part in political 
    management or in political campaigns, or (2) to use his authority 
    or influence as such officer or employee for the purpose of 
    interfering with an election or a nomination for office, or 
    affecting the results thereof, or (3) directly or indirectly to 
    coerce, attempt to coerce, command, or advise any other such 
    officer or employee to pay, lend, or contribute any part of his 
    salary or compensation or anything else of value to any party, 
    committee, organization, agency, or person for political 
    purposes.''

    A point of order was made against the amendment by Mr. John J. 
Dempsey, of New Mexico,

[[Page 8104]]

on the ground that the amendment was not germane to the 
bill.(20) Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, speaking in 
support of the point of order,(1) argued that the bill dealt 
basically with groups or classes who received compensation or 
contributions directly or indirectly from the federal government, and 
that the class of persons included within the terms of the Rankin 
amendment were not such a class as the bill intended to regulate. A 
further argument was made by Mr. Francis H. Case, of South 
Dakota,(2) that the section of the bill to which the 
amendment was offered dealt primarily with the subject of contributions 
rather than with that of participation in campaigns; observing that 
much of the proposed amendment was devoted to the subject of 
participation in campaigns, Mr. Case cited another section of the bill 
to which he felt the amendment would more appropriately be offered. The 
Chairman, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, in ruling on the point 
of order, stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 9453.
 1. Id.
 2. Id. at p. 9454.
 3. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is in complete agreement with so much of the 
    observations of the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
        Michener] as relates to the amendment's not being germane if 
    the bill were confined to one group. The Chair would have no 
    hesitancy in ruling if the bill confined itself . . . to employees 
    of a state or of any political subdivision.
        However, the Chair is very much concerned by the provision of 
    section 13, which brings in another class, declaring it to be [a 
    pernicious political activity for any person to make political 
    contributions as specified].
        Then in the third paragraph of section 13 there is brought in 
    another class: . . . ``any person, individual, partnership, 
    committee, association, corporation, and any other organization or 
    group of persons. . . .''
        There is a well-recognized rule of the House, which has been 
    passed upon on many occasions, that where a bill confines itself to 
    one subject, another subject, even if related, would not be 
    germane, but where a bill covers two or more subjects a related 
    subject would then be in order. . . .
        This being a related matter, and the bill covering two or more 
    groups, it seems to the Chair that another group could be included 
    therein, which the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Mississippi undertakes to do. For the reasons stated, therefore, 
    the Chair overrules the point of order.

Provisions Relating to Government and Political Rights in District of 
    Columbia--Amendment Providing for Non-voting Delegate to Senate

Sec. 11.25 To a proposition relating in many diverse respects

[[Page 8105]]

    to the political rights of the people of the District of Columbia, 
    an amendment conferring upon that electorate the additional right 
    of electing a non-voting Delegate to the Senate was held germane.

    On Oct. 10, 1973,(4) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 9682, a bill to reorganize the government of 
the District of Columbia. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
provided for a comprehensive reorganization of the government of the 
District of Columbia, including sections permitting the popular 
election of a mayor and city council. It also contained amendments to 
the District of Columbia Election Act relating to procedures for 
election of a delegate to the House of Representatives. An amendment 
was offered providing for the election of a non-voting delegate to the 
Senate. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 33656, 33657, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Diggs: Page 118, 
        immediately after line 2, insert the following:

                  district of columbia delegate to the senate

            Sec. 741. (a) The people of the District of Columbia shall 
        be represented in the Senate of the United States by a 
        Delegate, to be known as the ``Delegate to the Senate from the 
        District of Columbia'', who shall be elected by the voters of 
        the District of Columbia in accordance with the District of 
        Columbia Election Act, in the same manner as such Act relates 
        to the election of the Delegate to the House of Representatives 
        from the District of Columbia. . . .

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    make a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]he point of order is based on the fact that the amendment is 
    not germane. The bill deals with self-government for the District 
    of Columbia and allocating certain powers to the District and 
    certain restrictions on the exercise of that authority. The 
    amendment, as I understand it, purports to give representation in 
    the Congress, which is a wholly different subject not embraced in 
    the bill before the Committee. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair believes that the matter before the committee covers so many 
    different subjects that have to do with the rights of people of the 
    District of Columbia that the amendment is, in fact, germane and 
    overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).

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

[[Page 8106]]

Resolution Authorizing Investigation of Sources and Purity of Milk 
    Supply in District of Columbia--Amendment Expanding Investigation 
    To Include Ways To Ensure Adequate Supply of Dairy Products

Sec. 11.26 To a resolution authorizing a committee to investigate 
    several matters relating to the sources and purity of the milk 
    supply in the District of Columbia, an amendment was held to be 
    germane which proposed that such investigation encompass additional 
    aspects of the problem of ensuring an adequate supply of dairy 
    products in the District of Columbia.

    The following resolution was offered on Mar. 13, 1939: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 2663, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. (Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 113

        Resolved, That the House Committee on the District of Columbia, 
    or a duly authorized subcommittee thereof, be, and is hereby, 
    authorized and directed to make a full and complete investigation 
    of (1) the sources and purity of the milk and cream supply of the 
    District of Columbia; (2) of any violation of the law of the 
    District of Columbia or regulations of the District Commissioners 
    made pursuant thereto with respect to the importation of milk or 
    cream into the District of Columbia or importation of unlicensed 
    milk or cream into the District of Columbia and the method by which 
    such violations are perpetrated; (3) the possible effect upon the 
    health of the community by reason of the unlawful importation of 
    unlicensed milk or cream into the District of Columbia; (4) whether 
    and to what extent cream for ice-cream purposes, under section 4 of 
    the 1925 Milk Act of the District of Columbia, is being diverted 
    unlawfully to milk or cream for fluid consumption; (5) whether any 
    conspiracy exists on the part of any distributor of any dairy 
    products to violate the provisions of the 1925 District Milk Act or 
    the regulations made pursuant thereto. . . .

    To such resolution, the following amendment was offered: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 2671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: 
    Page 2, line 7, after ``thereto,'' strike out the period and 
    insert:
        (6) the propriety and feasibility of licensing or otherwise 
    permitting under proper regulation in such manner as to fairly 
    protect the safety and health of consumers in the District of 
    Columbia the entry into the District of Columbia of so-called 
    western cream and milk, and cream and milk from any available 
    sources in the United States for fluid, manufacturing, or other use 
    in the District of Columbia and on the Washington market;
        (7) and whether the 1925 Milk Act, and all other acts relating 
    to the importation, distribution, and inspection of milk and dairy 
    products require modification, alteration, or improve

[[Page 8107]]

    ment in order to insure an adequate supply of milk and dairy 
    products for the residents of the District of Columbia at 
    reasonable and fair prices.

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

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    resolution before the House. . . . As the Chair will notice, the 
    resolution of investigation is confined to a narrow scope, namely, 
    its sole purpose is investigation of law violations. The gentleman 
    from Indiana desires to enter upon an investigation of whether the 
    law as now existing is a good law or a bad law, or whether Congress 
    ought to do something about it.

    In ruling on the point of order, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 2672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is a very well considered line of opinions and precedents 
    holding that where a number of subjects are embraced in a bill, it 
    is germane to add another subject of the same class thereto, and 
    inasmuch as the committee is authorized to make recommendations 
    affecting legislation to cure or change the situation with 
    reference to the supply of milk or cream, the Chair is of the 
    opinion that the amendment is in order and is germane to the 
    resolution and overrules the point of order.

Bill Amending Laws Affecting Authority of Secretary of Agriculture--
    Amendment Addressed to Different Law Affecting Such Authority

Sec. 11.27 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,

[[Page 8108]]

    was held germane since restricted to authority of the Department of 
    Agriculture.

    On July 22, 1977,(9) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 24558, 24559, 24569-71, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                  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,

[[Page 8109]]

        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 
    Administration'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, 
    chapter 28, section 33.5 and 33.7.
        In addition, the point that I think is most important, on July 
    12, 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 provi

[[Page 8110]]

    sions 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 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, 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: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Frank E. Evans (Col.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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

[[Page 8111]]

    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 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 Relating to Marketing of Various Agricultural Products--Amendment 
    Extending Coverage of Bill to Poultry and Eggs

Sec. 11.28 To an omnibus agricultural bill, containing farm

[[Page 8112]]

    programs in respect of dairy products, wool, feed grains, cotton 
    and wheat, an amendment to add a new title to the bill relating to 
    poultry and eggs was held to be germane.

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (11) was under 
consideration which proposed to maintain farm income, stabilize prices, 
and afford greater economic opportunity in rural areas. The bill 
contained provisions relating to the marketing of dairy products and 
other agricultural products. An amendment was offered which proposed to 
regulate poultry and eggs, in addition to the products already included 
within the provisions of the bill.(12) The following 
objection was made to the amendment: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 9811 (Committee on Agriculture).
12. See 111 Cong. Rec. 21053, 21054, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 19, 
        1965.
13. Id. at p. 21054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York is not germane, and I should like to speak on the point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New 
    York is . . . in substance the contents of his bill, H.R. 7481, 
    which is presently pending in the Committee on Agriculture. This 
    amendment provides for production limitations and marketing orders 
    for eggs and is proposed as amendatory langauge to the Agricultural 
    Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, which amended, 
    supplemented, and re-enacted the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
    1933, as amended.
        There is only one place in H.R. 9811 where this statute is 
    amended and that is in title I which contains proposed amendments 
    to the Federal milk marketing order program established under that 
    act.
        The precedents are ample, Mr. Chairman, on the principle that 
    one individual proposition may not be amended by another individual 
    proposition even though the two belong to the same class. . . .

    The proponent of the amendment defended it as follows:

        Mr. [Joseph Y.] Resnick [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I believe 
    that the purposes of my amendment are identical with the purposes 
    of this bill, namely, to maintain farm income and stabilize prices. 
    . . . Dairy and poultry are frequently considered as the same class 
    commodity and by reason of that fact they are set apart in a 
    separate subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture. I believe . 
    . . this bill deals with everything eatable and wearable and 
    smokable and certainly this falls within the purview of this bill.

    In overruling the point of order, the Chairman (14) 
stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Oren Harris (Ark.).
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 21054, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 19, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Resnick] offers an amendment 
    which

[[Page 8113]]

    is, in effect, a new additional title to the bill, H.R. 9811. The 
    gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Quie] makes a point of order against 
    the amendment on the basis that it is not germane to the bill H.R. 
    9811. The new title which is offered in the amendment of the 
    gentleman from New York has to do with laying chickens and chicken 
    table eggs. The Chair would like to observe that there are seven 
    titles in this bill dealing with various agricultural commodities. 
    It would also like to observe that the new proposed title has to do 
    with amending the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 together with 
    the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The first title 
    of the bill, H.R. 9811, starts off with an amendment to the 
    Agricultural Adjustment Act and the Agricultural Marketing 
    Agreement Act of 1937. Furthermore, as has been stated, the bill 
    proposes to maintain farm income, stabilize prices, and to afford, 
    among other things, greater economic opportunity in rural areas. 
    Obviously, the provision of the proposed new title would come 
    within the purview of the titles of the bill and the point of order 
    is overruled.

Bill Relating to Cigarette Labeling and Advertising, and Requiring 
    Related Reports--Amendment To Require Reports on Tobacco Subsidies

Sec. 11.29 To a bill relating to the labeling and advertising of 
    cigarettes and requiring certain reports concerning health 
    consequences of smoking and the effectiveness of labeling, an 
    amendment requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to report 
    periodically on government subsidies to growers and processors of 
    tobacco was held germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Public Health 
Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969,(16) an amendment was offered 
as follows: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 6543 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 16291, 16292, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New 
    Hampshire]: . . .
        (3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall transmit a report to 
    Congress not later than six months after the effective date of this 
    Act, and annually thereafter, concerning the dollar amounts of 
    administrative costs, export payments, market promotion activities, 
    price supports, or subsidies, direct or indirect, of any kind 
    whatsoever, that inures to growers, processors, or exporters of 
    tobacco produced in the United States.

    A point of order was made against the amendment, as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 16292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David E.] Satterfield [3d, of Virginia]: I make a point of 
    order against the amendment as not being germane. It pertains to 
    the Department of Agriculture and the economics

[[Page 8114]]

    applicable to export promotion, market promotion, and other matters 
    pertaining to tobacco. The amendment is not germane to the current 
    action. It is also beyond the scope of the bill.

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

        Mr. Cleveland: . . . Now, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this 
    legislation we are debating is to warn the American public about 
    the dangers of smoking cigarettes. This is certainly a proper 
    health function of the Government. But is it not hypocritical, even 
    two-faced, to be providing this warning while another arm of the 
    Government is actively and perhaps expensively engaged in the 
    business of supporting, subsidizing and even promoting the use of 
    tobacco? . . .
        On the same page, the committee . . . has asked the Federal 
    Trade Commission to transmit a report to the Congress . . . 
    concerning the effectiveness of cigarette labeling and the current 
    practices and method of cigarette advertising.
        It seems to me it would be quite germane for us to take the 
    next step and ask the Secretary of Agriculture just how much he is 
    putting into the promoting of tobacco and tobacco products, how 
    much of it is being exported abroad, and under what conditions. . . 
    .

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jack B. Brooks (Tex.).
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 16292, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New Hampshire (Mr. Cleveland) and the bill before the 
    Committee. The Chair observes that there are two reports required 
    in the bill, as shown on page 5, and the gentleman's amendment adds 
    a third report that would be required, and this third report would 
    be germane to the subject matter of the bill. It seems clearly 
    germane, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Continuing Import Controls on Specified Products--Amendment Adding 
    Products

Sec. 11.30 To a bill to continue for a temporary period certain powers 
    for the purpose of administering import controls with respect to 
    fats, oils, and rice products, an amendment making the bill 
    applicable, in addition, to potatoes, cheese, and hams, was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 81st Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
which read in part as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. S. 3550 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 9492, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., June 29, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That, notwithstanding any other provision 
    of law, title III of the Second War Powers Act, 1942 . . . shall 
    continue in effect until July 1, 1951, for the purpose of 
    authorizing and exercising, administering, and enforcing of import 
    controls with respect to fats and oils . . . and rice and rice 
    products, upon a determina

[[Page 8115]]

    tion by the President that such controls are (a) essential to the 
    acquisition or distribution of products in world short supply. . . 
    .

    The following amendment was offered to such proposition: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 9495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: 
    Page 2, line 1, after ``rice products'', insert ``potatoes, cheese, 
    hams.''

    The following exchange (4) concerned a point of order 
made against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald W.] Nicholson [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. August H. Andresen: . . . I call the Chair's particular 
    attention to the fact that on page 2, line 1, rice and rice 
    products are included. All that I am doing is to add additional 
    products. Certain rice and rice products are food; and the 
    commodities I mentioned, potatoes, cheese, Polish hams, eggs from 
    Communist China, are all food products and are in line with rice 
    and rice products. . . .
        The Chairman [Walter K. Granger, of Utah]: The Chair is 
    prepared to rule.
        The body of the bill as well as the title enumerates 
    commodities in addition to fats and oils. Rice is mentioned. It 
    would be in order to add other commodities.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Providing Two Categories of Foreign Assistance--Amendment 
    Providing Additional Category

Sec. 11.31 To a portion of a bill providing two categories of economic 
    assistance to specified foreign nations, an amendment adding a 
    further specific category of economic assistance for those 
    countries may be germane; thus, to a title of a foreign aid bill 
    providing general economic assistance to southern African countries 
    and refugee training and assistance to address economic dislocation 
    from conflict in that region, broadened by amendment to require 
    presidential determinations whether aid to certain southern African 
    countries would further the foreign policy interests of the United 
    States, an amendment adding a further related category of aid to 
    such countries for a fair and open election program, and 
    authorizing the president to appoint a team of observers to observe 
    elections in such countries and to report thereon to Congress, was 
    held germane.

[[Page 8116]]

    On Apr. 5 and 9, 1979,(5) H.R. 3324 (6) was 
under consideration in the Committee of the Whole. The amendment 
described above was held germane, thus demonstrating that an amendment 
adding an additional category to a proposition containing two or more 
categories within the same general class is germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 7374, 7750, 7752, 7755-57, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. International Development Cooperation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        TITLE III--ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND

                        authorization of appropriations

            Sec. 301. Section 531(b)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 is amended by striking out ``for the fiscal year 1979, 
        $1,902,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``for the fiscal 
        year 1980, $1,895,000,000 and for the fiscal year 1981, 
        $1,950,000,000''. . . .
            ``Sec. 533. Southern Africa Programs.--Of the amounts 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter for the 
        fiscal year 1980 and for the fiscal year 1981, $68,000,000 for 
        the fiscal year 1980 and $85,000,000 for the fiscal year 1981 
        shall be available for the countries of southern Africa and for 
        a southern Africa regional refugee support, training, and 
        economic planning program to address the problems caused by the 
        economic dislocation resulting from the conflict in that region 
        and for education and job training assistance. Such funds may 
        be used to provide humanitarian assistance to African refugees 
        and persons displaced by war and internal strife in southern 
        Africa, to improve transportation links interrupted or 
        jeopardized by regional political conflicts, and to provide 
        support to countries in that region.''. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 24, after line 2, 
        add the following new paragraph:
            ``(b) No assistance may be furnished under this section to 
        Mozambique, Angola, Tanzania, or Zambia, except that the 
        President may waive this prohibition with respect to any such 
        country if he determines, and so reports to the Congress, that 
        furnishing such assistance to such country would further the 
        foreign policy interests of the United States.''. . .

        The Chairman: (7) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See 125 Cong. Rec. 7755, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 9, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 23, line 10, 
        strike all of Section 303(a) and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following new Section 303:
            ``Sec. 303. (a) Section 533 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 is amended to read as follows:
            `` `Sec. 533--Southern Africa Program
            `` `(a) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out this

[[Page 8117]]

        chapter for the fiscal year 1980, $68,000,000 shall be 
        available (only) for the countries of southern Africa and for--
            `` `(1) a southern Africa regional refugee support, 
        training, and economic planning program to address the problems 
        caused by the economic dislocation resulting from the conflict 
        in that region;
            `` `(2) education and job training assistance;
            `` `(3) a southern Africa fair and open election program to 
        address the problem resulting from the conflict and internal 
        strife in that region.
            `` `Such funds may be used to provide humanitarian 
        assistance to African refugees and persons displaced by war and 
        internal strife in southern Africa, to improve transportation 
        links interrupted or jeopardized by regional political 
        conflicts and to provide support to countries in that region.
            `` `(b) In furtherance of the purposes of this section and 
        the foreign policy objectives of the United States the 
        President may appoint a team of impartial observers to observe 
        elections in southern Africa and report to Congress:
            `` `(1) as to whether all of the people of southern Africa 
        and all organized political groups were given a fair 
        opportunity to participate fully in the election without regard 
        to ethnic identity or political affiliation. . . .
            `` `(c) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out the purposes of this section, $20,000,000 shall be 
        made available to the government of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia which is 
        installed in that nation as a result of the election held in 
        April 1979, which election may be evaluated and reported upon 
        by observers as provided for in this section.' ''

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: I make a point of order 
    that this amendment is not in order. It provides or appears to call 
    upon the President to send observers to monitor the elections in 
    southern Africa by which presumably is meant Rhodesia since there 
    are no elections anywhere else in southern Africa which are 
    currently being held.
        There is nothing in this bill which deals with elections either 
    in southern Africa or in Rhodesia itself. For this reason it seems 
    to me this amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill and is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: . . . Mr. Chairman, first of all the section to 
    which this amendment is addressed is section 303 of the bill. This 
    section was just recently amended by a previous amendment which I 
    offered and which considerably expanded the scope of that section, 
    including a Presidential waiver and determination regarding aid for 
    four different countries in the southern African area. The general 
    proposition is that the entire section and indeed the entire 
    purpose of the bill should be looked to as to whether or not 
    germaneness is applicable to an amendment which is offered.
        The gentleman objects that this particular section imposes some 
    duty upon the President. I would call the attention of the Chair to 
    section (b) the amendment which simply allows the President in his 
    discretion to use the mechanism the amendment provides to evaluate 
    any election held in the southern African area including ones in 
    the Republic of South Africa or in any of the other nations which 
    may hold elections at any time. This amendment offers a device to 
    determine whether or not the funds under this section shall be made 
    available.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the attention of the Chair 
    to the prece

[[Page 8118]]

    dents which I believe do have application in this case.
        The general proposition is that to a bill amending a law 
    dealing with several subjects within a definable class, an 
    amendment further amending that law to add another subject within 
    that same class is germane.
        This was a decision on March 26, 1975, made by the Chairman of 
    the Committee of the Whole in the case of an amendment that was 
    offered and a point of order made against additional language 
    offered by the other body to a tax bill. The amendment was ruled to 
    be germane, and the Chair said:

            The Chair would call the attention of the House to the 
        precedent contained in Cannon's VIII, section 3042, wherein the 
        Committee of the Whole ruled that to a bill raising revenue by 
        several diverse methods of taxation, including an excise tax, 
        an amendment in the form of a new section proposing an 
        additional method of taxation--a tax on the undistributed 
        profits of corporations--was held germane . . . the test of 
        germaneness in such a situation is the relationship between the 
        new section or title and the subject matter of the bill as a 
        whole.

        I would also call the attention of the Chair to the ruling of 
    the Chair on March 20, 1975, in which a bill was brought before the 
    House that contained price supports for a number of different 
    agricultural commodities. An amendment was offered by the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) that added another defined class to 
    agricultural commodities, and the Chair ruled ``that the purpose of 
    this bill as set forth in the report is to establish an emergency 
    price support program'' for ``cotton, wheat, feed grains, soybeans, 
    and milk.''
        Then he went on to say:

            Under the general proposition that it is in order to add 
        another subject to a proposition containing subjects of the 
        same class, the Chair would point out that the amendment of the 
        gentleman from Massachusetts adds another agricultural 
        commodity to the commodities proposed . . .

        Mr. Chairman, the reason that this precedent is applicable in 
    the case of this amendment is that we have before us in this bill 
    section 303 which amends the southern Africa programs section of 
    the Foreign Assistance Act. That act sets up funding for various 
    programs in southern Africa, including regional refugee support, 
    training, economic planning, and economic dislocation, and also 
    including improving transportation links interrupted or jeopardized 
    by regional political conflicts, and it provides support to 
    ``countries'' within that region, meaning governments.
        All the gentleman's amendment proposes is that in addition to 
    these various objectives in southern Africa, an additional use of 
    the money can be found, and that is discretionary with the 
    President to judge whether or not elections in the area are held 
    fairly and openly and whether or not the countries then would be 
    eligible for receipt of money under the funding.
        So I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it is a valid amendment, simply 
    adding to the class of already described activities that the bill 
    contemplates, and it does not impose any new duties, simply leaving 
    discretionary with the President what he would do with the 
    authority granted. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order

[[Page 8119]]

    made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solarz) against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
        The essential nature of the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Solarz) is that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is not germane to title 
    III. The key, it seems to the Chair in resolving that question, 
    turns on the point made by the gentleman from Maryland in referring 
    to the precedents cited by the gentleman from Maryland; namely, 
    whether the new category of authorized funds for a southern Africa 
    fair and open election program to address the problem resulting 
    from the conflict and strife in the region is the same class of 
    assistance authorized in section 303. Or is it a new and different 
    class of assistance?
        In making a determination with respect to that question, the 
    Chair has read carefully the language in section 303. The purposes 
    of assistance cataloged in section 303 are basically two in nature. 
    One is general economic assistance for the countries of southern 
    Africa, and, secondly, a southern Africa regional refugee support, 
    training, and economic support program to address the problems 
    caused by the economic dislocation resulting from the conflict in 
    the region.
        The language in section 303 goes on to point out:

            Such funds may be used to provide humanitarian assistance 
        to African refugees and persons displaced by war and internal 
        strife in southern Africa, to improve transportation links 
        interrupted or jeopardized by regional political conflicts . . 
        .

        In addition to that, the gentleman from Maryland has pointed 
    out that the language of section 303 in its scope has just recently 
    been expanded considerably by an amendment offered and adopted in 
    the Committee of the Whole to permit the President to make 
    determinations on other issues of U.S. national interest regarding 
    certain countries in southern Africa.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that, since the general thrust 
    of the purposes or classes of assistance in section 303 is to 
    provide funds to alleviate the effects of political turmoil and 
    strife in the region, and that this is specifically noted in the 
    language presently in the bill, and that the team of observers 
    provision as merely an oversight mechanism relating to proper 
    utilization of those funds. It would seem the funding of fair 
    elections in the region would be another class of assistance of the 
    same general type, and, therefore, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland, in the opinion of the Chair, is germane.
        The point of order is overruled.

Prohibition Against Using Certain Foreign Aid Funds for Retirement of 
    Recipient Nation's Debt--Amendment To Prohibit Other Uses by 
    Recipient

Sec. 11.32 To a bill amending the Mutual Security Act of 1954 to 
    prohibit use of designated funds by recipient nations for 
    retirement of their national debts, an amendment to prohibit 
    financial assistance to any country that has

[[Page 8120]]

    reduced its own budget or made any tax reductions to its citizens 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954. The bill contained the 
following provisions: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 12181 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
10. See 104 Cong. Rec. 8736, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 516. Prohibition against debt retirement: None of the 
    funds made available under this act nor any of the counterpart 
    funds generated as a result of assistance under this act or any 
    other act shall be used to make payments on account of the 
    principal or interest on any debt of any foreign government or on 
    any loan made to such government by any other foreign government; 
    nor shall any of these funds be expended for any purpose for which 
    funds have been withdrawn by any recipient country to make payment 
    on such debts. . . .

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John V.] Beamer of Indiana: On page 
    19, section 516, following line 13, add the following: Provided 
    further, That none of the funds made available under this act nor 
    any of the counterpart funds generated as a result of assistance 
    under this act or other act shall be given to any country that has 
    reduced its own budget or made any tax reductions to its citizens.

    The following exchange (11) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 8737.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I renew 
    the point of order. This amendment is not germane, and goes far 
    beyond the scope of the section that the amendment applies to.
        The Chairman: (12) . . . Upon examining this 
    section, it is obvious that the section contains several 
    prohibitions against debt retirement, and the other section 
    contains many other prohibitions relative to the use of these 
    funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana simply adds 
    an additional prohibition.
        In the opinion of the Chair it is germane and is in order.

Concurrent Resolution Concerning Steps To Effect Release of American 
    Arrested in Czechoslovakia--Amendment To Sever Diplomatic Relations 
    With Czechoslovakia

Sec. 11.33 To a concurrent resolution expressing the profound 
    indignation of the Congress at the arrest and conviction of an 
    American correspondent in Czechoslovakia and providing that 
    agencies of our government take all possible action to bring about 
    his release, an

[[Page 8121]]

    amendment proposing termination of all commercial and diplomatic 
    relations with Czechoslovakia was held to be germane.

    On Aug. 2, 1951,(13) the Clerk read the following 
resolution: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 97 Cong. Rec. 9446, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H. Con. Res. 140 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the arrest and conviction of William N. Oatis, 
    correspondent for the Associated Press in Prague, Czechoslovakia, 
    is a shocking violation of fundamental human freedoms . . .
        . . . Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the Congress of the United States expresses its 
    profound indignation at the farcical arrest, and conviction of 
    William N. Oatis; and that the sense of this resolution be conveyed 
    . . . to the officials of the Czechoslovakian Government.

    The following proceedings then occurred: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 97 Cong. Rec. 9447, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Clerk will report the 
    remaining committee amendments:
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments: . . .
            Page 2, line 4, after ``Oatis'', insert ``that the 
        executive agencies of the Government be requested to take all 
        possible action to bring about his release.''

        The committee amendments were agreed to.

    Subsequently, the following amendment was offered: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 9454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Orland K.] Armstrong [of Missouri]: 
    On page 2, after line 9, add the following:
        ``Be it further resolved, That it is the sense of the House 
    that all commercial relations with Czechoslovakia should be 
    terminated immediately . . . and be it further
        ``Resolved, That if William N. Oatis is not restored to his 
    freedom within 90 days that the Department of State take steps to 
    evacuate all nationals of the United States in Czechoslovakia with 
    the end in view of severing diplomatic relations with that 
    Government.''

    Mr. James P. Richards, of South Carolina, raised a point of order 
against the amendment, contending that the amendment was not germane to 
the resolution. Speaker Rayburn, however, overruled the point of order, 
stating: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 9455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution provides among other things that the executive 
    agencies of the Government are requested to take all possible 
    action to bring about the release of Mr. Oatis. The gentleman from 
    Missouri is simply adding other conditions. Thus, the amendment is 
    in order, and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Amendment Adding Tax Credit to Those Already Contained in Bill

Sec. 11.34 To a proposition seeking to reduce tax liabilities

[[Page 8122]]

    of individuals and business in several diverse ways, including tax 
    credits, an amendment adding a further tax credit to those already 
    contained in the bill is germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(18) it was demonstrated that the test 
of the germaneness of a portion of a Senate amendment in the nature of 
a substitute adding a new section to a House bill is the relationship 
of that section to the subject of the House bill as a whole. The 
proceedings during consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2166, 
the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 8900, 8902, 8930, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)

        The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
    Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2166) to 
    amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a refund of 
    1974 individual income taxes, to increase the low income allowance 
    and the percentage standard deduction, to provide a credit for 
    certain earned income, to increase the investment credit and the 
    surtax exemption, and for other purposes, having met, after full 
    and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
    their respective Houses as follows:
        That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of 
    the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In 
    lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
    insert the following: . . .

    The conference substitute included the following provision:

         Sec. 208. Credit for Purchase of New Principal Residence.

        (a) Allowance of Credit.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A 
    of chapter 1 (relating to credits allowed) is amended by 
    redesignating section 44 as section 45 and by inserting after 
    section 43 the following new section:

              ``Sec. 44. Purchase of New Principal Residence.

        ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual there is 
    allowed, as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for 
    the taxable year, an amount equal to 5 percent of the pur chase 
    price of a new principal residence purchased or constructed by the 
    taxpayer. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the conference report on the ground it 
    contains matter which is in violation of provision 1, clause 7, of 
    rule XVI. The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is 
    that section of the report dealing with the tax credit on sales of 
    new homes. It appears in section 208 of the conference report, on 
    page 14, as reported by the Committee on Conference. . . .
        [A] careful scrutiny of the titles of the House bill, as it was 
    sent to the Senate, shows many types of tax meas

[[Page 8123]]

    ures, but nothing relating to the sale of homes. This clearly is an 
    addition of a very divergent nature to the bill and deals with the 
    nonbusiness and nonpersonal type of credit. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak 
    against the point of order.
        Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad bill. It was a broadly based 
    bill when it left this House to go to the other body. It has many 
    diverse sections and many different kinds of tax treatments. It 
    does deal with tax credits. It did deal with tax credits when it 
    left the House, both for individuals and for corporations.
        Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this falls totally within the 
    purview of the bill as we passed it in the House and should be 
    considered germane to the bill.
        The Speaker: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) makes the point of 
    order against section 208 of the conference report on the bill H.R. 
    2166 on the ground that it would not have been germane to H.R. 2166 
    as passed by the House and is thus subject to the provisions of 
    clause 4, rule XXVIII.
        In passing upon any point of order against a portion of the 
    Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute which the conferees 
    have incorporated in their report, the Chair feels it is important 
    to initially characterize the bill H.R. 2166 in the form as passed 
    by the House. The House-passed bill contained four diverse titles, 
    and contained amendments to diverse portions of the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954. Title I of the House bill provided a refund 
    of 1974 individual income taxes. Title II provided for reductions, 
    including credits, in individual income taxes. Title III made 
    several changes in business taxes, and title IV further affected 
    business taxes by providing for the repeal of the percentage 
    depletion for oil and gas.
        The Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute contained 
    provisions comparable to all four titles in the House-passed bill, 
    and also contained a new title IV amending other portions of the 
    Internal Revenue Code, making further amendments to the code with 
    respect to tax changes affecting individuals and businesses, and a 
    new title VI and title VII, relating to taxation of foreign and 
    domestic oil and gas income and related income, and to the tax 
    deferment and reinvestment period extension, respectively. The 
    provision against which the gentleman makes the point of order was 
    contained in section 205 of title II of the Senate amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chair would call the attention of the House to the 
    precedent contained in Cannon's VIII, section 3042, wherein the 
    Committee of the Whole ruled that to a bill raising revenue by 
    several diverse methods of taxation . . . an amendment in the form 
    of a new section proposing an additional method of taxation--a tax 
    on the undistributed profits of corporations--was held germane. The 
    Chair would emphasize that the portion of the Senate amendment 
    included in the conference report against which the point of order 
    has been made was in the form of a new section to the House bill, 
    and was not

[[Page 8124]]

    an amendment to a specific section of the House bill. As indicated 
    in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 14.4, the test of 
    germaneness in such a situation is the relationship between the new 
    section or title and the subject matter of the bill as a whole.
        The Chair would also point out that section 203 of the House 
    bill, on page 10, amends the same portion of the code which this 
    part of the conference report would amend.
        For these reasons, the Chair holds that section 208 of the 
    conference report is germane to the House-passed bill and overrules 
    the point of order.

Diverse Programs To Support Arts and Humanities--Amendment Adding 
    Program of Employment for Artists

Sec. 11.35 Where a bill seeks to accomplish a general purpose by 
    diverse methods, an amendment which adds a specific method to 
    accomplish that result may be germane; thus, to a bill containing 
    three diverse titles authorizing grant programs for support of the 
    arts and humanities, including subsidies through the National 
    Endowment for the Arts to encourage and assist artists, an 
    amendment in the form of a new title authorizing the employment of 
    unemployed artists through the National Endowment for the Arts was 
    held germane as a specific additional program related to the 
    general programs already in the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 12838 (to amend the National 
Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965) on Apr. 26, 
1976,(20) Chairman Pro Tempore Edward I. Koch, of New York, 
overruled a point of order against the amendment described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 11098-101, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        TITLE I--ARTS AND HUMANITIES

                         state humanities councils

        Sec. 101. (a) Section 7 of the National Foundation on the Arts 
    and the Humanities Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following new subsection: . . .
        ``(f)(1) The Chairman, with the advice of the National Council 
    on the Humanities is authorized to establish and carry out programs 
    of grants-in-aid in each of the several States in order to support 
    not more than 50 per centum of the cost of existing activities 
    which meet the standards enumerated in subsection (c), and in order 
    to develop programs in the humanities in such a manner as will 
    furnish adequate programs in the humanities in each of the several 
    States.
        ``Sec. 11. (a)(1)(A) For the purpose of carrying out section 5, 
    there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for fiscal 
    year 1977, and $113,500,000 for fiscal year 1978. . . .

[[Page 8125]]

                       TITLE II--MUSEUM SERVICES. . .

        Sec. 202. It is the purpose of this title to encourage and 
    assist museums in their educational role, in conjunction with 
    formal systems of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary 
    education and with programs of nonformal education for all age 
    groups; to assist museums in modernizing their methods and 
    facilities so that they may better be able to conserve our 
    cultural, historic, and scientific heritage; and to ease the 
    financial burden borne by museums as a result of their increasing 
    use by the public.
        Sec. 203. There is hereby established, within the Department of 
    Health, Education, and Welfare, an Institute of Museum Services 
    (hereinafter in this title referred to as the ``Institute''). . . .
        Sec. 205. (a) The Director of the Institute shall be appointed 
    by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
    . . .
        Sec. 206. (a) The Director, subject to the advice of the Board, 
    is authorized to make grants to museums to increase and improve 
    museum services, through such activities as--
        (1) programs to enable museums to contract or install displays, 
    interpretations, and exhibitions in order to improve their services 
    to the public;

        (2) assisting them in developing and maintaining professionally 
    trained or otherwise experienced staff to meet their needs;
        (3) assisting them to meet their administrative costs in 
    preserving and maintaining their collections, exhibiting them to 
    the public, and providing educational programs to the public 
    through the use of their collections;
        (4) assisting museums in cooperation with each other in the 
    development of traveling exhibitions, meeting transportation costs, 
    and identifying and locating collections available for loan. . . .

                     TITLE III--CHALLENGE GRANT PROGRAM

                          establishment of program

        Sec. 301. The National Foundation on the Arts and the 
    Humanities Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
    following new section:

                         ``challenge grant program

        ``Sec. 12. (a) The Chairman of the National Endowment for the 
    Arts and the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, 
    with the advice of the National Council on the Arts and the 
    National Council on the Humanities, are authorized, in accordance 
    with the provisions of this section, to establish and carry out a 
    program of contracts with, or grants-in-aid to, public agencies and 
    private nonprofit organizations for the purpose of--
        ``(1) enabling cultural organizations and institutions to 
    increase the levels of continuing support and to increase the range 
    of contributors to the program of such organizations or 
    institutions;
        ``(2) providing administrative and management improvements for 
    cultural organizations and institutions, particularly in the field 
    of long-range financial planning;
        ``(3) enabling cultural organizations and institutions to 
    increase audience participation in, and appreciation of, programs 
    sponsored by such organizations and institutions. . . .

[[Page 8126]]

        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Abzug: Page 34, after line 11, 
        insert the following new title:

           TITLE IV--EMERGENCY PROGRAM FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF ARTISTS

                            establishment of program

            Sec. 401. (a) The Congress of the United States recognizes 
        the contributions which artists make to the cultural life of 
        each community throughout the Nation as well as to the Nation 
        as a whole. . . .
            (b) The National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act 
        of 1965, as amended by section 301, is further amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following new section:

                 ``emergency program for employment of artists

            ``Sec. 13. (a) The Chairman of the National Endowment for 
        the Arts with the advice of the National Council on the Arts, 
        shall carry out a program, directly and through grants-in-aid 
        to States, during any fiscal year in which the seasonally 
        adjusted national rate of unemployment published by the Bureau 
        of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor exceeds 6.5 per 
        centum as determined by the Chairman, of employment of 
        unemployed artists in projects or products. . . .
            ``(b) In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the 
        Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts shall 
        coordinate such program with programs for public service 
        employment under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act 
        of 1973 and with other appropriate public programs providing 
        employment for unemployed individuals. . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, reading the 
    amendment, I question the germaneness of this amendment. The jobs 
    provision added into the Arts, Humanities, and Cultural Affairs 
    Act, it seems to me fits better in the next bill coming up, the 
    emergency job programs bill, and I raise a point of order on 
    germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not germane to the bill before 
    us. It has to do with providing additional jobs of a public service 
    nature. It fits more in the legislation next on the agenda. I do 
    not see that it fits within the purview of the legislation we have 
    before us. . . .
        Ms. Abzug: Mr. Chairman, I disagree. I think it is germane to 
    the purposes of this act. This act recognizes the contributions 
    which artists make to the cultural life of the communities 
    throughout the Nation.
        Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is to provide for the 
    employment of artists in the program which is to be conducted and 
    determined, the eligibility for which programs as well as the 
    employment in the programs is determined by the Chairman of the 
    National Endowment for the Arts. I think it is germane. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    Chair has examined the ``Ramseyer'' in the committee report on page 
    23. Title I of the committee amendment extends the law which 
    provides subsidies for projects and productions which would 
    otherwise be unavailable for economic reasons and which will 
    encourage and assist artists and enable them to achieve wider 
    distribution of their

[[Page 8127]]

    works, to work in residence at an educational or cultural 
    institution, or to achieve standards of professional excellence. 
    That is a general purpose of the bill and the amendment provides a 
    specific program of grants through the Chairman of the National 
    Endowment for the Arts to accomplish that.
        The amendment is germane as a new title to the bill which 
    presently contains three diverse titles and the gentlewoman from 
    New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

Gun Control Bill--Amendment Adding Provisions as to Registration of 
    Guns

Sec. 11.36 To a bill amending existing law concerning gun controls by 
    extending coverage of the law to rifles, shotguns, and ammunition, 
    and modifying the law with respect to destruction devices, an 
    amendment adding further provisions relating to registration of 
    firearms by the purchasers thereof was held to be an extension of a 
    matter already carried in the bill and therefore germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
which related to the control of firearms. The following exchange 
(2) concerned a point of order raised by Mr. John D. 
Dingell, Jr., of Michigan, against an amendment that had been offered 
by Mr. Robert McClory, of Illinois:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 17735 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 22249, 22250, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not germane. . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the 
    bill. Here the amendment goes far beyond the purposes of the bill 
    and imposes a whole new series of responsibilities on the 
    Secretary, including registration of firearms, regulation of 
    estates of decedents, and provides a means whereby firearms may be 
    turned in . . . and sets forth the provisions whereby registration 
    will be regulated by the Secretary. . . .
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard briefly.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out this bill we are 
    considering today is the State Firearms Control Assistance Act of 
    1968, and the purpose of my amendment is to assist the states and 
    to assist the Federal Government in carrying out and in enforcing 
    the provisions of the main bill. . . .
        This amendment will facilitate enforcement and the carrying out 
    of the congressional objectives and purposes from this 
    registration, and also will fulfill the needs with regard to 
    attending to the movement of this type of firearm in interstate 
    commerce. . . .
        The Chairman (John J. Rooney, of New York): The Chair is 
    prepared to rule. . . .
        Now, with regard to this point of order, the bill which the 
    Committee of

[[Page 8128]]

    the Whole is now considering seeks to regulate the various 
    transactions involving rifles, shotguns, and handguns. It provides 
    for the identification of such firearms by manufacturers and 
    importers and, as amended by the Committee on the Judiciary and by 
    this committee earlier this afternoon, specifies that this 
    identification shall include serial numbers. Licensed importers, 
    dealers, and manufacturers are required to retain descriptions of 
    the firearms with which they deal.
        The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    McClory] is drafted as a further amendment to title 18, United 
    States Code, the same portion of the Code amended by the pending 
    bill. It carries the concept of registration or identification to 
    the persons having handguns in their possession. The system of 
    registration established by the amendment would be under the 
    jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury, the same officer 
    designated for this purpose by the bill.
        The Chair notes that the bill makes at least three major 
    innovations in the existing law concerning gun control: it extends 
    that law with respect to transactions in rifles and shotguns; it 
    brings ammunition within the scheme of the law; and it modifies the 
    law regarding shipment and sale of destructive devices. Since 
    present law is modified in the foregoing ways, an additional change 
    in the law and the bill--a change that is an extension of a subject 
    already carried in the bill--is germane.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.


 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 12. Amendment Extending Coverage of Bill to Other Subjects of Same 
    Class

    Frequently, it is sought by amendment to extend the coverage of the 
bill to other subjects of the same class as that discussed in the bill. 
Depending on the circumstances, one or more of the principles discussed 
in this chapter may be applicable in determining the germaneness of 
such amendments. Thus, if the bill comprises two or more propositions 
of the same class, an amendment that merely adds a related proposition 
may be germane.(3) It may be necessary to discern whether 
the amendment would enlarge the scope of the bill to cover a distinct 
new ``class,'' or would merely include a new ``category'' within a 
``class'' already covered by the bill.(4) If, on the other 
hand, the bill comprises an individual proposition or one of a limited 
nature, an amendment, even though related in subject, may be ruled out 
as not germane.(5) As a further example, a

[[Page 8129]]

general subject may ordinarily be amended by specific propositions of 
the same class.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 11, supra.
 4. See Sec. 12.1, infra.
 5. See Sec. 8, Individual Proposition Offered as Amendment to Another 
        Individual Proposition, and Sec. 9, General Amendments to 
        Specific or Limited Propositions, supra.
 6. See Sec. 10, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adding Category Within Same Class

Sec. 12.1 To an amendment covering a certain class, an amendment 
    extending coverage to an additional category within that class is 
    germane; thus, to a Senate amendment providing for prepayment of 
    certain loans by Rural Electrification Administration borrowers 
    serving a specified density of population, a proposed House 
    amendment eliminating the population density criterion to broaden 
    the applicability of the Senate amendment to additional borrowers 
    within the same class was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 1827 (supplemental appropriations, 
fiscal 1987) in the House on June 30, 1987,(7) the Chair 
overruled points of order in the circumstances described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 133 Cong. Rec. 18307, 18308, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 223: Page 49, after line 17, insert:

                      Rural Electrification Administration

            Notwithstanding the amount authorized to be prepaid under 
        section 306A(d)(1) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 
        U.S.C. 936a(d)(1)), a borrower of a loan made by the Federal 
        Financing Bank and guaranteed under section 306 of such Act (7 
        U.S.C. 936) that serves 6 or fewer customers per mile may, at 
        the option of the borrower, prepay such loan (or any loan 
        advance thereunder) during fiscal year 1987 or 1988, in 
        accordance with section 306A of such Act.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the motion.
        The text of the motion is as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 223 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter inserted by said amendment, insert the following:

                      Rural Electrification Administration

            Hereafter, notwithstanding section 306A(d) of the Rural 
        Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 936(d)), a borrower of a 
        loan made by the Federal Financing Bank and guaranteed under 
        section 306 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 936) may, at the option of 
        the

[[Page 8130]]

        borrower, prepay such loan (or any loan advance thereunder) in 
        accordance with section 306A of such Act. . . .

        Mr. [Ron] Packard [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order, the following points of order, actually:
        No. 1, that subject to rule 21, clause 2, this amendment is 
    legislating on appropriation bills.
        No. 2, that this amendment is not germane to the supplemental 
    appropriations bill. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order. This amendment is germane to the amendment of the Senate.
        What the amendment does is quite straightforward. It removes 
    the phrase ``that serves 6 or fewer customers per mile'' from the 
    Senate amendment. This has the direct result of allowing REA's that 
    have population density of up to 12.4 customers per mile to 
    qualify, rather than just 6 customers per mile.
        The amendment does not change the class of borrowers that can 
    prepay; it simply enlarges the same class. It does not add some 
    other type of borrower.
        The Senate amendment allows Rural Electrification 
    Administration borrowers who serve 6 or fewer customers per mile of 
    line to refinance their REA guaranteed debt with the Federal 
    Financing Bank without being assessed a prepayment penalty.
        There are 51 borrowers whose loans bear an interest rate such 
    that they would be worthwhile to refinance at present interest 
    rates.
        At present there are 31 borrowers with loans whose density is 6 
    or fewer per mile.
        There are 20 borrowers with loans whose density is greater than 
    6 customers per mile of line.
        The conference agreement would allow all 51 borrowers to 
    refinance their loans rather than only 31 borrowers.
        This type of amendment is clearly in order and is germane.
        Cannon's procedures states, ``A general subject may be amended 
    by specific proposition of the same class.'' Mr. Speaker, this is 
    exactly what is being done.
        In fact, the amendment is even stricter. In effect, what is 
    involved is a proposition being amended by the same proposition in 
    the same class. Clearly, such an amendment expands the scope, but 
    is germane. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        With respect to the issue of whether this motion constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriations bill, the Chair rules that it is 
    not in violation of clause 2 [of Rule XX], since the amendment was 
    brought back in disagreement for a separate vote, not as part of 
    the conference report. . . .
        With respect to the germaneness issue that the gentleman 
    raises, the motion is germane to the Senate amendment since 
    relating to the same class of borrowers covered by the Senate 
    amendment and the Senate amendment itself is being brought back in 
    disagreement for a separate vote. Therefore, there is no valid 
    germaneness point of order with respect to the motion disposing of 
    the Senate amendment. . . .
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the various points of order.

[[Page 8131]]

Bill To Set Price Supports for Commodities--Amendment Adding Commodity

Sec. 12.2 To a bill amending a law dealing with several subjects within 
    a definable class, an amendment further amending that law to add 
    another subject within the same class is germane; thus, to a bill 
    temporarily amending for one year an existing law establishing 
    price support levels for several agricultural commodities, an 
    amendment adding another agricultural commodity to be covered by 
    the same provisions of law for that year was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 4296 (a bill concerning emergency 
price supports for 1975 crops) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
overruled a point of order in the circumstances described above. The 
language of the bill to which the amendment was offered read as 
follows: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 121 Cong. Rec. 7388, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 20, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That title I of the 
    Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is amended by adding at the 
    end thereof the following new section 108:
        ``Sec. 108. (a) Notwithstanding sections 103, 105, and 107 of 
    this Act, the established price for the 1975 crops of upland 
    cotton, corn, and wheat shall be 48 cents per pound, $2.25 per 
    bushel, and $3.10 per bushel, respectively, and the Secretary shall 
    make available to producers loans and purchases on the 1975 crops 
    of upland cotton, corn, and wheat at 40 cents per pound, $1.87 per 
    bushel, and $2.50 per bushel, respectively; Provided, That the 
    rates of interest on commodity loans made by the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation to all eligible producers shall be established 
    quarterly on the basis of the lowest current interest rate on 
    ordinary obligations of the United States: Provided further, That 
    the nonrecourse loan for 1975 crop upland cotton as set forth in 
    section 103(e)(1) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, 
    shall be made available for an additional term of eight months at 
    the option of the cooperator.
        ``(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 301 of this 
    Act, the Secretary shall make available to producers loans and 
    purchases on the 1975 crop of soybeans at such levels as reflect 
    the historical average relationship of soybean support levels to 
    corn support levels during the immediately preceding three years.''
        The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 2, line 15, after the word 
        ``cooperator'' strike the period and insert ``, except that for 
        the 1975 crops of upland cotton, feed grains and wheat, the 
        Secretary shall establish, insofar as is

[[Page 8132]]

        practicable, the same terms and conditions relative to storage 
        costs and interest rates on all nonrecourse loans extended on 
        such crops.''.

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

    During the proceedings of Mar. 20, 1975,(11) the 
following amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 7652, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    chairman of the committee finds it necessary to insist on his point 
    of order.
        I know the gentleman who has offered the amendment is a strong 
    supporter of fruit nuts and is in great seriousness in an effort to 
    improve the bill, but the reference in the amendment is to a 
    standard which cannot be administered because the country was not 
    organized, the Congress was not organized at the time he alleges in 
    the amendment the dingleberry support price was created. But 
    principally because under rule XVI, clause 7, the fundamental 
    purpose of this amendment does not relate to the fundamental 
    purpose of the bill, which is to effect changes in the target 
    prices of loan rates on wheat, feed grain, and cotton.
        The nuttiness of an amendment has never been found in the 
    precedents of the House as an argument against germaneness. . . .
        Mr. Conte: . . . I feel that this amendment is germane in the 
    context of this bill. The whole bill is nutty, and I am merely 
    institutionalizing what the American people have known all along, 
    that farm subsidies do not grow on trees.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would observe that the purpose of this bill as set 
    forth in the report is to establish an emergency price support 
    program in the 1975 crop commodity year for upland cotton, wheat, 
    feed grains, soybeans, and milk.
        Under the general proposition that it is in order to add 
    another subject to a proposition containing subjects of the same 
    class, the Chair would point out that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts adds another agricultural commodity to 
    the commodities proposed to be supported under the bill during the 
    same period of time.
        The Chair rules, therefore, that the gentleman's amendment is 
    germane and overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair looked beyond the obvious 
facetious intent of the offeror of

[[Page 8133]]

the amendment, and upon discovering that the ``dingleberry'' was indeed 
a fruit nut and therefore an existing agricultural commodity, 
determined that the amendment came within the class potentially covered 
by the bill.

Adjustment of Existing Postal Rates--Amendment To Abolish Franking 
    Privilege

Sec. 12.3 To a bill to readjust postal rates, an amendment proposing to 
    abolish franking privileges was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (12) was under consideration 
which sought to readjust postal rates. The following amendment was 
offered to the bill: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 2981 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
13. 97 Cong. Rec. 11685, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 19, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl T.] Curtis of Nebraska: On page 
    26, line 9, insert a new section as follows:
        No mail matter of any kind shall be sent through the mails by 
    any department or agency of the United States Government, including 
    the legislative branch, without full payment of the postal rates 
    provided by law for similar mail matter sent by other users.

    Responding to a point of order raised by Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of 
Tennessee, that the amendment was not germane to the bill, Mr. Curtis 
stated:

        This bill is to adjust postal rates. It deals with various 
    classes and kinds of mail and services rendered by the Post Office 
    Department. . . . If you can raise rates under this bill from a 
    given rate to a higher rate, certainly you can raise free mail to 
    some sort of rate.
        The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill before us is for the purpose of adjusting postal 
    rates. The gentleman from Nebraska offers an amendment which would 
    not adjust existing postal rates but would define classes of mail 
    which should be subject to payment of postage. Neither of the 
    classes included within the amendment proposed is included within 
    the bill. The amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, 
    the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Relating to Compensation for Mail Carriers Under Star-Route 
    Contracts--Amendment Requiring Cost Estimates in Advertisements for 
    Bids for Star Routes

Sec. 12.4 To a bill providing additional compensation for star-route 
    carriers for increased mileage above the contract terms, an 
    amendment providing that the Postmaster General in advertising for 
    bids for any star route shall publish the estimated actual

[[Page 8134]]

    cost for carrying the route including a reasonable wage for the 
    carrier was held to be germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (15) was under 
consideration which related to additional compensation for star-route 
carriers and which stated in part: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 7879 (Committee on Post Office and Post Roads).
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 8017, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That section 3951 of the Revised Statutes 
    . . . is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
    new paragraphs:
        The Postmaster General may . . . allow extra pay to a 
    contractor for necessary increased travel caused by obstruction of 
    roads, destruction of bridges, or discontinuance of ferries 
    occurring during the contract term, but no extra pay allowed shall 
    be proportionately greater than the rate established by the 
    contract involved. . . .
        Sec. 2. Proposals for carrying the mail on star routes shall 
    not be considered unless the bidder is a legal resident of the 
    county or counties traversed by the roads over which the mails are 
    to be carried. . . .

    To such bill, the following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frederick E.] Biermann [of Iowa]: 
    Page 2, after line 26, insert:
        Sec. 3. The Postmaster General in advertising for bids for any 
    star route shall publish the estimated actual cost of carrying the 
    route, which estimate shall include a reasonable wage for the 
    carrier. No bid shall be accepted which is more than 10 percent 
    below the estimated actual cost.

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

        Mr. [James M.] Mead [of New York]: . . . I make the point of 
    order against the amendment that it is not germane. It is writing 
    into the bill a new principle of law. . . .
        Mr. Biermann: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with a method of 
    compensating star-route carriers. At the time when a star route is 
    let the Postmaster General publishes the price that the present 
    carrier is getting for transporting the route. My amendment simply 
    provides for the publication of another figure in place of that. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: (17) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . As the Chair understands the major purpose of the bill 
    now under consideration, it deals with the subject of providing 
    additional compensation for star-route carriers for necessary 
    increased mileage, and for other purposes, and although the bill 
    itself purports only to amend an existing statute, it undertakes in 
    terms to set out certain provisions under which the Postmaster 
    General may let these bids for the carrying of star-route 
    contracts. Although the word ``wage'' does seem to be mentioned in 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa, the Chair is 
    clearly of the opinion that as the bill has been proposed, it is 
    merely an addition to the terms under which the contract shall be 
    let.

[[Page 8135]]

        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill Promoting Development of Synthetic Fuels--Amendment To Include 
    Methane Within Definition

Sec. 12.5 To a bill promoting the development of synthetic fuels, 
    defined as fuels and chemical feedstocks produced by the conversion 
    of renewable and nonrenewable resources, an amendment including 
    within the definition of such fuels methane produced from coal 
    seams, geopressurized brine, tight sands and devonian shale was 
    held germane as adding another subject to subjects of the same 
    class.

    On June 26, 1979,(18) during consideration of the 
Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979 (19) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 16687, 16688, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 3930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Timothy E.] Wirth [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wirth: Page 10, line 6, insert 
        after the first period the following new sentence: ``Such terms 
        also include methane produced from such sources as coal seams, 
        geopressurized brine, tight sands and Devonian shale.''.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the bill deals with production of synthetic 
    fuels. The amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from 
    Colorado, deals with production from conventional sources of 
    hydrocarbons from within the Earth. Given that circumstance, 
    regretfully, I observe that the amendment does not conform with the 
    requirements of the rules relating to germaneness.
        The bill also deals with creating synthetic feedstocks. The 
    particular section, section 3, with which we deal at this time, 
    deals with synthetic feedstocks.
        The proposal that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Wirth) has 
    before us deals with a broad series of productions from 
    conventional or semiconventional sources of hydrocarbon from within 
    the Earth and, as such, it is therefore not germane. . . .
        Mr. Wirth: Mr. Chairman, at the bottom of page 9, line 24 in 
    the bill is the definition of what is intended by the committee to 
    be covered by the legislation in H.R. 3930. That definition in the 
    amendment which I have offered is broadened to include coverage by 
    the provisions of this act for hard-to-obtain natural gas.
        The purpose of the legislation, as I understand the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania and the committee, is to increase production of 
    energy and the area of hard-to-get natural gas. That

[[Page 8136]]

    which is described in the amendment which I offered clearly is a 
    matter of the kind of stimulus that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    and members of the committee have defined in the bill, and in 
    broadening the definition offered by the committee, this is 
    consistent with the purposes of H.R. 3930.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The section of the bill which defines synthetic fuels, page 9, 
    line 24 reads as follows:

            The term synthetic fuels--``. . . means fuels and chemical 
        feedstocks produced by the conversion of renewable and 
        nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, . . .'' 
        a consecutive category of resources.

        In the opinion of the Chair, the definition is sufficiently 
    broad as to allow the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Colorado.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Providing for Limited Transfer of Functions to New Consumer 
    Protection Agency--Amendment Authorizing Director of Office of 
    Management and Budget To Transfer Designated Types of Function to 
    Agency

Sec. 12.6 To a bill creating a non-regulatory Consumer Protection 
    Agency, providing for a limited transfer of functions to the agency 
    but authorizing the Administrator to utilize the services of 
    offices of other agencies performing similar activities, an 
    amendment authorizing the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget to transfer to the agency such programs or activities of 
    various agencies as were duplicative of or could be performed more 
    appropriately by the new agency and which could be transferred 
    without further Congressional action, was held to be germane to the 
    bill as a whole since provisions in the bill brought the activities 
    of those offices within the scope of the bill, and all offices 
    transferred were within the same generic class of nonregulatory 
    intra-agency entities whose transfer would not enlarge the 
    authority of the new agency beyond that contemplated by the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 7575 (1) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Nov. 6, 1975,(2) the Chair overruled a point 
of order against the amendment described above, stating, in part, that 
the

[[Page 8137]]

test of germaneness of adding a new section at the end of a bill is the 
relationship between the amendment and the bill as a whole. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The Consumer Protection Act of 1975.
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 35374, 35375, 35376, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                               saving provisions

            Sec. 14. (a) Nothing contained in this Act shall be 
        construed to alter, modify, or impair the statutory 
        responsibility and authority contained in section 201(a)(4) of 
        the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 
        as amended (40 U.S.C. 481(a)(4)), or of any provision of the 
        antitrust laws, or of any Act providing for the regulation of 
        the trade or commerce of the United States, or to prevent or 
        impair the administration or enforcement of any such provision 
        of law.
            (b) Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as 
        relieving any Federal agency of any authority or responsibility 
        to protect and promote the interests of the consumer. . . .

        Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCloskey: Page 26, immediately 
        after line 5, insert the following new Section 15 and renumber 
        succeeding sections accordingly:

                transfer of programs, operations and activities

            Sec. 15. (a)(1) Except to the extent prohibited by law, the 
        Director of the Office of Management and Budget is authorized 
        and directed to transfer to the Agency such programs, 
        operations, and activities of each Federal agency as (A) are 
        duplicative of or can be performed more appropriately by the 
        Administrator under the authority contained in this Act, and 
        (B) may be transferred without the need for Congressional 
        action.
            (2) Transfers authorized and directed under paragraph (1) 
        shall include but not be limited to those programs, operations, 
        and activities defined in paragraph (1) which are, on the date 
        of enactment of this Act, performed by the following Federal 
        departments and agencies: The Office of Consumer Affairs of the 
        Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Office of 
        Ombudsman for Business of the Department of Commerce . . . the 
        Advisory Committee on Water Data for Public Use of the 
        Department of the Interior; the Science Advisory Board's 
        Executive Committee of the Environmental Protection Agency; and 
        the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Transportation Quality of 
        the Department of Transportation. . . .
            (c) The Administrator, pursuant to section 4 of this Act, 
        shall be responsible for incorporating such programs, 
        operations, and activities as are transferred pursuant to 
        subsection (a) in such manner and to the extent he deems 
        consistent with the Agency's responsibilities under section 5 
        of this Act, and issuing such organizational directives as he 
        deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section. . 
        . .

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. McCloskey) on the grounds that it is in violation 
    of clause 7 of rule XVI of the House of Representatives.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from California proposes 
    a new section to the bill which involves a substantial transfer of 
    functions from ex

[[Page 8138]]

    isting Federal agencies and departments.
        The Director of OMB is directed to transfer consumer-related 
    programs, operations, and activities from existing agencies and 
    departments to the Agency for Consumer Protection. H.R. 7575 has 
    several provisions directing Federal agencies to cooperate in 
    providing information, documents, and other materials to the Agency 
    for Consumer Protection. In addition, section 15 provides for a 
    very narrow and specific transfer of the Consumer Product 
    Information Coordinating Center in the General Services 
    Administration to the new Consumer Agency. The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from California would involve the wholesale transfer 
    of nearly 20 functions from various Federal departments and 
    agencies. Such a massive shift of responsibility by the Federal 
    agencies is neither the intent nor purpose of H.R. 7575.
        In addition, the transfer in section 15 is limited to a 
    Consumer Product Information Coordinating Center, and does not 
    involve the transfer of substantive responsibilities for consumer 
    representation, intervention in agency proceedings, or other such 
    administrative and policy responsibilities. In this regard, I think 
    a distinction can be drawn between the limited type of transfer 
    contemplated in section 15 and the massive transfer proposed in the 
    amendment.
        In addition, the amendment alters existing statutory and 
    administrative mandates placed upon Federal agencies and 
    departments. The administration, over and above statutory mandates, 
    has made significant steps in increasing consumer representation 
    within Federal agencies. The proposed amendment would wipe out all 
    those positive gains, and have OMB decide which functions to 
    transfer rather than for Congress to exercise its oversight 
    responsibility. . . .
        Mr. McCloskey: First of all, Mr. Chairman, the Chair will note 
    that points of order were waived as to section 15 of the act, which 
    accomplishes the transfer of the Consumer Protection Information 
    Coordinating Center. This, in effect, is a new section 15.
        Second, unlike the suggestion of the gentleman from Illinois, 
    this amendment specifically does not attack anything created by an 
    act of Congress. It refers only to administratively created 
    organizations. I refer the Chair to the first paragraph, section 
    15(a)(1), which says:

            Sec. 15. (a)(1) Except to the extent prohibited by law, the 
        Director of the Office of Management and Budget is authorized 
        and directed to transfer to the Agency such programs, 
        operations, and activities of each Federal agency as (A) are 
        duplicative of or can be performed more appropriately by the 
        Administrator under the authority contained in this Act, and 
        (B) may be transferred without the need for Congressional 
        action.

        Clearly, the amendment does not purport to change any 
    congressionally mandated consumer office, but only those created by 
    executive order.
        Paragraph C of the amendment asks the Director of Office of 
    Management and Budget to identify and report to the committees of 
    the House and send the reorganizations for such additional 
    transfers as may be necessary to avoid duplication with programs, 
    operations, and activities, but which require congressional action.

[[Page 8139]]

        Mr. Chairman, I would like, finally, to cite a prior act of the 
    Congress for the authority to accomplish this. Section 210 of the 
    Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 provides, 
    in part:

            Whenever the Director of the Office of Management and 
        Budget shall determine such action to be in the interest of 
        economy or efficiency, he shall transfer to the Administrator 
        [of GSA] all functions then vested in any other Federal agency 
        with respect to the operation, maintenance, and custody of any 
        office building owned by the United States . . . [etc.]

        This amendment clearly does nothing more than authorize and 
    direct the Director of Office of Management and Budget to 
    accomplish those transfers which in his judgment are duplicated by 
    the creation of this new agency and may more appropriately be 
    formed by the Administrator under the authority that this law will 
    give him. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a 
    reorganization of the executive branch, clearly, the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Government Operations, under rule 10, page 3, 
    which includes the Government Operations responsibilities and 
    authorities, the reorganization in the executive branch of 
    Government.
        The amendment transfers programs in existence which do not 
    require the change of any statutes. . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    I rise in opposition to the point of order.
        Those activities and functions authorized to be transferred to 
    the agency include only those which may already be performed under 
    the authority provided in the remainder of the bill. The functions 
    of the administrator are not expanded, nor is his authority or 
    power increased by the amendment.
        Additionally, the functions proposed to be transferred, as both 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) and the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Horton) have already suggested, were created by 
    administrative action and were not created by statute. The proposed 
    transfer does not impair or amend statutes governing the operations 
    of the agency from which transfers would be made. . . .
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) has made a point of 
    order to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. McCloskey) on the grounds that the amendment is not germane.
        The Chair will state initially that since the amendment 
    proposes to add a new section to the bill, the rule on germaneness 
    does not require that the amendment be germane to one particular 
    section, it being sufficient if it is germane to the subject matter 
    of the bill as a whole--Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    14.4.
        The subject of the amendment, the transfer of various executive 
    agency functions, is clearly within the jurisdiction of the 
    committee reporting the bill. While the transfer envisioned by the 
    amendment is more comprehensive than the transfers contained in 
    section 15 of the bill, as noted, the test of germaneness is the 
    relationship between the amendment and the bill as a whole. Thus, 
    despite the limited trans

[[Page 8140]]

    fer provisions in the bill, the Chair notes that on page 4, lines 
    13 to 15, the new agency is authorized to utilize the services and 
    personnel of other Federal agencies and of State and private 
    agencies and instrumentalities.
        On page 5, lines 7 to 11, if the Administrator of the new 
    agency so requests, each Federal agency is authorized and directed 
    to make its services, personnel, and facilities available to the 
    new agency. Finally, on page 26, lines 3 to 5, the bill provides 
    that nothing contained in the act shall be construed as relieving 
    any Federal agency of any authority or responsibility to protect 
    and promote the interests of the consumer.
        The Chair believes that activities of the offices transferred 
    to the agency by this amendment are already brought into the 
    operation of this act by the sections of the bill just cited.
        In addition, it is the opinion of the Chair that the express 
    language of the amendment itself refutes the argument that it 
    broadens the scope of the powers of the agency beyond those 
    contemplated in the bill. The amendment would transfer only such 
    functions as duplicate or can be performed under the express 
    authority contained in the bill. Therefore, no functions, 
    activities or powers may be transferred under the amendment which 
    are not already within the powers granted to the new agency in the 
    bill.
        It has been argued that the amendment would change statutory 
    and administrative duties. However, the Chair is unaware of any 
    legislation creating the offices referred to in the amendment and 
    is unaware of any regulatory power conferred on them by statute. It 
    would appear that the offices mentioned have been created solely by 
    departments and agencies of the executive branch.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Commission To Investigate Abridgment of Certain Civil 
    Rights--Amendment Enlarging Scope To Include Study of Rights 
    Reserved to States and to People

Sec. 12.7 To a bill authorizing a commission to investigate abridgment 
    of certain civil rights, an amendment to enlarge the scope of the 
    investigation to authorize the commission to study and collect 
    information concerning the rights reserved to the states and to the 
    people, was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
which provided, in part, that a commission should investigate 
allegations that certain citizens were being deprived of their right to 
vote or being subjected to unwarranted economic pressures by reason of 
their color, race, or religion; and that such commission should further 
study and collect information concerning economic, social, and

[[Page 8141]]

legal developments constituting a denial of equal protection of the 
laws. An amendment was offered (5) authorizing the 
commission, in addition, to study and collect information concerning 
rights reserved to the states and to the people under the Constitution. 
Speaking in response to a point of order made by Mr. Kenneth B. 
Keating, of New York, Mr. James P. Richards, of South Carolina, who had 
offered the amendment, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 627 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 5. 102 Cong. Rec. 13728, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I think [the amendment] is patently germane, 
    because in the subsection it seeks to amend, you provide for the 
    collection of information and you provide for studies in regard to 
    equal protection of the laws under the Constitution. And if that 
    section itself means what it says, then I am sure the provisions of 
    the 10th amendment of the Constitution itself would warrant a study 
    and investigation to see how those provisions are applied under the 
    Constitution that is mentioned.

    The following statement was made by Mr. William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, in opposition to the point of order.

        Mr. Chairman, I contend that this amendment is germane, not 
    only for the reasons stated by the gentleman from South Carolina 
    but in line with the ruling of the Chair on yesterday on another 
    amendment, where the Chair differentiated between the labor 
    amendment and the age amendment, in that the Chair ruled that the 
    matter was within the province and jurisdiction of that particular 
    committee. . . .

    Mr. Keating stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 13729.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, the part of this section which is sought to be 
    amended here has to do with the equal protection of the laws 
    provision of the Constitution, no other part of the Constitution.
        It is true that amendments to the Constitution come under the 
    jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, but the parallel between 
    the ruling of yesterday and this amendment does not follow. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina would bring 
    in a part of the Constitution which is not in any way under the 
    purview of this section. It would be like trying to change the 
    prohibition amendment under the Constitution in this bill. It has 
    to do with an entirely different part of the Constitution, and it 
    is not germane to the consideration of this bill.

    The Chairman,(7) without elaboration, held that the 
amendment was germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Army Officers' Retirement--Amendment Affecting Other Branches of 
    Service

Sec. 12.8 To a bill extending certain retirement privileges to officers 
    of the Army who

[[Page 8142]]

    served in the Spanish-American War, a committee amendment proposing 
    to extend such privileges to officers of the Navy, Marine Corps, 
    and Coast Guard was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
which stated in part: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. S. 839 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 9. See 84 Cong. Rec. 8957, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 12, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the act of Congress approved April 
    23, 1904, authorizing the retirement to the next higher grade of 
    officers of the United States Army who served in the Civil War is 
    hereby extended to include those officers not above the grade of 
    colonel who served in the War with Spain between April 21, 1898, 
    and April 11, 1899.

    The following committee amendment was offered:

        Page 1, line 8, after the figures, insert a colon and the 
    following proviso: ``Provided, That the advanced rank on the 
    retired list shall be extended in like manner to those officers of 
    the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, who have been retired, or 
    may be retired, in accordance with existing law for retirements in 
    these respective services.''

    Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
committee amendment was not germane to the bill. The Speaker 
(10) sustained the point of order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 8958, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 12, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adding To Class in Original Amendment

Sec. 12.9 To an amendment prohibiting indirect foreign assistance to 
    four designated countries, offered to a paragraph of a bill denying 
    only direct assistance to those countries, an amendment adding 
    other countries to the indirect prohibition contained in the 
    original amendment was held germane thereto.

    On Aug. 3, 1978,(12) during consideration of the foreign 
assistance appropriations for fiscal 1979 (13) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Abraham Kazen, Jr., of Texas, 
overruled a point of order against an amendment to an amendment, 
holding that to a proposition prohibiting indirect foreign assistance 
to several foreign countries, an amendment including additional 
countries within that prohibition is

[[Page 8143]]

germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 24232, 24244, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. H.R. 12931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
        available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
        to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Uganda, 
        Cambodia, Laos, or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

                 amendment offered by mr. young of florida

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 11, line 
        15, after the word ``directly'' add ``or indirectly''.

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Young of Florida: Page 11, line 17, strike the period and 
        insert the following: ``Provided, That none of the funds 
        appropriated pursuant to this act shall be obligated or 
        expended to finance indirectly Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, 
        Korea, Nicaragua, Indonesia, and the Philippines''. . . .

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the gentleman's amendment to my amendment goes far beyond the 
    scope of the original amendment and is, therefore, out of order. . 
    . .
        Mr. Harkin: . . . This amendment does not go beyond the scope 
    of the gentleman's amendment because I have limited the amendment 
    only to indirect aid and not to direct aid.
        Therefore, it is in order. It would not be in order if I had 
    covered both direct and indirect aid. The gentleman would be right 
    in that case, but I have limited it only to indirect aid. . . .
        Mr. Young of Florida: . . . In rebuttal to the gentleman's 
    point, the amendment does not name countries. The amendment adds 
    only the words ``or indirectly.''
        The gentleman's amendment proceeds to add countries to that 
    amendment. The original amendment does not add any countries.
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, that is why my amendment amends the 
    gentleman's amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The section of the original bill to which the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) refers does contain the names of 
    four countries. The gentleman is amending a section with countries 
    named in it and is in effect offering a further prohibition with 
    respect to those four countries.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) refers to 
    indirect aid, and all it does is to add additional countries.
        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary 
    inquiry prior to the ruling?
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Young of Florida: It is my understanding under the rules 
    that the amendment must be germane to the amendment as opposed to 
    the bill.
        The Chairman: The amendment is germane to the amendment because 
    it refers only to indirect aid and adds ad

[[Page 8144]]

    ditional countries to those affected by the gentleman's original 
    amendment. But the main thrust of the amendment is to indirect aid, 
    which is not changed by the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Harkin). The Chair respectfully overrules the point of 
    order.

Penalty for Commission of Felony by Use of Firearm--Amendment Providing 
    for Trial of Offense in Federal or State Court

Sec. 12.10 To a proposition making it a federal crime to use, during 
    the commission of a felony that may be prosecuted in a federal 
    court, a firearm, an amendment making it a crime, in a state where 
    such activity is not already felonious, to carry a firearm during 
    the commission of a felony and providing for the trial of such 
    offense in either a state or federal court was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration relating to the control of firearms. The following 
amendment to the bill was agreed to on July 19, 1968: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 17735 (Committee on the Judiciary).
15. 114 Cong. Rec. 22231, 22248, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (c) Whoever--
        (1) uses a firearm to commit any felony which may be prosecuted 
    in a court of the United States, or
        (2) carries a firearm unlawfully during the commission of any 
    felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, 
    shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. . . .

    Subsequently, an amendment to the bill was offered which provided 
that: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 114 Cong. Rec. 22789, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whoever on or after January 1, 1971 in a State in which it is 
    not a felony to use or unlawfully to carry a firearm in the 
    commission of any felony in such State, uses a firearm to commit 
    any felony or carries a firearm unlawfully during the commission of 
    any felony in such State shall upon conviction be sentenced to a 
    term of imprisonment. . . .
        Concurrent jurisdiction for the enforcement of the provisions 
    of this Act is hereby conferred upon the appropriate District Court 
    of the United States and upon the State Court which shall try the 
    person charged with the commission of the felony in which a firearm 
    shall be used or unlawfully carried.

    In disposing of a point of order raised against the 
amendment,(17) the Chairman (18) 
stated:(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, objected on the ground that the 
        amendment was not germane to the bill. Id. at p. 22789.
18. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 22789, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1968.

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

[[Page 8145]]

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Pepper] would impose a Federal penalty when a firearm is used or 
    carried by a person in the commission of a felony in a State in 
    which there is no State law making the carrying or use of a firearm 
    a felony. The amendment confers jurisdiction on the State courts to 
    try persons charged with violating the provisions of the amendment.
        The bill, as amended by the Committee of the Whole, presently 
    contains a provision for similar penalties when a firearm is 
    unlawfully carried during the commission of a felony which is 
    prosecuted in a Federal court.
        The amendment does not create a new State crime. It describes 
    an act which is to be unlawful under Federal law and provides for 
    the prosecution of that act in either a Federal or State court.
        The Chair believes that the amendment, which extends the 
    provisions of the so-called Poff amendment--adopted by this 
    Committee on last Friday--to felony prosecutions in State courts, 
    is a modification of a matter already introduced into this bill by 
    amendment, and is therefore germane.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 13. Proposition and Amendment as Affecting Different Classes of 
    Persons or Entities

    Where a proposition and an amendment offered thereto affect 
different classes of persons, the amendment is frequently ruled out as 
not germane. Thus, to a bill to provide for the common defense by 
increasing the strength of the armed forces, an amendment seeking to 
impose certain sanctions on persons outside the armed forces was held 
not to be germane.(20) Generally, to a bill relating to 
relief for one class, an amendment seeking to include another class is 
not germane.(1) Accordingly, to a bill extending the 
benefits of a federal program to one class, an amendment to include 
other classes as recipients of such benefits is not 
germane.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. Sec. 13.11, 13.12, infra.
 1. See Sec. Sec. 8.19, 8.24, supra.
 2. See Sec. 39.18, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Mandating Study of Pay Practices Within Civil Service--Amendment 
    Extending Coverage to Impact on Wages in Other Jobs

Sec. 13.1 To a bill relating to a certain class of federal employees, 
    an amendment to bring other classes of employees within the scope 
    of the bill is not germane; thus, to a bill mandating a study of 
    equitable pay practices within the federal civil service (defined 
    as only those employees of executive agen

[[Page 8146]]

    cies), an amendment expanding the study to include the impact on 
    wages in similar jobs negotiated under collective bargaining 
    agreements was held to be nongermane, since it was capable of being 
    construed as adding different categories of employees to the single 
    class covered by the bill.

    On Oct. 9, 1985,(3) during consideration of H.R. 3008 
(4) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order to the amendment described above. The amendment and the 
section to which it was offered were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 131 Cong. Rec. 26951-54, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. The Federal Pay Equity Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of section 7 is as follows:

                        sec. 7. reporting requirements.

            (a) Deadline.--The Commission shall, not later than 18 
        months after the date of its establishment, submit to the 
        President and each House of Congress--
            (1) a copy of a report which shall be prepared by the 
        consultant selected to perform the study under this Act; and
            (2) comments of the Commission relating to such report.
            (b) Information To Be Provided in Consultant's Report.--
        Included in the report referred to in subsection (a)(1) shall 
        be a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the 
        consultant, pursuant to its study, with respect to 
        differentials in rates of basic pay between or among 
        occupations compared on the basis of sex, race, and ethnicity, 
        including. . . .

    A later section of the bill contained the following definitions:

                             sec. 10. definitions.

            For the purpose of this Act--
            (1) ``job-content analysis'', as applied with respect to 
        occupations, means an objective, quantitative method of rating 
        representative entry-level positions within such occupations in 
        order that . . .
            (3) ``occupation'' means any grouping of positions within 
        an agency, as identified or defined under chapter 51 of title 
        5, United States Code, or subchapter IV of chapter 53 of such 
        title.

    To section 7, the following amendment was offered:

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: In section 7, page 12, 
        after line 6, insert the following new subsection and renumber 
        succeeding sections accordingly:
            ``(b)(2) Such study shall include and measure the impact on 
        wages in similar jobs negotiated under collective bargaining 
        agreements.''. . .

        Ms. [Mary Rose] Oakar [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) proposes to 
    expand greatly the scope of the bill under consideration. As such, 
    the amendment violates clause 7 of House Rule XVI and is 
    nongermane.
        Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is very limited in scope. It 
    relates only to

[[Page 8147]]

    employees of executive agencies, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105. The 
    bill is further limited in scope in that the study it mandates is 
    limited to salaries and wages of executive agency employees in 
    positions under the Government's position classification system 
    under chapter 51 of title 5, and the prevailing rate system under 
    subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 5. Clearly the bill relates 
    only to certain employees in the executive branch and their 
    salaries and wages. It in no way concerns salaries or wages of 
    private-sector employees. . . .
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Walker) on the other hand would expand the scope of the study 
    mandated by the bill to ``include and measure the impact on wages 
    in similar jobs negotiated under collective bargaining 
    agreements.'' This obviously would expand the study to cover 
    Government agencies not presently covered, such as the Postal 
    Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority. It also apparently 
    expands the study to cover private-sector wages, which unlike most 
    wages in the executive branch are negotiated under collective 
    bargaining agreements. Thus, the amendment greatly expands the 
    scope of the study and the bill. As such, it is nongermane. . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . Mr. Chairman, I am a little at a loss to 
    understand to what part of the bill the gentlewoman from Ohio 
    thinks I am amending, because the part of the bill that I am 
    amending refers directly to the consultant's report. In that 
    particular language, it is very, very broad in its coverage as to 
    what the consultant should report about. He is to report on basic 
    pays between or among occupations compared on the basis of sex, 
    race, ethnicity. That is a fairly broad definition.
        Then we go over to the section that I am directly amending and 
    we find out that it is going to have a list of groups of 
    occupations, occupations comprising any such group involved in 
    skills, efforts, responsibilities, qualification requirements, 
    working conditions, all kinds of broad categories.
        The only thing that my amendment does suggest is that another 
    one of the determinants within that ought to be the existence of a 
    collective bargaining agreement. It has absolutely nothing to do 
    with the private sector, unless this bill involves the private 
    sector, because it refers back to the study that the bill requires 
    be done; so therefore if we are going to have something in this 
    amendment that refers to the private sector, then we have suddenly 
    learned something new about this bill that it includes the private 
    sector, because my amendment speaks directly to information to be 
    provided in the consultant's report, and so therefore the only way 
    that the private sector could get involved in this would be if that 
    is the intent of the committee to have that consultant's report 
    refer to private sector activities. This language goes directly to 
    that particular aspect of the bill. That particular aspect of the 
    bill is very broad and this would simply be additional language 
    that relates to collective bargaining agreements. . . .
        Ms. Oakar: . . . Mr. Chairman . . . so that there is no 
    confusion about the purpose of the bill, even though there has been 
    a deliberate attempt to distort it, it says in section (3), 
    ``occupation'' means any grouping of positions within an agency, as 
    identified or defined under chapter 51 of title 5,

[[Page 8148]]

    United States Code, or subchapter IV of chapter 53 of such title.
        It is very clear which employees we are referring to. It is a 
    very, very specific group. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Esteban E. Torres (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair believes that the amendment as drafted may be 
    interpreted to apply to a different category of employees from 
    those covered by the bill. If the Chair may cite from the 
    precedents of the House on the germaneness rule, the Chair cites as 
    such:

            To a bill dealing with a certain class of Federal employees 
        (the U.S. civil service in this case), an amendment to bring 
        other classes of employees within the scope of the bill is not 
        germane.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. The Chair was referring to the precedent at Deschler's Procedure 
        Ch. 28, Sec. 10.8, discussed in more detail at Sec. 13.3, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order in this case.

Bill Providing Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Foreign Service Retirees--
    Amendment To Adjust Civil Service Annuities

Sec. 13.2 To a bill reported from the Committee on International 
    Relations containing a cost-of-living adjustment for foreign 
    service retirees, an amendment containing a comparable adjustment 
    in annuities for federal civil service employees was held not to be 
    germane as beyond the scope of the bill and within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

    During consideration of H.R. 13179 (the State Department 
authorization bill for fiscal 1977), it was demonstrated that an 
individual proposition may not be germane to another individual 
proposition even though they may belong to the same generic class. The 
proceedings of June 18, 1976,(7) wherein the Chair sustained 
a point of order against the amendment described above, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 19224, 19226, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     cost-of-living adjustments of foreign service retirement annuities

        Sec. 13. (a) Section 882(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 
    is amended by striking out ``1 per centum plus''.
        (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with 
    respect to annuity increases which become effective after the end 
    of the forty-five-day period beginning on the date of enactment of 
    this Act. . . .
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski: Page 10, strike out 
        lines 3 through 9 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

[[Page 8149]]

            Sec. 13. (a) Section 882(b) of the Foreign Service Act of 
        1946 (22 U.S.C. 1121(b)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(b) Effective the first day of the second month which 
        begins after the price index change equals a rise of at least 3 
        percent for a month over the price index for the month last 
        used to establish an increase, each annuity payable from the 
        Fund having a commencing date not later than that effective 
        date shall be increased by such percentage rise in the price 
        index, adjusted to the nearest 1/10th of 1 percent.''. . .

             cost-of-living adjustments of civil service annuities

            Sec. 14. (a) Section 8340(b) of title 5, United States 
        Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(b) Each month the Commission shall determine the percent 
        change in the price index. Effective the first day of the 
        second month which begins after the price index change equals a 
        rise of at least 3 percent for a month over the price index for 
        the base month, each annuity payable from the Fund having a 
        commencing date not later than that effective date shall be 
        increased by such percentage rise in the price index, adjusted 
        to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    this amendment is not germane to this bill because it affects the 
    U.S. Civil Service and it is not within the scope of the bill. . . 
    .
        Mr. Derwinski: I rise in opposition to the point of order.
        Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, paragraph 1.4, under general 
    principles of germaneness, states that the rule of germaneness 
    applies to the relationship between a proposed amendment and the 
    pending bill to which it is offered.
        There is an obvious relationship. Section 12 of the bill 
    provides for annuity adjustments for alien employees who are under 
    the Civil Service Retirement Act. Section 13 of the bill amends the 
    annuity provisions of the Foreign Service Act.
        The amendment I have offered relates to both these retirement 
    systems. My amendment to section 13 of the bill amends the annuity 
    provisions of the Foreign Service Act by changing the formula for 
    cost-of-living adjustments, and is germane to that section. My 
    amendment adding a new section 14 to the bill amends the Civil 
    Service Retirement Act in the same manner, and is germane to the 
    bill.
        Mr. Chairman, because both of these retirement systems are 
    affected by the pending bill, the amendment I have offered is, I 
    believe, in compliance with the rule of germaneness.
        Mr. Chairman, I urge the point of order be overruled.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Morgan) that the amendment covers a class of employees who are not 
    contained in the bill, the Chair rules that the amendment is not 
    germane and sustains the point of order.

Civil Service Employees--Postal and District of Columbia Employees

Sec. 13.3 To a bill relating to a certain class of federal em

[[Page 8150]]

    ployees (the civil service), an amendment to bring another class of 
    employees (postal and District of Columbia employees) within the 
    scope of the bill is not germane.

    On Sept. 7, 1978,(9) during consideration of a bill 
(10) containing proposals to reform the federal civil 
service through merit system principles and personnel management, a 
point of order was made against two titles of a committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, one dealing with the work week of federal 
firefighters and one amending a law (the ``Hatch Act'') regulating 
political activities of postal and District of Columbia employees as 
well as the civil service. The point of order was made pursuant to a 
special order allowing a point of order based on the contention that 
both titles taken together would not have been germane if offered as a 
separate amendment to the bill as introduced, and providing that if the 
point of order were sustained, the committee amendment after deletion 
of those titles, would be read as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment. The Chair ruled that the amendment was not germane, basing 
such ruling on the inclusion of postal and District employees within 
the coverage of the bill, without deciding the issue relating to 
inclusion of provisions as to the work week of federal firefighters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 28437-39, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (H.R. 11280).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) . . . Pursuant to the rule, the 
    Clerk will now read by titles the committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Post Office and 
    Civil Service now printed in the reported bill as an original bill 
    for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk proceeded to read the bill.
        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against titles IX and X, based on their violation of 
    clause 7, rule XVI, in that they are nongermane to the bill before 
    us.
        Title IX deals with two groups of employees not covered in the 
    original bill. It includes postal workers and District of Columbia 
    employees. There is much precedent which indicates that we have 
    classes of subjects not covered by the basic proposition before us, 
    which renders the new material nongermane. That is precisely what 
    title IX does by adding two new subjects.
        Title X, on the other hand, introduces new subject matter, the 
    pay of firefighters that is not covered in the original bill. Title 
    X deals exclusively with hours of work and wages of firefighters, 
    while the original bill deals with the institution of the merit 
    system within the system. Where hours or

[[Page 8151]]

    wages are included, it is only incidental to the basic proposition 
    of the merit system, so both of these titles should be stricken for 
    the above reason, and for the added reason that neither proposition 
    amends the original bill. Rather, both seek to amend existing and 
    basic law. . . .
        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: . . . The facts are fairly 
    obvious--and the connections between Hatch Act reform and the rest 
    of H.R. 11280 are quite strong--
        First, the bill, in section 2302 (on page 138, beginning on 
    line 24) defines improper political activities as a prohibited 
    personnel practice. Title IX of the bill states exactly what these 
    improper political activities are.
        Second, the bill charges the special counsel of the Merit 
    System Protection Board (MSPB) with responsibility for not only 
    investigating prohibited personnel activities in general but 
    improper political activities in particular. (See page 160, 
    beginning on line 24.) Title IX of the bill defines more fully 
    these activities which apply to Federal civilian as well as postal 
    employees.
        Mr. Chairman, it is inconceivable to me that this bill--which 
    touches on virtually every aspect of civil service--should have 
    political activities and firefighters singled out for this kind of 
    shabby treatment. . . .
        Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    point of order under the rule applies to titles IX and X, and comes 
    before this House in a most unusual, and indeed a peculiar, way 
    that the Chair perhaps would have to rule against the germaneness 
    of one title that will be germane, because it is connected in the 
    rule to another title that the Chair may consider nongermane.
        I think it is unfortunate that the House must consider the 
    matter in that fashion. I would point out to the Chair with regard 
    to this point of order that title X, in fact, does pass the 
    jurisdictional test. It was in fact with the same jurisdiction 
    committee, the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, as this 
    bill is brought; therefore, it passes that jurisdictional test as 
    far as the case is concerned.
        I would point out further that the firefighter bill was 
    actually reported out of this committee and came before this House; 
    it passed by almost a 2-to-1 margin. Again, it reaches the 
    fundamental purpose test.
        The bill itself is for the reform of the civil service system 
    by title. This bill is for the reform of the working conditions of 
    the firefighters, a part of the civil service system by title. The 
    fundamental purpose of both bills are exactly the same, that is, 
    reform of the system. . . .
        I can cite precedents to indicate that when a bill deals with 
    several particulars, one particular may be held to be germane.
        In fact, this class is the same as the other titles of the 
    bill. A bill may be amended by a specific proposition of the same 
    class.
        I would be happy to quote to the Chair about a dozen precedents 
    that make this point.
        If in fact we were to deal with the whole civil service system, 
    dealing with a particular part of that system, that is the 
    firefighters and their work rules is a particular matter within 
    that system. Therefore, I would urge the Chair to

[[Page 8152]]

    overrule the point of order and hold title X as germane.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington makes a point of 
    order against titles IX and X of the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Post Office 
    and Civil Service, on the grounds that those titles would not have 
    been germane if offered as an amendment to the bill H.R. 11280, as 
    introduced.
        As indicated by the gentleman from Washington, the special 
    order providing for consideration of this measure, House Resolution 
    1307, allows the Chair to entertain a point of order on the basis 
    stated by the gentleman, that titles IX and X would not have been 
    germane as a separate amendment to H.R. 11280 in its introduced 
    form.
        The bill as introduced and referred to the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service, although broad in its coverage of reform 
    proposals within the competitive service and in the executive 
    branch of the Government, is limited to merit system principles and 
    personnel management within the civil service of the U.S. 
    Government. Title IX of the committee amendment is designed to 
    characterize and to protect appropriate political activities of 
    employees of the District of Columbia and Postal Service as well as 
    civil service employees, by amending the Hatch Act. The Chair 
    agrees with the argument of the gentleman from Washington that the 
    amendment would add an entirely new class of employees to that 
    covered by the bill, and for that reason is not germane.
        Accordingly the Chair sustains the point of order.

Post Office Employees--Treasury Department Employees

Sec. 13.4 To a bill relating to annual salary increases for custodial-
    service employees of the Post Office Department, an amendment 
    seeking to make the bill's provisions applicable to employees of 
    the Treasury Department was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 892 (Committee on Post Office and Post Roads).
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 4946, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., May 1, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That every custodial-service employee . . 
    . employed by the Post Office Department shall, at the end of each 
    year's satisfactory service, be promoted to the compensation rate 
    next higher than that of which he is then in receipt. . . .

    An amendment was offered as described above.
    Mr. John Taber, of New York, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Speaker,(14) in 
sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair is clearly of the opinion that the point of 
    order is well taken, for the reason that the pending bill deals 
    with only one class of employees in one particular department.

[[Page 8153]]

    The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] 
    undertakes to include the employees of another department.

Bill Affecting Civilian Federal Employees and Excluding Military 
    Personnel From Coverage--Amendment To Strike Provision Excluding 
    Military Personnel

Sec. 13.5 To a bill governing the political activities of a certain 
    class of federal employees, an amendment broadening the scope of 
    the bill to cover another class of federal employees is not 
    germane; thus, where a bill contained a provision excluding from 
    its coverage a particular class (members of the uniformed 
    services), the effect of which was to narrow the scope of the bill 
    to another single class (federal civilian employees), an amendment 
    proposing to strike out that exclusion from coverage, thereby 
    broadening the scope of the bill to include the separate class, was 
    held not germane.

    On June 7, 1977,(15) during consideration of the Federal 
Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977,(16) the Chair 
held that an amendment which by deleting an exception to the definition 
of the class covered by the bill and by inserting new provisions has 
the effect of including another class, is not germane. The amendment 
and proceedings related thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 17713, 17714, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Kindness: Page 28, line 12, 
        strike out ``but does not include a member of the uniformed 
        services'' and insert ``including any member of the uniformed 
        services''. . . .
            Page 38, line 14, immediately before the period insert ``or 
        by reason of being a member of the uniformed services''.
            Page 45, before line 8, insert the following:
            ``(j) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of a uniformed 
        service. Procedures with respect to any such violation shall, 
        under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be the 
        same as those applicable with respect to violations of section 
        892 of title 10.
            Page 46, after line 12, insert the following:

            ``(c) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of the uniformed 
        services. Any such violation shall, under regulations 
        prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be subject to the same 
        penalties as apply in the case of a violation of section 892 of 
        title 10.''.
            Page 47, after line 21, insert the following:
            ``(d) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the 
        Secretary

[[Page 8154]]

        concerned shall carry out the responsibilities imposed on the 
        Commission under the preceding provisions of this section.''. . 
        . .
            Page 48, after line 17, insert:
            ``(c) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the 
        Secretary concerned shall prescribe the regulations the 
        Commission is required to prescribe under this section, section 
        7322(9), and section 7324(c)(2) and (3) of this title.''. . . .

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order on the grounds that the matter contained in the 
    amendment is in violation of the germaneness rule stated in clause 
    7 of House rule XVI.
        The instant amendment proposes to make the bill applicable to 
    an entirely new class of individuals other than what is covered 
    under the bill.
        The reported bill applies only to civilian employees in 
    executive branch agencies, including the Postal Service and the 
    District of Columbia government, who are presently under the Hatch 
    Act.
        The amendment seeks to add a totally different class of 
    individuals to the bill; namely, military personnel who are not now 
    covered by the Hatch Act. Accordingly the amendment is not germane 
    to the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Responding [to] the point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman, the bill, as before us at this time, has 
    been expanded in considerable degree by the Clay amendment and by 
    other amendments that have been adopted during the course of the 
    consideration of the bill in the Committee of the Whole.
        However, I would point out that the amendment is germane, and I 
    particularly direct the attention of the chairman and the Members 
    to line 12 of page 28 where, in the definition of the word 
    ``employee'' the words appear, on line 12, ``but does not include a 
    member of the uniformed services.''
        Mr. Chairman, that is the very crux of this whole point. The 
    committee has given consideration, apparently, to the inclusion or 
    exclusion of members of uniformed services under the provisions of 
    this bill. A conscious decision was apparently made; and as 
    reported to the House, this bill has that conscious decision 
    reflected in it not to include members of the uniformed services.
        Mr. Chairman, the issue is directly before the House in that 
    form, so that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is 
    in order, is pertinent, and is germane. It could not be nongermane.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) makes a point of order 
    that the striking of the language, ``but does not include a member 
    of the uniformed services,'' and the remainder of the amendment 
    broadens the scope of the bill in violation of rule XVI, clause 7.
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) argues that because the 
    exclusion from coverage for the military is in the bill and has 
    received consideration, that the germaneness rule should be more 
    liberally interpreted.
        An annotation to clause 7, rule XVI, says that, in general, an 
    amendment simply striking out words already in a bill may not be 
    attacked as not germane unless such action would change

[[Page 8155]]

    the scope and meaning of the text. Cannon's VIII, section 2921; 
    Deschler's chapter 28, sec. 15.3.
        On October 28, 1975, Chairman Jordan of Texas ruled, during the 
    consideration of a bill H.R. 2667, giving the right of 
    representation to Federal employees during questioning as follows:

            In a bill amending a section of title 5, United States 
        Code, granting certain rights to employees of executive 
        agencies of the Federal Government, an amendment extending 
        those rights to, in that case, legislative branch employees, as 
        defined in a different section of that title, was held to go 
        beyond the scope of the bill and was ruled out as not germane.

        The class of employees included in this legislation is confined 
    to civilian employees of the Government, and those specifically so 
    stated and described as being civilian employees of the executive 
    agencies, of the Postal Service and of the District of Columbia 
    government, and a reference to the Hatch Act as currently in force 
    indicates that military personnel are not included in that act.
        It is obvious that the purpose and the scope of the act before 
    us as referred to in its entirety as amended by this bill, is, ``to 
    restore to Federal civilian and Postal Service employees their 
    rights to participate voluntarily, as private citizens, in the 
    political processes of the Nation, to protect such employees from 
    improper political solicitations, and for other purposes.''
        The Chair finds that the striking of the language excluding 
    military employees and inserting language covering the military 
    broadens the class of the persons covered by this bill to an extent 
    that it substantially changes the text and substantially changes 
    the purpose of the bill. The fact that the exclusion of military 
    personnel was stated in the bill does not necessarily bring into 
    question the converse of that proposition. The Chair therefore 
    finds that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I have [a] parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this: 
    Is there a way to appeal the ruling of the Chair within the rules 
    of the House?
        The Chairman: Yes, there is.
        Mr. Kindness: So that I may respectfully appeal the ruling of 
    the Chair at this point?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Ohio desires to do so.
        Does the gentleman desire to appeal the ruling of the Chair?
        Mr. Kindness: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not so desire at this 
    point.

Federal Employees--Members of Press

Sec. 13.6 To a bill providing salary increases for federal officers and 
    employees, an amendment promoting salary increases for members of 
    the ``working press'' and prohibiting the privilege of the press 
    gallery to news media who do not provide such increases for their 
    employees was held to be not germane.

[[Page 8156]]

    The following exchange (18) concerned a point of order 
raised against a proposed amendment to a bill (19) relating 
to salary increases for federal employees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 5137, 5138, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 2, 1964.
19. H.R. 8986 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: I make the point of order 
    against the amendment that it is not germane to the provisions of 
    this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones, of Missouri: (20) Mr. Chairman, 
    we have now done something for all the employees of the Government. 
    The working press is a quasi-public body. . . . I think they should 
    have consideration in this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Mr. Jones was the proponent of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman [Chet Holifield, of California]: The Chair is 
    prepared to rule.
        The gentleman's amendment is clearly not germane to the bill. 
    It applies to a group of people who do not come within the 
    jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Therefore the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: . . . I feel that if we are going to 
    take care of the people who are employed in the House and in the 
    Federal Government and over in the Supreme Court and everywhere 
    else and give them a raise, I believe these people in the Press 
    Gallery ought to have a raise.

Travel Expenses for Senate Employees--Travel Expenses of House Members

Sec. 13.7 To a Senate amendment providing for payment from the Senate 
    contingent fund of certain travel expenses incurred by Senate 
    employees, an amendment providing additional travel allowances, 
    payable from the House contingent fund, to Members of the House was 
    held not germane.

    The following proposition relating to employees of the Senate was 
one of several amendments reported in disagreement on Mar. 29, 1961:

        Senate Amendment No. 66: Page 24, line 12, insert:

                          Administrative Provision

        The ninth paragraph under the heading ``Administrative 
    Provisions'' in the appropriations for the Senate in the 
    Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1957 (2 U.S.C. 127), is 
    amended to read as follows:
        The contingent fund of the Senate is hereafter made available 
    for the payment of mileage . . . between Washington . . . and the 
    residence city of the Senator involved, for not to exceed four 
    round trips . . . made by employees in each Senator's office. . . . 
    (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 5277, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A motion was made by Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, to recede and 
concur in such amendment, with an amendment (2) as described 
above. Mr. Harold R.

[[Page 8157]]

Gross, of Iowa, then made a point of order, stating that the amendment 
``is not germane because it deals with an entirely different class of 
people,'' and citing the principle that one individual proposition may 
not be amended by another individual proposition. The 
Speaker,(3) in sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 5278.
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senate amendment No. 66 deals entirely with employees of the 
    Senate. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas brings in 
    Members of the House. Therefore the Chair must hold that the point 
    of order is well taken.

Bill Requiring Study of Pay Practices in Executive Branch--Amendment To 
    Include Practices in Legislative Branch

Sec. 13.8 To a bill requiring a study to determine the equitability of 
    federal pay practices under statutory systems applicable to 
    agencies of the executive branch, an amendment to extend the scope 
    of the study to pay practices in the legislative branch was held 
    not germane by the Committee of the Whole, sustaining the ruling of 
    the Chair on appeal.

    On Sept. 28, 1988,(4) during consideration of H.R. 
387,(5) the Committee of the Whole held that to a bill 
dealing with a certain class of federal employees, an amendment 
bringing another class of federal employees within the scope of the 
bill is not germane. The amendment and proceedings relevant thereto 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 134 Cong. Rec. 26420-22, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. The Federal Equitable Pay Practices Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer several 
    amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Bartlett: Page 2, line 11, insert 
        ``and pay structures for congressional employees,'' after 
        ``title,''.
            Page 9, line 9, insert ``and any congressional office'' 
        after ``agency''. . . .
            (b) Comparisons.--(1) In performing the study, comparisons 
        shall be made--
            (A) both within the same system and among the respective 
        systems under this Act; and
            (B) both on an intra-agency and on an inter-agency basis.
            (2) For the purpose of this subsection--

            (A) ``system'' means any system or structure referred to in 
        section 2(a); and
            (B) ``agency'' means any agency within the meaning of 
        section 10(12) and any congressional office.
            Page 16, line 15, strike ``title'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``title, and any similar grouping of positions used by 
        a congressional office;''. . . .

[[Page 8158]]

        Mr. [Gary L.] Ackerman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendments. . . .
        [T]he amendment offered by the Member from Texas, Mr. Bartlett, 
    proposes to expand the class of individuals covered by the bill. As 
    such the amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI and is nongermane.
        Mr. Chairman, the bill before us applies to a very specific 
    class; that is, employees of executive agencies (as defined in 5 
    U.S.C. 105, but not including the General Accounting Office). The 
    bill is further limited in scope in that the study it mandates is 
    limited to executive agency employees in positions under the 
    Government's position classification system under chapter 51 of 
    title 5, and the prevailing rate system under subchapter IV of 
    chapter 53 of title 5. Clearly the bill relates only to certain 
    employees in the executive branch. That is the class concerned. The 
    amendment, on the other hand, applies to an entirely different 
    class, that is, legislative branch employees.
        There are a number of precedents on this point. Sections 10.3, 
    10.7, 10.8, and 10.9 of chapter 28 of Deschler's Procedure each 
    cite instances in which, to legislation affecting one class or 
    group of Federal employees, amendments expanding the scope to other 
    classes of individuals (including other classes of Federal 
    employees) were ruled nongermane. A particularly helpful precedent 
    occurred on October 28, 1975, when the House was considering 
    legislation to provide certain procedural rights to employees or 
    executive agencies. An amendment was offered which would have 
    included ``congressional employees'' within the bill's provisions. 
    In that instance, Chairman Jordan ruled that by adding a totally 
    different individual class of employees to the bill, the amendment 
    went beyond the scope of the bill and was nongermane.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, I do seek to speak on the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the point of order and to 
    state that this amendment is not out of order but, in doing so, I 
    would inquire of the subcommittee chairman and the sponsor of the 
    bill what I inquired earlier, if he would choose to enlighten us, 
    is it the sponsor's intent to specifically exclude Congress as an 
    employer from coverage under this study and this bill?
        I heard, from listening to the point of order, that it was at 
    least his intent to exclude Congress from this study. . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, in addressing to the point of order, this legislation was 
    drafted for the purpose of proposing a new study of Federal 
    employees, as contained in the definition section of the bill on 
    page 17, line 14; it includes definition of Government means the 
    Government of the United States which that Government of the United 
    States includes employees of that Government which includes 
    employees who are employed by the legislative branch.
        It seems to me that the committee and the bill's sponsors have 
    had ample opportunity to draft the bill in a way that would include 
    Congress in the coverage.
        Now they earlier said that they chose not to do it because 
    their committee did not have jurisdiction. I would contend to the 
    Chair that this

[[Page 8159]]

    body, the floor, does have jurisdiction if it chooses to include 
    Congress as part of this study. If indeed the committee did not 
    have jurisdiction as the gentleman had said, well then this body 
    does have jurisdiction but the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Ackerman], the chairman of the subcommittee, is objecting then on 
    another ground outside of jurisdiction.
        So, Mr. Chairman, it becomes a catch-22. The committee does not 
    have jurisdiction to include Congress so they bring it to the floor 
    where we have jurisdiction, but because the committee did not 
    address it in the drafting well, the sponsor objects because the 
    committee did not do it. It is a circular argument we have seen 
    before.
        Let me continue on objections on the point of order. Number one 
    was the fact that the bill does include in the definition of 
    government the entirety of the Federal Government, page 17, line 14 
    ``government means the government of the United States.''
        Number two, the rules of the House, rule XVI provide that ``to 
    a proposition to accomplish a result through regulation by a 
    governmental agency, an amendment to accomplish the same 
    fundamental purpose through regulation by another governmental 
    agency is germane.''
        This amendment accomplishes the same fundamental purpose if we 
    accept the sponsors at their word, and that is their purpose to 
    apply a pay equity standard to the Government, meaning the 
    Government of the United States.
        No. 2, Mr. Chairman, on December 19, 1973, the House was 
    considering an Energy Research and Development Administration bill, 
    an amendment was offered to apply the same requirements to the 
    Council on Environmental Quality. A point of order was raised and 
    the point of order against the bill was overruled, Mr. Chairman, 
    because the bill authorizing the Administrator of ERDA to engage in 
    certain activities was the same as the amendment which authorized 
    the Council on Environmental Quality to engage in the same 
    activity. The amendment authorizes the same activity as does the 
    bill.
        No. 3, going back to December 15, 1937, in the debate over the 
    original Fair Labor Standards Act, several questions of germaneness 
    arose over amendments. Once again the Chair cited Cannon's 
    Precedents, volume 8 at section 3056, to wit, ``To a proposition to 
    accomplish a certain purpose by one method a proposition to achieve 
    the same purpose by another closely related method is germane.''
        This amendment accomplishes the same purpose as the main bill. 
    It accomplishes it to a group of employees that have been, for 
    reasons which I cannot understand, have been excluded from coverage 
    from this by the sponsors of this bill for reasons I cannot 
    understand. . . .
        Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, another argument 
    to that, it is inconsistent within our rules or with any precedent 
    to define Federal employee in one way which is an employee of the 
    Government, but to then in effect say that the Federal employees of 
    the Congress of the United States are not Federal employees.
        You cannot argue it both ways. They are either Federal 
    employees or they are not Federal employees and should not be 
    excluded under the ruling. . . .

[[Page 8160]]

        Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman from Texas 
    please tell us what an executive agency means, again? Tell us what 
    that means again, what agency means, that the gentleman just spoke 
    of.
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, in the definition of the bill, the 
    bill's sponsors have drafted the bill explicitly to say that an 
    agency means an executive agency within the meaning of section 105. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated by the gentleman from New York and the 
    gentlewoman from Colorado, and under the precedents of the House, 
    cited by the gentleman from New York, the point of order must be 
    sustained. The Chair so rules.
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, I would appeal the decision of the 
    Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as the judgment of the committee?
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Bartlett: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    251, noes 150, not voting 30.

Bill Concerning Termination of Federal Assistance to Institutions 
    Practicing Discrimination--Amendment To Include Members of Congress 
    as Recipients of Federal Assistance for Purposes of Bill

Sec. 13.9 To a bill narrowly amending several civil rights statutes 
    only to clarify the circumstances under which any institution 
    receiving federal financial assistance may have such assistance 
    terminated because of discrimination by such institution, an 
    amendment to deem Members of Congress as recipients of federal 
    financial assistance for the purpose of those statutes was held not 
    germane, since the amendment required no showing that Members of 
    Congress do in fact receive federal financial assistance as defined 
    in those statutes, and thus expanded the scope of coverage of the 
    laws amended to a class unrelated to the group of institutions 
    addressed in the bill and the laws amended.

        On June 26, 1984, (7) the Chairman of the Committee 
    of the Whole, in

[[Page 8161]]

    holding the amendment described above as not being germane 
    demonstrated that, to a bill having as its fundamental purpose the 
    clarification of eligibility of existing recipients for federal 
    financial assistance under several statutes, an amendment deeming a 
    specified entity to be a recipient of federal financial assistance 
    for the purposes of those laws was not germane since it expanded 
    the scope of the coverage of the laws being amended to a class not 
    necessarily covered by the class of recipients in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 130 Cong. Rec. 18857-62, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8162]]

    ``Federal financial assistance'' it would be covered under H.R. 
    5490. Nowhere in any of the covered acts is there a specific 
    definition of ``Federal financial assistance,'' but Mr. Chairman, 
    Congress obviously must pay its bills from somewhere and that 
    somewhere is the Federal Government, so that means that there is 
    assistance, Federal financial assistance. . . .
        Mr. Simon: . . . The question is whether the law up to this 
    point has covered the legislative branch. The answer is clearly 
    that it has not.
        So what the gentleman from Texas is doing is going appreciably 
    beyond the present law and the law has not covered Congress for a 
    perfectly sound reason, and that is the separation of powers. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: It seems to me that the 
    point of order rests upon the well-established rule that an 
    amendment is not germane if it extends the law to cover an entirely 
    separate and distinctly different class of people than those whom 
    the law in its initial presentation in the bill would be made 
    applicable.
        It seems clear to me that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman would indeed extend the application of that statute to an 
    entirely separate and different class of people. . . .
        Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: . . . The amendment is 
    not germane. The separation of powers doctrine, if we do not 
    recognize it even here in this sensitive area, we would be inviting 
    the Department of Justice to come in to enforce the civil rights 
    laws. We tried many times to deal with this problem in other ways. 
    For example, the House fair employment practices agreement is one 
    way of creating the mechanism. . . .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On a roll call vote, the Committee of the Whole sustained on appeal 
the ruling of the Chair on the question of germaneness of the 
amendment: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 18861, 18862, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    appeal the ruling of the Chair.

        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    be sustained as the judgment of the Committee? . . .
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 8163]]

        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. . . .
        The Chairman: The pending business is the demand of the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer] for a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    277, noes 125, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 30, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the decision of the Chair was sustained.

Bill Prohibiting Uses of Polygraphy in Private Sector--Amendment To 
    Extend Coverage of Bill to Congress

Sec. 13.10 To a bill according protection to a certain class, an 
    amendment extending the protection to another class is not germane; 
    thus, to a bill prohibiting certain uses of polygraphy in the 
    private sector, an amendment applying the terms of the bill to the 
    Congress was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 1212 (10) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Nov. 4, 1987, (11) the Chair sustained a 
point of order in the circumstances described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act.
11. 133 Cong. Rec. 9582-84, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) Are there any amendments to 
    section 5?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Henry B. Gonzalez (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the Clerk will designate section 6.
        The text of section 6 is as follows:
        sec. 6. exemptions.

            (a) No Application to Governmental Employers.--The 
        provisions of this Act shall not apply with respect to the 
        United States Government, a State or local government, or any 
        political subdivision of a State or local government.
            (b) National Defense and Security Exemption.--(1) Nothing 
        in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the administration, 
        in the performance of any counterintelligence function, of any 
        lie detector test to--

        (A) any expert or consultant under contract to the Department 
    of Defense or any employee of any contractor of such department. . 
    . .
        (2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the 
    administration, in the performance of any Intelligence or 
    counterintelligence function, of any lie detector test to--
        (A)(i) any individual employed by, or assigned or detailed to, 
    the National Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency, 
    (ii) any expert or consultant under contract to the National 
    Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency, (iii) any 
    employee of a contractor of the National Security Agency or the 
    Central Intelligence Agency, or (iv) any individual applying for a 
    position in the National Security Agency or the Central 
    Intelligence Agency. . . .

[[Page 8164]]

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett: On page 7, line 1, 
        strike ``United States Government,'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: ``United States Government, except for the 
        Congress of the United States insofar as it is engaged in 
        functions not directly related to national security as 
        determined by such Congress,''. . . .

        Mr. [Gary L.] Ackerman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    pursue my point of order.
        It appears to me that the amendment is not germane, because it 
    broadens the scope of the coverage to Government employees; and at 
    the present time, the bill only covers the private sector. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would cite in the rules of 
    the House in section 10.10 on page 579 the rule of the House that 
    states the following:
        ``To a bill extending benefits to a certain class of employees, 
    an amendment to extend those benefits to an additional category of 
    employees within that class is germane''--is germane. . . .
        The bill has established a class of employees, of all 
    employees, and then exempted all Government employees from that 
    class.
        I would then very narrowly remove a portion of the exemption as 
    the category within the class that is being exempted, so if the 
    bill exempts all Government employees, then the Congress can remove 
    part of that exemption.
        Either the exemption section is out of order, or my amendment 
    is out of order. . . .
        Mr. Ackerman: Mr. Chairman, the operative words that we just 
    heard here were not employees but rather ``class of employees.''
        As described in the proposed legislation, the class pertains to 
    private-sector employees, thereby exempting the entire class of 
    public-sector employees. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    hope the point of order would not be sustained.
        If the Chair will examine the bill, the Chair will find in 
    section 6 of the bill that there is indeed an exemption for all 
    Government employees, and this was done to make certain the bill 
    was sent only to the Committee on Education and Labor.
        On page 7 of the bill, the Chair would find under part (2), 
    (A)(i) any individual employed by, or assigned or detailed to, the 
    National Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency; and in 
    the bill itself they begin the process of defining certain 
    Government employees. . . .
        All the gentleman from Texas is doing is singling out another 
    group of people who the gentleman is saying should not be exempted, 
    so therefore, because the bill was broadened by the language on 
    page 7, it is this gentleman's interpretation that the Chair should 
    rule against the point of order raised by the gentleman from New 
    York, because the bill already classifies Government employees in 
    the same way that the gentleman from Texas seeks to classify 
    Government employees.
        Mr. Bartlett: . . . What constitutes a class, I call to the 
    Chair's at

[[Page 8165]]

    tention page 3, section 3, lines 2 and 3 of the bill, in which the 
    bill clearly establishes the class of employers that are covered.
        The class of employers that are covered is established by the 
    following one sentence:
        ``It shall be unlawful for any employer engaged in commerce or 
    in the production of goods for commerce . . .''
        The bill then later narrows, or takes that class and removes 
    one category of that class. Therefore, my amendment is in order, 
    because it applies to the same class that the bill covers; that is, 
    any employer engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for 
    commerce. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has carefully evaluated the arguments, 
    having anticipated the same, and wishes to state that with 
    reference to the citation that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Bartlett] referred to, section 10.10 chapter 28 of the Procedures 
    in the House, the gentleman did not emphasize, and the Chair will 
    read, ``to a bill extending benefits to a certain class of 
    employees, an amendment to extend those benefits to an additional 
    category of employees within that class is germane.''
        Obviously, the Chair cannot select a narrow reading of one part 
    of the bill, as the gentleman from Texas has just done, but must 
    consider the bill as a whole.
        In doing so, we find that both the thrust of the bill, as well 
    as the report accompanying the bill explaining the bill, clearly 
    define the range and scope of coverage to the private sector.
        In the case of exemptions as put forth on page 14 of the 
    report, section 6 exempts all governmental employers, whether 
    Federal, State, local or a political subdivision.
        This section consistent with this exemption also provides a 
    rule of construction with respect to private-sector employers doing 
    counterintelligence or intelligence work with the CIA, DOD, DOE 
    atomic energy defense activities, FBI and NSA.
        Clearly, the committee was trying to stay within the limits of 
    its jurisdiction by attempting to legislate for the private sector 
    employer/employee, and trying to stay within the limitations 
    imposed by prior legislation by the Congress in which it had 
    legislated with respect to the Defense Department, intelligence 
    community and the like, so therefore, the Chair is prepared to rule 
    that in light of the fact that intentionally, or unintentionally, 
    the amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bartlett] would in 
    effect do by indirection what cannot be done by direction, and 
    therefore, is not in keeping with Jefferson's Manual and the 
    citations following the germaneness rules, as well as Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 28, section 7.9 which clearly prohibits 
    broadening of exemptions in cases such as this. Therefore, the 
    Chair is compelled to sustain the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from New York.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The principle cited above should be 
distinguished from the principle that, where a bill accords protection 
to a certain class, an amendment extending such protection to an 
additional category within that same class may be germane. See Sec. 12, 
supra, for further discussion.

[[Page 8166]]

Bill Increasing Armed Forces--Amendment Prohibiting Discrimination by 
    Persons Outside Armed Forces

Sec. 13.11 To a bill to provide for the common defense by increasing 
    the strength of the armed forces through voluntary enlistments and 
    induction, an amendment providing that no member of the armed 
    forces should be discriminated against because of his race, creed, 
    religion, or the like, by, among others, any common carrier, hotel, 
    or restaurant, was held to be not germane as imposing sanctions 
    upon a different class.

    During consideration of the Selective Service Act of 1948, 
(13) the following amendment was offered: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 8681, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On page 21, line 6, add the following new section 6 and 
    renumber the sections that follow accordingly:
        ``Sec. 6. No member of the armed forces shall be discriminated 
    against in any manner because of his race, color, national origin, 
    ancestry, language, or religion by (1) any officer or employee of 
    the United States, of any State or any governmental subdivision 
    thereof, of any Territory or possession of the United States, or of 
    the District of Columbia, (2) any other member of the armed forces, 
    (3) any common carrier, (4) any hotel or other place of public 
    lodging . . . or (7) any business or service engaged in commerce. . 
    . .''

    In response to a point of order made by Mr. Robert L. F. Sikes, of 
Florida, the following argument was made by the proponent of the 
amendment:

        Mr. [Leo] Isacson [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    deals with certain rights and consequences which flow from the 
    induction of Negroes into the armed forces of the United States. I 
    submit that there are other sections in this bill which deal with 
    the same subject, and it is therefore germane. I might also add 
    that the amendment was considered in the Senate and was held to be 
    germane.

    The Chairman, (15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whatever action was taken in another body does not control the 
    action of this body.
        The Chair is prepared to rule. In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Isacson] 
    clearly goes beyond the scope of the bill. It purports to impose 
    sanctions on persons who are not members of the armed forces, such 
    as common carriers, and other classes. Therefore, the Chair holds 
    that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of order.

[[Page 8167]]

--Penalties Imposed on Persons Outside Armed Services for Maintaining 
    Brothels and the Like

Sec. 13.12 To a bill to provide for the common defense by increasing 
    the strength of the armed forces, an amendment proposing penalties 
    for the maintenance, by persons outside the armed forces, of 
    brothels and the like near army posts was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948, (16) the following amendment was offered: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 8685, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edward H.] Rees [of Kansas]: At the 
    end of line 12, page 23, add the following and number the 
    succeeding sections accordingly:
        ``Sec. 8. (a) The training under this act shall be . . . 
    carried out on the highest possible moral . . . plane.
        ``(b) It shall be unlawful within such reasonable distance of 
    any military camp . . . as the Secretary of National Defense may 
    determine to be necessary to the protection of the health, morals, 
    and welfare of such persons who are receiving training under this 
    act . . . to establish or keep houses of ill fame [and the like]. . 
    . . Any person, corporation, partnership, or association violating 
    any of the provisions of this subsection shall be deemed guilty of 
    a misdemeanor. . . .''

    In response to a point of order that the amendment was not germane 
to the bill,(18) Mr. Rees stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The point of order was raised by Mr. Walter G. Andrews (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I call attention to the fact that the committee 
    in charge of this bill approved practically all of the amendment I 
    am submitting under what is known as the Towe bill. . . .

    The following exchange then occurred with respect to the point of 
order:  (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 8685, 8686, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: May I say to the distinguished 
    gentleman that the Towe bill was a training bill and had no 
    military obligation. This bill is to build up an Army.
        Mr. Rees: . . . I see no real difference. . . . Is it not a 
    fact that these boys under this bill are to go into training? . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I do not see how a point of order could lie 
    against this proposed amendment. It is within the broad scope of 
    this legislation. Certainly, if you can pass a law to take these 
    boys from their homes in peacetime without their consent, then you 
    can provide for protection in this amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Stephen] Pace [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully 
    submit

[[Page 8168]]

    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas is germane 
    to the purpose, intent, and policy of the bill. The bill proposes, 
    not a system of volunteers but a plan of induction for taking young 
    men from their homes and placing them in military-training camps. 
    Certainly it is within the jurisdiction of the Congress, where it 
    invokes conscription for the assembling of great masses of young 
    men in military-training camps, as this bill specifically provides, 
    to prescribe the circumstances and conditions under which they 
    shall be trained. . . .
        The Chairman [Francis H. Case, of South Dakota]: . . . The 
    Chair must remind the Committee that the provisions in the bill as 
    reported by the committee were made in order by a special rule 
    adopted by the House of Representatives. There may be provisions in 
    the bill which would not be germane if offered as an amendment by 
    individual Members, but are in order in the bill because they were 
    made in order by the rule adopted by the House.
        So every amendment offered must stand on its own bottom as to 
    whether or not it is germane.
        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the amendment 
    includes such language as ``It shall be unlawful to maintain 
    certain institutions,'' and further on says, ``Any person, 
    corporation, partnership, or association violating any of the 
    provisions of this subsection shall be deemed guilty of a 
    misdemeanor' and so forth. In that respect it seems to the Chair 
    that the amendment goes beyond the provisions of the bill, imposing 
    penalties and sanctions on persons outside the armed forces.
        Therefore, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

    After the above ruling, Mr. Rees offered the amendment without the 
words making violation of its provisions a misdemeanor and imposing 
penalties for such violations. (20) No point of order based 
on a question of germaneness was raised in this instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 8686.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment To Exempt Members of Armed Forces From Poll Taxes

Sec. 13.13 To a bill to provide for the common defense by increasing 
    the strength of the armed forces, an amendment providing that no 
    person inducted under the act should be required during such 
    service to pay any poll tax or other tax as a condition of voting 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948, (1) Mr. George H. Bender, of Ohio, offered an 
amendment (2) containing the provisions described above. A 
point of order against the amendment was raised by Mr. John Bell 
Williams, of Mississippi, who contended that

[[Page 8169]]

the amendment was not germane. The Chairman,(3) in ruling on 
the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
 2. 94 Cong. Rec. 8705, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
 3. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair has examined the amendment. It seems to deal 
    entirely with persons who are inducted or enlisted in the armed 
    forces under this act. The Chair holds that the amendment is 
    germane and overrules the point of order.

Provision To Postpone Further Induction Into Armed Forces Until Certain 
    Date--Amendment To Increase Pay of All Members of Armed Forces

Sec. 13.14 To an amendment proposing that further induction into the 
    armed forces be postponed until a certain date, an amendment 
    proposing to amend the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942 to increase the 
    pay of all members of the armed forces was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill (4) 
relating to extension of the Selective Training and Service Act, the 
following amendment was under consideration: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 6064 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 5. See 92 Cong. Rec. 3649, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 13, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: On page 1, 
    in line 11 . . . insert the following proviso: ``Provided, That so 
    much of the second sentence of section 3(a) of the Selective 
    Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, as precedes the first 
    proviso in such sentence is amended to read as follows:
        ``The President is authorized after, and not before, October 
    15, 1946, to select and induct (men) into the armed forces of the 
    United States . . . and no monthly requisitions for men shall be 
    made on selective service by either the Secretary of War or the 
    Secretary of the Navy between May 15, 1946, and October 15, 1946. . 
    . .''

    To such amendment, the following amendment was offered: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 3650.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Forest A.] Harness of Indiana: At the 
    end of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia, insert 
    a new section, as follows:
        That (a) the first paragraph of section 9 of the Pay 
    Readjustment Act of 1942, as amended, is hereby amended to read as 
    follows:
        ``The monthly base pay of enlisted men of the Army, Navy, 
    Marine Corps, and Coast Guard shall be as follows: Enlisted men of 
    the first grade, $165. . . .''

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

        Mr. [Overton] Brooks [of Louisiana]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment to the amendment on a bill 
    dealing with selective service seeks to write a gen

[[Page 8170]]

    eral Army pay bill, and this pay bill, if passed, would cover 
    millions of soldiers, sailors, and marines not brought within the 
    terms of selective service either during the war or at the present 
    time, and therefore, is not germane or related to the subject 
    matter of drafting men into the service.

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

        Mr. Harness of Indiana: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe every 
    Member wants to vote on this increase in pay to stimulate volunteer 
    enlistments. The original Selective Service Act contained a 
    provision on pay for men inducted under the act. I cannot see any 
    reason why we should not consider the matter in connection with the 
    extension of selective service, especially in connection with the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia to suspend the act, 
    pending a trial period for obtaining voluntary enlistments. . . .

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana is neither germane to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Georgia, nor is it germane to the bill as 
    reported, and which the House is now considering. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill Requiring Audits of Government Corporations--Amendment To Require 
    Audits of Corporations Owned or ``Controlled'' by Government.

Sec. 13.15 To that section of a bill requiring that financial 
    transactions of government corporations be audited by the General 
    Accounting Office, an amendment to require that corporations owned 
    ``or controlled'' by the government be audited by such office was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
to provide for the effective administration of certain lending agencies 
of the federal government. An amendment was offered (9) as 
described above. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. S. 375 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 1192, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 16, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: . . . (T)his amendment . . . 
    is an amendment of the act creating the General Accounting Office. 
    It is not germane to this bill. Its effect cannot be foretold at 
    the present time. . . . It seems to me ``Government-controlled 
    corporation'' is hard to define.

[[Page 8171]]

    The Chairman, Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, stating that 
the amendment ``broadens the scope of the bill,'' (10) 
sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 1193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grants to Private Health Care Providers--Amendment To Authorize Grants 
    to States for Control of Specified Public Health Hazard

Sec. 13.16 To a bill authorizing categorical grants to certain private 
    entities furnishing health care to medically underserved 
    populations, a committee amendment authorizing direct grants to 
    states for control of a certain public health hazard was held not 
    germane because it related to different categories of recipients.

    On Mar. 5, 1986,(11) during consideration of H.R. 2418 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against an amendment, thus demonstrating that to a bill authorizing 
certain financial assistance to be administered by one category of 
recipient for a particular purpose, an amendment authorizing assistance 
to be administered by a different category of agency recipient beyond 
the areas covered by the bill is not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 132 Cong. Rec. 3603, 3604, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the bill is as follows: . . .
    Section 1. Short Title: Reference to Act.

            (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Health 
        Services Amendments Act of 1985''. . . .
    Sec. 2. Medically Underserved Populations.

            Section 330(b) (42 U.S.C. 254c(b)) is amended--
            (1) by striking out the second, third, fourth, and fifth 
        sentences of paragraph (3); and
            (2) by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(4) in carrying out paragraph (3), the Secretary shall by 
        regulation prescribe criteria for determining the specific 
        shortages of personal health services of an area or population 
        group. . . .
            ``(5) The Secretary may not designate a medically 
        underserved population in a State or terminate the designation 
        of such a population unless, prior to such designation or 
        termination, the Secretary provides reasonable notice and 
        opportunity for comment and consults with--
            ``(A) the chief executive officer of such State;
            ``(B) local officials in such State . . .
    Sec. 3. Memorandum of Agreement.

            Section 330 (42 U.S.C. 254c) is amended by redesignating 
        subsection (h) as subsection (i) and by inserting after 
        subsection (g) the following new subsection:
            ``(h) In carrying out this section, the Secretary may enter 
        in a memorandum of agreement with a State. Such memorandum may 
        include, where appropriate, provisions permitting such State 
        to--

[[Page 8172]]

            ``(1) analyze the need for primary health services for 
        medically underserved populations within such State;
            ``(2) assist in the planning and development of new 
        community health centers . . .
    Sec. 4. Authorization of Appropriations.

            Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 330(i) (as redesignated 
        by section 202 of this Act) are amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) There are authorized to be appropriated for payments 
        pursuant to grants under this section $405,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 1986, $437,000,000 for fiscal year 1987, and $472,000,000 
        for fiscal year 1988. . . .
    Sec. 6. Migrant Health Centers.

            The first sentence of section 329(h)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
        254b(h)(1)) is amended by striking out ``and'' after ``1983,'' 
        and by inserting before the period a comma and ``$50,000,000 
        for the fiscal year ending September 20, 1986, $56,000,000 for 
        the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987, and $61,000,000 for 
        the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988''. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) The Clerk will report 
    the next committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 6, insert after line 5 the 
        following new section:
    Sec. 8. Plague.

            Section 317 (42 U.S.C. 247b) is amended by adding at the 
        end the following:
            ``(k) The Secretary, acting through the Director of the 
        Centers for Disease Control, may make grants to and enter into 
        contracts and cooperative agreements with States for the 
        control of plague. For grants, cooperative agreements, and 
        contracts under this subsection there are authorized to be 
        appropriated $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1986, 
        1987, and 1988.''. . . .

        Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane to the subject matter or 
    purpose of this bill and is in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . If no one wishes to be heard on 
    the point of order, the Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment does not pertain to the subject matter of the 
    introduced bill and addresses a subject that is not covered by the 
    bill and the point of order is sustained.

Bill Relating to Agricultural Workers From Mexico--Amendment Requiring 
    Payment of Minimum Wage to United States Citizens Employed in 
    Agriculture

Sec. 13.17 To a bill extending an act authorizing the Secretary of 
    Labor to assist in supplying agricultural workers from Mexico, an 
    amendment requiring certain employers who contract for employees 
    under the act to pay United States citizens employed as 
    agricultural workers at a rate not less than a certain minimum was 
    held not germane.

[[Page 8173]]

    In the 83d Congress, a bill (13) was under consideration 
relating to importation of foreign agricultural workers. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 3480 (Committee on Agriculture).
14. 99 Cong. Rec. 3157, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 15, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 503. (a) Any employer who contracts employees under the 
    terms of this title for the planting, cultivating, and/or 
    harvesting of crops . . . which are supported at 90 percent of 
    parity under the terms of the preceding titles of this act, and who 
    also employs citizens of the United States for the same work on 
    such crops, shall pay to such citizens . . . an hourly wage at 
    least equal to 90 percent of the basic minimum wage provided for by 
    the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. . . .

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

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill under consideration. It is an attempt to deal 
    with matters entirely outside the purview of this legislation, 
    legislation which would properly come within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee. It attempts to fix wages and deal with matters 
    that come within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Labor. It 
    might properly be an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, but 
    not to this bill.

    The Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Leo E. Allen (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment proposes to bring in a new class not contemplated 
    in the bill. Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Provision Defining ``Confiscated Property of Foreign State''--Amendment 
    Relating to Just Compensation for Workmen Who Produced Such 
    Property

Sec. 13.18 To that section of a bill defining ``confiscated property of 
    a foreign state or government'' in part as property taken by force 
    without just compensation, an amendment proposing that such 
    property be defined further as that taken without payment of just 
    compensation ``to the workmen engaged in its production, as 
    determined by the wages and hours provisions of the Fair Labor 
    Standards Act,'' was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (16) was under 
consideration which sought to extend provisions of the National Stolen 
Property Act, and which stated in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. S. 3936 (Committee on the Judiciary).
17. See 86 Cong. Rec. 12990, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Oct. 1, 1940.

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

[[Page 8174]]

        Sec. 3. The term ``confiscated property'' shall be deemed to 
    include property which has been taken by means of force, or by 
    means of any law, decree, order, ordinance, or other act, direct or 
    indirect, of any foreign state or government, whether recognized or 
    unrecognized, or of any political subdivision of such state, or of 
    any official board . . . or agency of any such state, government, 
    or political subdivision, without payment of just compensation or 
    reasonable provision therefor having been made.

    To such bill, an amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: On 
    page 3, line 15, after ``payment of just compensation'', insert 
    ``to the workmen engaged in its production, as determined by the 
    wages and hours provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.''

    Speaking in response to a point of order raised by Mr. Sam Hobbs, 
of Alabama, Mr. Case, the proponent of the amendment, stated:

        I should like to point out that this section deals with a 
    definition of what confiscated property is, and my amendment goes 
    to the definition. The definition of confiscated property, as 
    suggested by the language in the bill, covers that which has been 
    taken by means of force or by means of any law without payment of 
    just compensation. It may be presumed--but the bill does not say--
    that just compensation relates to the owners of the property. My 
    amendment merely adds to that definition and presumption by 
    providing that the payment of just compensation shall also include 
    payment of just compensation to the workmen who are engaged in the 
    production of the property. Consequently, I maintain that the 
    amendment is germane, and germane at that point.

    Mr. Hobbs stated in response:

        . . . This bill obtains and applies only to the property itself 
    and not to the mode of its production. In other words, if property 
    is about to be brought into the United States, having been 
    confiscated elsewhere, and if the President ascertains that fact 
    and the further fact that it will have a deleterious effect on our 
    public interests, then he may embargo the bringing into this 
    country of that product. However, he could not do what this 
    amendment would have him do, go into a foreign country and enforce 
    wage and hour regulations there.
        This bill does not say a word about compensation to anybody 
    except the true owner of the property taken, and we respectfully 
    submit that it is manifestly not germane and could not . . . be 
    brought within the purview . . . of this bill.

    The Chairman (18) ruled that the amendment was not 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Ambrose J. Kennedy (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair thinks that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hobbs] 
    has correctly stated the parliamentary proposition. It is the 
    opinion of the Chair that the amendment is not germane, and 
    therefore the point of order is sustained.

[[Page 8175]]

Relief for Civilian Internees--Amendment Extending to Military 
    Prisoners of War

Sec. 13.19 To a section of a bill dealing with relief of civilian 
    internees, an amendment seeking to extend such relief to military 
    or naval prisoners of war was held not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (19) was under 
consideration which provided in part: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 4044 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 571, 572, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 26, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Title III

                                short title

        Sec. 301. This title may be cited as the ``Internees' Relief 
    Act of 1947.''

                                definitions

        Sec. 302. When used in this title--
        (1) The term ``civilian'' means only a person who, at the time 
    of the occurrence of the event which gave rise to a claim for 
    benefits under this title, was a citizen of the United States.
        (2) The term ``detention'' means any restraint of personal 
    liberty (a) due to capture by the enemy. . . .
        Sec. 303. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, the 
    provisions of titles I and II of the act entitled ``An act to 
    provide benefits for the injury, disability, death, or enemy 
    detention of employees of contractors with the United States, and 
    for other purposes'', approved December 2, 1942 (56 Stat. 1028), as 
    amended, are extended and shall apply in respect to the injury, 
    disability, or death resulting from injury, or detention of a 
    civilian. . . .
        Sec. 305. (a) The provisions of this title shall apply with 
    respect to injury, disability or death from injury, or detention, 
    only if the event giving rise to the right to benefits occurred at 
    Midway, Guam, Wake Island, the Philippine Islands, or at any other 
    Territory or possession of the United States, attacked or invaded 
    by the Imperial Japanese Government. . . .

    An amendment was offered, as follows:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Antonio M.] Fernandez [of New 
    Mexico]: . . .
        (c) In this title wherever the words ``civilian'' or 
    ``civilians'' are used those words shall be construed to include 
    members of the military or naval forces who were citizens of the 
    United States.

    The amendment also sought to strike language specifically excluding 
military personnel from the terms of the bill. Mr. Carl Hinshaw, of 
California, who had reserved a point of order against the amendment, 
renewed the point of order, stating: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 573.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . To say that the term ``a person within the purview of 
    this title'' and so forth, shall include . . . members of any 
    military or naval force . . . would really

[[Page 8176]]

    change the entire title, which is intended to be an internees' 
    relief bill. . . .

    Mr. Fernandez responded:

        Mr. Chairman, the term includes prisoners of war, and if the 
    gentleman's contention is correct, then the so-called Van Zandt 
    amendment was also subject to a point of order. . . .

    The following ruling was then made by the Chairman: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas A. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Referring to the remarks of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
    Fernandez] relative to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Van Zandt] the Chair may say that no point of 
    order was lodged against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania.
        Referring to the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    California, even if the language which the gentleman from New 
    Mexico seeks to strike out were not in the bill the Chair doubts 
    very much if the gentleman's amendment would be germane because the 
    title of section 3 definitely refers to one class and only one 
    class. This legislation affects the rights of that class known and 
    designated as internees, and then they have strengthened the bill, 
    evidently intending to strength(en) their position, by adopting the 
    language used on page 10, which the gentleman seeks to strike out. 
    Consequently, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 14. Amendments Conferring Powers Not Granted in Bill

    The amendments discussed in this section are those which seek to 
confer authority or powers upon persons, agencies or other entities, of 
a type or in a manner not addressed or contemplated in the 
bill.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Discussed elsewhere are topics such as amendments which substitute 
        one agency for another to administer provisions of the bill 
        (Sec. 7, supra), or which limit powers (Sec. 33, 
        infra).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joint Resolution Discharging Indebtedness of Commodity Credit 
    Corporation--Amendment Authorizing Corporation To Transfer or Sell 
    Surplus Commodities

Sec. 14.1 To a joint resolution directing the Secretary of the Treasury 
    to discharge indebtedness of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
    the Secretary by cancellation of specified notes, an amendment 
    authorizing the corporation to transfer certain surplus commodities 
    to the Department of National Defense and providing for the sale of 
    surplus commodities

[[Page 8177]]

    for use abroad was held not germane.

    In the 83d Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
to discharge certain indebtedness of the Commodity Credit Corporation. 
The bill stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.J. Res. 358 (Committee on Appropriations).
 6. See 100 Cong. Rec. 897, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 27, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc.--

                         Department of Agriculture

                        commodity credit corporation

        The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed 
    to discharge indebtedness of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
    the Secretary of the Treasury by canceling notes issued by the 
    Corporation to the Secretary of the Treasury . . . (2) in the 
    amount of $129,553,795 for the net costs during the fiscal year 
    1953 . . . under the International Wheat Agreement Act of 1949 (7 
    U.S.C. 1641, 1642); and (3) in the amount of $2,064,060 for the 
    funds transferred and expenses incurred through the fiscal year 
    1953 . . . under the head ``Eradication of foot-and-mouth and other 
    contagious diseases of animals and poultry'' pursuant to authority 
    granted in the Department of Agriculture Appropriation Act, 1953.

    An amendment was offered as described above. The amendment stated 
in part:

        Sec. 3. In order to make American farm commodities available to 
    users in other countries on the same basis as farm commodities from 
    other nations, all other agricultural commodities of whatever kind 
    or character, title to which is in the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation, unless already committed for sale, shall be offered 
    for sale for use outside the continental United States, its 
    Territories, and possessions, at prevailing or competitive world 
    prices; Provided, however, That the President . . . may restrict . 
    . . sales of such commodities for use in Communist-dominated 
    countries. . . .

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

        Mr. [Walter F.] Horan [of Washington]: . . . The amendment 
    seeks to introduce proposals which not only are not included in the 
    joint resolution but are foreign to the basic act establishing the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation. In effect it is an amendment of the 
    law establishing the Corporation and therefore is in no sense 
    germane to the proposition included in the joint resolution.

    The Chairman, Leo E. Allen, of Illinois, sustained the point of 
order.(7) Subsequently, another amendment was offered which 
related to sale of commodities for use abroad, and which stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 898.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: 
    Before the semicolon, line 5, add the following: ``Provided, 
    commodities of at least an equal value are offered for sale by the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation from its stocks at prevailing or 
    competitive

[[Page 8178]]

    world prices, for use outside the continental United States, its 
    possessions or Territories.''

    Mr. Horan again raised the point of order that the amendment was 
not germane to the bill.
    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. Whitten: . . . This resolution before us today authorizes 
    the Secretary of the Treasury to cancel certain notes of the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation in the amount of $741 million.
        The amendment which I have offered would authorize that action 
    only under certain conditions. Those conditions are that 
    commodities of an equal value be offered in world markets at 
    prevailing prices, by the Commodity Credit Corporation.

    The Chairman, however, again sustained the point of order.

Bill Concerning Federal Farm Appraisers--Amendment Making Officers of 
    Farm Loan Associations Eligible for Appointment as Federal 
    Appraisers; Requiring Approval of Certain Appraisals

Sec. 14.2 To that section of a bill authorizing federal farm appraisers 
    to make appraisals for the public, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which related to the eligibility of officers of national 
    farm loan associations for appointment as appraisers and which in 
    certain instances required approval, by a second federal farm 
    appraiser, of appraisals made by such officers.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
which stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 4873 (Committee on Agriculture).
 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 2446, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 19, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Appraisal System

        Sec. 6. Land bank appraisers appointed pursuant to the 
    provisions of section 3 to the Federal Farm Loan Act, as amended, 
    shall hereafter be known as Federal farm appraisers and, in 
    addition to their duties under laws heretofore enacted, they may, 
    under rules prescribed by the Board, make appraisals for the public 
    as provided in this section. Reports of Federal farm appraisers for 
    the public shall be confined to the appraisal of property. . . .

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas] On page 
    9, line 18, strike out all of line 18 and the remainder of page 9 
    and on page 10 down to and including line 9, and insert the 
    following: ``Secretary-treasurers of national farm loan 
    associations . . . shall be eligible for appointment as Federal 
    farm appraisers; but when any mortgage loan is made by the Federal 
    land bank upon the basis of an appraisal by a Federal farm 
    appraiser who is the secretary-treasurer

[[Page 8179]]

    of a national farm loan association, the mortgage may be pledged 
    with a farm loan registrar as collateral for Federal farm loan 
    bonds unless and until another appraisal of the property has been 
    made by a Federal farm appraiser who is not secretary-treasurer of 
    any national farm loan association and he approves the report of 
    the first appraisal or submits a report of his own which is 
    favorable.''

    Mr. John W. Flannagan, Jr., of Virginia, raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane to the bill. In support of the point 
of order, Mr. Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, made the following remarks:

        . . . The purport of section 6 is to set up a system of public 
    appraisal. . . . The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment which 
    would strike out section 6 and would simply provide for a new 
    method of selecting appraisers, or rather, for using a certain 
    other official as an appraiser, making him eligible to be an 
    appraiser. But it does not in any sense go to the question involved 
    in section 6. . . .

    The Chairman, Jerome B. Clark, of North Carolina, in ruling on the 
point of order, stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 2447.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas sets up an entirely different method and runs 
    in a different direction. The Chair holds that the amendment is not 
    germane and therefore, sustains the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Rivers and Harbors Projects--Amendment Authorizing 
    Secretary of Interior To Dispose of Electrical Energy Generated

Sec. 14.3 To a bill authorizing construction of public works on rivers 
    and harbors, an amendment providing for disposition, by the 
    Secretary of the Interior, of electrical energy generated at these 
    projects was held germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the river and harbor 
construction bill,(11) an amendment was offered which stated 
in part: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3961 (Committee on Rivers and Harbors).
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 2846, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 21, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield of Texas: Page 
    29, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following paragraph:
        Electric power . . . generated at projects authorized by this 
    act . . . shall be delivered to the Secretary of the Interior, who 
    shall . . . dispose of such power . . . in such manner as to 
    encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible 
    rates to consumers consistent with sound business principles. . . .

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

[[Page 8180]]

        Mr. [William J.] Miller of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. 
    This bill deals with rivers and harbors projects and with the 
    powers of the Secretary of War. This amendment attempts to 
    legislate and define the powers of the Secretary of the Interior.

    The Chairman, John M. Costello, of California, in ruling on the 
point of order, stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 2847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [T]he bill deals entirely with the matter of the construction 
    of dams and the distribution of water, and actually the generation 
    and disposition of power on various rivers and various projects. It 
    appears to the Chair it would be futile to create these dams and 
    not also allow for the distribution of the power that is being 
    generated at these dams, and that, therefore, the amendment is 
    germane to the legislation before the Committee.

Bill Authorizing President To Order Military Reservists to Active Duty 
    With Civilian Conservation Corps--Amendment Authorizing President 
    To Make Permanent Assignment to Corps

Sec. 14.4 To that section of a bill authorizing the President to order 
    reserve military officers to active duty with the Civilian 
    Conservation Corps, an amendment authorizing the President to 
    assign certain reserve officers to a permanent section of the corps 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps. The 
following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 6551 (Committee on Labor).
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 4394, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 11, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Bertrand W.] Gearhart [of 
    California]: Page 5, after ``respectively'', strike out the period, 
    insert a colon and the following: ``Provided, That qualified 
    Reserve officers of the Army and qualified officers of the Naval 
    and Marine Reserves on duty with the Civilian Conservation Corps as 
    of June 30, 1937, and for at least 6 months prior thereto, and 
    qualified Reserve officers of these services who have completed at 
    least 2 years of active duty with the Civilian Conservation Corps 
    and are not now on such duty, be assigned to a permanent section of 
    the corps to be organized under the direction of the President, and 
    such officers will be assigned to this section for a period without 
    limitation. Reserve officers of the Army and officers of the Naval 
    and Marine Reserves who are not now on Civilian Conservation Corps 
    duty and who qualify may be taken into the permanent section of the 
    corps as vacancies occur.''

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

        Mr. [Lister] Hill of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order

[[Page 8181]]

    that the amendment is not germane to the section and is not germane 
    to the bill.
        This section of the bill simply authorizes the President to 
    call Reserve officers to duty and then prescribes what their 
    relative rank shall be when they are called to duty following the 
    provisions of the National Defense Act. The amendment, as I 
    understood from hearing it read, would set up a special 
    organization of Reserve officers in the Civilian Conservation 
    Corps. The amendment would change the organization of the Reserve 
    officers so far as those now on duty or who have been on duty with 
    the C.C.C. are concerned. . . .

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Gearhart, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the second section of the bill confers upon the 
    President the power to assign Reserve officers to C.C.C. duty. The 
    amendment which I offer merely grants additional authority to the 
    President, after he has exercised the original authority conferred 
    upon him by the first portion of the bill. It simply provides 
    further authority in the President over the C.C.C. officers after 
    these officers have been assigned to their duties.

    The Chairman,(16) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Edward E. Cox (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is convinced that the amendment is germane to the 
    section in question. It simply modifies in a certain degree the 
    discretion vested in the President in section 6 of the bill. 
    Therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Provisions To Regulate Financial Disclosure and Ethical Conduct of 
    Executive Branch Employees--Amendment Providing for Special 
    Prosecutor To Investigate Violations by Such Employees and by 
    Others

Sec. 14.5 To a title of a bill confined to regulating the financial 
    disclosure, ethical conduct and conflicts of interest by executive 
    branch employees, an amendment changing existing law to provide a 
    permanent procedure for appointment of a special prosecutor to 
    investigate and prosecute violations, committed not only by 
    executive branch employees, but by persons formerly employed or 
    never employed in the executive branch, was held not germane.

    During consideration of the Ethics in Government Act of 1977 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 27, 
1978,(18) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 1.
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 31974-77, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 8182]]

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde: On page 44 of the 
        substitute, insert the following after line 9:

                           Part C--Special Prosecutor

                               special prosecutor

            Sec. 226. (a) Title 28 of the United States Code is amended 
        by inserting immediately after chapter 37 the following new 
        chapter:

                     ``Chapter 39--Special Prosecutor . . .
    ``Sec. 591. Appointment

            ``(a) Upon receiving any specific information that any of 
        the persons described in subsection (c) of this section has--
            ``(1) knowingly authorized or engaged in any Federal 
        criminal act or omission involving the abuse of Federal office; 
        . . . or
            ``(3) violated any Federal criminal law relating to the 
        obstruction of justice or perjury or conspired to violate any 
        such Federal criminal law or to defraud the United States:
            the Attorney General shall conduct, for a period not to 
        exceed sixty days, such preliminary investigation as the 
        Attorney General deems appropriate to ascertain whether the 
        matter under investigation is so unsubstantiated that no 
        further investigation or prosecution is warranted.

            ``(b) Upon receiving any specific information that any of 
        the persons described in subsection (c) of this section has 
        committed a violation of the Ethics in Government Act of 1977, 
        as set forth in section 204 of such Act, the Attorney General 
        shall apply to the special panel of the court for the 
        appointment of a special prosecutor.
            ``(c) The persons referred to in subsections (a) and (b) of 
        this section are as follows:
            ``(1) The President or Vice President.
            ``(2) Any individual serving in a position compensated at 
        level I of the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title 5 
        of the United States Code. . . .
            ``(5) Any individual who held any office or position 
        described in any of paragraphs (1) through (4) of this 
        subsection during the incumbency of the President or during the 
        period the last preceding President held office, if such 
        preceding President was of the same political party as the 
        incumbent President.
            ``(6) A national campaign manager or chairman of any 
        national campaign committee seeking the election or reelection 
        of the President. . . .
    ``Sec. 592. Prosecutorial jurisdiction; authority

            ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a special 
        prosecutor appointed under this chapter shall have, with 
        respect to all matters in such special prosecutor's 
        prosecutorial jurisdiction established under this chapter, all 
        the investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the 
        Department of Justice, the Attorney General, and any other 
        officer or employee of the Department of Justice.

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the gentleman's amendment is not germane.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to add new 
    language to title II of the bill. The new language amends title 28 
    of the United States Code to provide a mechanism for the 
    appointment of a Special Prosecutor. It appears to be identical, 
    save for one important change, to H.R. 9705, a bill

[[Page 8183]]

    reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary last June 19. 
    The reach of the gentleman's amendment goes far beyond the subject 
    matter and scope of title II of the bill.
        Title II is entitled ``Executive Personnel Financial Disclosure 
    Requirements.'' It is limited exclusively to people in the 
    executive branch of Government. The provisions of the gentleman's 
    amendment are not limited to people in the executive branch. His 
    amendment covers people who are not even in the government--
    national campaign managers--as well as people in another branch--
    Members of Congress.
        Title II of the bill is concerned with the disclosure of 
    personal finances and provides for a civil penalty for failure to 
    file or falsifying a disclosure report. The gentleman's amendment 
    deals with criminal conduct that is not related to the financial 
    disclosures required by title II. The criminal conduct covered 
    includes obstruction of justice and criminal violations of the 
    Federal election laws.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment goes far beyond the 
    scope and subject matter of title II and, I submit, is therefore 
    not germane. . . .
        Mr. Hyde: . . . Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment, I feel, 
    is clearly germane. The basic test of germaneness is that the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill (VIII Cannon's Precedents of the 
    House 2911; Deschler's Procedure, 28.5). The title of the bill 
    gives some indication of its purpose and its text further 
    underscores that purpose, that is, to effect ethics in government.
        My amendment creates a mechanism to effect ethics in government 
    as well as to enforce the provisions of section 204 of H.R. 1. 
    Consequently, the fundamental purpose of the amendment is closely 
    aligned with that of the bill itself.
        Another test of germaneness is whether the subject matter of 
    the amendment relates to the subject matter under consideration. 
    (Deschler's Procedure, 28.3). Here, too, the relation of the 
    amendment to the bill is clear. The subject matter of the bill is 
    in broad terms the ethics of Government officials, which the 
    subject matter of the amendment is the enforcement of these same 
    ethical standards.
        Another test of germaneness is whether the subject matter of 
    the amendment lies within the jurisdiction of a committee other 
    than that reporting the bill. This test is more clearly met than 
    any other since the Judiciary Committee has reported in separate 
    legislation a variant of the amendment I am offering.
        Furthermore, it should be noted that the rule under which H.R. 
    1 is being considered specifically waives any points of order on 
    grounds of germaneness against the substitute embodied in H.R. 
    13850. I submit that the language of this waiver is broad enough in 
    both its letter and its spirit to also permit consideration of this 
    amendment.
        It is also noteworthy that the Senate passed bill (S. 555), of 
    which H.R. 1 was one title, contained another title on appointment 
    of Special Prosecutors. If H.R. 1, or the substitute, is passed by 
    the House, there necessarily will be a conference pitting the 
    Senate's comprehensive approach to ethics against a House-passed 
    bill that covers only a fraction of the ground.

[[Page 8184]]

        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Danielson) makes a point of order against the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) on the grounds it 
    is not germane to title II of the bill to which it is offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.  Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has made some very 
    persuasive arguments with respect to the germaneness of the 
    amendment to the entire bill, but the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois goes to title II of the bill, and for the 
    reasons stated by the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Danielson), the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Creating Executive Agency To Protect Consumer Interests--Amendment 
    To Confer Authority Upon Congressional Committees To Direct Agency 
    To Intervene in Legal Proceedings

Sec. 14.6 To a bill creating an independent agency in the executive 
    branch to protect consumer interests, an amendment in the form of a 
    new section conferring upon Congressional committees with oversight 
    responsibility for consumer interests the authority to direct that 
    agency to intervene in administrative or judicial proceedings was 
    held not merely to reserve to Congress a disapproval authority over 
    the agency but to confer new power on Congressional committees, and 
    was ruled out as beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Government Operations and beyond the scope of the bill.

    During consideration of the Consumer Protection Act of 1975 
(20) in the Committee of the Whole on Nov. 6, 
1975,(1) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 7575.
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 35373, 35374, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Levitas: On page 25, following 
        Section 13 of H.R. 7575 as reported, add the following new 
        section:
            Sec. 14(a) Whenever a committee of the Congress having 
        specific oversight responsibility with respect to the 
        operations of a Federal agency determines that the result of a 
        proceeding or activity of such agency may substantially affect 
        an interest of consumers, such committee may by resolution 
        order the Administrator to intervene as a party or otherwise 
        participate for the purpose of representing the interests of 
        consumers, as provided in Section 6(a)(1) and (2).
            (b) Whenever a Committee of the Congress having specific 
        oversight responsibility with respect to the operations of a 
        Federal agency determines that an intervention by the 
        Administrator pursuant to Section

[[Page 8185]]

        6(a) is not properly representative of an interest of 
        consumers, or that such intervention is one that does not 
        substantially affect an interest of consumers, such committee 
        may by resolution order the Administrator to withdraw such 
        intervention as a party or to conduct such intervention in a 
        manner consistent with such determination as the committee 
        shall make by such resolution.
            (c) The Administrator shall, at the direction by resolution 
        of a committee of the Congress having specific oversight 
        responsibility of the affected Federal agency, institute, or 
        intervene as a party, in a proceeding in a court of the United 
        States involving judicial review of any Federal agency action 
        pursuant to the provisions of Section 6(d). . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment is not germane. What it attempts 
    to do is superimpose upon this executive agency a committee of the 
    Congress having oversight. This committee, that is the Government 
    Operations Committee, does not have jurisdiction over that 
    particular aspect of the matter.
        I also think this would be in contravention to the rules of the 
    House and be changing the rules of the House, it seems to me.
        On those bases I feel the amendment is not germane and make the 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, yesterday when the Chair ruled as 
    out of order an amendment in the form of a substitute which I 
    offered, it was on the basis that it would have removed a proposed 
    agency from the executive branch into the congressional branch of 
    Government. This amendment does not do that. It simply gives 
    additional powers that can be exercised at the direction of the 
    oversight committees and it does not attempt to shift the Agency's 
    location from one branch of the Government to the other.
        Since it has as its purpose the further protection of consumers 
    by requiring the Administrator or the Agency to take action or 
    modify proposed action in order to better protect the consumer 
    interest, it is akin, it seems to me, to the fundamental purpose of 
    the bill and therefore I submit is germane to the purposes of the 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: . . . I would like to point out 
    in addition that this will give additional committees within the 
    Congress the right to change the effectiveness of an executive 
    agency. If we create this Agency and it works within the 
    department, this amendment would give one committee, not the 
    Congress of the United States but one committee, the right and the 
    authority to interfere with the functioning of that Agency. I think 
    it would be unconstitutional and certainly not in keeping with the 
    prerogatives that we give to the Executive when we give him 
    authority. Until we change the law an individual committee of the 
    Congress does not have the right to tell the executive branch what 
    to do and how to function under the law passed by the Congress. . . 
    .
        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    believe the point of order should be overruled. The bill creates an 
    agency and grants certain powers to the agency. This amendment 
    proposes to reserve certain of those powers that are granted.
        The gentleman from Texas said it would be improper and not 
    germane to

[[Page 8186]]

    reserve those powers. I would say there is precedent for this type 
    of amendment. In the Education Act Amendments of 1974, I believe it 
    was, the Office of Education in HEW was given authority to adopt 
    rules and regulations to implement the action. That legislation 
    specifically reserved to the Congress and to the committees of the 
    Congress the authority to review those rules and regulations before 
    they took effect and to veto in effect any of the rules and 
    regulations that the Congress felt were not in conformity with the 
    intent of the Congress in passing the act.
        So in making a grant of authority to an agency I believe we 
    also have authority to reserve a certain overview and veto power or 
    direction of the authority we are giving to the agency. I submit 
    with those precedents this amendment should be in order. . . .
        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out one 
    additional precedent that occurs to me and that is the Budget 
    Control Impoundment Act that was adopted by the last Congress, 
    which not only provides for congressional review of executive 
    actions, but also authorizes an arm of the Congress to enforce 
    those congressional decisions by taking legal actions in court.
        I think that is certainly far less of an action than is 
    contemplated by this amendment and which is for the protection of 
    the consumer, which is the underlying purpose of this bill.
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule. In the 
    opinion which the Chair gave yesterday on the point of order made 
    to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas), the Chair did not base that 
    opinion strictly on the arguments reiterated by the gentleman from 
    Georgia today. While the Chair cannot decide the constitutional 
    questions raised, in the opinion of the Chair, the emphasis 
    contained in the amendment on congressional oversight 
    responsibilities and the authority conferred upon committees to 
    order certain actions to be undertaken by the Consumer Office in 
    furtherance of those committees' oversight function, is an issue 
    which is not related to the scope of the pending bill. The effect 
    of the amendment extends the oversight responsibilities and 
    authority of House committees, a matter not within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Government Operations, and goes beyond the 
    issue of merely reserving to Congress a disapproval authority over 
    promulgated agency regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Consequently, the Chair is constrained to support the point of 
    order.

Bill Reforming Economic Regulation of Railroads--Amendment Relating to 
    Diverse Issues Including Authority of Interstate Commerce 
    Commission and Secretary of Transportation

Sec. 14.7 Where a bill reforming the economic regulation of railroads 
    was being read for amendment by titles, and the title under 
    consideration, entitled ``railroad inter-carrier practices'' dealt 
    with diverse subjects, including bank

[[Page 8187]]

    ruptcy and employee protection issues, an amendment to such title 
    which (1) addressed those issues as well as railroad rates and 
    ratemaking, (2) included provisions requesting a study of the 
    impact of possible tax law changes on railroads, and (3) conferred 
    certain powers on the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Secretary 
    of Transportation and other officials, was held germane even though 
    portions of the amendment indirectly affected a previous title of 
    the bill already perfected by amendment.

    The proceedings of Sept. 5, 1980, relating to H.R. 7235, the Rail 
Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 3.24, supra.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 15. Amendments to Appropriation Bills; Rescission Bills

    An amendment offered to a general appropriation bill must be 
germane to that part which is under consideration.(3) And 
where an amendment to a general appropriation bill relates to the 
appropriation of specific funds, it must be offered to the specific 
item of appropriation to which it applies. If offered to the general 
introductory statement preceding the specific appropriation, it may be 
ruled out as not germane.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See the remarks of Chairman Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.) at 81 
        Cong. Rec. 3763, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 22, 1937, made in 
        the course of ruling on a point of order raised by Mr. Tarver 
        to an amendment offered by Mr. Ellenbogen. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6523 (Committee on Appropriations), Agriculture 
        Appropriations for 1938.
            On one occasion, the Chairman remarked, in the course of 
        ruling on the propriety of an amendment to a supplemental 
        appropriation bill that, ``If the amendment is germane to any 
        part of the bill, it is germane at the point at which it has 
        been offered.'' See Sec. 15.3, infra. The Chairman probably 
        intended his remarks to have reference only to the particular 
        context in which he made his ruling.
 4. See Sec. 15.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From the point of view of germaneness, an amendment limiting the 
use of funds by a particular agency funded in a general appropriation 
bill may be offered while the paragraph carrying the funds is pending, 
subject to clause 2 of Rule XXI, added in 1983, requiring the reading 
of the bill to have been completed, or to any general provisions 
portion of the bill affecting that agency or all agencies funded by the 
bill.(5) However, to

[[Page 8188]]

a paragraph containing funds for an agency but not transferring funds 
to that account from other paragraphs in the bill, an amendment 
increasing that amount by transfer from an account in another paragraph 
is not germane, since affecting budget authority for a different agency 
not the subject of the pending paragraph.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 15.1, infra.
 6. See Sec. 15.38, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A legislative provision which is permitted to remain in an 
appropriation bill may be amended by a germane proposition which does 
not add further legislation.(7) Thus, 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.(8) 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.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. Sec. 15.15 and 15.45, infra.
 8. See Sec. 15.35, infra.
 9. See Sec. 15.49, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Senate amendment proposing legislation on an appropriation bill 
may be amended by germane amendments.(10) Furthermore, while 
it has been held that a Senate amendment proposing legislation on a 
general appropriation bill may be subject to an amendment of a similar 
nature offered in the House, the requirement remains in such 
circumstances that the House amendment be germane to the Senate 
amendment.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 27.10, infra.
11. See the proceedings at 116 Cong. Rec. 41504, 41505, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Dec. 15, 1970, in which a Senate amendment proposing 
        legislation on a general appropriation bill (H.R. 17755 
        [Committee on Appropriations], comprising Department of 
        Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1971) was reported 
        back from conference in disagreement, pursuant to provisions of 
        Rule XX clause 2 (see House Rules and Manual Sec. 829 [1991]) 
        prohibiting conferees from agreeing to certain Senate 
        amendments. A motion to concur in the amendment with a further 
        amendment was held to be in order, even though such further 
        amendment was also legislative in nature. See the ruling of 
        Speaker John W. McCormack (Mass.) at p. 41505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Germaneness is an express requirement of any amendment sought to be 
introduced pursuant to the ``Holman Rule,'' (12) which 
permits legislative matter in general appropriation bills where such 
matter reduces expenditures. Thus, it has been held that, to be in 
order under the Holman rule,

[[Page 8189]]

an amendment must not only retrench expenditures but must be germane to 
the provisions to which offered.(13) The amendment must not 
only show on its face an attempt to retrench but must be germane to a 
provision in the bill even though offered by direction of the committee 
having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the 
amendment.(14) To be germane, an amendment must affect only 
those funds carried in the bill. Thus, an amendment providing that 
appropriations ``herein and heretofore made'' shall be reduced by $70 
million through the reduction of federal employees as the President 
determines was held to be legislative and not germane to the bill, 
since it went to funds other than those carried therein, and was 
therefore not within the Holman rule exception.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XXI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 844a (1991).
13. See Sec. Sec. 15.14 and 42.57, infra.
            For further discussion of the Holman rule and the rules 
        with respect to legislation on appropriation bills generally, 
        see Ch. 26, supra.
14. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1549.
15. See Sec. 15.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current practice, moreover, an amendment that permanently 
changes existing law is not germane if offered to a bill making 
appropriations for one fiscal year. On May 21, 1969,(16) the 
Chair ruled that, to a bill making appropriations for one fiscal year, 
an amendment retrenching expenditures for that year but also 
permanently changing existing law, by abolition of the Commission on 
Executive, Judicial and Legislative Salaries, was not germane. The 
Chair relied on the principle (17) that, to a provision in 
an appropriation bill proposing legislation for the fiscal year 
provided for by the bill an amendment rendering such legislation 
permanent is not germane. In so doing, the Chair effectively overruled 
an earlier line of precedents that had stood for the proposition that 
amendments which abolish agencies or functions in addition to reducing 
funds contained in a general appropriation bill are in order under the 
exception stated in Rule XXI, clause 2. Under those earlier 
rulings,(18) it was in order on a general appropriation bill 
to provide for the abolition of an office if the certain effect of that 
abolition was to reduce funds contained in the bill, even though the 
language provided permanent law, there being no distinction in the rule 
itself between permanent and temporary legislation. The germaneness 
rule as applied at

[[Page 8190]]

present precludes amendments which provide for permanent change in law 
when offered to temporary legislation.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 15.23, infra.
17. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2915.
18. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3887; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 1507, 1509, and 1511.
19. See Sec. 24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment is germane if drafted as a limitation on the use of 
funds appropriated,(20) provided the terms of the limitation 
are confined to funds in the bill. Thus, to provisions of a general 
appropriation bill, an amendment providing that no additional funds 
from ``any other source'' shall be expended for specified purposes is 
generally held to be not germane and to constitute legislation on an 
appropriation bill.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, generally, Sec. 34, infra, for discussion.
 1. See, for example, the ruling of Chairman Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.) at 
        97 Cong. Rec. 4301, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1951, with 
        respect to a point of order made by Mr. Henry M. Jackson 
        (Wash.) against an amendment offered by Mr. Boyd Tackett 
        (Ark.). Under consideration was H.R. 3790 (Committee on 
        Appropriations), the Interior Department Appropriation Bill of 
        1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It may not be germane to amend an appropriation bill to change the 
source of funding for a project or activity from one fund in the 
Treasury to another, especially where the effect of utilizing a special 
fund is to reduce funds otherwise available for a totally unrelated 
program or purpose.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 15.16, 15.22, and 15.39, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been held proper to amend a general appropriation bill to 
attach conditions to the use of the appropriated funds. Where certain 
funds appropriated by a general appropriation bill are to remain 
available beyond the fiscal year covered by the bill, an amendment may 
be germane which places certain restrictions, effective on a certain 
date that also falls after the expiration of the fiscal year, on the 
use of funds appropriated by the bill.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 15.27, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Limiting Use of Funds by Agency Funded in Previous Title of 
    Bill

Sec. 15.1 To the last title of a general appropriations bill, 
    containing general provisions applying to funds carried throughout 
    the bill, an amendment limiting the use of funds by an agency 
    funded in a previous title of the bill was held germane.

    An amendment limiting the use of funds by a particular agency 
funded in a general appropriations bill may be germane if offered at 
more than one place in the bill; thus, the amendment may be offered 
when the paragraph carrying such funds is

[[Page 8191]]

pending, or to any general provisions portion of the bill affecting 
that agency or all agencies funded by the bill. An illustration of this 
principle can be found in the proceedings of July 16, 
1979,(4) during consideration of H.R. 4393, Treasury, Postal 
Service and General Government Appropriations for fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 18807, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: On page 39, after line 16, 
        add the following new section:
            Sec. 613. No part of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
        made available to the Internal Revenue Service by this Act 
        shall be paid to any person as a reward or bounty for 
        information concerning violations of the internal revenue laws.

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is out of order. We have 
    already passed that place in the
    bill. . . .
        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, the amendment [is] only a limitation 
    of spending and adds a new section to the bill. I would maintain 
    that it is in order and it is germane to the bill as a whole.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order. The Chair feels that the amendment comes at an appropriate 
    point in the bill and is germane to the general provisions title 
    and the point of order is overruled.

Place in Bill Where Restriction on Funds is Germane

Sec. 15.2 During consideration of a general appropriation bill, it was 
    held that an amendment providing that no funds made available under 
    the act shall be used for a certain purpose must be offered to the 
    specific item of appropriation to which it applies, rather than to 
    the general introductory statement preceding the specific 
    appropriations.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (6) was under consideration 
making appropriations for foreign aid. The following language had been 
read: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 6801 (Committee on Appropriations).
 7. See 94 Cong. Rec. 7189, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 4, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, That the following sums are appropriated, out of 
    any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for foreign 
    aid for the period beginning April 3, 1948, and ending June 30, 
    1949, and for other purposes, namely:

    The following amendment was offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 7190.

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

[[Page 8192]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: 
        Page 1, line 6, after the word ``purposes'', strike out the 
        comma and the word ``namely'' and insert ``on condition, 
        however, that no moneys authorized for appropriation hereunder 
        shall be paid or credited to any country which participates in 
        or aids in acts of aggression, such acts of aggression to be 
        determined by proclamation by the President of the United 
        States, namely.''

    Mr. John Taber, of New York, raising a point of order, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
    that it is legislation on an appropriation bill and that it is not 
    in order at this point in the bill and not germane.

    The following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Celler: I agree to the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

    Mr. Celler then offered an amendment which stated:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Celler: Page 1, line 6, after the 
        word ``purposes'', strike out the comma and the word ``namely'' 
        and insert ``but no funds made available under the authority of 
        this Act shall be paid or credited to Great Britain, namely.''

    Mr. Taber raised the point of order that the amendment was not in 
order at that point in the bill. The Chairman,(9) in ruling 
on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. W. Sterling Cole (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The paragraph to which the gentleman from New York offers an 
    amendment relates to the general provisions regarding the sums 
    carried in the various titles and paragraphs in the bill. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York relates to the 
    appropriation of specific funds. The Chair feels that the amendment 
    is not germane to this particular paragraph, and therefore sustains 
    the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under clause 2 of Rule XXI as amended in 
the 98th Congress, limitation amendments are in order only at the end 
of the reading of the bill for amendment if the Committee of the Whole 
does not rise and report the bill to the House, and limitation 
amendments at that point may be germane if relating to funds in 
previous paragraphs of the bill.

Supplemental Appropriation Bill Covering Diverse Items--Amendment 
    Relating to School Lunch Program as Germane Where Offered

Sec. 15.3 To a supplemental appropriation bill covering a number of 
    items and agencies, an amendment proposing another appropriation 
    authorized by law is germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a supplemental 
appropriation bill,(10) an amend

[[Page 8193]]

ment relating to the school lunch program was offered (11) 
after the reading of those provisions of the bill affecting the Price 
Decontrol Board. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.J. Res. 390 (Committee on Appropriations).
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 10472, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 30, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard B.] Wigglesworth [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    the amendment that is offered seems to me to be not germane to the 
    section of the bill where it is offered.

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Wigglesworth] makes the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. If the amendment 
    is germane to any part of the bill, it is germane at the point at 
    which it has been offered. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.

Deficiency Appropriation Bill To Cover Pay Raises in Department of 
    Agriculture--Amendment Proposing Additional Funds To Implement 
    School Lunch Program

Sec. 15.4 To that title of a deficiency appropriation bill making 
    additional appropriations to cover pay raises in the Department of 
    Agriculture, an amendment proposing additional funds to enable the 
    Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the programmatic provisions 
    of the National School Lunch Act of 1946 was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of the Second Deficiency 
Appropriation Bill of 1949,(13) an amendment was offered 
(14) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 4046 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 4177, 4178, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 8, 1949.
15. Id. at p. 4178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane at this 
    point in the bill. Title II of the bill is limited to additional 
    amounts for appropriations for the fiscal year 1949 to meet 
    increased pay costs authorized by the act of July 3, 1948, and 
    comparable increases granted by the administrative action pursuant 
    to law, and so forth. . . .

    The Chairman,(16) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wright Patman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. In view of the express intent of 
    title II, increased pay costs, the point of order is sustained.

[[Page 8194]]

Section of Supplemental Appropriation Bill Relating to Department of 
    Agriculture--Amendment in Form of New Paragraph To Enable Secretary 
    To Implement School Lunch Program

Sec. 15.5 To that section of a supplemental appropriation bill for 
    diverse departments and agencies relating to appropriations for the 
    Department of Agriculture, an amendment in the form of a new 
    paragraph making an appropriation to enable the Secretary of 
    Agriculture to carry out the provisions of the National School 
    Lunch Act was held to be germane, it not being necessary that it 
    relate to the immediately preceding paragraph.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a supplemental 
appropriation bill,(17) the following exchange took place 
which related to an amendment to that portion of the bill concerning 
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 8370 (Committee on Appropriations).
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 8514, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 28, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Department of Agriculture

                            office of the secretary

              Salaries and Expenses, Defense Production Activities

            For expenses necessary to enable the Department of 
        Agriculture to carry out its functions under the Defense 
        Production Act of 1950, as amended, $2,000,000.

        Mr. [William A.] Barrett [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Barrett: On page 30, after line 
        23, insert the following:

                         National School Lunch Program

            For an additional amount of $16,500,000 to enable the 
        Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the provisions of the 
        National School Lunch Act. . . .

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order 
    against the amendment. I make the point of order that the language 
    of the amendment and the paragraph are not germane to this point in 
    the bill. This part of the bill relates entirely to the salaries 
    and expenses of the defense production activities, while the 
    amendment relates to a local, domestic operation.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    language of the amendment provides an additional paragraph to the 
    Department of Agriculture section of the bill. It is germane to 
    this section, and the Chair, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).

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

[[Page 8195]]

Agriculture Appropriations--Restriction on Funds for Agricultural 
    Adjustment Administration Committeemen

Sec. 15.6 To an agriculture appropriation bill, an amendment offered as 
    a new section providing that ``none of the funds appropriated in 
    this act shall be used to pay the salaries . . . or expenses of 
    more than one Agricultural Adjustment Administration committeeman 
    in each county committee'' was held to be in order.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Agriculture 
Appropriation Bill of 1943,(20) an amendment was offered 
(1) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 6709 (Committee on Appropriations).
 1. 88 Cong. Rec. 2452, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: . . . There are no funds 
    carried in the bill to pay the salaries of county committeemen or 
    community committeemen. . . . The amendment . . . does not have any 
    relation to any funds carried in the pending bill. . . .
        . . . I offer the additional point of order that the amendment 
    is certainly not germane to the portion of the bill to which it is 
    offered, which has no reference to the work of the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Administration.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is a 
    limitation on all the funds appropriated in the pending bill. It 
    appears to the Chair that it is simply a limitation upon those 
    appropriations carried in the bill, and, therefore, the amendment 
    is in order. The Chair overrules the point of order.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 18.12, infra, for discussion of an amendment of a similar 
        nature which was held improper because not germane to a 
        specific paragraph to which it had been offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agriculture Appropriations--Prohibition on Use of Appropriations for 
    Purchase of Chemical Pesticides

Sec. 15.7 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Department of Agriculture and including a specific allocation of 
    funds for animal disease and pest control, an amendment was held to 
    be germane which provided that no appropriation in the act be used 
    for the purchase or application of chemical pesticides where such 
    action would be prohibited by state or local law.

[[Page 8196]]

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
comprising Department of Agriculture appropriations for fiscal year 
1970. The bill provided in part: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 11612 (Committee on Appropriations).
 5. See 115 Cong. Rec. 13752, 13753, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., May 26, 
        1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Plant and animal disease and pest control: For operations and 
    measures, not otherwise provided for, to control and eradicate 
    pests and plant and animal diseases and for carrying out assigned 
    inspection, quarantine, and regulatory activities, as authorized by 
    law, including expenses pursuant to the Act of February 28, 1947 as 
    amended (21 U.S.C. 114b-c), $89,493,000 . . .: Provided, That no 
    funds shall be used to formulate or administer a brucellosis 
    eradication program for the current fiscal year that does not 
    require minimum matching by any State of at least 40 per centum. . 
    . .

    An amendment was offered (6) as described above. A point 
of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 13753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: . . . In the first 
    place, I do not know of any provision in this bill for the purchase 
    of chemical pesticides.
        May I say further, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment before us 
    goes to the State law, exempting or including pesticides based on 
    those States which have passed State laws.
        On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I contend that the amendment is 
    not germane. . . .

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment notes certain exceptions within or substantially 
    affecting States in circumstances in which the purchase or 
    application of such pesticides would be prohibited by State law or 
    regulation, or any citizen or instrumentality of State or local 
    government.
        It is a well-established rule that an amendment to an 
    appropriation bill is germane wherein it denies the use of funds 
    for a specific purpose.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Ottinger) appears to fall within that rule. It is a limitation upon 
    the use of funds appropriated in the bill. It is a denial of the 
    use of those funds for a specific purpose. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Funds for Foreign Assistance Programs--Prohibition on Use of Funds To 
    Pay Dues of United Nations Members

Sec. 15.8 To a bill providing funds for foreign assistance programs, an 
    amendment to deny use of funds therein to pay arrearages or dues of 
    members of the United Nations was held to be germane to the subject 
    of the bill and in order as a limitation.

    In the 87th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
relating

[[Page 8197]]

to foreign assistance appropriations. The following amendment was 
offered to the bill: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 13175 (Committee on Appropriations).
 9. 108 Cong. Rec. 20187, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 20, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [A. Paul] Kitchin [of North Carolina]: 
    Add a new section to the title on page 8, after line 4, to read:
        ``Sec. 113. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
    pursuant to this act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961, as amended, may be used to pay in whole or in part any 
    assessments, arrearages or dues of any member of the United 
    Nations.''

    The following exchange (10) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 20187, 20188.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that the amendment is not germane to this 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The amendment says:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            None of the funds appropriated or made available to this 
        Act--
            That is this very bill.

        Mr. Gallagher: This amendment was covered in the United Nations 
    bond bill last week.
        The Chairman: That may be so, but it is still germane to this 
    bill because it deals with funds contained in this bill. The Chair 
    therefore overrules the point of order.

Special Relief Appropriation Bills--Amendment Relating to Construction 
    of Federal Buildings

Sec. 15.9 To a bill making appropriations for work relief and relief, 
    an amendment was held to be germane which proposed a program of 
    construction of federal public buildings and which provided in part 
    that ``with a view to relieving country-wide unemployment the 
    Postmaster General and the Administrator, in the selection of towns 
    or cities in which buildings are to be constructed, shall endeavor 
    to distribute the projects equitably throughout the country.''

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(12) making appropriations for work relief and relief, an 
amendment was offered (13) as described above. A point of 
order was raised against the amendment, as follows:(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.J. Res. 544 (Committee on Appropriations).
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 6756, 6757, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 23, 1940.
14. Id. at p. 6757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment, first,

[[Page 8198]]

    that it is not germane to the joint resolution, this being a relief 
    bill, and the amendment being one authorizing a public-buildings 
    program and making appropriations therefor, and second, that it is 
    not germane to this part of the joint resolution.

    The Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, in view of the fact that this is a 
    bill for work and work relief and provides specifically, in certain 
    portions of it, as in lines 14 and 15, of page 3, for public 
    buildings, the point of order should not be sustained. . . .
        In view of the fact that there are specific designations of 
    public buildings and appropriations made for them in this joint 
    resolution, which is for work and work relief, and inasmuch as the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi proposes 
    erection of public buildings which would give work and work relief, 
    it seems to the Chair that it is germane to the bill. . . .

--Amendment Appropriating Funds for To Public Works Administration for 
    Loans To Finance Employment Projects

Sec. 15.10 To a bill making appropriations for work relief and relief, 
    an amendment appropriating money to the Public Works Administration 
    and authorizing the Commissioner of Public Works with the approval 
    of the President to make loans from such funds to various public 
    organizations to finance employment projects was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(16) comprising appropriations for work relief and relief, 
an amendment was offered which stated in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.J. Res. 544 (Committee on Appropriations).
17. 86 Cong. Rec. 6760, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 23, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [H. Jerry] Voorhis of California: Page 
    33, line 7, add a new title as follows:

                                 ``Title II

        ``Section 1. There is hereby appropriated to the Public Works 
    Administration out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
    appropriated, the sum of $500,000,000, and the Commissioner of 
    Public Works . . . is hereby authorized . . . to make loans from 
    this fund to States, Territories, possessions, or political 
    subdivisions . . . to . . . aid in financing projects which will 
    provide new employment; (b) to organizations created pursuant to 
    law or under the authority of any public body to operate without 
    profit . . . to . . . aid in financing projects . . . which will 
    produce new employment, will be devoted to public use and are 
    within any one of the following classes: Hospitals, health centers, 
    clinics, colleges [and the like].''

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

[[Page 8199]]

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment that it is not germane to the rest of 
    the bill, it being a program involving the granting of funds to 
    States, cities, counties, and other municipalities without any 
    requirement that the money be used for relief. . . .

    The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
19. 86 Cong. Rec. 6760, 6761, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 23, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In accordance with the former ruling of the 
    Chair,(20) and the further fact that the bill before us 
    provides for funds to be paid to States, Territories, and so forth, 
    the Chair thinks the amendment germane, and therefore overrules the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 15.9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment Extending Life of Agency Not Referred to in Bill

Sec. 15.11 To a bill appropriating money for relief and work relief 
    programs to be administered by the President through existing 
    governmental agencies, an amendment proposing to extend the life of 
    a temporary agency not referred to in the bill was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a relief 
appropriations bill,(1) the following amendment was offered: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.J. Res. 361 (Committee on Appropriations).
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 5024, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Alfred F.] Beiter [of New York]: Page 
    3, after line 24, add a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``In order to maintain or increase employment by providing for 
    useful public-works projects of the kind and character for which 
    the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works (hereinafter 
    called the Administrator) has heretofore made loans or grants 
    pursuant to title II of the National Industrial Recovery Act, the 
    Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, or the Emergency Relief 
    Appropriation Act of 1936, the Federal Emergency Administration of 
    Public Works is hereby continued until June 30, 1939, and the funds 
    hereinbefore allocated to the Federal Emergency Administration of 
    Public Works shall be used for the making of loans or grants to 
    finance or aid in the financing of such projects, and in addition 
    thereto the Administrator is hereby authorized to use funds on hand 
    which have accrued from the sale of securities and funds which will 
    be received from the sale of securities for the making of loans or 
    grants to finance or aid in the financing of such projects. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at pp. 5024, 5025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: . . . [T]he amendment 
    goes

[[Page 8200]]

    very much beyond the scope of the purposes of the relief act under 
    consideration. In the first place, it undertakes to extend the life 
    of the Public Works Administration to June 30, 1939, beyond the 
    scope of the present act. In the second place, it amends the Relief 
    Acts of 1935 and 1936 by changing the powers of the Reconstruction 
    Corporation. . . .

        I think the whole purpose of this amendment is an effort to 
    revive an agency that expires by operation of law and to extend its 
    powers, and to amend other acts not in any way connected with the 
    subject matter under consideration.

    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, stated, with respect to the point 
of order: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 5025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It is true that the amendment proposes changes in law but 
    these proposed changes are in laws which are not affected by this 
    bill. The amendment, therefore, is not germane to the pending bill. 
    . . .

    The Chairman,(5) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Beiter] in addition to providing for many matters, provides for 
    extension of the Public Works Administration, an agency of the 
    Government not carried in this bill, and handled heretofore by 
    other legislation. The amendment also pertains to certain powers of 
    the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, about which there is 
    nothing in this bill. As the gentleman from Virginia has pointed 
    out, it also pertains to certain provisions of the independent 
    offices appropriation bill, still pending in the Congress.
        Because of the fact the amendment attempts to extend an agency 
    of the Government not covered by this bill and yet to be handled by 
    the Congress, the Chair feels the amendment is not germane to this 
    bill. . . .

--Amendment Authorizing Agency To Use Funds From Sale of Securities

Sec. 15.12 To a bill appropriating money for relief and work relief, an 
    amendment proposing to appropriate money to an existing federal 
    agency and authorizing the agency to use funds from the sale of 
    certain securities was held to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a relief 
appropriations bill,(6) the following amendment was offered: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.J. Res. 361 (Committee on Appropriations).
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 5025, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Alfred F.] Beiter [of New York]: Page 
    3, after line 24, add a new paragraph, as follows:
        ``In order to maintain or increase employment by providing for 
    useful public-works projects of the kind and char

[[Page 8201]]

    acter for which the Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works 
    . . . has heretofore made [certain loans and grants], the funds 
    hereinbefore allocated to the Federal Emergency Administration of 
    Public Works shall be used for the making of loans and grants to 
    finance or aid in the financing of such projects, and in addition 
    thereto the Administrator is hereby authorized to use funds on hand 
    which have accrued from the sale of securities and funds which will 
    be received from the sale of securities, for the making of loans or 
    grants to finance or aid in the financing of such projects in 
    accordance with existing law.''

    Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, of Virginia, having raised a point of order 
against the amendment, the Chairman (8) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The only objectionable feature of this amendment from the 
    standpoint of germaneness is the authorization of the Federal 
    Emergency Administration of Public Works to use funds ``from the 
    sale of securities.'' . . .
        By reason of the fact that this amendment . . . does pertain to 
    the use of funds from the sale of securities, about which nothing 
    is contained in the pending bill, the Chair feels constrained to 
    sustain the point of order.

    Mr. Millard F. Caldwell, of Florida, then offered a similar 
amendment, which was held to be germane because it eliminated the 
provision as to the use of funds from the sale of securities.

Holman Rule Requirement of Germaneness

Sec. 15.13 To be in order under the Holman rule, an amendment proposing 
    legislation on an appropriations bill must be germane and, in 
    particular, must retrench expenditures under the bill sought to be 
    amended.

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of a deficiency 
appropriations bill,(9) an amendment was held to be not 
germane which purported to retrench expenditures by excluding from the 
benefits of the Civil Service Retirement Act the President, the Vice 
President, and Members of Congress. The following proceedings 
(10) related to such amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 6548 (Committee on Appropriations).
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 1157, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 9, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill, that 
    it is legislation on an appropriation bill, and is out of order. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Donald H.] McLean [of New Jersey]: . . . There are 
    exceptions to the rule that an appropriation bill cannot carry 
    legislation, and I call the Chair's attention to the Holman rule. 
    That rule provides that if the legisla

[[Page 8202]]

    tion would result in the saving of expenditures it is not subject 
    to a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) . . . The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey is clearly not germane to the bill 
    under consideration. If it were germane it would be legislation on 
    an appropriation bill. It does not in any way retrench expenditures 
    under this bill. For two very good reasons, therefore, the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduction Affecting Funds in Other Acts Not Germane Under Holman Rule

Sec. 15.14 To a bill providing supplemental appropriations for certain 
    specified departments of government, an amendment which would 
    affect appropriations in other Acts for virtually all departments 
    and agencies of government is not germane and not a proper 
    retrenchment under the Holman Rule.

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration comprising supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1967. 
The following amendment was offered to the bill: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 18381 (Committee on Appropriations).
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 27424, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 18, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: . . . add a 
    new section as follows:
        ``Sec. 803. . . . appropriations herein and heretofore made for 
    personal services . . . shall, as the President shall determine, be 
    reduced by not less than $70,000,000 through the reduction, below 
    the number otherwise authorized under appropriations herein and 
    heretofore made, of not less than 10,000 full-time permanent 
    civilian Federal employees.''

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

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that the amendment 
    goes beyond the scope of this bill. It applies to funds that are 
    contained in other legislation and to funds that are made available 
    by previous law. . . .
        I raise the further point, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman's 
    amendment would require additional duties of the President, and for 
    that reason is subject to the point of order that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.

    Mr. Bow stated in response:

        I acknowledge that [the amendment] deals with personnel and 
    appropriations in other legislation as well as in this bill, but 
    the whole subject matter is the reduction of personnel and the 
    retrenchment of Federal expenditures. That follows the Holman rule.

    The Chairman,(14) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).

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

[[Page 8203]]

        The Chair notes that the Holman rule, in clause 2 of rule 21, 
    specifies that to fall within the exception provided by this rule, 
    the amendment must be germane to the subject matter of the bill. 
    The bill before the Committee provides supplemental appropriations 
    for certain governmental activities--activities specified in this 
    bill. The amendment goes much further than this, and with three 
    exceptions would be applicable to all departments and agencies of 
    the Government.
        The citations brought to the attention of the Chair by the 
    gentleman from Ohio--all of them, as far as the Chair can 
    determine, involved appropriation bills that dealt with the 
    activities of some department, and the amendments provided for 
    limitations or retrenchments of activities carried in the bill, and 
    were germane to the bill before the Committee.

    Subsequently, Mr. Bow offered the following amendment: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 27425, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 18, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bow: . . . add a new section as 
    follows:
        ``Sec. 803. Notwithstanding any other provision, appropriations 
    herein . . . shall . . . be reduced . . . by not less than 
    $1,500,000,000 through substitution by reduction and transfer of 
    funds previously appropriated for governmental activities that the 
    President . . . shall have determined to be excess to the 
    necessities of the services and objects for which appropriated.''

    A point of order was again raised, as follows:

        Mr. Mahon: . . . [T]he amendment goes far beyond the scope of 
    this bill and applies to funds made available by other laws for 
    which appropriations are not provided in the pending measure.
        I make the further point of order that the amendment would 
    obviously impose additional duties on the President.

    The Chairman again sustained the point of order, and explained the 
operation of the Holman rule as follows:

        The Chair feels that the amendment is clearly legislation. . . 
    .
        Therefore, if the amendment were to be permitted it would have 
    to qualify as the gentleman has attempted to qualify it, under the 
    Holman exception, under the Holman rule, rule XXI, clause 2.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the Holman exception is 
    inapplicable in this instance for three reasons.
        First, the payment from a fund already appropriated of a sum 
    which otherwise would be charged against the Treasury has been held 
    not to be a retrenchment of expenditures under the Holman rule. . . 
    .
        Second, it seems to the Chair that the language proposed by the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] authorizes the reappropriation of 
    unexpended balances, a practice prohibited by clause 5 of rule XXI.
        Third, the amendment goes to funds other than those carried in 
    this bill and is not germane.

Restriction on Funds in Other Acts

Sec. 15.15 To that provision in an appropriation bill prohib

[[Page 8204]]

    iting aid to one nation unless a certain condition is met, an 
    amendment prohibiting aid under that or any prior appropriations 
    act to another nation until that nation takes certain actions, and 
    referring to funds provided in other acts, was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill(16) comprising foreign aid 
appropriations for fiscal 1968 was under consideration which, in part, 
prohibited aid to the United Arab Republic except under certain 
conditions. Points of order had been waived against the bill. The 
following amendment was offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 13893 (Committee on Appropriations).
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 32968, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: On page 
    13, line 14, strike the period, insert a colon, and add the 
    following: ``Provided further, That none of the funds provided in 
    this Act or any predecessor Act shall be made available to the 
    State of Israel until the Government of that country provides full 
    and complete reparations for the killing and wounding of more than 
    100 United States citizens in the wanton, unprovoked attack in June 
    1967 by Israel's military aircraft and torpedo boats on the United 
    States naval vessel, the Liberty.''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 32969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment goes beyond the appropriation of funds in this and other 
    preceding acts.

    Mr. Gross stated in response:

        Mr. Chairman, this is clearly a limitation upon an 
    appropriation bill; that the funds not be expended for the stated 
    purpose unless the limitations are met.

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] 
    refers to funds provided in this act or any predecessor act. It 
    covers an area not covered by the amendment in the bill.
        In the opinion of the Chair, it is clearly additional 
    legislation and is not germane to the . . . bill.

Amendment Relating to Funds From ``Other Sources''

Sec. 15.16 To a paragraph of a general appropriation bill, an amendment 
    providing that no additional funds from ``any other source'' shall 
    be expended for specified purposes was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Interior De

[[Page 8205]]

partment Appropriations Bill of 1952,(20) an amendment was 
offered (1) whose purpose was described by Mr. Boyd Tackett, 
of Arkansas, the proponent, as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 3790 (Committee on Appropriations).
 1. 97 Cong. Rec. 4300, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1951.
 2. Id. at p. 4301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        My amendment merely limits [the Southwestern Power 
    Administration] to the exact amount this Congress gives them. In 
    other words, my amendment would prohibit the Southwestern Power 
    Administration from getting money from some other source and hiding 
    it from this Congress.

    Mr. Henry M. Jackson, of Washington, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill.(3) The 
Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 4300.
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 5. 97 Cong. Rec. 4301, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The provision of the bill sought to be amended has to do with 
    construction by the Southwestern Power Administration. The bill 
    before the House provides an appropriation of a specific amount of 
    money for this purpose. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas [Mr. Tackett] has reference to funds from sources other 
    than those contained in the bill before the committee; therefore it 
    goes beyond the scope and the purposes of the bill presently before 
    the committee.
        . . . The Chair sustains the point of order.

Continuing Appropriations for Certain Agencies--Restriction Affecting 
    Other Funds

Sec. 15.17 To a joint resolution ``continuing'' appropriations for one 
    month, an amendment placing a restriction on the total 
    administrative budget expenditures for the fiscal year and thus 
    affecting funds not continued by the bill was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill(6) 
continuing appropriations through October 1967, the following amendment 
was offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.J. Res. 849 (Committee on Appropriations).
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 26957, 26958, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: On line 5 
    strike out the period, insert a semicolon and the following: ``and 
    that the joint resolution of June 30, 1967 (Public Law 90-38) as 
    amended by Public Law 90-75 and as amended herein, is further 
    amended by adding the following:
        ``Sec. 105. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, net 
    aggregate administrative budget expenditures during the fiscal year 
    ending June 30,

[[Page 8206]]

    1968 shall not exceed $131,500,000,000 . . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 26959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: . . . The amendment of the 
    gentleman from Ohio seems clearly not to be in order because it is 
    not germane. It limits the expenditure of money not in the bill and 
    not covered in the resolution and it rescinds money not in the 
    resolution and not contained in the pending measure.

    In response to the point of order, the Speaker (9) 
stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 26959, 26960, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The joint resolution before the House extends the provisions of 
    Public Law 90-38, which currently expires on September 30, 1967, 
    through October 31, 1967.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] 
    proposes to further amend Public Law 90-38 by adding two new 
    sections to the law--the first placing a limitation on net 
    aggregate administrative budget expenditures during fiscal 1968, 
    the second requiring a $5 billion reduction, through the 
    apportionment process, in administrative budget expenditures. . . .
        Public Law 90-38 provides ``continuing appropriations'' for 
    certain departments and agencies of the Government. Its provisions 
    cease to be effective when regular appropriation bills become law. 
    Since several appropriation acts have been signed by the President, 
    the provisions of Public Law 90-38 do not apply to all fiscal 1968 
    funds.
        The amendment, on the other hand, goes to the total 
    administrative budget. Its application goes beyond the scope of 
    Public Law 90-38.

    Citing precedents ``which stand for the general proposition that to 
a bill limited in its application to certain departments and agencies 
of Government, an amendment applicable to all departments and agencies 
is not germane,'' the Speaker sustained the point of 
order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 26960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supplemental Appropriations for Relief--Amendment Imposing Prohibition 
    on Use Not Limited to Funds in Bill

Sec. 15.18 To a joint resolution making supplemental appropriations for 
    relief, an amendment prohibiting use of federal relief money for 
    political purposes but not limiting the prohibition to funds 
    appropriated by the pending bill, was held to be not germane.

    The proceedings of Feb. 16, 1938, relating to House Joint 
Resolution 596, making supplemental appropriations for relief, are 
discussed in Sec. 9.19, supra.

[[Page 8207]]

Provision Rescinding Agency's Funds for One Purpose--Amendment Imposing 
    Conditions on Availability of all Funds for Agency

Sec. 15.19 To a proposition rescinding an agency's funds for research 
    and education on the subject of motor vehicle seat belts and 
    passive restraints, an amendment conditioning the availability of 
    all of that agency's funds on certain findings with respect to 
    state compliance with federal standards for mandatory seat belt use 
    was conceded to be not germane, in that it affected regulatory 
    operations and was not confined to research and education funds.

    During consideration of H.R. 2577 (12) in the House on 
July 31, 1985,(13) a point of order against a motion to 
recede and concur with an amendment to the pending proposition was 
conceded and therefore sustained. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Supplemental Appropriations, fiscal 1985.
13. 131 Cong. Rec. 21832-34, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(14) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 262: Page 75, lines 14 and 15, strike 
        out ``$7,500,000 or so much thereof as may be available on May 
        2, 1985'' and insert ``$2,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 262 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert the 
        following: ``no funds shall be obligated until the Secretary 
        has made a complete, definitive and binding ruling on the 
        compliance of each state mandatory safety belt use law that has 
        been enacted as of the date of this act with the minimum 
        criteria set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
        208. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order regarding amendment No. 262. The point of order is 
    that that amendment is nongermane to the Senate amendment and so is 
    violative of the rules of the House relative to this point.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi 
    concedes the point of order. The point of order, therefore, is 
    sustained.

[[Page 8208]]

Bill Containing Funds for Allowances for Former President Nixon and 
    Other Agencies--Amendment Delaying Availability of all Funds 
    Pending Restitution by President Nixon

Sec. 15.20 While it may be in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    delay the availability of certain funds therein until a nonfederal 
    recipient meets certain qualifications so long as the contingency 
    does not impose new duties on federal officials or directly change 
    existing law, the contingency must be related to the funds being 
    withheld and cannot affect other funds in the bill which are not 
    related to that factual situation; thus, to a general appropriation 
    bill containing funds not only for certain allowances for former 
    President Nixon, but also for other departments and agencies, an 
    amendment delaying the availability of all funds in the bill until 
    Nixon has made restitution of a designated amount to the United 
    States government was held to be not germane where that contingency 
    was not related to the availability of other funds in the bill.

    In the proceedings of Oct. 2, 1974,(15) relating to 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1975,(16) the points 
of order made against the amendment in question were largely based on 
the contention that the amendment constituted legislation on an 
appropriation bill. Most points of order against amendments delaying 
the availability of funds pending an unrelated contingency are based on 
the issue of germaneness, and in the Chair's ruling it appeared that 
the defect in the amendment was that its scope was so broad as to 
affect funds in the bill other than those to which the limitation was 
directly related--in other words, that the amendment was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 33620, 33621, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
16. H.R. 16900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. James V. Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. James V. Stanton: On page 14, line 
        5 after the period insert:
            ``Sec. 203. No funds shall be available for expenditure 
        under this act until such time as Richard M. Nixon has made 
        restitution to the United States Government in the amount of 
        $92,298.03 as previously determined by the Joint Committee on 
        Internal Revenue Taxation on page 201 of its report dated April 
        3, 1974.''. . .

[[Page 8209]]

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        This amendment would impose some duty upon an agency of 
    Government in this bill. The Internal Revenue Service is the only 
    agency that can collect taxes. This obviously would require duties 
    not now required by law. It is obviously legislation in an 
    appropriation bill, and therefore it is subject to a point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment. . . . It merely delays 
    the availability of certain funds here appropriated until a certain 
    state of facts exist.
        It does not impose any duty upon a Federal official, in the 
    opinion of the Chair. The only duty it imposes by its terms, would 
    be upon President Nixon, who is no longer a Federal official. . . .
        If the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) wants to be heard on 
    the point of order, the Chair will withhold his final ruling. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . The Chair is undoubtedly 
    correct, that this does not impose additional duties under the 
    standards set out in various cases. However, the objection of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), as I understand it, is that this 
    does not impose additional duties but creates substantive law. It 
    establishes a liability in effect on the President of the United 
    States, which liability does not exist by any judicial 
    determination unless this action is taken by this body.
        Mr. Chairman, what we are in effect doing is passing a special 
    bill with respect to liability of the President of the United 
    States for an amount of money that has only been determined by a 
    committee of this House and not by a court. If we pass this, we are 
    in effect saying that until he pays a certain amount of money, 
    which we say he owes by virtue of passing a law today, he will not 
    receive money that he would otherwise receive.
        I find this a very, very extensive legislative determination, 
    one which I would have doubts about on constitutional grounds, even 
    if it were brought up as a separate piece of legislation.
        I understand that the question of constitutionality is not 
    before the Chair with respect to a point of order, but I merely 
    point that out in emphasizing the great substantive effect of this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Charles S.] Gubser [of California]: . . . (T)he word 
    ``restitution,'' if I understand the English language correctly . . 
    . would imply that the funds were held by Richard Nixon illegally. 
    Therefore if we . . . allow this amendment to stand, we are clearly 
    creating what should be a judicial decision, and we are giving it 
    legislative sanction, and it is therefore legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore I think the point of order should be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, this amendment says ``no funds in this 
    act'', and that means if this amendment is adopted unless former 
    President Nixon paid this amount of money the whole bill is dead. 
    If that does not constitute legislation on an appropriation bill I 
    do not know what does.

[[Page 8210]]

        The Chairman: The Chair must observe that the Chair is not in a 
    position to rule as suggested by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) on a question of constitutionality. The gentleman's point 
    may quite well be valid, but the Chair is not in a position to rule 
    on constitutionality, nor is the Chair in a position to rule upon 
    the validity of the commentary offered as to whether or not the 
    Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation may or may not have 
    established this precise figure as being owed. . . .
        The Chair is . . . impressed by the most recent comment made by 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) wherein the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma points out that by the terms of the amendment itself funds 
    under the entire act and not just funds for the former President, 
    would be inhibited. Let the Chair read the amendment.

            No funds shall be available for expenditure under this act 
        until such time as Richard M. Nixon has made restitution.

        The Chair is persuaded that the availability of some of the 
    funds in the act for other purposes will be based upon an unrelated 
    contingency, and the Chair is prepared to state on the basis of the 
    additional argument made since his preliminary determination that 
    he has changed his opinion regarding the scope and effect of the 
    amendment and sustains the point of order.

Senate Amendment Striking Provision Prohibiting Funds for Continental 
    Shelf Lease Sale--House Amendment Restricting Use of Funds in Bill 
    or any Other Act

Sec. 15.21 To a proposition limiting the use of funds in a bill for a 
    particular purpose, an amendment limiting the use of funds in other 
    Acts and for a purpose more general in scope is not germane; thus, 
    to a Senate amendment to an appropriation bill reported from 
    conference in disagreement, striking out a House provision 
    prohibiting the use of funds in the bill for a designated Outer 
    Continental Shelf lease sale in California, a House amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds in the bill or in any other Act for 
    that lease sale and other California lease sales was conceded to be 
    non-germane as more general in scope.

    On Oct. 5, 1983,(18) during consideration of the 
Department of the Interior appropriations for fiscal 1984 (H.R. 3363) 
in the House, a point of order was conceded and sustained in the 
circumstances de

[[Page 8211]]

scribed above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 27319, 27320, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 95: Page 38, strike out all after line 
        21 over to and including line 15 on page 40.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 95 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by 
        said amendment, amended to read as follows:
            Sec. 113. (a) No funds in this or any other act may be 
        expended by the Department of the Interior for the lease or 
        sale of lands within the Department of the Interior Southern 
        California Planning area described in (1) through (4) below. No 
        funds may be expended for lease or sale of lands within the 
        area described in (1) through (4) so long as adjacent State 
        Tidelands continue to be designated as State Oil and Gas 
        Leasing Sanctuary pursuant to Sec. 6871.1 et seq. of the 
        California Public Resources Code . . .
            (1) An area of the Department of the Interior Southern 
        California Planning Area off the coastline of the State of 
        California Oil and Gas Leasing Sanctuary as described by Sec. 
        6871.1 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code in 
        effect September 29, 1983 . . .
            (4) An area within the boundaries of the Santa Barbara 
        Channel Ecological Preserve and Buffer Zone, as defined by 
        Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Public 
        Land Order 4587 . . . .
            (b) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the 
        Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands in 
        OCS Lease Sale #80 which lie within an area located off the 
        coastline of the State of California Oil and Gas Leasing 
        Sanctuary as defined by Sec. 6871.1 et seq. California Public 
        Resources Code in effect September 29, 1983 . . . .
            (c) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the 
        Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands 
        within the Department of the Interior Southern California 
        Planning area, as defined in section 2(a) of the Outer 
        Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331(a)), located in the 
        Pacific Ocean off the coastline of Santa Monica Bay, State of 
        California, which lies within a line on the California 
        (Lambert) Plane Coordinate System . . . .
            (f) In OCS Lease Sale 80, lease or sale of lands affecting 
        the responsibilities of the Department of Defense shall be with 
        the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. . . .

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against Senate amendment No. 95, the point of order 
    being that under rule XVI, clause 7, the provisions are not 
    germane.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 8212]]

Bill Appropriating Money From Reclamation Fund--Amendment To Increase 
    Appropriation From General Fund of Treasury

Sec. 15.22 To language in an appropriation bill appropriating money for 
    specific projects from the reclamation fund, an amendment proposing 
    to increase the appropriation ``from the general fund of the 
    Treasury'' was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of Interior Department 
appropriations of 1948,(20) an amendment was offered 
(1) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 3123 (Committee on Appropriations).
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 4081, 4082, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 25, 1947.
 2. Id. at p. 4082.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to this section of the bill in that this section deals with the 
    reclamation fund and not the general fund of the Treasury.

    The Chairman (3) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appropriation for One Year--Amendment Permanently Changing Law

Sec. 15.23 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 (4) 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: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 11400, Supplemental Appropriations, fiscal 1970 (Committee on 
        Appropriations).
 5. 119 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 Presi

[[Page 8213]]

        dent 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.(6) In defending the amendment, Mr. Durward G. Hall, of 
Missouri, stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 13270.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Now, of course, under the restrictions or rescindments or 
    actions under 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,(7) however, ruled that the amendment was 
not in order. He stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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 this section.

--Amendment Permanently Changing Law Affecting Eligibility

Sec. 15.24 To a proposition appropriating funds for a program for one 
    fiscal year, an amendment permanently amending the authorizing

[[Page 8214]]

    law relating to eligibility for funding in any fiscal year is more 
    general in scope, amends another law, and is not germane.

    On Oct. 5, 1983,(8) during consideration of H.R. 3363 
(9) in the House, the Chair held that, to a Senate amendment 
to an appropriation bill reported from conference in disagreement, 
striking funds for a certain fisheries program, a House amendment 
permanently amending the authorizing law to provide authority for 
funding for a state ineligible under existing law was not germane and 
the point of order was conceded and sustained. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 27313, 27314, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. The Department of the Interior Appropriations for fiscal 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 16: Page 10, lines 10 and 11, strike 
        out ``; and for expenses necessary to carry out the Anadromous 
        Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-757f)''.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 16 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by 
        said amendment, amended to read as follows: '; $4,000,000, to 
        remain available until expended, for expenses necessary to 
        carry out the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-
        757f), of which $500,000 shall be made available to the State 
        of Idaho without regard to the limitation as stated in 16 
        U.S.C. 757e and without regard to the Federal cost sharing 
        provisions in 16 U.S.C. 757a-757f: Provided, That 16 U.S.C. 
        757e is amended by adding the following new sentence: `The 
        State of Idaho shall be eligible on an equal standing with 
        other states for Federal funding for purposes authorized by 
        sections 757a to 757f of this title.' ''. . .

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: . . . My point of order is 
    pursuant to clause 7 of rule XVI, the provisions of which indicate 
    that [the amendment] is not germane.
        Mr. Speaker, I make this point of order for two reasons, if the 
    Speaker would want me to be heard at this time.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.

--Amendment Affecting Permanent Appropriation and Permanently Modifying 
    Procedures for Consideration of Appropriation Bills

Sec. 15.25 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for one 
    fiscal year, an amendment changing existing law

[[Page 8215]]

    by imposing restrictions on a permanent appropriation for 
    compensation for Members of Congress, and furthermore amending the 
    rules of the House and Senate to modify procedures for 
    consideration of appropriation bills in subsequent years, was ruled 
    out of order as legislation on an appropriation bill and as not 
    germane, in that such amendment enlarged the scope of the bill and 
    was partly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.

    On June 29, 1987,(11) during consideration of H.R. 2714 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 133 Cong. Rec. 18082, 18083, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Legislative Branch Appropriations, fiscal 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lungren: Page 31, after line 25, 
        insert the following new sections:
            Sec. 309. Subsection (c) of section 130 of the joint 
        resolution entitled ``Joint resolution making continuing 
        appropriations for the fiscal year 1982, and for other 
        purposes'' (approved October 1, 1981; Public Law 97-51) is 
        amended by striking out ``Effective'' and by inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``(1) Except to the extent provided by paragraph (2), 
        effective'' and by inserting at the end thereof the following 
        new paragraph:
            ``(2) If all general appropriation bills for any fiscal 
        year have not been presented to the President for signature 
        under section 7 of Article I of the Constitution before the 
        beginning of that fiscal year, then the appropriation contained 
        in paragraph (1) shall not be effective with respect to such 
        fiscal year.''.
            Sec. 310. It shall not be in order in either the House of 
        Representatives or the Senate to consider the general 
        appropriation bill making appropriations for the legislative 
        branch for any fiscal year unless and until all other general 
        appropriation bills for such fiscal year have been presented to 
        the President for signature under section 7 of Article I of the 
        Constitution. . . .

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    violates the Rules of the House in several instances, as follows:
        First, it goes beyond the bill under consideration, amending 
    the continuing resolution, and as such is not germane. This is a 
    violation of rule XVI, clause 7.
        Second, the amendment constitutes legislation on an 
    appropriations bill and as such is in violation of clause 2 of rule 
    XXI.
        Third, in effect, this amendment amends the Rules of the House, 
    a subject which is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Rules. . . .
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, I would have to concede that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. Unfortunately, this is the 
    only manner in which this subject seems to be able to be raised. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William J. Hughes (N.J.).

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

[[Page 8216]]

        The gentleman from California [Mr. Lungren] has conceded the 
    point of order raised by the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], and the point of order is 
    sustained.

Provision Imposing Diverse Conditions Upon Availability of Funds--
    Amendment To Permanently Change Law Affecting Eligibility of 
    Recipients

Sec. 15.26 To a proposal continuing the availability of appropriated 
    funds and also imposing diverse legislative conditions upon the 
    availability of appropriations, an amendment directly and 
    permanently changing existing law as to the eligibility of certain 
    recipients was conceded to go beyond the scope of the categories of 
    legislative changes contained therein and to be nongermane.

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

Restriction on Funds Applicable Beyond Fiscal Year Covered by Bill

Sec. 15.27 To an appropriation bill for the Department of Defense, an 
    amendment was held to be germane which sought to implement certain 
    policies, already required by law to be put into effect, by 
    providing that none of the funds appropriated by the act be used, 
    after a certain date, extending beyond the fiscal year covered by 
    the bill, to finance military operations by United States forces in 
    Vietnam where some funds in the bill were available beyond that 
    fiscal year.

    In the 92d Congress, during consideration of Department of Defense 
appropriations for fiscal 1972,(14) the following amendment 
was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 11731 (Committee on Appropriations).
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 41838, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: On 
    page 48, immediately following line 7, add the following new 
    section under Title VII:
        ``Sec. 745. In line with Title VI of the 1971 Military 
    Procurement Act calling for termination of all U.S. military 
    operations in Indochina at the earliest practicable date and for 
    the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. military forces at a 
    date certain, subject to the release of all American prisoners and 
    an accounting for all Americans missing in action, and notwith

[[Page 8217]]

    standing any other provisions in this Act, none of the funds 
    appropriated by this Act shall be used to finance any military 
    combat or military support operations by U.S. forces in or over 
    South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia, after November 7, 
    1972, if all American prisoners shall have first been released and 
    all Americans missing in action shall have been accounted for.''

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

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on two grounds:
        First, very simply, the November 7, 1972, date goes beyond the 
    fiscal year for which this appropriation is being made;
        Second, and I think most important, is the final paragraph, 
    which was also written into the Boland amendment: ``if all American 
    prisoners shall have first been released and all Americans missing 
    in action shall have been accounted for.''
        This provision places an additional responsibility and duty 
    upon someone, but there is nothing in the amendment as to who would 
    have that responsibility and duty. The amendment provides that all 
    prisoners must have been released or accounted for. I repeat that 
    this is an additional responsibility in legislation in this 
    amendment. Therefore I urge my point of order.

    The following remarks were made in response to the point of order: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 41839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jacobs: . . . So far as the responsibility is concerned, 
    this is only a provision that the amendment will take effect on the 
    happening of an event. That event may or may not happen. It places 
    no responsibility on anyone. . . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: . . . I should like to 
    point out, in response to the remarks of the distinguished 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow], that there are funds provided in the 
    bill for programs that go beyond the end of the fiscal year.

    The Chairman,(17) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair will point out, first, 
    that there are funds in the bill that do go beyond this fiscal 
    year, and therefore holds that the termination date included in the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Indiana does not render the 
    amendment not germane. . . .
        For these reasons, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Appropriation for Emergency Fuel Assistance--Amendment Delaying 
    Availability Pending Enactment of Oil Windfall Profit Tax

Sec. 15.28 An amendment delaying the availability of an appropriation 
    pending an unrelated contingency is not germane to an appropriation 
    bill; thus, to a joint resolution appropriating funds to

[[Page 8218]]

    the Community Services Administration for emergency fuel 
    assistance, an amendment prohibiting any of such funds from being 
    obligated before the date of enactment of any law imposing an oil 
    windfall profit tax was held to be not germane.

    On Oct. 25, 1979,(18) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 430 in the House, the Speaker Pro Tempore 
(19) sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 29639, 29640, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Giaimo: Page 3, after line 3, 
        insert the following new sentence: ``None of the funds 
        appropriated by this Act may be obligated before the date of 
        the enactment of any Federal law imposing a windfall profit tax 
        on producers of domestic crude oil.''. . .

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    amendment before us violates the rules of the House, inasmuch as it 
    is not germane under clause 7, rule XVI.
        The amendment clearly goes beyond the bill and, in fact, 
    addresses an entirely separate piece of legislation that is not 
    referred to in any manner in House Joint Resolution 430.
        I urge the point of order be sustained.
        We have ample precedents, Mr. Speaker, of similar situations 
    which clearly show that an amendment delaying the operation of 
    proposed legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not 
    germane. I cite Deschler's Procedure 28.4, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. Giaimo: . . . The amendment which I am offering here 
    addresses itself to this legislation. It is simply a limitation and 
    says none of the funds appropriated can be obligated before the 
    date of enactment of any Federal law imposing a windfall profit 
    tax.
        That is a simple limitation, which I think is not subject to a 
    point of order. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined several precedents and would like to 
    point to chapter 28, section 4.11 of Deschler's Precedents:

            To a bill extending and amending laws relating to housing 
        and the renewal of urban communities, an amendment providing 
        that no funds could be appropriated or withdrawn from the 
        Treasury for the purposes of the bill until enactment of 
        legislation raising additional revenue, was held not to be 
        germane.

        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky (Mr. Natcher).

--Amendment Restricting Use of Oil Windfall Profit Taxes for Any Other 
    Purposes

Sec. 15.29 To a joint resolution appropriating funds to the Community 
    Services Administration for emergency fuel

[[Page 8219]]

    assistance, an amendment providing that notwithstanding any other 
    provision of law, no portion of any oil windfall profit taxes 
    imposed by law may be transferred to any other use except to the 
    extent that the amount of such taxes exceeded the amount 
    appropriated by the joint resolution, was conceded to be subject to 
    the point of order that it was not germane.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 430 in the House on 
Oct. 25, 1979,(20) a point of order against the following 
amendment was conceded and sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 29639, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Giaimo: Page 3, after line 3, 
        insert the following new sentence: ``Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law [whether enacted before, on, or after the date 
        of the enactment of this Act], no portion of any windfall 
        profit taxes imposed by Federal law on producers of domestic 
        crude oil may be transferred to any other use except to the 
        extent that the amount of such taxes exceeds the amount 
        appropriated by this Act.''

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) concedes the point of order and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Restricting Availability of Funds Except Under Condition--
    Amendment Imposing Different Condition

Sec. 15.30 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    prohibiting the availability of funds in any Act for salaries and 
    expenses for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for 
    Enforcement and Operations after a date certain unless Congress 
    enacts authorizing legislation for the Customs Service, a proposed 
    substitute amendment restricting availability of funds in that bill 
    for the same office unless specific categories of products, 
    determined to have been produced by slave or convict labor in the 
    Soviet Union, are barred from customs entry into the United States 
    was conceded to be

[[Page 8220]]

    not germane as a condition totally unrelated to that contained in 
    the Senate amendment.

    The proceedings of Nov. 7, 1985, during consideration of H.R. 3036 
(Treasury and Postal Service appropriations for fiscal 1986), are 
discussed in Sec. 27.27, infra.

Provision Directing Park Service To Lease Land--Substitute Prohibiting 
    Use of Funds To Lease Property to Concessionaires

Sec. 15.31 For an amendment to a general appropriation bill directing 
    the National Park Service to lease certain land at fair market 
    rental value, a substitute prohibiting the use of funds in the bill 
    for lease of that property by the National Park Service to 
    concessionaires was held germane and a negative limitation on the 
    use of funds which did not add legislation to that permitted to 
    remain in the original amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 14231 (2) in the Committee 
of the Whole on June 25, 1976,(3) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The Department of Interior Appropriation bill for fiscal 1977.
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 20548-50, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 10, line 2, strike 
        the period, insert a semicolon and the following:
            Provided, That the National Park Service shall not lease 
        the facilities located at 900 Ohio Drive in the District of 
        Columbia on any other basis than the fair market rental value 
        generally pertaining for such premises in the area.

        Mr. [Gilbert] Gude [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gude as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 27, between lines 18 
        and 19, insert the following:
            ``Sec. 109. No part of the appropriations made available 
        under this title shall be available for the use of the Federal 
        buildings located at 900 Ohio Drive, Haines Point in the 
        District of Columbia by any concessioner of the National Park 
        Service for any purpose.''

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Gude). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, while this amendment has the appearance of a 
    simple limitation, as a matter of fact, it is much more than that. 
    The amendment prohibits the use of funds in the bill for use by a 
    national park concessioner of a National Park Service building. The 
    intent of the amendment is to

[[Page 8221]]

    evict the concessioner from the building. At the present time, the 
    concessioner which occupies the building pays an annual rent and 
    also pays for utilities and routine maintenance. If the 
    concessioner vacates the building, the National Park Service must 
    assume responsibility for maintenance and utility costs. The 
    National Park Service estimates these costs to be about $26,000 per 
    year.
        Mr. Chairman, there are ample precedents in the rules of the 
    House and I suggest that on page 551 under the Rules of the House, 
    under section 843, ample precedents are cited to demonstrate that 
    limitations on appropriation bills ``must not impose new duties 
    upon an executive officer.''
        Clearly this amendment imposes additional duties and 
    responsibilities on the National Park Service. . . .
        Mr. Gude: Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment provides nothing 
    more than the Park Service merely targets a lease. I do not think 
    it confers any responsibilities on them that they do not already 
    have. I think it is clearly germane and in order. It is no less 
    germane than the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Yates).

        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) raises a point of order 
    to the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York.
        The question the Chair must decide is whether the substitute 
    amendment is germane to the original amendment and whether it adds 
    additional legislation to that which is already in the amendment of 
    the gentleman from Illinois.
        The substitute amendment of the gentleman from Maryland, in the 
    opinion of the Chair, is germane--relating to leasing of the same 
    property, and does not add additional legislation to that which is 
    already in the original amendment. Rather, the substitute is a 
    negative limitation on funds in the bill.
        The Chair must, therefore, reluctantly overrule the point of 
    order.

Provision Limiting Funds for Salary Increases for Members of Congress--
    Amendment To Further Restrict Funds for Salaries of Members Voting 
    Against Increase

Sec. 15.32 To a proposition limiting the use of any fiscal 1980 funds 
    to pay salary increases for Members of Congress above 5 percent 
    while permitting top executive and judicial salaries to be 
    increased by 7 percent, an amendment further restricting 
    availability of those funds to pay salaries of those Members voting 
    against any salary increase for Members contained in the pending 
    joint resolution was held germane as an additional restriction on 
    the use of the same funds, applied to the same category of 
    recipients.

[[Page 8222]]

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 404 in the House on 
Sept. 25, 1979,(5)  the Speaker overruled a point of order 
against the amendment described above, demonstrating that, to a 
proposition restricting the availability of funds to a certain category 
of recipients, an amendment further restricting the availability of 
those funds to a subcategory of the same recipients is germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 26135, 26136, 26138, 26140-43, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.J. Res. 404

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable 
        corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the 
        several departments, agencies, corporations, and other 
        organizational units of the Government for the fiscal year 
        1980, namely:
            Sec. 101. (a)(1) Such amounts as may be necessary for 
        continuing projects or activities. . . .
            For the fiscal year 1980, funds available for payment to 
        executive employees, which includes Members of Congress, who 
        under existing law are entitled to approximately 12.9 percent 
        increase in pay, shall not be used to pay any such employee or 
        elected or appointed official any sum in excess of 5.5 percent 
        increase in existing pay and such sum if accepted shall be in 
        lieu of the 12.9 percent due for such fiscal year: Provided 
        further, That for the purpose of carrying out this provision 
        and notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Pay 
        Comparability Act of 1970, the Executive Salary Cost-Of-Living 
        Adjustment Act, or any other related provision of law, which 
        would provide an approximate 12.9 percent increase in pay for 
        certain Federal officials for pay periods beginning on or after 
        October 1, 1979, and notwithstanding section 102 of this joint 
        resolution, the provisions of section 304 of the Legislative 
        Branch Appropriation Act, 1979, which limit the pay for certain 
        Federal offices and positions, shall apply to funds 
        appropriated by this joint resolution or any Act for the fiscal 
        year 1980 except that in applying such limitation the term ``at 
        a rate which exceeds by more than 5.5 percent the rate'' shall 
        be substituted for the term ``at a rate which exceeds the 
        rate'' where it appears in subsection (a) of such section for 
        the purpose of limiting pay increases to 5.5 percent. . . .

        Mr. [George M.] O'Brien [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Brien: On page 5, strike lines 
        10 through 16.
            On page 6, line 3, strike everything after ``1980'' through 
        line 8, and insert a period. . . .

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Fisher [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fisher as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. O'Brien: Page 5, beginning on line 3, 
        strike out ``(except as to executive salaries which are covered 
        subsequently)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(without regard to 
        section 305 thereof)''.

[[Page 8223]]

            Page 5, strike out line 10 and all that follows down 
        through ``limitation'' on line 4 of page 6 and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            Notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Pay 
        Comparability Act of 1970, the Executive Salary Cost-Of-Living 
        Act, or any other related provision of law, which would provide 
        an approximate 12.9 percent increase in pay for certain Federal 
        officials for pay periods beginning on or after October 1, 
        1979, and notwithstanding section 102 of this joint resolution, 
        the provisions of section 304 of the Legislative Branch 
        Appropriation Act, 1979, shall apply to funds appropriated by 
        this joint resolution or any Act for the fiscal year 1980; 
        except that in applying the limitation in such section 304 to 
        the pay of offices and positions (other than Members of 
        Congress) covered by that section the term ``at a rate which 
        exceeds by more than 7 percent the rate'' shall be substituted 
        for the term ``at a rate which exceeds the rate'' where it 
        appears in subsection (a) of such section for the purpose of 
        limiting such pay increases to 7 percent, and in applying such 
        limitation to the pay of Members of Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Fisher as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        O'Brien: After the substitute offered by the gentleman from 
        Virginia add the following:
            Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, no 
        part of the funds appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 1980 
        shall be available to pay the salary of any Member at a rate 
        which exceeds the salary rate payable for that office for 
        September 30, 1978, if at any time in the consideration of this 
        resolution that Member voted in a recorded vote for any 
        amendment that has the effect of limiting the amount payable 
        for Members of Congress to the rate payable for September 30, 
        1978. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: . . . I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the substitute. 
    The amendment conditions the use of funds to pay salaries on the 
    votes of Members of Congress on this resolution and, therefore, 
    introduces new subject matter, both a Member's voting record and a 
    new method of calculating pay depending on the Member's voting 
    record. The amendment places nongermane restrictions on the use of 
    funds and should be ruled out of order. . . .
        The Speaker: (6) . . . The Chair will rule that the 
    Fisher substitute contains a selective restriction on the 
    availability of funds in the bill by separating salaries of certain 
    employees, as opposed to Members of the Congress of the United 
    States, and that is in order. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser) is a further selective 
    restriction on the availability of fiscal 1980 funds for the 
    Members' pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the amendment as offered by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Peyser) is germane to the Fisher amendment, and 
    the point of order of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) 
    is overruled.

[[Page 8224]]

Provision Restricting Funds To Pay Salary Increases for Members--
    Amendment To Use Changes in Public Debt as Standard for Determining 
    Funds Available for Salaries

Sec. 15.33 An amendment which conditions the expenditure of funds 
    covered by a bill by adopting as a measure of their availability 
    the monthly increase in the public debt limit may be germane so 
    long as the amendment does not directly affect other provisions of 
    law or impose contingencies predicated upon other unrelated actions 
    of Congress; thus, to a joint resolution making continuing 
    appropriations and restricting the use of any fiscal 1980 funds to 
    pay cost-of-living salary increases for Members of Congress and 
    other federal employees above a certain percentage, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of all such funds to pay over 99 percent of 
    Members' salaries in any month in which the public debt has been 
    increased was held germane since not amending or affecting the 
    public debt limit, but rather using that limit as an easily 
    ascertainable standard by which to relate Members' salary 
    entitlements to the entire Federal fiscal situation.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 404 (continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 1980), the Speaker overruled a point of 
order against the amendment described above. The proceedings of Sept. 
25, 1979,(7) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 26150-52, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Kramer [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kramer: Page 6, insert before line 
        13 the following: Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        joint resolution or any other provision of law, for any month 
        immediately following any month during which the total public 
        debt subject to the statutory debt limit, as reported in the 
        monthly statement of the public debt published by the 
        Department of the Treasury, indicates an increase from the 
        level so reported during the preceding month, no part of the 
        funds appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1980, by this Act or any other Act may be used to pay the 
        salary of any Member of the Congress at a rate greater than 99 
        percent of the rate which would be payable without regard to 
        this sentence. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane.
        The amendment deals with the subject of Federal pay and has the 
    pur

[[Page 8225]]

    pose of limiting Federal pay. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Kramer) introduces a new subject of a 
    public debt, a completely new subject of public debt, and a 
    different method of limiting Federal pay, that is, calculated 
    relations between Federal pay and the public debt. . . .
        Mr. Kramer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 25, section 2.1 and also section 2.3. I think 
    the precedents are very clear that this amendment is germane. I 
    read as follows:

            A joint resolution providing continuing appropriations for 
        departments and agencies of government, to provide funds until 
        the regular appropriation bills are enacted, is not a ``general 
        appropriation bill'' within the meaning of clause 2 Rule XXI.
            The restrictions against unauthorized items or legislation 
        in a general appropriation bill or amendment thereto are not 
        applicable to a joint resolution continuing appropriations, 
        despite inclusion of diverse appropriations which are not 
        ``continuing'' in nature.

        Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, in talking to the 
    Parliamentarian's office, that a contingency amendment is, indeed, 
    germane, provided that the contingency itself is within the scope 
    of the performance of Congress.
        I would ask that the amendment be ruled germane on that basis. 
    . . .
        The Speaker: (8) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
    Kramer) provides a mechanism for measuring the ceiling to be placed 
    on the amount of fiscal 1980 funds which can be available to pay 
    salary increases for Members. The amendment does not in any way 
    directly affect provisions of law relating to public debt levels 
    during fiscal 1980.
        As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    24.18, the Chair ruled on July 26, 1973, that an amendment which 
    conditions the expenditure of funds in a bill by adopting as a 
    measure of their availability the expenditure during that fiscal 
    year of a comparable percentage of funds authorized by other acts 
    is germane, so long as the amendment does not directly affect the 
    obligation and expenditure of other funds or the administration of 
    other programs.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the legislative standard stated in 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado as a measure 
    of the amount of pay increase to be paid by fiscal 1980 
    appropriated funds is an easily ascertainable method of adjusting 
    the availability of those funds in relation to the Federal 
    financial situation as a whole, and is not drafted as a contingency 
    which is dependent upon specific unrelated events or actions of 
    Congress.
        The gentleman's point of order is overruled.

Restriction on Use of Funds for Enforcement of OSHA Regulations 
    Applicable to Small Farms--Amendment To Ensure Compliance by 
    Congress With OSHA Requirements

Sec. 15.34 To a substitute amendment prohibiting the use of

[[Page 8226]]

    funds in a general appropriation bill for the enforcement of any 
    regulation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act applicable 
    to small farms, an amendment adding at the end thereof the 
    requirement that such funds be expended to assure full compliance 
    under that Act by Congressional Members and staff was held not 
    germane.

    The proceedings of June 24, 1976, relating to H.R. 14232 (Labor and 
Health, Education and Welfare appropriations for fiscal 1977), are 
discussed in Sec. 8.20, supra.

Provision To Bar Use of Contributions to United Nations Program for 
    Assistance to Cuba--Amendment To Make Provision Applicable to Any 
    Country That Has Severed Diplomatic Relations

Sec. 15.35 To a provision in a general appropriation bill ``That the 
    President shall seek to assure that no contribution to the United 
    Nations Development Program . . . shall be used for projects for . 
    . . assistance to . . . Cuba,'' an amendment was held to be germane 
    which sought to make the provision applicable to any country which 
    has severed diplomatic relations with the United States.

    In the 90th Congress, the foreign aid appropriation bill for fiscal 
1968 (9) was under consideration, which provided in part: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 13893 (Committee on Appropriations).
10. See 113 Cong. Rec. 32886, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 16, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        International organizations and programs: For expenses 
    authorized by section 302(a), $125,000,000: Provided, That the 
    President shall seek to assure that no contribution to the United 
    Nations Development Program authorized by the Foreign Assistance 
    Act of 1961, as amended, shall be used for projects for economic or 
    technical assistance to the Government of Cuba, so long as Cuba is 
    governed by the Castro regime: Provided further, That no part of 
    this appropriation shall be used to initiate any project, activity, 
    or program which has not been justified to the Congress.

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: On page 
    3, line 5, delete the words ``That the President shall seek to 
    assure that''; and further, on line 10, after the word ``regime'' 
    add a comma and the words ``or to any country which has severed 
    diplomatic relations with the United States.''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 32887.

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

[[Page 8227]]

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment does not serve just to perfect a legislative provision 
    that might be protected by the rule adopted earlier, but it seeks 
    to expand into a whole new area not contemplated in the present 
    legislative provision and purports to deal with countries with 
    which we have broken diplomatic relations. We would be adding a 
    whole new section since the amendment is not limited to funds 
    appropriated under this Act.

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The section of the bill to which the amendment is offered is 
    legislation which has been permitted to remain by waiver of points 
    of order. Such legislative provisions can be perfected by germane 
    amendments.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Missouri is germane and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Bill Permitting President To Allocate Appropriation to Agencies--
    Amendment To Allocate Portion to Specified Agency

Sec. 15.36 To a bill appropriating a certain sum and providing that the 
    President may make allocations therefrom to various agencies of the 
    government, an amendment proposing that a certain amount of such 
    fund should be allocated to a specific agency of the government was 
    held to be germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a relief 
appropriations bill,(13) an amendment was offered 
(14) as described above. Mr. John Taber, of New York, raised 
the point of order that the amendment was not germane. The 
Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.J. Res. 361 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 5012, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1937.
15. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida . . . 
    provides that part of the appropriation in this bill shall be 
    allocated to one of the agencies of government, the Federal 
    Administration of Public Works.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is germane to 
    the bill, and therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill Containing Funds for Agency--Amendment Containing Funds for 
    Different Agency for Related Purpose

Sec. 15.37 To a portion of an appropriation bill containing funds for a 
    certain purpose to be expended by one government agency, an 
    amendment containing funds for another government agency

[[Page 8228]]

    for the same general purpose may not be germane although authorized 
    by law; thus, to a title of a general appropriation bill containing 
    funds for energy programs administered by the Department of Energy, 
    an amendment appropriating a portion of those funds for a pilot 
    wood utilization program authorized by law to be conducted by the 
    Department of Agriculture was held not germane.

    On July 24, 1981,(16) during consideration of a bill 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Anthony C. 
Beilenson, of California, sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 127 Cong. Rec. 17226, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 4144, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations, fiscal 
        1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: Page 16, line 19, insert 
        immediately before the period the following: ``, and Provided 
        further, That $5,000,000 of the funds provided herein shall be 
        made available to the Secretary of Agriculture for the 
        establishment of pilot wood utilization projects and 
        demonstrations as authorized by the Wood Residue Utilization 
        Act of 1980, Public Law 96-554.''.

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the gentleman's amendment. . . .
        The amendment is not germane to this paragraph of the bill nor 
    to the bill as a whole. The wood residue program is authorized by 
    Public Law 96-554, and clearly is to be administered by the Forest 
    Service, Department of Agriculture, which is funded under the 
    Interior appropriations bill.

        This program was not authorized to be administered or funded by 
    the Department of Energy, which is where the gentleman's amendment 
    applies.
        Under clause 7, rule XVI, it is stated that it is not in order 
    during consideration in the House to introduce a new subject by way 
    of amendment, and an amendment inserting an additional section 
    should be germane to the portion of the bill to which it is 
    offered.
        I contend this amendment is not germane to this paragraph or 
    this bill and is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI. . . .
        Mr. Weaver: . . . [T]he Department of Energy now funds wood 
    utilization programs. This bill is law. We are not changing 
    existing law. We are referring only to existing law and it is an 
    energy manufacturing program and, therefore, definitely germane to 
    this bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill).
        For the purposes stated by the gentleman from Alabama, the 
    distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the point of order is 
    sustained and the amendment is held not germane to the

[[Page 8229]]

    pending title of the bill, which relates only to the Department of 
    Energy.

Paragraph Containing Funds for Agency--Amendment Increasing Amount by 
    Transferring Funds From Other Accounts

Sec. 15.38 To a paragraph of a general appropriation bill containing 
    funds for an agency but not transferring funds to that account from 
    other paragraphs in the bill, an amendment increasing that amount 
    by transfer from an account in another paragraph is not germane, 
    since affecting budget authority for a different agency not the 
    subject of the pending paragraph.

    Where a paragraph of a bill, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
State and Judiciary Appropriations for fiscal 1986 (H.R. 2965), 
contained funds for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but did not 
transfer funds from other accounts in the bill, an amendment increasing 
that budget authority by transfer from funds contained in a paragraph, 
not yet read, for the National Endowment for Democracy was ruled out as 
not germane. The proceedings of July 17, 1985,(18) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 131 Cong. Rec. 19431, 19432, 19435-37, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

                             salaries and expenses

            For expenses necessary for detection, investigation, and 
        prosecution of crimes against the United States; including 
        purchase for police-type use of not to exceed one thousand six 
        hundred forty passenger motor vehicles . . . acquisition, 
        lease, maintenance and operation of aircraft; and not to exceed 
        $70,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential 
        character, to be expended under the direction of the Attorney 
        General, and to be accounted for solely on his certificate; 
        $1,194,132,000, of which not to exceed $25,000,000 for 
        automated data processing and telecommunications and $1,000,000 
        for undercover operations shall remain available until 
        September 30, 1987. . . .

        Mr. [Charles W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 15, in 
        line 4, strike ``$1,194,132,000,'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,203,625,000, of which $9,493,000 shall be derived by 
        transfer from the appropriation in this Act for ``National 
        Endowment for Democracy'',''.

    Mr. Neal E. Smith, of Iowa, raised a point of order against the 
amendment:

[[Page 8230]]

        Mr. Smith of Iowa: . . . My point of order is that it is in 
    violation of clause 7, rule XVI. It involves an increase in the FBI 
    by a transfer of funds. There are no transfers in the bill for the 
    FBI. The money would be transferred from a source that is entirely 
    different and unrelated, and therefore taking money that is 
    intended for one purpose and transferring it to an entirely 
    different purpose when it is offered as an amendment is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. Young of Florida: . . . The amendment does not violate 
    section 303 of the Budget Act because the amendment does not 
    provide new budget authority but rather provides funds by transfer 
    from elsewhere in the bill.
        The amendment does not violate rule XXI, clause 2, because it 
    is in order to perfect a paragraph in the bill permitted to remain 
    by a waiver of points of order, so long as the amendment does not 
    add legislation or unauthorized items. A transfer of funds within 
    the confines of an appropriation bill is not considered 
    legislation, and clearly the amendment does not add unauthorized 
    items. The amendment is germane to the bill which contains numerous 
    other transfers. For example, I call to the Chair's attention page 
    6 and page 7, where there are numerous transfers from one fund to 
    another in that section of the bill alone.
        So I would hope that the Chair would overrule the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: If no one else wishes to be heard on the point of 
    order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair believes that the amendment is not germane to this 
    paragraph because there are no other transfers involved in this 
    particular paragraph and it would affect an account in an unrelated 
    portion of the bill.
        The Chair, therefore, upholds the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith].

Bill Providing New Budget Authority--Amendment To Provide In Lieu 
    Thereof for Transfer of Unexpended Balances of Funds Previously 
    Appropriated

Sec. 15.39 It is not germane to change a direct appropriation of new 
    budget authority from the general fund of the Treasury into a 
    reappropriation (in effect a rescission) of funds previously 
    appropriated for an entirely different purpose in a special reserve 
    account; thus, to a bill providing new budget authority for 
    emergency agricultural credit, an amendment contained in a motion 
    to recommit with instructions to provide, in lieu of that new 
    budget authority, for a transfer of unexpended balances of funds 
    previously appropriated for a totally unrelated purpose was held to 
    be not germane.

[[Page 8231]]

    On Feb. 28, 1985,(20) during consideration of H.R. 1189 
(1) in the House, Speaker Pro Tempore Alan D. Wheat, of 
Missouri, sustained a point of order against a motion to recommit the 
bill with instructions to the committee of jurisdiction. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 4133, 4134, 4146, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Emergency Farm Credit Appropriation, fiscal 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.R. 1189

        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 ``Emergency Agricultural Credit Appropriations 
    Act''.

                         DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          Farmers Home Administration

                       agricultural credit insurance fund

        For an additional amount for guaranteed loans under this fund 
    in accordance with and subject to the provisions of 7 U.S.C. 1928-
    1929, $1,000,000,000, which shall be in addition to the 
    $150,000,000 provided in Public Law 98-396 and the $500,000,000 
    made available by Public Law 98-473. Such funds shall be available 
    in order that farm producers may obtain the necessary financing for 
    calendar 1985 operations. Such funds shall be used to prevent 
    foreclosure of farm loans through extending the period of repayment 
    of existing loans and the reduction in rate of interest. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1189, to the 
        Committee on Appropriations, with instructions to that 
        committee to report the bill back to the House forthwith, with 
        the following amendment.
            On page 2, in line 10, after ``$1,000,000,000,'' insert 
        ``to be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the 
        Energy Security Reserve.''.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions in 
    that it attempts to propose as instructions, language which would 
    not have been in order directly as an amendment during the reading 
    of the bill. The instructions include what is in effect a 
    rescission which was not considered by the House and which would 
    have violated clause 7 of rule XVI if there had been a reading of 
    the bill for amendment.
        The bill under consideration provides supplemental 
    appropriations for fiscal year 1985. The gentleman's instructions 
    would rescind funds appropriated in fiscal year 1980 for the 
    Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a matter clearly not related to this 
    bill.
        Mr. Speaker, because the motion contains language not in order 
    during consideration of the bill in the House, I believe it 
    violates the germaneness rule of the House. I ask for a ruling of 
    the Chair. . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    point of order should be overruled. An amendment in a motion to 
    recommit with instructions

[[Page 8232]]

    must be germane to the bill as a whole. Although the amendment does 
    affect previously appropriated funds, so do several provisions of 
    the bill itself.
        On page 2, in lines 15 through 18, there is language that 
    provides that funds in the bill ``shall be used to prevent 
    foreclosure of farm loans through extending the period of repayment 
    of existing loans.'' This language directly affects loans 
    guaranteed with funds under existing law.
        On page 3, in lines 2 through 14, there is language which 
    provides for ``review of FATM loans,'' and ``deferral of principal 
    and interest and the foregoing of foreclosure.'' This language 
    directly affects loans held by the Farmers Home Administration.
        On page 4, in lines 2 through 5, there is language directing 
    the administrator of the Small Business Administration to use loan 
    guarantee authority to restructure existing loans.
        Taken as a whole, the bill clearly affects the use of 
    previously appropriated funds and authority. My amendment, which 
    also affects previously appropriated funds, is germane, and 
    therefore I ask the Chair to overrule the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Mississippi makes the point of order that 
    the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Conte) is not germane to the bill H.R. 1189. The bill reported 
    from the Committee on Appropriations provides only new budget 
    authority for emergency agricultural credit. The bill does not 
    directly transfer or reappropriate any unexpended balances of 
    appropriations nor does it rescind previously appropriated funds.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the effect of the motion to 
    recommit is to decrease sums already appropriated for a program--
    Synfuels payments for future defaults on loans guaranteed pursuant 
    to the Energy Security Act--totally unrelated to the program under 
    consideration--farm credit--and to convert into immediate budget 
    outlays obligational authority which was not intended to represent 
    any outlays except in the event of a future default. The amendment 
    in the motion to recommit has the effect of transferring the 
    original appropriation for Synfuels loan guarantees, a proposition 
    not contemplated in the bill reported from the Committee on 
    Appropriations. The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The instant ruling is important as it 
stands for the proposition that it is not germane to decrease sums 
already appropriated for a program totally unrelated to the proposition 
under consideration (in effect a rescission), and to convert into 
immediate budget outlays obligational authority which was not intended 
to represent any outlays except in the unlikely event of a future 
default. Of course, germaneness was the only test here, since the 
pending bill was not a general appropriation to which Rule XXI clause 6 
would apply. In such a case, the amendment would clearly have been a

[[Page 8233]]

reappropriation in violation of that rule.

Rescission of Prior-year Appropriations

Sec. 15.40 To a bill reducing certain prior-year appropriations and 
    containing a paragraph appropriating money ``for grants to States 
    for administration of unemployment compensation and employment 
    service facilities'' as authorized in another act, an amendment was 
    held to be germane which provided that ``any unobligated balance of 
    the appropriation made in the first paragraph under the heading 
    `Employment Office Facilities and Services' in title VII of the 
    Labor-Federal Appropriation Act, 1946, shall be carried to the 
    surplus fund and covered into the Treasury, and after June 30, 
    1946, appropriations shall be made only for grants to States for 
    administration of unemployment compensation and employment service 
    facilities as authorized'' since both the bill and amendment 
    reduced prior-year appropriations.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
reducing certain appropriations and contract authorizations available 
for the fiscal year 1946. The bill stated in part: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 4407 (Committee on Appropriations).
 3. See 91 Cong. Rec. 9846, 9850, 9851, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 
        1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the appropriations and contractual 
    authorizations of the departments and agencies available in the 
    fiscal year 1946, and prior year unreverted appropriations, are 
    hereby reduced in the sums hereinafter set forth, such sums to be 
    carried to the surplus fund and covered into the Treasury 
    immediately upon the approval of this act.

     Title I--Executive Office of the President, Independent Offices, 
                         and Executive Departments

                       executive office of the president

                        Office for Emergency Management

        Foreign Economic Administration:

        Salaries and expenses, $5,226,461, and limitations under this 
    head are hereby decreased as follows: (1) Travel within continental 
    United States from ``$234,000'' to ``$150,000,'' (2) reimbursement 
    to employees for emergency or extraordinary expenses from 
    ``$75,000'' to ``$40,000,'' and (3) expenses of a confidential 
    character from ``$1,200,000'' to ``$25,000.''. . .
        Office of Economic Stabilization:
        Salaries and expenses, $53,780, and limitations under this head 
    are hereby decreased as follows: (1) Penalty mail

[[Page 8234]]

    costs from ``$2,250'' to ``$1,500,'' (2) traveling expenses from 
    ``$4,500'' to ``$4,000,'' and (3) printing and binding from 
    ``$2,000'' to ``$1,600.''. . .

               emergency funds appropriated to the president

        Emergency fund for the President, national defense, 
    $45,000,000.
        Defense aid--lend-lease:
        (1) Ordnance and ordnance stores, supplies, spare parts, and 
    materials, $57,990,000.
        (2) Aircraft and aeronautical material, $85,705,000. . . .

                            Independent Offices

        Civil Service Commission: Salaries and expenses, Civil Service 
    Commission (national defense), $2,032,000.
        Employees' Compensation Commission: Employees' compensation 
    fund, $1,761,644.
        Federal Communications Commission: Salaries and expenses, 
    Federal Communications Commission (national defense), $930,000. . . 
    .

                           social security board

        There is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not 
    otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1946, 
    for grants to States for administration of unemployment 
    compensation and employment service facilities operated in 
    conjunction therewith, as authorized in title III of the Social 
    Security Act, approved August 14, 1935, as amended, $30,000,000, 
    which shall be in addition to the amounts appropriated for such 
    purposes in title II of the Labor-Federal Security Appropriation 
    Act, 1946.

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of 
    Massachusetts]: On page 8, line 10, after the period, strike out 
    lines 11 through 20 and insert the following:
        ``On July 1, 1946, any unobligated balance of the appropriation 
    made in the first paragraph under the heading `Employment Office 
    Facilities and Services' in title VII of the Labor-Federal 
    Appropriation Act, 1946, shall be carried to the surplus fund and 
    covered into the Treasury, and after June 30, 1946, appropriations 
    shall be made only for grants to States for administration of 
    unemployment compensation and employment service facilities as 
    authorized in title III of the Social Security Act, approved August 
    11, 1935, as amended, and in the act of June 6, 1933, as amended, 
    known as the Wagner-Peyser Act.''

    Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane and that it was legislative in character. 
The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is obviously 
    germane. It relates to the same subject as specified in the bill.

    The following exchange ensued:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this, to my mind, 
    is the situation: The amendment is a rescission. The paragraph 
    which is made in order under the rule is an appropriation; 
    therefore the amendment is not in order.

[[Page 8235]]

        The Chairman: In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment 
    offered is germane to the paragraph which deals with appropriations 
    for this purpose. The amendment offered also deals with 
    appropriations for the same purpose. In the opinion of the Chair 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
    clearly germane and the Chair overrules the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: I do not question the 
    germaneness, but I heard the bill referred to as a legislative 
    bill, and if it is interpreted as a legislative bill, the amendment 
    making an appropriation, of course, would not be in order.
        The Chairman: This certainly is not a general appropriation 
    bill but a bill with reference to rescission of appropriations. The 
    only question which could occur from a parliamentary standpoint 
    would be the question of germaneness. In the opinion of the Chair, 
    the amendment is clearly germane. . . .

Germaneness--Guidelines Under Impoundment Control Act

Sec. 15.41 Debate concerning procedures under section 1011(3) of the 
    Impoundment Control Act of 1974, suggested that only those 
    amendments to a ``rescission bill'' would be germane which would 
    (1) strike rescissions contained in the bill, (2) change the amount 
    proposed to be rescinded but not to a figure in excess of that 
    recommended by the President, or (3) add rescissions recommended by 
    the president in the same message covered by the bill but not in 
    excess of the proposed amount.

    On Dec. 4, 1974,(5) the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of H.R. 17505 (a bill to 
rescind certain budget authority recommended in Presidential messages). 
During the course of the proceedings, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 38192, 38193, 38202, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I 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. 17505) 
    to rescind certain budget authority recommended in the messages of 
    the President of September 20, 1974 (H. Doc. No. 93-361), October 
    4, 1974 (H. Doc. No. 93-365) and November 13, 1974 (H. Doc. No. 93-
    387), transmitted pursuant to section 1012 of the Impoundment 
    Control Act of 1974; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that general debate be limited to 1 hour and that 
    the time be divided equally between the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) and myself.

[[Page 8236]]

        The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill H.R. 17505, with Mr. Bolling in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) Under the unanimous-consent 
    agreement, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) will be recognized 
    for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) 
    will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, the House in the consideration of this 
    measure is breaking new ground. This is the first bill to be 
    reported to the House as a result of the passage by the Congress of 
    the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. We 
    will remember that over a period of months there was considerable 
    controversy between the legislative branch and the executive branch 
    over the withholding of funds to carry out various programs that 
    had been approved by Congress and had been appropriated for by the 
    Congress.
        This new act provides a process for rescission in a special way 
    which has not heretofore existed. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of Members and others, I will ask 
    permission to insert at this point in the Record an explanation of 
    the Impoundment Control Act which is title X of the Congressional 
    Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344). It 
    is brief and simple but, in my judgment, useful:

             Summary of Rescission and Deferral Provisions of the 
            Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974

            Title X of this Act provides two ways for the President to 
        terminate or defer spending that the Congress has provided--
        either through a budget rescission or a budget deferral. In 
        each case, Congress has the opportunity to overturn the 
        President and to require that the funds it originally provided 
        be made available for obligation.

                         rescission of budget authority

            When the President decides not to use all or part of the 
        money which the Congress has provided for a program, he must 
        send a rescission message to the Congress. The House and Senate 
        then have 45 days in which to approve the President's proposal 
        through a rescission bill canceling the budget authority 
        previously made available. This bill must be passed by the 
        House and Senate and signed by the President. If this is not 
        done within 45 days of the date of the Presidential message 
        containing the proposed rescission, the money must then be made 
        available for obligation.

                          deferral of budget authority

            When the President proposes to delay spending for some 
        project or program for some period of time not beyond the end 
        of the fiscal year, he must send a budget deferral message to 
        the Congress.

[[Page 8237]]

            The President may then defer spending according to his 
        proposal unless and until either the House or Senate passes an 
        impoundment resolution disapproving the proposed deferral. As 
        opposed to the rescission process, this requires action by only 
        one House. . . .

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I have a question 
    for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte). This being, I 
    believe, the maiden voyage of this kind of legislation in the 
    House, I am not fully aware of what rights a common, garden-variety 
    Member of the House has to amend this bill.
        I understand that there was some $8 billion in the foreign aid 
    pipeline as of last July 1, the beginning of this fiscal year. 
    Would it be within the prerogative of a Member of the House, just 
    an ordinary Member, to offer an amendment to this bill, to perform 
    a rescission on the money in the pipeline for the foreign giveaway 
    program?
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: . . . No, it would 
    not be in order because we would be limited here to the subject 
    matters and the maximum amounts that the President sent up for 
    rescission, and since that is not a part of that package, no one 
    can get a crack at it in this bill. Let me further explain.
        Let me point out to the gentleman from Iowa that section 
    1011(3) of the Budget and Impoundment Control Act states that a 
    ``rescission bill means a bill or joint resolution which only 
    rescinds, in whole or in part, budget authority proposed to be 
    rescinded in a special message transmitted by the President under 
    section 1012 . . . ''
        The statement of purpose, and the enacting clause, of H.R. 
    17505 contain citations to section 1012 of the Impoundment Control 
    Act of 1974, in order to insure that the bill is a rescission bill, 
    within the meaning of Public Law 93-344.
        Accordingly, amendments to the bill are limited as follows:
        First, the committee amendments, of which two are substantive, 
    striking the rescissions for REA and REAP;
        Second, amendments which would strike rescissions in the bill, 
    or change the amount rescinded, provided the amount in the 
    amendment is equal to or less than, the amount proposed in the 
    Presidential message; and
        Third, amendments which would add rescissions, provided the 
    rescission to be added has been proposed by the President in a 
    message cited in the enacting clause of the bill, and the amount is 
    equal to, or less than, the amount proposed by the President. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                             National Park Service

            Contract authority provided for the fiscal year ending June 
        30, 1973 by section 105(a)(10) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act 
        of 1970 (Public Law 91-605) for ``Parkways'' is rescinded in 
        the amount of $10,461,000. . . .

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

            Committee amendment: Page 4, line 1, strike ``IV'' and 
        insert ``III''.

        The committee amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise 
    and

[[Page 8238]]

    report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
    recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, 
    as amended, do pass.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Bolling, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 17505) to rescind 
    certain budget authority recommended in the messages of the 
    President of September 20, 1974 (H. Doc. 93-361), October 4, 1974 
    (H. Doc. 93-365) and November 13, 1974 (H. Doc. 93-387), 
    transmitted pursuant to section 1012 of the Impoundment Control Act 
    of 1974, had directed him to report the bill back to the House with 
    sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be 
    agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    bill and all amendments thereto to final passage.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If 
    not, the Chair will put them en gros.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was 
    read the third time, and passed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The statement made by Mr. Conte, above, 
reflects the agreed-upon parameters of amendments to the rescission 
bill concurred in by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, 
Richard Bolling, who was the chief sponsor and manager of the Budget 
and Impoundment Act in the 93rd Congress.

Specific Project Added to River and Harbor Projects

Sec. 15.42 To that portion of the Civil Functions, Department of the 
    Army, Appropriation Bill pertaining to river and harbor projects, 
    an amendment in the form of a new paragraph providing an 
    appropriation for a specific inland waterway previously authorized 
    by law was held to be germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of the Civil Functions, 
Department of the Army, Appropriation Bill of 1950,(8) the 
following amendment was offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 3734 (Committee on Appropriations).
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 3141, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new paragraph:
        ``Tennessee-Tombigbee inland waterway: For the prosecution of 
    the works of improvement with respect to the Tombigbee and 
    Tennessee Rivers heretofore authorized by law (Public Law 522, 79th 
    Cong.) $3,000,000.''

[[Page 8239]]

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

        Mr. [Clarence A.] Cannon [of Missouri]: I make the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is not germane at this 
    point in the bill, and therefore not in order.

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

        This is the part of the bill that covers projects of this kind. 
    I have prepared this amendment to carry out the mandate of Congress 
    2 years ago and the recommendation of the Army engineers. This 
    amendment merely introduces a new section after line 8 on page 8 
    and provides for funds to begin construction of this great inland 
    waterway. . . .

    A further point of order was made as follows:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: The provision for rivers and 
    harbors is entirely included in the paragraph beginning at line 10 
    on page 5 of the bill and ending on line 8, page 8, and all 
    amendments relating to additional rivers and harbors projects would 
    have to be offered within that paragraph. . . .
        I think that it must be offered as an amendment to the figure 
    $176,000,000 on page 6, line 22, where all provisions for rivers 
    and harbors are included.

    The ruling of the Chairman (10) was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    paragraph of the bill now under consideration relates to rivers and 
    harbors, maintenance and improvements of existing river and harbor 
    works. The gentleman from Mississippi offers an amendment . . . 
    which seeks to add a new paragraph under the same heading of rivers 
    and harbors, maintenance and improvements of existing river and 
    harbor work. The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    pending amendment relates to the prosecution of work on 
    improvements with respect to certain rivers as heretofore 
    authorized by law. The Chair is constrained to believe that the 
    amendment is in order as a new paragraph and, therefore, overrules 
    the point of order.

Appropriation Bill--Amendment To Raise Revenue

Sec. 15.43 To a bill appropriating money, an amendment proposing to 
    raise revenue is not germane.

    For discussion of this principle, see 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 3038; and see the proceedings of Apr. 26, 1932, at 75 Cong. Rec. 
8982, 8983, 72d Cong. 1st Sess. See also clause 5(b) of Rule XXI as 
added by the 98th Congress in 1983, providing that: No bill or joint 
resolution carrying a tax or tariff measure shall be reported by any 
committee not having jurisdiction to report tax and tariff measures, 
nor shall an amendment in the House or proposed by the Senate carrying 
a tax or tariff measure be

[[Page 8240]]

in order during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution 
reported by a committee not having that jurisdiction. A question of 
order on a tax or tariff measure in any such bill, joint resolution, or 
amendment thereto may be raised at any time. Rule XXI clause 5(b) is 
discussed further at Deschler's Procedure (1987 supp.) Ch. 17, 
Sec. Sec. 17.12 et seq. For general discussion of committee 
jurisdiction, see Ch. 17 Sec. Sec. 26 et seq., supra. Also of interest 
are Ch. 26 (legislation on appropriation bills) and Ch. 13 Sec. Sec. 13 
et seq. (House prerogatives with respect to revenue measures), supra.

Amendment Enlarging Scope of Provision by Striking Language

Sec. 15.44 To that provision in a general appropriation bill requiring 
    deposit in the Treasury of all receipts from sale of electric power 
    in the ``southeastern power area,'' an amendment striking out the 
    limitation with respect to geographic area was held to so enlarge 
    the scope of the provision sought to be amended as to present a 
    different subject and to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Interior 
Department Appropriation Bill of 1952,(11) an amendment was 
offered (12) as described above. A point of order was raised 
against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 3790 (Committee on Appropriations).
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 4294, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arkansas on the ground that it is not germane to the matter now 
    under consideration and that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill; and that it changes the scope and purpose of the bill.

    The Chairman,(13) in sustaining the point of order, 
cited the principle that, ``if the effect of striking out the language 
[is to so alter] the scope and import of the text as to present a 
subject different from that under consideration, it is not germane.'' 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 4295, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Different Methods of Apportionment of Funds Among States

Sec. 15.45 To an appropriation bill an amendment striking out a 
    legislative provision stating that certain funds ``shall be 
    apportioned among the States in accordance

[[Page 8241]]

    with regulations promulgated by the Secretary'' and inserting a 
    provision that such funds be made available to the states pursuant 
    to a specified provision of existing law was held to be in order as 
    a germane amendment which did not add further legislation.

    In the 83d Congress, the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
Education, and Welfare and related Independent Agencies Appropriation 
Bill of 1955 (15) was under consideration, which provided in 
part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 9447 (Committee on Appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Office of Vocational Rehabilitation

        . . . For payments to States . . . in accordance with the 
    Vocational Rehabilitation Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. ch. 4) . . . 
    $21,000,000. . . . Provided further, That the funds herein 
    appropriated shall be apportioned among the States in accordance 
    with regulations promulgated by the Secretary to insure equitable 
    maintenance and improvement of State programs . . . . 
    (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 100 Cong. Rec. 7963, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., June 9, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The following amendment was offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 7963, 7964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: 
    Page 17, line 15, strike out ``shall be apportioned among the'' and 
    strike out all of lines 16 through 20, inclusive, and in lieu 
    thereof insert the following: ``shall be made available to the 
    States in accordance with the provisions of section 3 (a) of Public 
    Law 113, 78th Congress, approved July 6, 1943.''

    Mr. John Taber, of New York, having raised a point of order against 
the amendment, the Chairman (18) ruled as follows: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Donald W. Nicholson (Mass.).
19. 100 Cong. Rec. 7964, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., June 9, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is well established that if a legislative provision is 
    permitted to remain in an appropriation bill, it may be amended by 
    a germane proposition which does not add further legislation. This 
    amendment provides a method of apportionment different from what is 
    specified in the pending bill. It deals with money in the bill and 
    its apportionment. Therefore, it is germane. The provision in the 
    bill certainly grants wide, discretionary power to the Secretary of 
    the Department as to how money in the paragraph shall be 
    apportioned among the States, and under this provision of the bill 
    the Secretary seems not to be bound by prior laws governing the 
    matter. The pending amendment is also legislation, but it would 
    narrow authority granted by the bill, and would confine the 
    Secretary to the provisions of an existing law. Therefore the 
    amendment does not add further legislation, and, as already stated, 
    it is germane. . . .

[[Page 8242]]

Appropriation To Maintain National Forests--Amendment To Make the 
    Appropriation Available for Payment to States

Sec. 15.46 To that paragraph in an appropriation bill making an 
    appropriation for protection, maintenance and development of 
    national forests, an amendment was held to be not germane which 
    sought to make the appropriation available for certain payments to 
    states.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Department of 
Agriculture Appropriations Bill of 1952,(20) an amendment 
was offered whose purpose was explained by the proponent as follows: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 3973 (Committee on Appropriations).
 1. 97 Cong. Rec. 5217, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., May 10, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clair] Engle [of California]: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of 
    this amendment is to earmark $1,350,000 which is money illegally 
    taken away from the western counties by the Forest Service. That 
    money was due to these counties under the Forest Management Act of 
    May 23, 1908, which provides that 25 percent of all moneys received 
    during any fiscal year from each national forest shall be paid at 
    the end of the year to the State in which the national forest is 
    situated, to be expended as the State legislatures may prescribe 
    for the benefit of public schools and public lands of the county or 
    counties in which the national forest is situated.

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

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: I make a point of order against 
    the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the paragraph 
    to which offered, that it is not authorized by law, and that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman, (2) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The paragraph to which the amendment is offered makes an 
    appropriation for specific purposes, namely, for the 
    ``administration, protection, use, maintenance, improvement, and 
    development of the national forests,'' thus the paragraph provides 
    money for narrowly defined use only on national forests, which 
    belong to the Federal Government.
        The amendment in question seeks to make available a part of 
    this appropriation for a purpose entirely different from the 
    purposes spelled out in the paragraph of the bill. . . . Regardless 
    of the use to which the States could put the money, the payment of 
    claims to States as outlined . . . is in no wise germane to the 
    administration, protection, et cetera, of national forests. 
    Building State roads and schools is even further remote from 
    expenditures on Federal forests.

[[Page 8243]]

Provisions Restricting Funds for Activities of Legal Services 
    Corporation--Amendment Applying Some Substantive Provisions of 
    Federal Law to Corporation

Sec. 15.47 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    subjecting funds for the Legal Services Corporation to a 
    comprehensive series of restrictions on its activities for that 
    fiscal year and reconstituting its board of directors, a proposed 
    amendment also applying to that corporation ``with respect to the 
    use of funds in the bill'' certain substantive provisions of 
    Federal criminal and civil law not otherwise applicable to it was 
    held not germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 26, 1989, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 2991, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990, are discussed 
in Sec. 34.37, infra.

Unrelated Method of Reducing Expenditure

Sec. 15.48 To a joint resolution providing for continuing 
    appropriations for certain governmental functions pending enactment 
    of regular appropriation bills and curtailing certain government 
    expenditures, an amendment requiring the Bureau of the Budget to 
    compile and report to each Member of the House the total federal 
    expenditures in his congressional district and directing the 
    Members to take certain steps to effect a reduction in 
    expenditures, was ruled not germane as a method of reducing 
    expenditures unrelated to reductions in the joint resolution.

    In the 90th Congress, a joint resolution (3) was under 
consideration continuing appropriations for fiscal 1968. The following 
proceedings (4) related to the propriety of a proposed 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.J. Res. 888 (Committee on Appropriations).
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 29290, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 18, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New 
        Jersey] Strike out everything after the first paragraph and add 
        the following after the first paragraph:
            ``The Bureau of the Budget shall . . . submit to each 
        Member of the House of Representatives a list of federal 
        expenditures . . . in the congressional district represented by 
        each Member . . . for the 1968 fiscal year.

[[Page 8244]]

            ``. . . Each Member . . . shall . . . submit to the 
        chairman of the House Appropriations Committee a list of 
        recommended elimination or reduction of Federal spending in the 
        congressional district represented by him or her . . . .''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to the joint resolution. It would impose additional duties on the 
    Bureau of the Budget and would require reports of committees which 
    are not now required. . . .
        Mr. Joelson: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is directed at the 
    reduction of expenditures in each congressional district to the 
    tune of 5 percent of the total expenditures in each district. As I 
    understand the resolution under consideration, its purpose is to 
    reduce spending by 5 percent. My amendment would merely establish a 
    different way of accomplishing this purpose. Therefore, I submit 
    that the amendment is germane.
        The Chairman: (5) Reading the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey, in the opinion of the Chair the 
    amendment includes a directive to the Bureau of the Budget and 
    provides for an investigation by Members of the House and a review 
    by the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair thinks the points 
    made by the gentleman from Texas are well taken. The Chair sustains 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Authorizing President To Make Reductions With Assistance of 
    Budget Director--Amendment To Authorize Budget Director To Hold 
    Certain Funds in Reserve or Make Certification as to Necessity for 
    Release

Sec. 15.49 Where an amendment to a general appropriation bill sought to 
    reduce appropriations and contract authorizations and to authorize 
    the President to make such reductions with the assistance of the 
    Director of the Bureau of the Budget, a substitute for such 
    amendment was held to be germane and not to add additional 
    legislation which required the Director of the Bureau of the Budget 
    to place in reserve, from funds available for administrative 
    expenses, certain amounts not to be released for expenditure unless 
    the Director certifies that maintenance of essential government 
    services so requires.

    In the 81st Congress, during proceedings relating to a general 
appropriation bill for 1951,(6) an

[[Page 8245]]

amendment was under consideration which provided: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 7786 (Committee on Appropriations).
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 6812, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., May 10, 1950. See also 
        Sec. 15.50, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: On page 
    411, following line 21, insert a new chapter, as follows:

     ``Chapter X-A. General Reductions in Appropriations and Contract 
                               Authorizations

        ``Reductions in appropriations and contract authorizations 
    contained in this act are hereby made in the sum of $500,000,000 
    [and the President is hereby authorized, with the aid and 
    assistance of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, to make 
    such reductions totaling $500,000,000 in appropriations and 
    contract authorizations contained in this act, including funds for 
    Government corporations]. . . .''

    Despite its legislative features, no point of order was made 
against the Thomas amendment. To such amendment, the following 
amendment was offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 6813.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence A.] Cannon [of Missouri] as 
    a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Thomas: On page 411, 
    after line 21, insert the following:
        ``In apportioning funds for the fiscal year 1951, the Director 
    of the Bureau of the Budget shall place in reserve not less than 5 
    percent of the amounts available for administrative expenses and 
    such reserves shall not be released for expenditure unless the 
    Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall certify that maintenance 
    of essential Government service so requires.''

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

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment submitted by the gentleman 
    from Missouri on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, that it adds additional duties to be performed 
    by an executive officer of the Government.

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

        The Chair has examined the amendment very carefully and is of 
    the opinion that the amendment is in order as a substitute for the 
    Thomas amendment. The Chair might point out that the Thomas 
    amendment contained some legislative features. The substitute 
    offered by the gentleman from Missouri is germane and does not, in 
    the opinion of the Chair, add any additional legislation. The 
    Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Amendment to Legislative Provision

Sec. 15.50 Where an amendment to a general appropriation bill is 
    technically improper because proposing a change in existing law, 
    but is per

[[Page 8246]]

    mitted to remain through the failure to raise a point of order, the 
    amendment may be perfected by germane amendments.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a general 
appropriation bill,(10) an amendment was under consideration 
authorizing the President, assisted by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget, to make certain reductions in 
appropriations.(11) To such amendment, an amendment was 
offered to require the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to place in 
reserve a certain portion of the amounts available for administrative 
expenses, such reserves not to be released for expenditure except under 
certain conditions.(12) In ruling on a point of order made 
by Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, the Chairman (13) 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 7786 (Committee on Appropriations).
11. See 96 Cong. Rec. 6812, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., May 10, 1950. See also 
        Sec. 15.49, supra.
12. Id. at p. 6813.
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] has offered a 
    substitute amendment which has been reported. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] has made a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chair . . . is of the opinion that the amendment is in 
    order as a substitute for the Thomas amendment. The Chair might 
    point out that the Thomas amendment contains some legislative 
    features. The substitute offered by the gentleman from Missouri is 
    germane and does not . . . add any additional legislation.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Expenditure Limitation in Dollar Amount - Amendment Increasing 
    Limitation Pursuant to Formula

Sec. 15.51 To a provision in a general appropriation bill 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 was held to be germane.

    On May 21, 1969,(14) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a section of an appropriation bill setting a 
limitation on expenditures for the fiscal year at $192,900,000,000. An 
amendment was offered increasing the limitation by an amount equal to 
certain budgetary fixed costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 13271, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11400, Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, on the

[[Page 8247]]

grounds that it constituted legislation. Acknowledging that legislative 
provisions in that portion of the bill itself were not subject to the 
point of order, because the House had adopted a resolution 
(15) waiving such 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, 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 [Chet Holifield, of California]: 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.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[[Page 7385]]
 
Sec. 16. Consent Calendar Bills

    The rule requiring germaneness of amendments is applicable to 
amendments, including a committee amendment, to a Consent Calendar 
bill.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See, for example, Sec. 16.1, 
        infra.

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

Appointment of Additional Army Officers--Amendment To Establish 
    Optometry Corps

Sec. 16.1 To a bill to provide for the appointment of additional 
    commissioned officers in the regular army, a committee amendment 
    providing

[[Page 8248]]

    for the establishment of an Optometry Corps in the Medical 
    Department of the Army was held to be not germane.

    The following proceedings in the 79th Congress (17) 
related to a question of the germaneness of a committee amendment to 
the above-described Consent Calendar bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 9111, 9112, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 16, 1946. The 
        Speaker was Sam Rayburn (Tex.); under consideration was H.R. 
        6817 (Committee on Military Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 6817) to provide for the 
    appointment of additional commissioned officers in the Regular 
    Army, and for other purposes. . . .
        With the following committee amendment:

            After line 14, page 1, of the bill add the following:
            ``Sec. 2. There is hereby established in the Medical 
        Department of the Army, a corps to be known as the Optometry 
        Corps. . . .
            ``Sec. 3. To be eligible for appointment in the Optometry 
        Corps, a candidate must be a graduate of a recognized optometry 
        school or college approved by the Surgeon General.''. . . 

        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole of New York: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the committee amendment on the ground that it is 
    not germane to the bill.
        The Speaker: The Chair holds that the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from New York is well taken and sustains the point of 
    order.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 17. In General; Amendment to Special Rule; Amendment to Concurrent 
    Resolution


    The rule requiring germaneness of amendments has been applied to 
many forms of propositions having amendatory effect. Similar variety of 
application can be found with respect to the matter proposed to be 
amended.
    The form in which an amendment is offered, or the form of the 
proposition to which it is offered, may affect the determination of 
whether the amendment is germane. Thus, whether an amendment adds a new 
title to a bill (18) or adds language to an existing title 
(19) may affect the determination of whether the amendment 
is germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 19, infra.
19. See Sec. 19, infra.

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

[[Page 8249]]

    When judging the germaneness of an amendment to a proposition under 
consideration (and originating) in the House, the amendment must relate 
to the subject matter of the pending text under immediate 
consideration. In sections 2, supra, and 18, infra, it is demonstrated 
that an amendment must be germane to the pending portion of the bill to 
which offered, or to the amendment to which offered, as the case may 
be, whether the amendment is in the form of a motion to strike out and 
insert, to strike out, or to insert. Similarly, section 21, infra, 
indicates that perfecting amendments to amendments in the nature of a 
substitute or to substitute amendments need to be germane to the 
inserted language contained in said substitutes, it being irrelevant 
whether or not the perfecting amendment might be germane to the 
underlying (perhaps broader) bill which said substitute seeks to strike 
out and replace. The language of the underlying bill proposed to be 
stricken is not taken into consideration when determining the 
germaneness of a second degree amendment to a substitute proposing to 
insert other language. It is only the pending text under immediate 
consideration against which the germaneness of proposed amendments 
thereto is judged. This test of germaneness is consistent with Rule XIX 
governing the permissible degree of amendments in the House (for 
general discussion of amendments, see Volume 9 of this work). At this 
stage the House has not finally adopted any version of a House-passed 
bill and is free to reject the pending amendment(s) and proceed to 
other differently drafted amendments which may present another test of 
germaneness to the bill as a whole.

        An amendment offered to change a concurrent resolution to a 
    joint resolution would probably not be germane since the 
    fundamental purpose of a joint resolution is to enact a law and not 
    just state the sense of Congress as to a matter in question. 
    Precedents which appear to be to the contrary involved instances in 
    which the House was proceeding by unanimous consent.(20) 
    In another instance, a motion to recommit a simple resolution with 
    instructions to substitute therefor a Senate-passed bill was ruled 
    out as not germane on substantive grounds, but the Chair indicated 
    in passing that such a point of order would probably rest also on 
    the basis that a bill has the force of law, whereas a resolution 
    does not.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1037, 1046, 1075.
21. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
consideration of a bill relating to a

[[Page 8250]]

certain subject may not be amended by a proposition providing for the 
consideration of another and not germane subject matter.(22) 
To a special order providing for the consideration of one measure, an 
amendment providing for the consideration of (and waiving points of 
order against) an unrelated and nongermane measure is itself not 
germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2956; 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5834-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Committee on Rules may report as part of a special 
order provisions making in order any amendment, whether or not germane, 
a special order providing for the consideration of a bill may not be 
amended on the floor of the House to make in order the consideration of 
an amendment which under the precedents of the House would not be 
germane if offered to that bill.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For discussion of proceedings under a special rule waiving points 
        of order based on germaneness, see Sec. 45, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule Applicable Only to Amendments

Sec. 17.1 The germaneness rule applies to amendments and not to 
    language of the bill as introduced.

    Where, during consideration of a bill (2) generally 
making appropriations for foreign aid, objection was made by Mr. Harold 
R. Gross, of Iowa, to a provision relating to allowances for postage 
stamps and other items for Members, the Chairman (3) ruled 
as follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 9499 (Committee on Appropriations).
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 24753, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 16, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This matter is a part of the bill reported to the House and now 
    being considered in the Committee of the Whole, a general 
    appropriation bill. The Chair cannot sustain a point of order on 
    the basis that it does not relate to some other matter in the 
    appropriation bill. It is part of the bill before the Committee of 
    the Whole.

Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 17.2 A pro forma amendment was held to be germane to a bill which 
    sought to repeal a section of existing law and which was being 
    considered under an open rule.

    The following exchange took place in the 89th Congress: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 18639, 18640, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and 
        Labor) repealing section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations 
        Act. See Sec. 41.2, infra, for further discussion of the bill.

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

[[Page 8251]]

        The Chairman: (6) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert] rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last 
    word. . . .
        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, in view of 
    the past rulings of the Chair in relation to amendments to this 
    bill as to their being germane, I submit the gentleman's amendment 
    is not germane.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Chairman, there was never a point of order less 
    in order than the point the gentleman just made.
        Mr. Chairman, there are words in this bill and they can be 
    stricken.
        The Chairman: The Chairman overrules the point of order.

    Mr. Albert, upon being recognized, made these general observations 
about the ``germaneness'' rule: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 111 Cong. Rec. 18640, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [The rule of germaneness] is a rule which this Congress 
    has followed since 1789. It is a rule which has been insisted upon 
    by Democrats and Republicans alike ever since the Democratic and 
    Republican Parties have been in existence.
        It is the rule without which this House could never complete 
    its legislative program if there happened to be a substantial 
    minority in opposition.
        One of the great things about the House of Representatives and 
    one of the things that distinguish it from other legislative bodies 
    is that we do operate on the rule of germaneness.
        No legislative body of this size could ever operate unless it 
    did comply with the rule of germaneness. . . .

Amendments to Special Rules--Amendment Providing for Consideration of 
    Nongermane Matter

Sec. 17.3 To a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules 
    providing for the consideration of a bill on one subject, an 
    amendment waiving the germaneness rule to provide for the 
    additional consideration of an unrelated amendment to the bill is 
    not germane; the provisions of Rule XVI clause 7 apply to 
    amendments to special rules, in order to prohibit that from being 
    accomplished indirectly which cannot under the germaneness rule be 
    done by direct amendment.

    On May 29, 1980,(8) the precedents (cited in the 
Speaker's ruling) which preclude the offering of a nongermane amendment 
to a special order that would substitute the consideration of one 
proposition for another unrelated proposition, were extended to 
preclude the offering of an amendment to a special rule which

[[Page 8252]]

would have permitted the additional consideration of a nongermane 
amendment to a bill. During consideration of a resolution reported from 
the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a joint 
resolution relating to a temporary extension of the public debt limit, 
an amendment to the resolution was proposed, to make in order an 
amendment to the joint resolution disapproving an import fee imposed by 
the President pursuant to the Windfall Profit Tax Act. The resolution 
reported from the Committee on Rules stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 12667, 12668, 12672, 12673, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. 7428)) to extend the present public debt limit 
    through June 30, 1980, the first reading of the bill shall be 
    dispensed with, and all points of order against the bill for 
    failure to comply with the provisions of clause 5, rule XXI are 
    hereby waived. 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 Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as 
    having been read for amendment under the five-minute rule. No 
    amendment to the bill shall be in order except amendments 
    recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, which shall not be 
    subject to amendment. 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 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. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I will oppose the 
    previous question so that I can offer a substitute rule that will 
    make in order an amendment that will forbid the President to impose 
    the 10-cents-a-gallon import fee. May I urge opposition to the 
    previous question which will, in fact, be a vote on whether one is 
    for or against the 10-cent-a-gallon increase in gasoline and oil 
    prices in this country. . . .
        The Speaker: (9) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Richard W.] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object 
    to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    74, nays 312, not voting 47, as follows: . . .
        So the previous question was not ordered. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute.

[[Page 8253]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Bauman: Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            ``, 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. 7428) to extend the present 
        public debt limit through June 30, 1980, the first reading of 
        the bill shall be dispensed with, and all points of order 
        against the bill for failure to comply with the provisions of 
        clause 5, rule XXI are hereby waived. . . . No amendment to the 
        bill shall be in order except amendments recommended by the 
        Committee on Ways and Means, which shall not be subject to 
        amendment, and it shall further be in order, any rule of the 
        House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider an amendment 
        consistent of the provisions of House Joint Resolution 531 as 
        reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. Debate on said 
        amendment shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on Ways and Means. . . .

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
    substitute offered by the gentleman from Maryland is nongermane to 
    House Resolution 682, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 
    7428, the temporary extension of the debt limit.
        Mr. Speaker, it is a basic premise of parliamentary procedure 
    that it is not permissible to do indirectly by amendment to a rule 
    what may not be done directly. In other words, it is not 
    permissible to offer to a resolution providing a special order for 
    one bill, an amendment to include another unrelated bill.
        House Resolution 682 only makes in order H.R. 7428, the 
    temporary extension of the debt limit. An amendment to disapprove 
    the oil import fee is not germane to H.R. 7428. Therefore, it is 
    not germane to offer a substitute amendment for the rule which 
    would make in order, by waiving the germaneness rule, an amendment 
    otherwise not germane to the original proposition--in this instance 
    H.R. 7428.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Bauman: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, the point of order goes to the heart of the 
    question of germaneness. There is no question that if the Committee 
    on Rules had reported the rule now pending that I proposed, House 
    Joint Resolution 531 would in fact have been in order as an 
    amendment because the Committee on Rules has the power to make it 
    in order.
        Certainly the subject matter dealt with, that is to say the 
    importation taxation of crude oil and the gasoline import fee, is 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means as is 
    the debt limit extension. I think, because of the overall question 
    of economic policy involved in a 30-day extension of the national 
    debt limit and the amount of revenue raised by the import fee, that 
    they are in fact related very intimately, and I would suggest that 
    the subject matter is germane. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair is guided by several precedents in determining 
    whether an

[[Page 8254]]

    amendment to an order of business resolution, making in order an 
    amendment which is not germane to the bill, should be held not 
    germane to the resolution. The decisions contained in Hinds' 
    Precedents, volume V, sections 5834 through 5836 stand for the 
    proposition that it is not in order to substitute the consideration 
    of one measure for the consideration of another unrelated measure 
    by amendment to an order of business resolution. As cited on page 
    491 of the House Rules and Manual, on September 14, 1950, the House 
    had under consideration a special order from the Committee on Rules 
    taking from the Speaker's table a House bill with Senate 
    amendments, disagreeing to said amendments and agreeing to a 
    conference. To that resolution, an amendment was offered providing 
    that all Senate amendments except one be disagreed to, that the 
    House amend one of the Senate amendments, insist thereon, and agree 
    to a conference. The Senate amendment at issue proposed a study of 
    excess profits tax legislation, and the proposed amendment thereto 
    would have enacted excess-profits tax legislation, and sent that 
    amendment to conference. Speaker Rayburn ruled that the amendment 
    was not germane to the resolution, stating specifically that it was 
    ``a rule long established that a resolution from the Committee on 
    Rules providing for the consideration of a bill relating to a 
    certain subject may not be amended by a proposition providing for 
    the consideration of another and not germane subject matter.''
        The Chair has anticipated similar points of order against 
    amendments to order of business resolutions in the past, and has 
    been prepared to rule, as he does now, that such an amendment is 
    not permitted to an order of business resolution under clause 7, 
    rule XVI. For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Missouri, 
    and because a viable mechanism exists within the rules of the House 
    and within the Committee on Rules to address the issues presented 
    by the pending amendment, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 17.4 A resolution providing for the consideration of a bill 
    relating to a certain subject may not be amended by a proposition 
    providing for consideration of another matter which is not germane.

    On Sept. 14, 1950, the Speaker cited this long-standing principle 
in ruling on a point of order against an amendment that had been 
offered after rejection of the previous question on a special rule. 
(10) The Speaker ruled on that date that, to a resolution 
providing that the House disagree to a Senate amendment that directed a 
joint committee to conduct a study of excess-profits tax legislation 
and further directed the appropriate committee to report such 
legislation, an amendment providing that the House concur in the Senate 
amendment

[[Page 8255]]

with an amendment actually enacting excess-profits tax legislation was 
not germane. The proceedings are discussed in detail at Sec. 27.11, 
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H. Res. 842, providing for consideration of H.R. 8920, a bill to 
        reduce excise taxes and for other purposes, with Senate 
        amendments thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment Proposing Changes in Rules of House

Sec. 17.5 An amendment proposing changes in the Rules of the House is 
    not germane to a proposition not containing such changes; thus, to 
    a special order waiving certain points of order against a general 
    appropriation bill not reported for three days and containing 
    unauthorized items, legislation and reappropriations, but not 
    waiving points of order against any nongermane amendment, an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute waiving all points of order 
    against a nongermane amendment to be offered to the bill, 
    constituting a change in House Rules by providing a privileged 
    procedure for expedited review of an agency's regulations was held 
    not germane.

    During consideration of House Resolution 560 in the House on Aug. 
13, 1982,(11) the Speaker sustained a point of order against 
the amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 128 Cong. Rec. 20969, 20975-78, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo C.] Zeferetti [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 560 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolution waiving certain points of order against the bill 
        (H.R. 6957) making appropriations for the Departments of 
        Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
        agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983, and for 
        other purposes
            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order, clause 7, rule XXI to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, 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. 6957) making appropriations for 
        the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
        and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1983, and for other purposes. During the consideration of said 
        bill, all points of order against the following provisions in 
        said bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 
        2, rule XXI are hereby waived: beginning on page 3, line 1 
        through page 8, line 2; beginning on page 8, lines 14 through 
        20 . . . and all points of order against the following 
        provisions in said bill for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 6, rule XXI are hereby waived: beginning 
        on page 3, line 6 through page 4, line 14; beginning on page 7,

[[Page 8256]]

        line 1 through page 8, line 2 . . . Provided That in any case 
        where this resolution waives points of order against only a 
        portion of a paragraph, a point of order against any other 
        provision in such paragraph may be made only against such 
        provision and not against the entire paragraph.

        [A motion for the previous question was rejected.]
        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Lott:
            Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: ``that upon the adoption of this 
        resolution it shall be in order, clause 7, Rule XXI to the 
        contrary notwithstanding, to move that the House resolve itself 
        into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
        for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6957) making appropriations 
        for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, 
        and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1983, and for other purposes. During the consideration of said 
        bill, all points of order against the following provisions in 
        said bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 
        2, Rule XXI are hereby waived: beginning on page 3, line 1 
        through page 8, line 2 . . . It shall be in order to consider 
        amendments to said bill printed in the Congressional Record of 
        August 12, 1982, by and if offered by Representative Broyhill 
        of North Carolina and Representative Levitas of Georgia, and 
        all points of order against said amendments are hereby 
        waived.''. . .

        Mr. Zeferetti: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) is not germane to House Resolution 560, 
    the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6957, the bill 
    making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
    State, the Judiciary, and related agencies.
        Under the rules of the House and the precedents by which we are 
    guided it is not in order to amend an order of business resolution 
    or, as we commonly refer to it, a rule, to accomplish by indirect 
    means that which may not be achieved by direct means.
        In other words, it is not in order to amend a rule to allow the 
    offering of an amendment to a bill or resolution which otherwise 
    would not be germane.
        Mr. Speaker, the Broyhill-Levitas amendment provides 
    legislative veto over certain FTC regulations and would provide 
    expedited procedures in the House and an accelerated discharge 
    petition procedure.
        Mr. Speaker, this amendment amends the rules of the House and 
    is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee and not 
    germane to this bill.
        The Chair has very clearly set out this principle. Most 
    recently on May 29, 1980, the Chair sustained a point of order 
    which was made against the offering of an amendment to House 
    Resolution 682 providing for the consideration of H.R. 7428, the 
    temporary extension of the debt limit.
        In that instance an amendment to the rule was offered to allow 
    an oil import fee amendment to be offered to the debt limit bill.
        The amendment obviously was not germane to the bill and the 
    Chair

[[Page 8257]]

    ruled that an amendment to the resolution making it in order also 
    would not be germane.
        The substitute amendment to the rule offered by the gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) would make in order amendments to H.R. 
    6957 which are not germane to the bill and, therefore, clearly 
    would not be germane to House Resolution 560. . . .
        Mr. Lott: . . . The point of order has been made on this 
    substitute rule saying it is not germane to the original rule.
        The test of germaneness, though, is whether an amendment 
    addresses the same purpose as that which seeks to amend the purpose 
    of the House Resolution 560, and that purpose is to waive certain 
    points of order against numerous provisions of the bill, H.R. 6957; 
    namely, either legislative provision or unauthorized programs or 
    agencies.
        This substitute rule only makes one minimal change at the end 
    of the rule which was read. It makes in order two amendments 
    printed in yesterday's Record and waives all points of order 
    against those amendments.
        The purpose of this substitute is, therefore, the same as the 
    purpose of the original rule, to waive points of order against 
    certain legislative provisions.
        I do not think it will do any good to claim that this rule is 
    nongermane because one of the amendments goes to the jurisdiction 
    of another committee, since all of the legislative provisions go to 
    the jurisdiction of a number of other legislative committees and 
    that is the purpose of the rule originally offered and my 
    substitute. . . .
        The Speaker: (12) . . . The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeferetti) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi 
    (Mr. Lott) to House Resolution 560 is not germane to that special 
    order as reported from the Committee on Rules. Specifically, House 
    Resolution 560 waives certain points of order against H.R. 6957, 
    the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriation bill for 
    fiscal 1983, because the report on that bill has not been available 
    for 3 days and because certain provisions in that bill are 
    unauthorized by law or contain changes in existing law in violation 
    of clause 2, rule XXI. Nothing in that special order waives points 
    of order against nongermane amendments which might be offered to 
    the bill.
        The precedents of the House on page 492 of the House Rules and 
    Manual indicate that a resolution reported from the Committee on 
    Rules providing for consideration of a bill relating to a certain 
    subject may not be amended by an amendment which would permit the 
    additional consideration of a nongermane amendment to the bill. In 
    the opinion of the Chair, the amendment to be made in order not 
    only constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill but would be 
    nongermane if offered to H.R. 6957. Nothing in that general 
    appropriation bill amends the rules of the House, and the amendment 
    which would be made in order provides a privileged procedure for 
    expedited review of FTC regulations, and constitutes a change in 
    the rules of the House. The precedents indicate that

[[Page 8258]]

    such rules changes are not germane to a bill not containing rules 
    changes. P. 506--House Rules and Manual. Although the procedures 
    contained in the amendment are the same as those currently 
    contained in the FTC Improvement Act of 1980 with respect to 
    congressional review, section 21 of that act ceases to be effective 
    after September 30, 1982. The amendment would, therefore, 
    constitute a change in law for fiscal 1983. The Chair rules that 
    the amendment is not germane to House Resolution 560 and sustains 
    the point of order.

Amendment to Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 17.6 While a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of 
    the Senate to a day certain is amendable, the Speaker indicated in 
    response to a parliamentary inquiry that an amendment providing a 
    sine die adjournment of the Senate would not be germane.

    The following perhaps jocose proceedings occurred on Mar. 13, 1974: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 6550, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker laid before the House the Senate concurrent 
    resolution (S. Con. Res. 75) providing for an adjournment of the 
    Senate from Wednesday, March 13, 1974, to Tuesday, March 19, 1974.
        The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution as follows:

                                S. Con. Res. 75

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That when the Senate completes its business today, 
        Wednesday, March 13, 1974, it stand adjourned until noon, 
        Tuesday, March 19, 1974.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . . [W]hat is the import of the resolution?
        The Speaker: (14) It is an adjournment resolution 
    enacted by the Senate, for the Senate only, until Tuesday next. The 
    Senate is asking the consent of the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Is it subject to amendment, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: It is a privileged resolution.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I would be constrained to make it a 
    sine die adjournment for the other body.
        The Speaker: The Chair feels that that is not germane.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 18. Amendment Offered to Particular Paragraph, Section, or Title

    An amendment must be germane to the particular 
paragraph,(15) section or title of the bill to which it is 
offered. Thus, the Chairman may rule out an amendment as not being 
germane to that section to which it was offered as a motion to strike 
out

[[Page 8259]]

and insert, without passing on the germaneness of the amendment to the 
bill as a whole.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See, for example, 89 Cong. Rec. 1158, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 
        19, 1943.
16. See Sec. 18.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To an amendment proposing to add a new paragraph to a section of a 
bill, an amendment providing that certain procedures not be permitted 
``under this section'' has been ruled out as not germane, as not 
confined to the narrow subject of the amendment to which 
offered.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 18.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that an amendment, ruled out as not germane to 
that part of an appropriation bill to which offered, has been permitted 
by unanimous consent to be offered to a different paragraph to which it 
was germane where the reading of the bill for amendment had progressed 
beyond the proper paragraph.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 18.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is, of course, proper to offer perfecting amendments to a title 
even when a motion to strike the matter sought to be amended is 
pending.(19) When such a perfecting amendment to text is 
offered pending a vote on a motion to strike out the same text, the 
perfecting amendment must be germane to the text to which offered, not 
to the motion to strike out.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. As to amendments generally, see Ch. 27.
20. See Sec. 19.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The germaneness of an amendment may depend on the point in the 
reading of the bill at which it is offered. It may happen that an 
amendment is ruled out because it is not germane to a particular part 
of the bill, and a similar amendment be allowed subsequently when the 
scope of the bill has been broadened by additional paragraphs passed in 
the reading.(1) An amendment that might be considered 
germane if offered at the end of the reading of the bill for amendment 
may not be germane if offered during the reading, before all the 
provisions of the bill are before the Committee of the Whole for 
consideration. On one occasion, during consideration of a bill relating 
only to procurements by the Department of Defense, an amendment 
concerned with duties of the Comptroller General in connection with 
defense contracts was at first ruled out as not germane to the part of 
the bill to which offered, since at that point in the reading of the 
bill no reference had been made to any agency of government other than 
the Department of Defense.(2) Subsequently, however, when 
the scope of the bill had been broadened by additional paragraphs 
passed in the reading,

[[Page 8260]]

a similar amendment was held to be in order.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id.
 2. See Sec. 18.1, infra.
 3. See Sec. 18.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where an amendment is offered to one part of a bill, a substitute 
amendment which relates to a different part of the bill is not germane 
to the original amendment.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the ruling of Chairman George A. Dondero (Mich.) at 94 Cong. 
        Rec. 7768, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1948. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6396 (Committee on the Judiciary), 
        relating to admission into the United States of certain 
        displaced persons.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review by Comptroller General of Defense Contracts

Sec. 18.1 During consideration of a bill authorizing military 
    procurement for the current fiscal year, an amendment authorizing 
    the Comptroller General to conduct certain audits of defense 
    projects and contracts and requiring designated contractors to file 
    certain data with the General Accounting Office was held to be not 
    germane to the portion of the bill to which offered.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the military 
procurement authorization bill for fiscal 1970,(5) the 
following amendment was offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 14000 (Committee on Armed Services).
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 28442, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 3, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles W.] Whalen [Jr., of Ohio]: 
    Add a new section to title IV:
        ``Sec. 410. (a) After January 1, 1970, the Secretary of 
    Defense, in cooperation with the Comptroller General, shall develop 
    a reporting system for major acquisition programs. . . .
        ``(e) The Comptroller General shall, through test checks, and 
    other means, make an independent audit of the reporting system 
    developed by the Secretary of Defense. . . .
        ``(f) The Comptroller General shall make independent audits of 
    major acquisition programs and related contracts where, in his 
    opinion, the costs incurred or to be incurred . . . and the 
    effectiveness of performance achieved . . . are such as to warrant 
    such audits. . . .
        ``(g) Procuring agencies and contractors holding contracts 
    selected by the Comptroller General for audit under subsection (f) 
    shall file with the General Accounting Office such data, in such 
    form and detail as may be prescribed by the Comptroller General, as 
    the Comptroller General deems necessary or appropriate to assist 
    him in carrying out his duties.''

    No reference to the Comptroller General or the General Accounting 
Office had been made in the reading of the bill up to the point at 
which the amendment was of

[[Page 8261]]

fered. The following point of order was raised against the amendment:

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order that the amendment is not germane to title 
    IV. . . .

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 28443, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 3, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Whalen) has offered an amendment 
    inserting a new section in title IV of the bill. . . . The 
    amendment would give the Comptroller General authority to make 
    independent audits of the reporting system developed by the 
    Secretary, as well as authority to obtain records from the defense 
    contractors involved.
        Nothing in this title involves the General Accounting Office or 
    the Comptroller General. . . .
        . . . The amendment is not germane to this title and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

    A similar amendment was, however, held to be germane when offered 
after the reading of further provisions of the bill.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 18.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.2 To a military procurement authorization bill, which stated in 
    its ``general provisions'' that ``the Committees on Armed Services 
    are authorized to utilize the services . . . of any government 
    agency,'' an amendment directing the Comptroller General to review 
    defense contracts was held to be germane.

    On Oct. 3, 1969, during proceedings relating to a military 
procurement authorization bill for fiscal 1970,(10) Mr. 
Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, offered a motion to strike all of the 
title under consideration.(11) The following amendment was 
then offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 14000 (Committee on Armed Services).
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 3, 1969.
12. Id. at pp. 28454, 28455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana] to 
    title V: On page 17, immediately after line 13 insert the 
    following:
        ``Sec. 505. (a) The Comptroller General of the United States 
    (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Comptroller 
    General'') is authorized and directed, as soon as practicable after 
    the date of enactment of this section, to conduct a study and 
    review on a selective basis of the profits made by contractors and 
    subcontractors on [certain] contracts . . . .
        ``(b) Any contractor or subcontractor referred to in subsection 
    (a) of this section shall, upon the request of the Comptroller 
    General, prepare and submit to the General Accounting Office such 
    information as the Comptroller General determines necessary or ap

[[Page 8262]]

    propriate in conducting any study and review authorized by 
    subsection (a) of this section.''

    A point of order was raised against the Jacobs amendment, as 
follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 28455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    submit that this amendment is not germane because the amendment 
    before embodied is to strike the section. How can you have an 
    amendment to a section that is to be stricken?

    The Chairman (14) stated in response:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has gone through the precedents and has found that 
    where the Committee of the Whole has agreed that the further 
    reading of a title of a bill is dispensed with and open to 
    amendment at any point, a perfecting amendment adding a new section 
    may be offered notwithstanding the fact that an amendment proposing 
    to strike out the title is pending. Perfecting amendments to a 
    title in a bill may be offered while there is pending a motion to 
    strike out such title.

    The Chairman then rejected a further contention by Mr. Joe Skubitz, 
of Kansas, that the Jacobs' amendment was not germane to ``the Stratton 
amendment.'' Subsequently, the following exchange occurred:

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. My recollection 
    is that on a previous amendment, the Chair ruled it out of order 
    because it brought in another agency.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the ruling discussed in Sec. 18.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: That was because the Whalen amendment was not 
    germane to that title or section of the bill.
        Mr. Stratton: Does not that same point lie against this 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair has ruled that the Jacobs amendment is 
    germane to Title V.

Naval Authorization Bill

Sec. 18.3 To that section of a bill authorizing the President to 
    suspend certain naval construction in the event of naval arms 
    limitation agreements being entered into by the United States, an 
    amendment proposing certain fundamental naval policies and bearing 
    no relation to the section being amended was held not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a naval authorization bill (16) 
was under consideration which provided in part: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
17. See 83 Cong. Rec. 3698, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 10. That in the event of international agreement for the 
    further limitations of naval armament to which the United States is 
    signatory, the

[[Page 8263]]

    President is hereby authorized and empowered to suspend so much of 
    its naval construction as has been authorized as may be necessary 
    to bring the naval armament of the United States within the 
    limitation so agreed upon, except that such suspension shall not 
    apply to vessels actually under construction on the date of the 
    passage of this act.

    The following committee amendment was offered:

        Page 5, line 21, strike out all of section 10 and insert in 
    lieu thereof the following:
        ``Sec. 9. It is declared to be the fundamental naval policy of 
    the United States to maintain a Navy in sufficient strength to 
    guarantee our national security, not for aggression, but to guard 
    the continental United States. . . .
        ``It is further declared to be the policy of the United States 
    that an adequate naval defense means not only the protection of the 
    Canal Zone, Alaska, Hawaii, and our insular possessions, but also a 
    defense that will keep any potential enemy many hundred miles away 
    from our continental limits.''

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

        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: . . . There is not a 
    single word in this bill that pertains to anything else but the 
    building of various types of ships for the Navy. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this is an entirely new subject brought forward 
    in the form of an amendment which has for its purpose the 
    definition of a naval policy for the United States. I have some 
    doubt whether this would even come under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Naval Affairs; but whether it does or not, it is an 
    entirely new subject and one that cannot be offered as an amendment 
    to the bill we are considering at the present time.

    Mr. Maury Maverick, of Texas, in support of the point of order, 
stated:

        . . . [T]he amendment of the committee is not germane to this 
    bill. . . . The amendment claims to concern naval policy, but it 
    concerns foreign policy.

    The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
19. 83 Cong. Rec. 3699, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The sole ground upon which the Chair sustains the point of 
    order is that this amendment . . . is not germane to section 10, 
    for which it was substituted.
        The Chair does not believe it is necessary to pass upon the 
    question of whether the matter is germane to the whole bill or upon 
    the question of jurisdiction of committees of the House.

Neutrality Act--Amendment Concerning Export of Arms to Belligerents

Sec. 18.4 To that section of a joint resolution authorizing the 
    President to issue a proclamation that a state of war ex

[[Page 8264]]

    ists between foreign states, an amendment proposing that upon 
    issuance of such proclamation it shall be unlawful to export arms 
    or ammunition to such states was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of the Neutrality Act of 
1939,(20) an amendment was offered (1) as 
described above. Mr. Luther A. Johnson, of Texas, raised the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane to the section under 
consideration.(2) The Chairman, (3) in ruling on 
the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.J. Res. 306 (Committee on Foreign Affairs). See the section read 
        at 84 Cong. Rec. 8282, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1939.
 1. Id. at p. 8312.
 2. Id. at p. 8313.
 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that section 1 of the 
    pending resolution provides only that the President shall have 
    authority to issue a proclamation as to the existence of a state of 
    war between foreign states and to name those states. Paragraph (b) 
    of section 1 further provides that whenever the conditions which 
    caused the President to issue any proclamation under the authority 
    of this section has ceased to exist he shall revoke the same. . . .
        The Chair . . . invites attention to the provisions of section 
    4 which, among other things, provide that whenever the President 
    shall have issued a proclamation under the authority of section 1 
    it shall thereafter be unlawful except in accordance with such 
    rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe to export, 
    or transport, or attempt to export or transport . . . articles or 
    material.
        The Chair is . . . of the opinion that if the gentleman's 
    amendment be in order it would have to be offered to section 4 and 
    not to section 1. The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 18.5 To that section of a joint resolution authorizing the 
    President to issue a proclamation that a state of war exists 
    between foreign states, an amendment relating to shipment of arms 
    to belligerent states, and striking specified portions of the 
    entire joint resolution, was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, the Neutrality Act of 1939 (4) was 
under consideration, which provided in part: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.J. Res. 306 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 5. 84 Cong. Rec. 8282, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Section 1. (a) That whenever the President shall find that 
    there exists a state of war between foreign states . . . the 
    President shall issue a proclamation naming the states involved. . 
    . .

    The following amendment was offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at pp. 8313, 8314.

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

[[Page 8265]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew C.] Schiffler [of West 
    Virginia]: Strike out page 2, line 1, all of pages 2, 3, 4 . . . to 
    and including, and all of lines 1, 2, 3, 4 . . . and 17 on page 14, 
    and insert and include the following as a new paragraph:

                  ``Export of Other Articles and Materials

        ``Section 1. (a) Whenever the President shall have issued a 
    proclamation under the authority of section 1 of Senate Joint 
    Resolution 51 as enacted into law, first session, Seventy-fifth 
    Congress, and he shall thereafter find that the placing of 
    restrictions on the shipment of certain articles or materials in 
    addition to arms, ammunition, and implements of war from the United 
    States to belligerent states . . . is necessary to promote the 
    security . . . of the United States . . . he shall so proclaim, and 
    it shall thereafter be unlawful, except under such limitations and 
    exceptions as the President may prescribe . . . for any American 
    vessel to carry such articles or materials to any belligerent 
    state. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 8314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Luther A.] Johnson [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the section to 
    which it is offered.

    Mr. Schiffler contended that the amendment was germane ``because it 
may be considered as an amendment as well as a substitution for all of 
the provisions of House Joint Resolution 306.'' The Chairman 
(8) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Schiffler] offered an 
    amendment which, as the Chair understands it, in effect is to 
    strike out all after the enacting clause of the pending resolution 
    down to and including a certain part at page 13, which would 
    include the striking out of a number of provisions or sections of 
    the bill which have not yet been read.

    Relying on the rule that a substitute for an entire bill may be 
offered only after the first paragraph has been read or after the 
reading of the bill for amendment has been concluded,(9) the 
Chairman sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Chairman referred to an earlier ruling, appearing at 84 Cong. 
        Rec. 8288, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the above ruling, Mr. Harold Knutson, of Minnesota, had 
offered an amendment (10) which similarly related to 
shipment of materials to belligerent states and which sought to strike 
the first section of the resolution and insert other language. The 
Chairman ruled the amendment out of order because it affected all 
sections of the bill, not just the section sought to be 
amended.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 8311, 8312.
11. Id. at p. 8312.

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

[[Page 8266]]

Legislative Reorganization Bill--Amendment Referring to Practices 
    ``Under this Section''

Sec. 18.6 During consideration of that section of a legislative 
    reorganization bill modifying a rule of the House with respect to 
    calling committee meetings, it was held that, to an amendment to 
    such section adding a paragraph relating to selection of temporary 
    committee chairmen, an amendment referring to proxy voting and 
    other practices ``under this section'' was not germane.

    During consideration of that part of the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1970 (12) relating to the calling of committee 
meetings, the following amendment was offered: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 17654 (Committee on Rules).
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 24036, 24040, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 14, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: 
    Section 102 of title 1 is amended by adding a new subsection on 
    page 8 after line 19:
        ``(f) Whenever the chairman of any standing committee is unable 
    to discharge his responsibilities, the committee by majority vote 
    shall designate a member with full authority to act as chairman 
    until such time as the chairman is able to resume his 
    responsibilities.''

    To such amendment, an amendment was offered which stated: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 24040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Marion G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: to 
    the amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: add the following language to 
    the Fascell amendment, after the period:--``Proxy voting shall not 
    be permitted under this section and three (3) days notice of any 
    proposal under this section shall be given in writing to all 
    committee members.''

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

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: . . . We are not talking 
    about proxies in this particular section. I do not think the 
    amendment is germane to the amendment as offered by the gentleman 
    from Florida.

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

        Mr. Snyder: . . . [W]hile we are not talking about proxy voting 
    in this section, we are talking about the method by which you might 
    de-designate the chairman of the committee and in that regard and 
    when you do that by a vote, then, I think it should be germane. . . 
    .

    The Chairman,(15) without elaboration, ruled that the 
amendment was not germane to the Fascell amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).

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

[[Page 8267]]

Title of Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act Relating to Federal 
    Salaries--Amendment Concerning Appointment of Postmasters

Sec. 18.7 Where a bill consisted of three titles, relating respectively 
    to postal rates, federal salaries, and the mailability of certain 
    material, an amendment concerning the appointment of Postmasters by 
    the Postmaster General, which was offered to the title of the bill 
    relating to federal salaries, was held to be not germane to such 
    title.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Postal Revenue 
and Federal Salary Act of 1967,(16) the following amendment 
was offered to the bill: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 7977 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 28649, 28650, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 11, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: On 
    page 75, immediately below line 2, insert the following:

             ``Appointment of Postmasters by Postmaster General

        ``Sec. 223. Section 3311 (relating to method of appointment of 
    postmasters) of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as 
    follows:

        ```Sec. 3311. Method of appointment
        ```(a) The Postmaster General shall appoint postmasters at post 
    offices of the first, second, and third classes in the competitive 
    civil service without term. He shall make the appointments in 
    accordance with the civil service laws and rules. . . .'''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 28651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    title of the bill now under consideration and is not germane to the 
    bill itself.
        The bill now under consideration deals with salaries of the 
    classified service, the Foreign Service, and other salary systems 
    and procedures. There is nothing here about the appointment of 
    Federal employees.

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

        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: . . . The bill H.R. 7977 purports to 
    adjust certain postage rates, and for other purposes. Title II of 
    the bill, in various and sundry places in that title, at pages 75 
    and 76 particularly, title 39 of the United States Code, which is 
    the very title to which my amendment is directed, would be amended. 
    Therefore, it would seem to me most appropriate that this bill is 
    open to amendment in relation to title 39, since the bill itself is 
    aimed at that very title.

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles M. Price (Ill.).

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

[[Page 8268]]

        . . . The title under consideration deals solely with 
    compensation of governmental employees. The amendment deals with 
    the appointment of postmasters by the Postmaster General. The Chair 
    therefore holds that it is not germane to the title under 
    consideration and sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 7977, as reported to the House, 
consisted of three titles amending, respectively, three separate parts 
of title 39, USC: Title I of the bill amending the code to adjust 
postal rates; Title II amending the code to adjust federal salaries; 
and Title III amending the code to prohibit mailing of certain 
pandering materials. Had the Steiger amendment relating to the 
appointment of postmasters been offered as a new title at the end of 
the bill, with the purpose of amending a fourth part of Title 39, USC, 
relating to that subject, the proposed amendment probably would have 
been held to be germane.

``Miscellaneous'' Title of Agriculture Bill--Amendment Concerning 
    Determination as Made ``Under Various Provisions'' of Bill

Sec. 18.8 During consideration of a bill establishing programs for 
    producers of various agricultural commodities, it was held that, to 
    the title containing miscellaneous provisions, amendments were 
    germane which related to determination of the acreage ``eligible as 
    set aside under the various provisions of this Act,'' and to 
    certain restrictions on the use of such acreage.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Agricultural Act 
of 1970,(20) the following amendments were offered: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 18546 (Committee on Agriculture).
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 27499, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 5, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendments offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Page 
    57, beginning on line 21, insert:
        ``Sec. 805. The Secretary is directed to establish . . . an 
    inventory for each state which will show:
        ``(1) The cropland other than conserving base which was 
    diverted under a program or tilled in the crop years 1968 or 1969 
    or prior to August 1 in 1970; and
        ``(2) The total conserving base in 1970.
        ``Only the acreage in subsection (1) shall be eligible as set 
    aside under the various provisions of this Act. . . .''
        Page 57, after line 21, add the following new section:
        ``Sec. 806. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
    the Secretary shall not permit grazing or harvesting of any acreage 
    diverted or set aside pursuant to this Act. . . .''

[[Page 8269]]

    Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, having raised a point of order 
against the amendments, Mr. Findley stated in response:

        Mr. Chairman, this comes under the general provisions title of 
    the bill. The conserving base concept applies to wheat, feed 
    grains, and cotton. So it seems to me sufficient to offer the 
    amendment under the general provisions title rather than to offer 
    three separate amendments. Inasmuch as the subject matter of this 
    amendment is dealt with in its entirety by the bill itself, it 
    seems to me to be fairly germane.

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

        The Chair has examined the amendments. We are now on title 
    VIII, general and miscellaneous provisions of the bill. It is the 
    opinion of the Chair that the matters referred to in the amendments 
    do refer to matters that can be considered in the general and 
    miscellaneous provisions of the bill and are germane thereto. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Title of Revenue Bill Relating to Tax Liens--Amendment Concerning 
    Publication of Names

Sec. 18.9 To that title of a revenue bill relating to tax liens on 
    securities, transfers of worthless securities, and the like, an 
    amendment relating to the publication of names of taxpayers was 
    held not germane.

    On June 19, 1939, the Revenue Bill of 1939 (3) was under 
consideration, which provided in part: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 6851 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 4. See 84 Cong. Rec. 7500, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Title IV--Miscellaneous Amendments

        Sec. 402. Tax on transfers of worthless securities by executor, 
    etc.
        Section 1802(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to the 
    tax on transfers of capital stock and similar interests) is amended 
    by inserting at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
        ``The tax imposed by this subsection shall not be imposed upon 
    any delivery or transfer by an executor or administrator to a 
    legatee, heir, or distributee of shares or certificates of stock if 
    it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the value 
    of such shares or certificates is not greater than the amount of 
    the tax that would otherwise be imposed on such delivery or 
    transfer.''

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William J.] Miller [of Connecticut]: 
    Page 39, after the period on line 15, insert a new section, as 
    follows:

            It shall be unlawful for any person to sell . . . any copy 
        . . . of any

[[Page 8270]]

        list . . . authorized to be made public by this act or by any 
        prior act relating to the publication of information derived 
        from income-tax returns. . . .

    Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the title under consideration. The 
Chairman,(5) in sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The title under consideration deals with transfers of worthless 
    securities. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut 
    [Mr. Miller] deals with making public the names of income-tax 
    payers. The amendment is clearly not germane. . . .

    The following exchange ensued:(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 7500, 7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Miller: I intended to have [the amendment] read as a new 
    section.
        The Chairman: The Chair understood it was a new section under 
    title IV, and the amendment offered by the gentleman is not germane 
    to the subject matter of title IV.

--Amendment Concerning Excise Taxes

Sec. 18.10 To that title of a revenue bill relating to tax liens on 
    securities, transfers of worthless securities, and the like, an 
    amendment relating to excise taxes was held not germane.

    On June 19, 1939, the Revenue Bill of 1939 (7) was under 
consideration, containing provisions as described above.(8) 
The following amendment was offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 6851 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 8. See Sec. 18.9, supra, for further discussion of the provisions 
        cited.
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: On page 
    39, in line 15, insert a new section, as follows:
        ``Section 3424 (of the Internal Revenue Code) is amended by 
    striking out the following:
        ``The tax imposed by this subsection shall not apply to lumber 
    of northern white pine (Pinus strobus), Norway pine (Pinus 
    resinosa) and western white pine.''

    Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the title under consideration. The 
Chairman,(10) noting that, ``an amendment must be germane to 
the title under which it is offered,'' observed that, ``Section 3424 of 
the revenue law, sought to be amended . . . is classified in the 
general revenue law under `Manufacturers excise and import taxes,''' 
whereas the title under consideration related to taxes on securities. 
He then sustained the

[[Page 8271]]

point of order, and the following exchange ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mott: Suppose this amendment were offered as a new title in 
    the pending bill; would it then be germane or not? . . .
        The Chairman: If the Chair understands the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry, the Chair will state in reply that in the 
    Internal Revenue Code, section 3424, sought to be amended by the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon, is under the 
    classification of ``Manufacturers' excise and import taxes.'' Title 
    IV has nothing to do with that subject, but excise taxes are dealt 
    with under title I of the pending bill. Consequently, if the 
    amendment had been germane it would have been germane under title I 
    of the bill rather than under title IV. It would not be in order or 
    germane as a new title, by reason of the fact there is already a 
    title in the bill dealing with the subject matter to which the 
    amendment would have been germane.

Appropriation for Public Works--Amendment Proposing Funds for Survey

Sec. 18.11 To that section of an appropriation bill providing funds for 
    construction of public works, an amendment proposing funds for a 
    survey was held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(11) making appropriations for certain civil functions 
administered by the Department of the Army, an amendment was offered 
(12) as described above. Mr. Louis C. Rabaut, of Michigan, 
having raised a point of order (13) against the amendment, 
the Chairman (14) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 7509 (Committee on Appropriations).
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 10056, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 5, 1959.
13. Id. at p. 10057.
14. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment should have been offered under the section of the 
    bill dealing with general investigations and not the section 
    dealing with construction. The amendment is not germane to this 
    part of the bill.

Paragraph Appropriating Funds for Rural Electrification 
    Administration--Amendment Placing Prohibition on Use of Any Funds 
    in Bill

Sec. 18.12 To that paragraph of an agriculture appropriation bill 
    making appropriations for the Rural Electrification Administration, 
    an amendment providing ``That during the period of the war . . . no 
    part of [the] money appropriated under this bill shall be expended 
    for administrative services'' relating to the construction of 
    facilities in specified areas was held to be not germane.

[[Page 8272]]

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Agriculture 
Appropriation Bill of 1943,(15) an amendment was offered 
(16) as described above. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane. The 
Chairman, (17) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 6709 (Committee on Appropriations).
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 2445, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1942.
17. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman's amendment does not simply apply to rural 
    electrification. The gentleman's amendment applies to everything 
    appropriated in the bill. . . .
        The Chair is of the opinion that since the amendment is 
    directed to the entire bill, it is not germane to this paragraph 
    and therefore the point of order is sustained.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 15.6, supra, for discussion of an amendment which sought 
        in similar fashion to limit the use of appropriated funds, but 
        which was offered as a separate section and held to be germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous Consent To Offer Amendment to Different Section of Bill

Sec. 18.13 An amendment, ruled out as not germane to that part of an 
    appropriation bill to which offered, has been permitted by 
    unanimous consent to be offered to a different paragraph to which 
    it was germane but which has already been passed in reading for 
    amendment.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 18.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Sum Appropriated for Weather Bureau--Amendment Relating to 
    Paragraph About Collecting Weather Information

Sec. 18.14 To that part of a general appropriation bill relating to the 
    total sum appropriated for the Weather Bureau, an amendment was 
    held to be not germane which appropriated a sum for a specific 
    Weather Bureau station and which related to another paragraph 
    appropriating sums for collecting and disseminating weather 
    information.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a portion, described 
above, of a bill (20) comprising Agriculture Appropriations 
for 1938, the following amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 6523 (Committee on Appropriations).
 1. 81 Cong. Rec. 3763, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 22, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Henry] Ellenbogen [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 22,

[[Page 8273]]

    line 20, after the word ``agriculture'', add a new paragraph, as 
    follows:
        ``The sum of $23,940 is appropriated for additional equipment 
    and services for the Weather Bureau station at Pittsburgh, Pa.''

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

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order that the paragraph sought to be added by the 
    amendment is not germane to the portion of the bill to which it is 
    offered, it being offered in connection with the total of the 
    appropriation for the Weather Bureau, and following the language 
    computing the entire division of Weather Bureau appropriation which 
    has already been read.

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

        Mr. Ellenbogen: . . . This entire section deals with the 
    Weather Bureau. The amendment offered not only deals with the item 
    of two-million-and-some-odd-thousand dollars, on page 21, but deals 
    with personnel as well as with gages, and could not properly be 
    offered to any other section of the bill, because the amendment 
    covers gages, telegraph charges, telephone wire, and telephone 
    services, and some personnel to read those gages in the outlying 
    districts. Therefore it is germane to the section entitled 
    ``Weather Bureau'', and that section has not yet been passed.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Franklin W. Hancock, Jr. (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair takes the position that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ellenbogen] is not germane 
    because it is not offered at the proper place in the bill.
        The Chair bases his ruling upon an opinion rendered by Mr. 
    O'Connor, who stated in substance that there must be some orderly 
    procedure in the consideration of appropriation bills as in the 
    consideration of other bills, and proper amendments, whether in the 
    nature of limitations or otherwise, should be offered at the proper 
    place in the bill.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

    The following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, in the 
    interest of fair hearing and fair consideration of the proposal of 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that he be allowed to offer the 
    amendment at the proper point in the bill.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Georgia?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ellenbogen: On page 21, line 21, 
        strike out ``$2,298,950'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$2,322,870.''

Amendment as Not Germane to Section But Permissible if Offered as New 
    Section

Sec. 18.15 Where a section of a bill authorized improvements for flood 
    control on

[[Page 8274]]

    several waterways, an amendment to such section providing that 'no 
    funds under this act shall be allocated unless actual construction 
    shall have been started prior to this date' was held not germane, 
    although the Chair indicated that the amendment would be germane if 
    offered as a new section.

    In the 79th Congress, the following portion of a bill 
(3) relating to flood control was under consideration: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 6597 (Committee on Flood Control).
 4. See 92 Cong. Rec. 7099, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., June 18, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 17. In addition to previous authorizations, there is 
    hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $150,000,000 for 
    the prosecution of the initial stage of the comprehensive plan 
    adopted by section 9a of the act approved December 22, 1944 
    (Public, No. 534, 78th Cong.), for continuing the works in the 
    Missouri River Basin to be undertaken under said plans by the 
    Secretary of the Interior.

    An amendment was offered, as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 7108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [J. Harry] McGregor [of Ohio]: On page 
    28, line 3, after the period insert: ``No funds under this act 
    shall be allocated unless actual construction shall have been 
    started prior to this date.''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at pp. 7108, 7109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: . . . The 
    language of the amendment has to do with allocations and 
    appropriations. No funds are being allocated or appropriated in 
    this bill. A moment's reflection will show that this language is 
    utterly contradictory. This is an authorization bill authorizing 
    something. Now he undertakes to say that that thing shall not be 
    started. . . . I respectfully submit that this language here is not 
    applicable to an authorization bill, and that the point of order 
    should be sustained because this language is utterly inconsistent 
    and contradictory in an authorization bill, and is certainly not 
    germane to section 17. It is not offered as a new section.

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. J. Bayard Clark (N.C.).
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 7109, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., June 18, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment may not be germane to the particular section to 
    which it is offered but the Chair does think it would be germane to 
    the bill as a whole in the nature of a limitation. The Chair 
    sustains the point of order, but calls attention to the fact that 
    it could be offered as a new section to the bill..

Amendment as Germane to More Than One Title

Sec. 18.16 The test of germaneness of an amendment to a

[[Page 8275]]

    bill being read for amendment by titles is its relationship to the 
    title to which offered; even where the amendment would also have 
    been germane to a previous title of a bill which has been passed in 
    the reading, an amendment germane to the pending title is not 
    subject to a point of order on the grounds that it indirectly 
    affects, or is inconsistent with, an amendment adopted to a 
    previous title.

    The proceedings of Sept. 5, 1980, relating to H.R. 7235, the Rail 
Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 3.24, supra.

Sec. 18.17 To a diverse title of a bill reforming the economic 
    regulation of railroads being read for amendment by titles, 
    entitled ``railroad inter-carrier practices'' but dealing also with 
    bankruptcy and employee protection issues, an amendment addressing 
    those issues as well as railroad rates and rate-making and 
    including a provision requesting a study of the impact of possible 
    tax law changes relating to railroads, was held germane even though 
    portions of the amendment on rates indirectly affected a previous 
    title of the bill already perfected by amendment.

    The proceedings of Sept. 5, 1980, relating to H.R. 7235, the Rail 
Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 3.24, supra.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 19. Amendment Adding New Section or Title to Bill

    The rule of germaneness does not require that an amendment offered 
as a separate section be germane to the preceding section of the bill; 
it may be sufficient that it is germane to the subject matter of as 
much of the bill as a whole as has been read,(9) or to the 
title to which offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 19.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a bill being read for amendment by title, an amendment in the 
form of a new section within a title need not be germane to a specific 
section therein, it being sufficient that it be germane to the title as 
a whole. (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 30476, 30477, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 15, 1976, 
        discussed in Sec. 11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment adding a new title to a bill being read for amendment 
by titles must be germane to the totality of titles considered up to 
that point.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See, for example, the proceedings of Oct. 18, 1979, relating to 
        H.R. 3000, the Department of Energy Authorization Act for 
        fiscal 1980 and 1981, discussed in Sec. 10.7, infra.

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

[[Page 8276]]

    An amendment adding a new section to the end of a bill must be 
germane to the bill as amended.
    Where a perfecting amendment adding a new section to a title is 
offered pending a vote on a motion to strike out the same title, the 
perfecting amendment must be germane to the text to which offered, not 
to the motion to strike out.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 19.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On occasion, while holding an amendment not to be germane in the 
form in which offered, the Chair has indicated that the same amendment 
might be germane if offered as a new section.(13) Sometimes, 
moreover, an amendment which would be held not germane when offered to 
a particular title of a bill would be considered germane if offered as 
a new title.(14) And an amendment offered in the form of a 
new title in a bill may be germane to the bill even though the same 
amendment might be improper if offered as a substitute for another 
pending amendment.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 18.15, supra.
14. See Sec. 18.7, supra.
15. See Sec. 21.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general rule that an amendment must be germane to the portion 
of the bill to which offered is limited by the proposition that an 
amendment in the form of a new section or paragraph need not 
necessarily be germane to the section or paragraph immediately 
preceding it.(16) Each precedent should be examined 
separately to determine the structure of the bill to which the new 
section or paragraph is offered. See, for example, the proceedings of 
June 19, 1939,(17) where an amendment offered as a new 
section to a tax bill (to a title dealing with transfers of 
securities), was held not germane, since there was already a section 
dealing with the subject matter to which the amendment would have been 
germane (in a preceding title) and this section had been passed in 
reading for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. Sec. 2932, 2935.
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 7500, 7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reading a bill by sections in the Committee of the Whole, it is 
not in order except by unanimous consent to return to a section which 
has been passed.(18) On occasion, however, an amendment 
proposing a new section which, in effect, would modify a section 
previously read and passed, has been held to be germane to the bill and 
in order.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 19.11, infra.
19. See Sec. 19.11, infra.

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

[[Page 8277]]

    An amendment may be germane at more than one place in a bill. Thus, 
where the first several sections of a bill pertain to one category 
within the subject under consideration, and the subsequent sections 
introduce other such categories, an amendment adding a further such 
category may be offered at either of two places: the point where, in 
the reading of the text, the sections dealing with the first category 
have been passed; or at the end of the text. An example may be found in 
the Record of the 91st Congress. The Committee of the Whole was 
considering a title of a bill (20) amending the rules of the 
House. The first several sections of the title related solely to the 
committee system, and the remainder of the sections broadened the scope 
of the title by amending other rules. The proponent of an amendment to 
the bill was desirous of withdrawing the amendment for the purpose of 
perfecting it with the understanding that it would be in order to offer 
the amendment at a later time. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, indicated that a germane 
amendment in the form of a new section would be in order at the end of 
the title.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 17654, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Committee on 
        Rules).
 1. See 116 Cong. Rec. 26046, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 28, 1970 
        (parliamentary inquiry of Mr. 
        Meeds).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Title: Test of Germaneness

Sec. 19.1 The test of germaneness of an amendment adding a new title to 
    a bill is its relationship to the bill read, as perfected by 
    amendments.

    The proceedings of Aug. 10, 1984, relating to H.R. 5640, a bill to 
amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 4.10, supra.

New Title at End of Bill: Test of Germaneness

Sec. 19.2 Where an amendment is in the form of a new title to be 
    inserted at the end of the bill, the Chair, in determining its 
    germaneness, must consider the relationship of the amendment to the 
    bill as a whole and as modified by the Committee of the Whole.

    The proceedings of Oct. 8, 1985, during consideration of H.R. 2100, 
the Food Security Act of 1985, are discussed in Sec. 4.67, supra.

Sec. 19.3 The germaneness of an amendment adding a new title at the end 
    of a bill is determined by its relationship to the bill as a whole 
    in its perfected form.

    The proceedings of July 11, 1985, during consideration of H.R.

[[Page 8278]]

1555, the International Security and Development Act of 1985, are 
discussed in Sec. 4.54, supra.

New Title as Germane to Portion of Bill Already Read; Special Rule 
    Making Certain Proposals in Order

Sec. 19.4 An amendment offered as a new title need not be germane to 
    the immediately preceding title or to the next title not yet read, 
    it being sufficient that the amendment is germane to that portion 
    of the bill already read; and where a resolution providing for the 
    consideration of a bill makes in order a specific amendment to the 
    bill, such amendment may be offered as a new title, and it need not 
    be germane to an existing title.

    In the 88th Congress, the Committee of the Whole was considering 
the Civil Rights Act of 1963,(2) pursuant to a resolution 
providing that certain specific proposals (3) would be in 
order as an amendment to the bill under consideration. Such proposals, 
relating to employment opportunities and economic advancement for 
Indians, were set forth in an amendment in the form of a new title to 
the bill.(4) The following exchange (5) concerned 
a point of order made against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 7152 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 3. The proposals were embodied in H.R. 980.
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 2738, 2739, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 10, 1964.
 5. Id. at pp. 2739, 2740.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, enough 
    has been read of the amendment to indicate that it is subject to a 
    point of order, and I make the point of order that we have not 
    completed the reading of the bill, therefore this is not the proper 
    place to consider the amendment.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair reminds the gentleman 
    from New York that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    South Dakota has been made in order by the resolution under which 
    this bill is being considered. The gentleman is offering the 
    amendment at this time, and the Chair would be impelled to hold 
    that the amendment is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to offer this 
    amendment to title VII, or must there be a new title read?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from South Dakota is offering his 
    amendment as a new title VIII to the bill.

[[Page 8279]]

Bill To Increase Supplies of Fossil Fuels and Promote Conversion to 
    Coal--Amendment To Assist Industry in Liquefaction and Gasification 
    of Coal

Sec. 19.5 To a bill designed to increase supplies of fossil fuels, and 
    increase the use of domestic energy supplies other than petroleum 
    through conversion to coal, and containing an entire title dealing 
    with industrial conversion from oil and gas to coal, an amendment 
    adding a new title providing government loans and other assistance 
    to private industry for the construction and operation of 
    facilities for the liquefaction and gasification of coal was held 
    germane as within the scope of the bill.

    On Sept. 18, 1975,(7) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 
(H.R. 7014), an amendment was offered to add a new title to the bill to 
which a point of order was raised and overruled. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 29338-41, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the form of a new title to title VIII.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Carter: On page 356, line 6, 
        insert the following new Title and renumber subsequent Titles 
        accordingly:

           TITLE VIII--COAL GASIFICATION AND LIQUEFACTION DEVELOPMENT

            Sec. 801. (a) The Administrator shall establish a program 
        of assistance to private industry for the construction and 
        operation of one or more facilities for the liquefaction and 
        gasification of coal. In order to effectuate such program, the 
        Administrator may make loans and issue guarantees to any person 
        for the purpose of engaging in the commercial operation of 
        facilities designed for the liquefaction or gasification of 
        coal.
            (b)(1) For the purpose of making loans or issuing 
        guarantees under this section, the Administrator shall consider 
        (A) the technology to be used by the person to whom the loan or 
        guarantee is made or issued, (B) the production expected, (C) 
        reasonable prospect for repayment of the loans. . . .
            Sec. 802. (a) The Administrator is authorized . . .
            (3) Each lease shall further provide that the lessee shall 
        have options to purchase the facilities at any time within ten 
        years after the date of the respective lease at a price to be 
        agreed upon by the parties. Each option shall be conditioned, 
        however, upon the right of the Administrator within the ten-
        year term to offer the facilities for sale at public auction 
        and the lessee shall be entitled to purchase the facilities if 
        he meets the highest bona fide offer in excess of the agreed 
        option price. In order that an offer may be considered bona 
        fide, it shall be offered by a bidder who shall have been 
        determined by the Administrator to be financially

[[Page 8280]]

        and technically qualified to purchase and operate the 
        facilities. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        The point of order is as follows: A reading of the amendment 
    will show that under subsection 801(a), it would authorize a very 
    large program of loans and grants for the construction and 
    operation of facilities for the liquefaction and gasification of 
    coal.
        Nowhere else in the bill are there loans and grants, and 
    nowhere else in the bill are there provisions for that kind of 
    stimulus for the construction of facilities for the liquefaction or 
    gasification of coal.
        In addition to these loans and guarantees, the Administrator is 
    vested with authority to guarantee performance of contracts of 
    persons receiving loans from the administration for the purchase, 
    construction, and acquisition of equipment and supplies necessary 
    to construct and operate such a facility. This again, Mr. Chairman, 
    is not within the purview of the bill.
        In addition to this, construction plans and construction of 
    facilities, further down under (d)(2), could be financed in whole 
    or in part, including exploration and development.
        In addition to this, the possibility of exemptions and 
    exceptions from the air and water pollution laws are included under 
    (c)(2)(d), or, rather, under paragraph (d).
        To go along further, by no stretch of the imagination could my 
    colleagues be anticipated to anticipate an amendment of this kind 
    and character coming to this bill and relating to the air and water 
    pollution laws. Indeed the language is sufficiently broad to make 
    this exempt from State statutes, as well as from Federal statutes, 
    and that is a matter clearly not before the committee at this 
    particular time. Then we have the question of compliance with 
    Federal and State air pollution laws. . . .
        In addition to this, under section 802(a)(3), the amendment 
    provides for acquisition of private interests in all such 
    facilities as may have heretofore been constructed or acquired 
    relating to gasification of coal and other types of energy uses. 
    Again this goes far beyond the scope and sweep of the bill before 
    the committee.
        Again, under section 802(b)(1), these facilities could then be 
    leased or rented under conditions and terms as agreed on by and 
    between the parties, apparently without regard to existing Federal 
    statutes relating to the sale, leasing, or disposal of real estate, 
    and that is a matter which is under the jurisdiction of other 
    committees and which is the subject of control under other statutes 
    not presently before the House and not mentioned or alluded to in 
    the provisions of H.R. 7014 now before the committee. . . . 
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [of Ohio]: As much as I am reluctant to 
    do so, I would have to suggest to the chairman of the subcommittee 
    that I think that the gentleman's amendment is germane.
        I would like to cite the provisions of the purposes of the act, 
    section 102. Item (3) in that section says, ``to increase the 
    supply of fossil fuels in the United States, through price 
    incentives and production requirements.''

[[Page 8281]]

        The gentleman's amendment squares, it seems to me, specifically 
    with that. As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carter) has pointed 
    out, item (6) says ``to increase the use of domestic energy 
    supplies other than petroleum products and natural gas through 
    conversion to the use of coal.''
        This would certainly encourage the use of coal.
        Section 606 in the bill provides similar incentives to those 
    provided by the amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
    Carter) for coal mines. Pollution requirements would not be 
    overridden by the legislation or the legislative modification of 
    the gentleman from Kentucky unless specified, that is, those 
    existing pollution requirements would not be overridden unless they 
    were specified in the amendment, and they are not specified in the 
    amendment. They would, therefore, continue to apply.
        It seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky specifically does encourage the development and use of 
    additional fossil fuels by the various provisions in his amendment 
    and that those provisions are in the bill and have been added by 
    other amendments, and, therefore, would be germane to this 
    legislation.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For substantially the reasons just outlined by the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and in view of the fact that title III has 
    several provisions going to the general issue of maximizing 
    availability of energy supplies, including coal, and, as pointed 
    out, title VI encourages industrial conversion from oil and gas to 
    coal, for example, by a similar loan guarantee mechanism as 
    proposed in the amendment, the Chair finds that the amendment 
    inserting a new title is germane to the bill under consideration 
    and overrules the point of order.

Energy Use and Conservation--Energy Used in Production of Beverage 
    Containers

Sec. 19.6 A bill of several titles dealing generally with energy use 
    and conservation and containing a title specifically dealing with 
    efficiency of energy-using consumer products and requiring energy 
    efficiency labeling of such products, was held sufficiently broad 
    in scope to admit as germane an amendment in the form of a new 
    title dealing with energy use in the production of certain non-
    energy consuming products (beverage containers) and incorporating 
    the labeling requirements in the bill to demonstrate energy 
    production requirements of such products.

    On Sept. 18, 1975,(9) it was demonstrated that the test 
of germaneness of an amendment adding a new title to a bill being read

[[Page 8282]]

by titles is the relationship between the amendment and the bill as a 
whole. The proceedings during consideration of H.R. 7014 
(10) in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 29322-25, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. The Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         TITLE V--IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS

                      Part A--Automobile Fuel Mileage

        Sec. 501. Definitions.
        Sec. 502. Average fuel economy standards applicable to each 
    manufacturer. . . . 

       Part B--Energy Labeling and Efficiency Standards for Consumer 
                      Products Other Than Automobiles

        Sec. 551. Definitions and coverage.
        Sec. 552. Test procedures.
        Sec. 553. Labeling.
        Sec. 554. Energy efficiency standards. . . .
        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 331, after line 10, 
        add the following:

        TITLE VI--ENERGY LABELING AND EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR BEVERAGE 
                                   CONTAINERS

                            definitions and coverage

            Sec. 601.--For purposes of this part--
            (1) The term ``beverage container'' means a bottle, jar, 
        can, or carton of glass, plastic, or metal, or any combination 
        thereof, used for packaging or marketing beer or any other malt 
        beverage, mineral water, soda water, or a carbonated soft drink 
        of any variety in liquid form which is intended for human 
        consumption. . . .
            (4) The term ``energy efficiency'' means the ratio 
        (determined on a national basis) of: The capacity of the 
        beverage container times the number of times it is likely to be 
        filled, to the units of energy resources consumed in producing 
        such container (including such container's raw materials) and 
        in delivering such container and its contents to the consumer.
            The Commissioner, in determining the energy efficiency 
        shall adjust any such determination to take into account the 
        extent to which such containers are produced from recycled 
        materials. . . .

                                    labeling

            Sec. 603. The provisions of section 553, except paragraph 
        (B) of subsection (a)(1), shall be applicable to beverage 
        containers as defined in section 601. In addition, if the 
        Commissioner determines that a beverage container achieves the 
        energy efficiency target described in section 604, then no 
        labeling requirement under this section may be promulgated or 
        remain in effect with respect to such type. . . . 

               requirements of manufacturers and private labelers

            Sec. 605. The provisions of section 555 of this act with 
        respect to consumer products to which a rule under section 553 
        applies shall be applicable to beverage containers as defined 
        in section 601. . . . 

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order [is] on the ground that the amendment is not germane to the 
    bill before us. The amendment seeks to impose effi

[[Page 8283]]

    ciency standards on the manufacture of beverage containers. There 
    is nothing in the bill relating to beverage containers. The 
    amendment seeks to change efficiency standards imposed upon 
    beverage containers themselves. There is nothing in this bill 
    relating to beverage containers.
        Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, not only is the amendment not 
    germane to the bill but it also fails because it is not germane to 
    the bill as amended because as the Chairman recalls all references 
    to the efficiency standards have been removed from the bill with 
    respect to industrial processes. If the amendment were to be 
    offered relating to efficiency in manufacturing processes, it more 
    appropriately should have been offered in sections relating to 
    efficiency in manufacturing.

        Those have now been deleted, of course. The amendment is not 
    germane because it comes too late in the bill, for that matter, 
    after it has been considered and acted upon in the House.
        The amendment is very, very complex, setting up standards for 
    efficiency in a whole series of devices. With regard to the 
    mechanism we are under, this efficiency is judged and it goes into 
    a lengthy complex set of judgments that must be exercised by the 
    administrators with regard to this efficiency; but dealing solely 
    with the question of bottles and containers. As I pointed out, 
    there is no reference in the bill to bottles and containers. For 
    that reason, the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . In Cannon's Procedures 
    of the House of Representatives, the rule of germaneness occurs at 
    section 794. It says that while the committee may report a bill 
    embracing different subjects, it is not in order during the 
    consideration of a bill to introduce a new subject. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the nature of the new subject in this 
    legislation, it seems to me, is embraced in section 604 of the 
    amendment as submitted by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
    Jeffords), in which we are not dealing with the set of standards of 
    the operation of appliances as we were in the appliance section, or 
    automobiles, as we were in the automobile standards section; but 
    rather in the design of a nonenergy consuming product which the 
    author of the amendment seeks to prohibit with reference to its 
    possibilities of reuse. It gives the authority to the Secretary to 
    prohibit a product on the basis of its design. So we are, in 
    effect, impacting on the product with reference to the manufacture 
    of the product in some mechanical or energy-consuming way. That, it 
    seems to me, is a new direction or a new subject under the rule of 
    germaneness, as opposed to the other approaches which the bill as 
    reported out of the committee has taken. It is an area which I 
    rather doubt comes under the purview of our committee, in that the 
    purview of the committee relates to the consumption of energy as 
    such and the licensing of that energy and the pricing of it and so 
    forth. . . .
        Mr. [Phillip H.] Hayes of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I simply 
    wanted to add in regard to the standard . . . of looking to the 
    fundamental purpose of an amendment in qualifying its germaneness, 
    that this particular amendment would seek to add for the first time 
    in the bill a class of product which does not in and of itself 
    consume an average

[[Page 8284]]

    annual per household energy factor, nor does it consume in and of 
    itself energy at all. . . .
        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, never have I had an opportunity to 
    tell so many distinguished gentlemen that they are wrong at the 
    same time. First, let us go back to the basics here. What are we 
    concerned with when we talk about the germaneness? Let us look at 
    the legislative manual.
        The fundamental purpose of an amendment is that it must be 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill. What is the 
    fundamental purpose?
        Let us take a look at the title, ``Energy Conservation and Oil 
    Policy Act of 1975.'' Look what we are trying to do. We are trying 
    to conserve energy. Let us take a look at title III, with its broad 
    powers over the whole area of development of petroleum. There are 
    tremendous powers over the whole industry in allocation, 
    production, as to where the industry goes. . . .
        Let us get to the argument made by many, and that is it is 
    different because we are talking about energy consumed in the 
    production of the consumer product rather than the consumer 
    himself.
        The FEA is not going to go around this country chasing after 
    people with electric toothbrushes to see whether they brush 
    properly or to see whether they are plugged in properly. They are 
    going to go to the manufacturer and say, ``You have a toothbrush 
    here that has to have a certain energy efficiency improvement.'' So 
    we are saying when the product is sold that particular beverage 
    container must consume less than a certain amount of energy. It is 
    identical in purpose. The bill does not try to go out and nail the 
    consumer. It gets to him by labeling. It says, ``Here is a consumer 
    product that uses less energy.'' My amendment will say, ``Here is 
    something that uses less energy.'' I see no difference whatsoever. 
    Its basic purpose and fundamental purpose is the same as the bill, 
    to conserve energy and conserve oil. How anybody can argue that 
    this is not germane is impossible for me to see.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Indiana, the gentleman from Michigan, the 
    gentleman from Ohio, and the gentleman from Texas have made points 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) on the ground that it is not germane to the 
    bill.
        The Chair would like to state that if the amendment had been 
    offered to title V, the arguments of many of the gentlemen would 
    have more significance.
        The amendment offered would add a new title to the bill 
    relating to energy conservation in the production of beverage 
    containers.
        The test of germaneness in such a situation is the relationship 
    between the new title to be added by the amendment and the entire 
    bill.
        The Chair would state, initially, that he has reexamined the 
    precedents contained in section 6.13 and section 6.19 of chapter 28 
    of Deschler's Procedure, wherein an amendment prohibiting the 
    production of nonreturnable beverage containers was held not 
    germane to the Energy Emergency Act, and finds that the situations 
    are distinguishable.

[[Page 8285]]

        As noted, the germaneness is dependent upon the relationship 
    between the amendment in the form of a new title and the entire 
    bill to which offered.
        The 1973 bill was designed to regulate and promote the 
    production, allocation, and conservation of energy resources and 
    contained no reference to the production of consumer goods. In that 
    context, the nonreturnable container amendment was not germane.
        However, the bill now under consideration contains several 
    diverse titles, all relating to use, consumption, availability, and 
    conservation of energy.
        The Chair notes specifically the provisions of title V relating 
    to end use and energy consumption of certain consumer products.
        The Chair, therefore, believes that the bill is sufficiently 
    broad in scope to admit as germane an amendment in the form of a 
    new title which is drafted in the form presented by incorporating 
    by reference certain standards in the bill, and which relates to 
    the conservation of energy by an industry engaged in the production 
    of a consumer product, specifically, beverage containers.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Participation in Inter-American Development Bank and 
    African Development Fund and Addressing Policies Thereof--Amendment 
    To Encourage Institutions in Bill To Promote Energy Measures

Sec. 19.7 To a bill authorizing appropriations for, and increased 
    United States participation in, the Inter-American Development 
    Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the African Development Fund, 
    which had been amended to include titles addressing export 
    opportunity enhancement, human rights reporting and refugee 
    assistance by such institutions, an amendment adding a new title to 
    the bill directing the United States to encourage those 
    institutions to promote and support energy production from 
    renewable resources was held germane.

    As noted by the Chair in his ruling of Mar. 6, 1980, 
(12) the Committee of the Whole, during consideration of 
H.R. 3829, had adopted provisions either in the form of amendments or 
titles of the bill as reported, which stated in part as follows: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 126 Cong. Rec. 4977, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Id. at pp. 4960, 4973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Wolff: Page 4, immediately after line 
    21, insert the following new section:

            Sec. 202. The Asian Development Bank Act, as amended by 
        Section 201 of this Act, is further amended by adding at the 
        end thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 25(a)(1) Upon the establishment of a special refugee 
        fund ad

[[Page 8286]]

        ministered by the Asian Development Bank, the United States 
        Governor of the Bank is authorized to contribute to that fund 
        on behalf of the United States 25 percent of the total amount 
        contributed by all countries to that fund, subject to the 
        limitation contained in subsection (b) of this section. This 
        special refugee fund shall assist regional developing member 
        countries of the Bank impacted by service as sites for 
        temporary asylum for refugees from South and Southeast Asia 
        prior to their resettlement in third countries.
            ``(2) The special refugee fund should also be available to 
        help any regional developing member country which may wish to 
        formulate development plans for regions of that country which 
        that country judges to be suitable for permanent resettlement 
        of refugees from South and Southeast Asia. . . .
            ``(c)(1) The President shall encourage other countries to 
        support the establishment of, and to contribute to, the special 
        fund described in subsection (a) of this section.
            ``(2) In addition, the President shall encourage the World 
        Bank and other appropriate multilateral development banks to 
        establish funds similar to that described in subsection (a) of 
        this section to aid in the permanent resettlement in third 
        countries of refugees from South and Southeast Asia.'' . . .

                    TITLE IV--EXPORT OPPORTUNITY ENHANCEMENT

            Sec. 401. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
        United States Executive Directors of the Inter-American 
        Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the African 
        Development Fund to take all possible steps to assure that 
        information relative to potential procurement opportunities for 
        United States firms is expeditiously communicated to him/her, 
        the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce. Such 
        information shall be disseminated as broadly as possible to 
        both large and small business. . . .

                        TITLE V--HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTING

            Sec. 501. Section 701 of an Act approved October 3, 1977 
        (Public Law 95-118; 91 Stat. 1069), is amended--(1) in 
        subsection (c)--
            (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
            (B) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2)(A) The Secretary of the Treasury shall report 
        quarterly on all loans made by the institutions listed in 
        subsection (a) to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
        Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Foreign Relations of the Senate. . . .''

    An amendment was offered:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Maryland: Page 8, after 
        line 25, insert the following new title:

          TITLE VIII--USE OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION

            Sec. 701. The Congress hereby finds that--
            (1) without an adequate supply of energy at affordable 
        prices the world's poor will continue to be deprived of jobs, 
        food, water, shelter and clothing, and poor countries will 
        continue to be economically and politically unstable;
            (2) dependence on increasingly expensive fossil fuel 
        resources consumes too much of the capital available to poor 
        countries with the result that funds are not available to meet 
        the basic needs of poor people;
            (3) in many developing countries the cost of large central 
        generators and long distance electrical distribution makes it 
        unlikely that rural energy by means of a national grid will

[[Page 8287]]

        contribute to meeting the needs of poor people . . .
            (7) recent initiatives by the international financial 
        institutions to develop and utilize decentralized solar, hydro, 
        biomass, geothermal and wind energy should be significantly 
        expanded to make renewable energy resources increasingly 
        available to the world's poor on a wide scale.
            Sec. 702. (a) The United States Government, in connection 
        with its voice and vote in the Inter-American Development Bank, 
        the African Development Fund, and the Asian Development Bank, 
        shall encourage such institutions--
            (1) to promote the decentralized production of renewable 
        energy;
            (2) to identify renewable resources to produce energy in 
        rural development projects and determine the feasibility of 
        substituting them for systems using fossil fuel;
            (3) to train personnel in developing technologies for 
        getting energy from renewable resources;
            (4) to support research into the use of renewable energy 
        resources, including hydropower, biomass, solar photovoltaic 
        and solar thermal;
            (5) to create an information network to make available to 
        policy makers the full range of energy choices;
            (6) to broaden their energy planning, analyses and 
        assessments so as to include consideration of the supply of, 
        demand for, and possible uses of renewable energy resources;
            (7) to encourage the international financial institutions 
        to coordinate the work of the Agency for International 
        Development and other aid organizations in supporting effective 
        rural energy programs. . . .
            (c) The Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the 
        Director of the International Development Cooperation Agency 
        shall report to the Congress not later than six months after 
        the date of enactment of this Act and annually thereafter on 
        the progress toward achieving the goals set forth in this 
        title. . . .

        The Chairman: (14) Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Stanton) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Robert Duncan (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. William] Stanton [of Ohio]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) goes far beyond the scope of the 
    bill that we have under consideration this afternoon. In reading 
    the amendment, in paragraph (7) on the second page, and in the last 
    paragraph of the bill, it continually refers to, No. 1, Mr. 
    Chairman, the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation 
    with the Director of the International Development Corporation. 
    That is not under the scope of this legislation here today. That is 
    point No. 1.
        No. 2, Mr. Chairman, what we have, as I understand it, is an 
    authorizing legislation in dollars and cents for the Asian 
    Development Bank, the African Development Fund, and so forth. This 
    puts definite restrictions on what these particular agencies 
    specifically should do with regard to energy. I would hate to have 
    us start telling the Director of the African Development Fund, for 
    example, that they should do something about synfuels or some 
    particular goal that we have over in our country.
        I think we should leave the operation and the scope of these 
    things up to them. But I would say to the gentleman that I think 
    certainly his lan

[[Page 8288]]

    guage would be absolutely appropriate in his committee, were 
    foreign aid directly given to the Agency for International 
    Development and we pay the full cost of that, and it should go.
        That is my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair understands the point of order to be 
    made on germaneness, that the amendment goes beyond the scope of 
    the bill.
        Mr. Stanton: That is correct. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order based upon the germaneness of the amendment.
        The Chair notes that the germaneness of the amendment must be 
    applied from the perspective of the bill as it has been perfected 
    by the committee up to the point at which the point of order is 
    made. The Chair notes that title IV of the bill as reported dealing 
    with the export opportunity enhancement, that title V of the 
    committee amendment dealing with human rights reporting, and that 
    the Wolff amendment dealing with a special refugee fund have all 
    been adopted by the committee. In view of the expansion of the 
    scope of the bill by the adoption of those amendments and the 
    existence of title IV in the bill as reported, the Chair is 
    constrained to rule that the amendment is germane and, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.

Test of Germaneness of Amendment Adding New Section: Senate Provision 
    Contained in Conference Report

Sec. 19.8 The test of the germaneness of that portion of a Senate 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adding a new section to a 
    House bill is the relationship of that section to the subject of 
    the House bill as a whole.

    On Mar. 26, 1975, (15) during consideration of a 
conference report on H.R. 2166 (Tax Reduction Act of 1975), it was held 
that to a House bill containing several sections amending diverse 
portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and 
business tax credits, a part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
substitute which added a new section relating to tax credits for new 
home purchases and amending a portion of the law amended by the House 
bill was germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 8900, 8902, 8930, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)

        The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
    Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2166) to 
    amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a refund of 
    1974 individual income taxes, to increase the low income allowance 
    and the percentage standard deduction, to provide a credit for 
    certain earned income, to increase the investment credit and the 
    surtax exemption, and for other purposes, having met, after full 
    and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do rec

[[Page 8289]]

    ommend to their respective Houses as follows:
        That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of 
    the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In 
    lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
    insert the following: . . .

           TITLE II--REDUCTIONS IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES . . .

        Sec. 208. Credit for purchase of new principal residence. . . .

    TITLE VI--TAXATION OF FOREIGN OIL AND GAS INCOME AND OTHER FOREIGN 
                                INCOME . . .

        Sec. 602. Taxation of earnings and profits of controlled 
    foreign corporations and their shareholders. . . .

                    TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

        Sec. 701. Certain unemployment compensation.
        Sec. 702. Special payment to recipients of benefits under 
    certain retirement and survivor benefit programs. . . .
        Sec. 208. Credit for Purchase of New Principal Residence
        ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter 
    A of chapter 1 (relating to credits allowed) is amended by 
    redesignating section 44 as section 45 and by inserting after 
    section 43 the following new section:

              ``Sec. 44. Purchase of New Principal Residence.

        ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual there is 
    allowed, as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for 
    the taxable year, an amount equal to 5 percent of the purchase 
    price of a new principal residence purchased or constructed by the 
    taxpayer. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the conference report on the ground it 
    contains matter which is in violation of provision 1, clause 7, of 
    rule XVI. The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is 
    that section of the report dealing with the tax credit on sales of 
    new homes. It appears in section 208 of the conference report, on 
    page 14, as reported by the Committee on Conference. . . .
        [A] careful scrutiny of the titles of the House bill, as it was 
    sent to the Senate, shows many types of tax measures, but nothing 
    relating to the sale of homes. This clearly is an addition of a 
    very divergent nature to the bill and deals with the nonbusiness 
    and nonpersonal type of credit. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak 
    against the point of order.
        Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad bill. It was a broadly based 
    bill when it left this House to go to the other body. It has many 
    diverse sections and many different kinds of tax treatments. It 
    does deal with tax credits. It did deal with tax credits when it 
    left the House, both for individuals and for corporations.
        Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this falls totally within the 
    purview of the bill as we passed it in the House and should be 
    considered germane to the bill.
        The Speaker: (16) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla).

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

[[Page 8290]]

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) makes the point of 
    order against section 208 of the conference report on the bill H.R. 
    2166 on the ground that it would not have been germane to H.R. 2166 
    as passed by the House and is thus subject to the provisions of 
    clause 4, rule XXVIII.
        In passing upon any point of order against a portion of the 
    Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute which the conferees 
    have incorporated in their report, the Chair feels it is important 
    to initially characterize the bill H.R. 2166 in the form as passed 
    by the House. The House-passed bill contained four diverse titles, 
    and contained amendments to diverse portions of the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954. Title I of the House bill provided a refund 
    of 1974 individual income taxes. Title II provided for reductions, 
    including credits, in individual income taxes. Title III made 
    several changes in business taxes, and title IV further affected 
    business taxes by providing for the repeal of the percentage 
    depletion for oil and gas.
        The Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute contained 
    provisions comparable to all four titles in the House-passed bill, 
    and also contained a new title IV amending other portions of the 
    Internal Revenue Code, making further amendments to the code with 
    respect to tax changes affecting individuals and businesses, and a 
    new title VI and title VII, relating to taxation of foreign and 
    domestic oil and gas income and related income, and to the tax 
    deferment and reinvestment period extension, respectively. The 
    provision against which the gentleman makes the point of order was 
    contained in section 205 of title II of the Senate amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chair would call the attention of the House to the 
    precedent contained in Cannon's VIII, section 3042, wherein the 
    Committee of the Whole ruled that to a bill raising revenue by 
    several diverse methods of taxation . . . an amendment in the form 
    of a new section proposing an additional method of taxation--a tax 
    on the undistributed profits of corporations--was held germane. The 
    Chair would emphasize that the portion of the Senate amendment 
    included in the conference report against which the point of order 
    has been made was in the form of a new section to the House bill, 
    and was not an amendment to a specific section of the House bill. 
    As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 14.4, the 
    test of germaneness in such a situation is the relationship between 
    the new section or title and the subject matter of the bill as a 
    whole.
        The Chair would also point out that section 203 of the House 
    bill, on page 10, amends the same portion of the code which this 
    part of the conference report would amend.
        For these reasons, the Chair holds that section 208 of the 
    conference report is germane to the House-passed bill and overrules 
    the point of order.

New Section at End of Bill; Test of Germaneness

Sec. 19.9 The test of germaneness of an amendment adding a new section 
    at the end of a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole, as 
    perfected by the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page 8291]]

    On Aug. 1, 1979,(17) during consideration of S. 1030 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Dante B. 
Fascell, of Florida, ruled that to a bill authorizing the imposition of 
rationing plans by the President to conserve energy, providing 
mechanisms to avoid energy marketing disruptions, and broadened by 
amendment to provide for monitoring of middle distillates and supplies 
of diesel oil, an amendment adding a new section to require a set-aside 
program to provide middle distillates for agricultural production was 
germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 21964-68, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas J.] Tauke [of Iowa]: Page 50, 
    after line 2, insert the following new section:

             monitoring of middle distillate supply and demand

        Sec. 4. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall establish and 
    maintain a data collection program for monitoring, at the refining, 
    wholesale, and retail levels, the supply and demand levels of 
    middle distillates on a monthly basis in each State.
        (b) The program to be established under subsection (a) shall 
    provide for--
        (1) the prompt collection of relevant demand and supply data 
    under the authority available to the Secretary of Energy under 
    other provisions of law;
        (2) making such data available to the Congress, as well as to 
    appropriate State agencies and the public in accordance with 
    otherwise applicable law, beginning on the 5th day after the close 
    of the month to which it pertains, together with projections of 
    supply and demand levels for the then current month; and
        (3) the review and adjustment of such data and projections not 
    later than the 15th day after the initial availability of such data 
    and projections under paragraph (2).
        (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``middle 
    distillate'' has the same meaning as given that term in section 
    211.51 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on 
    the date of the enactment of this Act.
        (d) The program established under this section shall not 
    prescribe, or have the effect of prescribing, margin controls or 
    trigger prices for purposes of the reimposition of price 
    requirements under section 12(f) of the Emergency Petroleum 
    Allocation Act of 1973.
        Redesignate the following sections accordingly.

    After some debate, Mr. Tauke made a request, as follows, and the 
amendment was agreed to, as modified:(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 21966, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tauke: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
    amendment as follows:

            On line 16 strike ``5th'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``10th''.

[[Page 8292]]

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Iowa?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk will report the modification to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On line 16 strike ``5th'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``10th''.

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Tauke], as modified.
        The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

    Thereafter, Mr. Tauke offered the following 
amendment:(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 21967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Tauke: Page 50, after line 2, insert 
    the following new section:

       national middle distillate set-aside program for agricultural 
                                 production

        Sec. 4. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, the President shall establish and maintain a 
    national set-aside program to provide middle distillates for 
    agricultural production.
        (b) The program established under subsection (a) shall--
        (1) be made effective only if the President finds that a 
    shortage of middle distillates exists within the various regions of 
    the United States generally, or within any specific region of the 
    United States, and that shortage--
        (A) has imparied or is likely to impair agricultural 
    production; and
        (B) has not been, or is not likely to be, alleviated by any 
    State set-aside program or programs covering areas within that 
    region;
        (2) provide that, in regions in which such program is 
    effective, prime suppliers of such fuel be required to set aside 
    each month 1 percent of the amount of the middle distillates to be 
    supplied during that month in that area;
        (3) provide that amounts of fuel set aside under such program 
    be directed to be supplied by such prime suppliers to applicants 
    who the President determines would not otherwise have adequate 
    supplies to meet requirements for agricultural production;
        (4) provide that such prime suppliers may meet such 
    responsibilities for supplying fuel either directly or through 
    wholesale purchasers who resell fuel, but only in accordance with 
    the requirements established under such program; and
        (5) shall not supersede any State set-aside program for middle 
    distillates established under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
    Act of 1973.
        (c) For purposes of this section--
        (1) The term ``agricultural production'' has the meaning given 
    it in section 211.51 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
    in effect on the date of the enactment of this section, and 
    includes the transportation of agricultural products.
        (2) The term ``prime supplier'', when used with respect to any 
    middle distillate, means the supplier, or producer, which makes the 
    first sale of the middle distillate into any region for consumption 
    in that region.
        (3) The term ``middle distillate'' has the same meaning as 
    given that term in such section 211.51.

[[Page 8293]]

        (4) The term ``region'' means any PAD district as such term is 
    defined in such section 211.51. Redesignate the following sections 
    accordingly.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a conservation 
    bill. It deals with conservation of petroleum and petroleum 
    products and energy. It deals also with rationing.
        Mr. Chairman, if the chairman will observe the amendment before 
    him, he will notice it creates a national middle distillate set-
    aside program for agricultural production. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is 
    quite possible this is a highly desirable thing but that is not the 
    question before the Chair. The question before the Chair is Does 
    this bill deal with the set-aside of middle distillates or set-
    asides of other petroleum products?
        The answer to that question is a resounding no. The 
    legislation, S. 1030 before us, contains nothing relating to set-
    aside of petroleum products or matters relating to set-aside of 
    petroleum products.
        The members of the committee could not have reasonably expected 
    set-aside amendments to be laid before them on the basis of the 
    legislation which lies before us; so the purposes of the bill and 
    the purposes of the amendment are quite different and distinct. I 
    would, therefore, urge on the chair that this amendment is not 
    germane.
        I would further state that the proposal goes on to deal with a 
    number of set-aside matters which are not included in the proposal 
    before us, but which are embodied in other statutes, such as the 
    Emergency Petroleum Allocation act. The legislation deals with the 
    term ``agricultural production'' as defined in section 211.51 of 
    title X, which is not under the jurisdiction of the Commerce 
    Committee.
        The proposal deals with and defines the term prime supplier of 
    middle distillate and the term defines a number of other matters 
    which are not found in the legislation here.
        As a matter of fact, it would convert the legislation before us 
    from essentially a conservation program to an allocation program, 
    something which would not be the intention of the committee, as 
    opposed to a rationing program which was. . . .
        Mr. Tauke: . . . Mr. Chairman, in this particular measure that 
    we are considering, we have taken great pains during the past 
    several hours to provide specific consideration for certain 
    businesses that are part of our economy. We considered, for 
    example, nursing homes and health institutions. We have considered 
    with the last amendment of the gentleman from Michigan a whole host 
    of other special businesses in this country. This is a special 
    consideration for the agricultural industry.
        In addition, I think it is appropriate to note that in this 
    measure that the bill has been dealing with the allocation of fuels 
    when supplies are scarce. That is what is the exact purpose of this 
    amendment is, to deal with the allocation of fuels at a time when 
    supplies are scarce.
        So in view of both of those items, it occurs to me that it is 
    appropriate that

[[Page 8294]]

    this amendment be considered a part of this measure. . . .
        Mr. [Charles] Pashayan [Jr., of California]: The point of 
    order, I believe, has something to do with the substance of the 
    amendment as it relates to the bill. The point I am making is that 
    although this is dealing with the set aside, that is only the form. 
    The substance, in fact, relates to the bill, because it is the only 
    way agriculture can be protected under the bill; whereas other 
    businesses do not need set asides and that is the only way we can 
    protect agriculture, so I do think it relates to the substance of 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, this bill 
    before us deals with EPCA in the rationing section and adds a 
    section on conservation.
        Now, EPCA stands for the Emergency Energy Policy and 
    Conservation Act. It is in the conservation parts of this bill that 
    we have the Tauke amendment offered.
        The Department of Energy regulations, based on the Emergency 
    Energy Policy and Conservation Act, include those DOE regulations 
    based on that act, include set aside programs for energy 
    conservation or energy usage; so it seems to me that the amendment 
    of the gentleman from Iowa is clearly germane in that he is dealing 
    with set asides as a method of conservation, but from the 
    standpoint of concern about the agricultural community and whether 
    or not the agricultural community will have adequate energy to meet 
    its needs in the interests of the society. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York)] Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard in favor of the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I just would like to point out briefly that this 
    is, unlike the other amendments we have had which deal with 
    hospitals, nursing homes and the whole other host of special 
    interests sought to be protected, those all sought to be protected 
    under conservation plans that might be put forward under this bill 
    and the limitation of Presidential powers to put forward such 
    plans.
        This amendment is quite different. It seeks to set up an 
    allocation plan specifically to set aside certain amounts of fuel 
    for agriculture.
        Therefore, it seems to me quite different from anything else in 
    this bill. It is unrelated and I believe it clearly is out of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: . . . One other point that omitted my 
    attention until the staff drew it to my attention, and it is that 
    the very rationing part of this bill was added as an amendment to 
    the basic legislation in the subcommittee. Therefore, making the 
    legislation quite broad in its approach and for that reason of 
    breadth and for the reason that we accepted that rationing 
    amendment or that rationing portion as an amendment in the 
    subcommittee, it seems to me that the offering of the gentleman 
    from Iowa is very appropriate in the full House at this time.

        The Chairman: The Chairman is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa and considered the point of order as to its germaneness 
    to the bill raised by the gentleman from Michigan.
        The text of a new section in its relationship for germaneness 
    is to the bill as read to this point and in that case

[[Page 8295]]

    we have a bill at this point in which section 2 deals with 
    rationing.
        Section 3 deals with conservation and market disruption, 
    specifically the purpose which the gentleman from Indiana pointed 
    out on page 24 which establishes mechanisms to alleviate 
    disruptions in gasoline and diesel oil markets; in addition to 
    which, a new section 4 has been agreed to by the committee which 
    provides for the monitoring of middle distillates and supply of 
    diesel oil.
        Therefore, the scope of the bill as read to this point is 
    significantly broadened and it is now considerably more diverse 
    than any one section thereof.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order and holds 
    that the amendment is germane.

Sec. 19.10 To a bill containing diverse sections (1) continuing United 
    States participation under the International Development 
    Association Act; and (2) repealing existing law which prohibited 
    United States citizens from holding gold, an amendment adding a new 
    section at the end of the bill directing the United States 
    representative to IDA to oppose loans to nations not party to a 
    nuclear non-proliferation treaty was held in order as a germane 
    restriction on authority contained in section 1 of the bill.

    On July 2, 1974,(1) during consideration of H.R. 15465 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against an amendment, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 22029, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The International Development Association Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Maryland: Page 2, 
        immediately after line 20, insert the following:
            Sec. 3. The International Development Association Act (22 
        U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by inserting at the end thereof 
        the following:
            ``Sec. 15. The United States Governor is authorized and 
        directed to vote against any loan or other utilization of the 
        funds of the Association for the benefit of any country which 
        develops any nuclear explosive device, unless the country is or 
        becomes a State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
        Nuclear Weapons (21 UST 483).''
            Redesignate the succeeding section accordingly.

        Mr. [Charles W.] Whalen [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . . [T]he Chair has ruled 
    that the amendment previously offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Biaggi) was out of order because it should have been 
    offered during the committee's consideration of section 1 which 
    deals directly with the International Development Association.

[[Page 8296]]

        Mr. Chairman, this is a very similar amendment to the one 
    previously ruled out of order, except it creates a new section 
    instead of amending an existing one.
        This is an effort to thwart the Chair's earlier ruling. 
    Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman from Maryland 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Long of Maryland: I should respond by saying that the 
    gentleman's objection is specious. The amendment is a genuine 
    amendment. It fits in logically in the place that it is offered. I 
    see no substance at all to the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Ohio.
        The Chair would observe that when the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Biaggi) offered his amendment it was ruled out of order 
    because section 2 of the bill had already been read; but since the 
    pending amendment is offered as a separate subsequent section, as a 
    new section 3, the amendment is in order and the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.
        The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An amendment in the form of a new section 
need not necessarily be germane to the preceding section of the bill, 
it being sufficient where the bill contains diverse subjects that the 
amendment relate to the portion of the bill as a whole which has been 
read.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Section Offered as Qualification of Prior Section

Sec. 19.11 To a bill establishing rules for judicial interpretation of 
    acts of Congress, an amendment proposing a new section limiting the 
    application of a prior section of the bill was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
establishing rules of interpretation for federal courts involving the 
doctrine of federal preemption. The following exchange (6) 
concerned a proposed amendment, offered as a new section, having the 
effect of modifying a section of the bill previously read and passed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 3 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 11790, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York:] Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to go back to section 1. I have an amendment to 
    section 1. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to 
    the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Celler: On page 3, line 7, insert:

[[Page 8297]]

            ``Sec. 3. Section 1 of this Act shall be applicable only to 
        Acts of Congress hereafter enacted.'' . . .

        Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, this bill is in two sections. Section 
    1 provides the broad rule of preemption, and section 2 is directed 
    to the decision of the Supreme Court in the specific Nelson case.
        This bill has been read in full; both sections 1 and 2 have 
    been read. An amendment to section 1 is obviously not in order. The 
    addition of section 3, proposed by the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York, is a complete circumvention of the rule 
    because as drafted what does the language of section 3 do? It does 
    one single, solitary thing, that is, to amend section 1. I 
    therefore make the point of order that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York is not in order and is in violation of the 
    rules. It comes too late at this time. . . .
        Mr. Celler: The gentleman from New York simply states that 
    there are more ways than one to offer an amendment, and there is no 
    reason why section 3 cannot be offered to amend any part of the 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) . . . The new section is merely a 
    modification of a section already in the bill. The Chair therefore 
    thinks it is germane and overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 19.12 To a bill providing rules for judicial interpretation of 
    acts of Congress, an amendment qualifying a prior section of the 
    bill by limiting the application of the rules in certain areas of 
    federal regulation was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
to provide rules for the judicial interpretation of acts of Congress. 
The following amendment, in the form of a new section, was offered as a 
qualification of a prior section of the bill: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 3 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 9. 105 Cong. Rec. 11799, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: On 
    page 3, following line 6, add as section 3 the following: Provided 
    however, That nothing . . . contained in this Act shall be 
    construed as subjecting foods . . . or other articles distributed 
    interstate in compliance with . . . requirements of Federal laws 
    and regulations . . . to . . . additional requirements made by or 
    under State laws or regulations.

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

        Mr. [George] Meader [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        As I understand, the gentleman offers his amendment to page 3, 
    line 6, which has to do with amending the title of the code.

    Referring to the ruling of the Chair on a similar 
issue,(10) the

[[Page 8298]]

proponent of the amendment stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 21.20, infra, for discussion of that issue and the ruling 
        thereon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In my opinion the ruling of the Chair on the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lindsay] as to its being in 
    order and as to its propriety, would apply with equal force to this 
    amendment which does nothing more than add as section 3 a 
    clarification of the subject matter of section 1.

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Again, the Chair has only to rule on the question of the 
    germaneness of the amendment. The Chair believes the amendment is 
    germane and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Amendment Offered While Motion To Strike Pending

Sec. 19.13 To that title of a military procurement authorization bill 
    permitting, in part, the Committee on Armed Services to utilize the 
    services and information ``of any government agency,'' an amendment 
    directing the Comptroller General to review defense contracts was 
    held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration comprising military procurement authorization for fiscal 
1970. Subsequent to a motion offered by Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New 
York, to strike Title V of the bill, (13) the following 
amendment was offered to Title V: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 14000 (Committee on Armed Services).
13. See 115 Cong. Rec. 28454, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 3, 1969.
14. Id. at pp. 28454, 28455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana] to 
    title V: On page 17, immediately after line 13 insert the 
    following:

            Sec. 505. (a) The Comptroller General of the United States 
        . . . is authorized and directed . . . to conduct a study and 
        review on a selective basis of the profits made by contractors 
        and subcontractors on contracts on which there is no formally 
        advertised competitive bidding entered into by the Department 
        of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, the Coast Guard, 
        and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration . . . and 
        on contracts entered into by the Atomic Energy Commission to 
        meet requirements of the Department of Defense. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 28455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    submit that this amendment is not germane because the amendment 
    before embodied is to strike the section. How can you have an 
    amendment to a section that is to be stricken?

    The Chairman, (16) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has gone through the precedents and has found that 
    where

[[Page 8299]]

    the Committee of the Whole has agreed that the further reading of a 
    title of a bill is dispensed with and open to amendment at any 
    point, a perfecting amendment adding a new section may be offered 
    notwithstanding the fact that an amendment proposing to strike out 
    the title is pending. Perfecting amendments to a title in a bill 
    may be offered while there is pending a motion to strike out such 
    title.

    The Chairman then ruled that the amendment was germane to that part 
of the bill to which offered. The following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. My recollection 
    is that on a previous amendment, the Chair ruled it out of order 
    because it brought in another agency.
        The Chairman: That was because the Whalen amendment was not 
    germane to that title or section of the bill.
        Mr. Stratton: Does not that same point lie against this 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair has ruled that the Jacobs amendment is 
    germane to title V.

Scope of Bill Previously Broadened by Amendment

Sec. 19.14 To a bill establishing a commission to adjust salary levels 
    of certain classes of government employees, broadened by amendment 
    to include legislative employees, an amendment to restrict certain 
    political activities of employees paid from Members' clerk-hire 
    allowances was held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (17) was under 
consideration relating to salaries of government employees. The bill, 
as amended, included legislative employees. The following amendment was 
offered to the bill as a new section: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 13000 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 29966, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 14, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William L.] Hungate [of Missouri]: . 
    . . Any person paid from a clerk hire allowance of the House of 
    Representatives who travels to a Congressional district in a State 
    other than the State of the member by which he is employed for the 
    purpose of influencing in any manner the outcome of a Congressional 
    election, including any future Congressional election, shall be 
    paid for only one-half the pay period during which the Clerk of the 
    House is informed of the activities as provided in subsection (b) 
    of this section.

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

        Mr. [William L.] Scott [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill that 
    is being considered.

    The Chairman, (19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles M. Price (Ill.).

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

[[Page 8300]]

        . . . The Chair would like to point out that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) that was adopted, 
    goes to the point of clerk hire in the House and also in the 
    Senate. The bill having been opened up on that subject by the 
    adoption of that amendment, and since the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hungate] also addresses itself to the 
    matter of clerk hire in the House, the Chair holds that the 
    amendment is germane and therefore overrules the point of order.

Bill Addressing Agencies Regulation of Energy Conservation--Amendment 
    To Prohibit Use of Fuel for School Busing

Sec. 19.15 The test of the germaneness of an amendment in the form of a 
    new section to a title of a bill being read by titles is the 
    relationship between the amendment and the pending title.

    On Sept. 17, 1975, (20) during consideration of a title 
of a bill (1) designed to enable agencies of the government 
to formulate policies of energy conservation, an amendment thereto 
prohibiting certain uses of fuel (for school busing) by any person and 
imposing criminal penalties for such use was held not germane to the 
fundamental purpose of the title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 28925-27, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. H.R. 7014, Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which has been printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Collins of Texas: Page 273, insert 
        after line 4 the following new section:

            energy conservation through prohibition of unnecessary 
                                 transportation

            Sec. 450. (a)(1) No person may use gasoline or diesel fuel 
        for the transportation of any public school student to a school 
        farther than the public school which is closest to his home 
        offering educational courses for the grade level and course of 
        study of the student and which is within the boundaries of the 
        school attendance district wherein the student resides.
            (2) Any person who violates subsection (1) of this section 
        shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 
        one year, or both, for each violation of such subsection. . . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]his is clearly beyond the scope of the matters that are 
    dealt with in this title of the bill. It would very substantially 
    introduce administrative duties that are not provided for in any 
    way in the bill, and it is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this 
    committee. . . .
        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, we have had a similar 
    amendment in conservation bills before which have passed the House 
    before, and in this particular bill. It comes in conjunction with 
    sections on energy con

[[Page 8301]]

    servation through van pooling arrangements, through the use of car 
    pools. It is an identical type of conservation measure as the 
    limitation of limousines we discussed earlier, and the conservation 
    of gasoline.
        This is very much consistent because what we are talking about 
    here in conservation, the unnecessary and unneeded uses of 
    transportation. Also, we have the jurisdiction over the FEA, and it 
    seems to me that we would be concerned with this. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman from New York makes 
    a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Collins) on grounds that it is not germane to title 
    IV. The gentleman from Texas, in responding to the point of order, 
    has cited certain amendments that have been adopted to the bill 
    during debate, and the Chair is not clear as to whether he is 
    talking only about this bill or about earlier bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I understand that 
    specifically this bill itself, in this particular bill itself on 
    page 270, we have a section of this bill which says, ``Energy 
    Conservation Through Van Pooling Arrangements.''
        On page 271, we have a section called ``Use of Carpools.'' We 
    just adopted the Santini amendment, which is related to it. We 
    talked about limousines. We have been talking about transportation 
    and vehicles. Here we are talking about conservation, and we could 
    conserve a great deal of gasoline and diesel fuel. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . I would point out 
    that the bill before us relates to allocation of gasoline. It 
    relates to the conservation of energy. But this amendment adds a 
    criteria category and purpose to the bill which is above, apart and 
    different from anything else found anywhere else in the bill, and 
    that is a specific prohibition of the use of fuels for a particular 
    purpose, which carries us beyond the purposes of the bill.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I would cite to the Chair that the nature 
    of the amendment must be such as to notify the House that it might 
    reasonably anticipate it and might be related for the purposes of 
    which the bill is drawn.
        Mr. Chairman, I might add further that the amendment adds 
    criminal sections, imposing, for example, penalties on bus drivers 
    of school buses, and goes well beyond the allocation powers or the 
    conservation powers which are vested in the Federal Government, 
    adding, essentially, a new criminal section of the bill which was 
    not previously before us and which is not in the bill. . . .
        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    call the attention of the Chair to title VI of the bill, 
    particularly section 605, where we have a section that prohibits 
    the use of natural gas as boiler fuel for the generation of 
    electricity.
        It would seem to me that here we have a similar type of fuel--
    gasoline--and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Collins) by his 
    amendment would prohibit the use of that fuel in transporting 
    school children. . . .
        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Chairman, there is one further thing 
    I wish to say. We have talked about whether there were penalties or 
    not provided in this bill.

[[Page 8302]]

        In the bill itself, in previous sections, violations were set 
    out and there were penalties of $5,000. There are several sections 
    in the FEA sections that provide for penalties. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to state at the outset that the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ottinger) against 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Collins) is 
    on the ground that the amendment is not germane to title IV, and we 
    are in effect limited in our consideration to the matters contained 
    in title IV.
        As will be clear in the statement which the Chair will make, 
    the ruling that the present occupant of the Chair made under 
    seemingly similar circumstances on an earlier bill is different.
        The amendment would prohibit the use by any person--and that is 
    the key to the ruling of the Chair--of gasoline or diesel fuel for 
    certain transportation of public school students, and would 
    establish a criminal penalty for violation of the amendment's 
    provisions. The Chair has noted the Chair's ruling, cited in 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 26.9, that an amendment 
    restricting the regulatory authority of the President, who was 
    authorized by the bill to establish priorities among users of 
    petroleum products, was germane where the amendment required the 
    product so allocated be used only for certain transportation of 
    public school students.
        It appears to the Chair that the ruling on that occasion was 
    specifically directed to the fact that the bill conferred certain 
    regulatory authority upon the President, and that the amendment 
    placed a specific limitation and direction on the power so 
    delegated. The amendment now in question does not address itself to 
    the authority of an agency of Government, except in its last 
    subsection relating to certain determinations by the Administrator 
    of the Federal Energy Administration. But the direct thrust of the 
    amendment is to prohibit certain uses of fuel by any person.
        It is true that the title to which the amendment is offered 
    deals with the subject of the conservation of energy, but the 
    provisions of title IV address the goal of conservation through 
    actions and encouragement by an agency of Government, not through 
    prohibitions on the use of fuel by any person.
        The Chair is unable to discover in title IV or in the basic act 
    being amended criminal prohibitions applicable to any person using 
    the fuel in a certain way.
        The Chair, therefore, finds that the amendment is not germane 
    to the fundamental purposes of the title to which offered and 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill To Protect Civil Rights--New Title To Establish Commission on 
    Equal Job Opportunity Under Government Contracts

Sec. 19.16 To a bill having as its fundamental purpose the protection 
    of political rights, an amendment in the form of a new title to 
    establish a Commission on Equal Job

[[Page 8303]]

    Opportunity Under Government Contracts was held to be an economic 
    proposition and was ruled out as not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
relating to enforcement of constitutional rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3.  H.R. 8601 (Committee on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The following amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4.  106 Cong. Rec. 5477, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: On 
    page 12, after title V, insert the following new title VI and 
    renumber the remaining titles and sections accordingly:

                                 ``Title VI

      ``commission on equal job opportunity under government contracts

        ``Sec. 601. There is hereby created a Commission to be known as 
    the `Commission on Equal Job Opportunity Under Government 
    Contracts,' hereinafter referred to as the Commission. . . .
        ``(b) To implement the policy of the United States Government 
    to eliminate discrimination because of race, creed, color, or 
    national origin in the employment of persons in the performance of 
    contracts or subcontracts to provide the Government with goods or 
    services, the Commission shall make recommendations . . . .'

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  Id. at p. 5478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I made the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. It is not germane 
    because it introduces to this legislation a subject entirely 
    foreign to the bill, as reported by the committee. There is nothing 
    in the bill relating to the subject of work discrimination. There 
    is nothing in the bill which provides for the appointment of any 
    other commission, and this sets up an entirely new commission and 
    an entirely new bureau and is totally unrelated to all of the other 
    provisions of the bill.

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

        Mr. Celler: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered to 
    the bill as a new title. . . .
        It is not always easy to determine whether or not a proposed 
    amendment relates to a subject different from that under 
    consideration within the meaning of this rule, and it is 
    particularly difficult to do so when, as in the case of this bill 
    under consideration, H.R. 8601, there are separate and distinct 
    subjects which are touched upon in the five titles of the bill.
        The subjects of the bill are, first, the obstruction of court 
    orders; second, flight to avoid prosecution; third, preservation of 
    Federal election records; fourth, the powers of the Civil Rights 
    Commission; and, finally, fifth, the education of the children of 
    members of the Armed Forces. It is logical, therefore, that the 
    addition of a new subject as contained in this amendment is germane 
    to the subject matter contained in the bill itself. In effect, 
    adding one more stone to the necklace.

[[Page 8304]]

    . . . In determining germaneness, one must look to the fundamental 
    underlying purpose of the bill. Here there is no question that the 
    fundamental purpose of the legislation under consideration is to 
    provide means for the enforcement of constitutional rights called 
    civil rights as well as for other purposes. This is the identical 
    same purpose of the amendment. The subject matter of the amendment 
    is to provide a remedy to enforce the right of a person to work 
    without discrimination, a civil right, where a Government contract 
    is involved. This is consistent with the purpose of each of the 
    five titles contained in the bill.
        We must keep in mind that this is not a narrow, single-purpose 
    bill; but, on the contrary, this is a broad multi-purpose bill 
    which has as its objective the enforcement of constitutionally 
    guaranteed rights. . . .
        In Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 3010, we find:

            To a bill including several propositions of the same class 
        an amendment adding another proposition of that class is 
        germane. . . .

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.  Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
 7.  106 Cong. Rec. 5479, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 14, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question of germaneness depends entirely on the basic 
    purpose of the bill under consideration. The basic purpose of this 
    bill is to preserve certain rights. True, it is, there are sections 
    that relate to other subjects, but the basic purpose, the 
    fundamental purpose, that the gentleman spoke about in the 
    precedents he recited is the matter contained in the bill before 
    us.
        The pending amendment introduces an economic question of 
    whether or not employment should be interfered with or affected 
    through the enactment of legislation which it seems to the Chair is 
    foreign to the purpose of the pending bill.
        For that reason, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point 
    of order. In the opinion of the Chair, this amendment does not 
    introduce a subject matter that is in the same class as the 
    legislation under consideration.

    An appeal was taken from the decision of the Chairman:

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I most respectfully appeal from the 
    ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Celler) there were--ayes 157, noes 67.
        So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the 
    Committee. .

--Amendment To Enfranchise Citizens of District of Columbia .

Sec. 19.17 To a bill to eliminate deprivation of the right to vote 
    because of race or color, an amendment to enfranchise citizens of 
    the District of Columbia was held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
relating

[[Page 8305]]

to political rights including voting rights. The following amendment 
was offered to the bill: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 8601 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 6388, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 23, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: On page 12, 
    after line 7, add a new title and insert:

            Citizens of the District of Columbia eligible to vote for 
        delegates to national conventions to political parties shall 
        here have the right to vote for President and Vice President of 
        the United States in the same manner and on the same dates as 
        elections for President and Vice President are held in the 
        various States.

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane; that it concerns 
    rights to be granted to citizens of the District of Columbia in 
    connection with presidential elections, which is a subject entirely 
    separate and distinct from the general tenor and import and 
    specific provisions of the bill itself. In any event, it is a 
    constitutional amendment.

    The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 6389, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 23, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio goes beyond the scope of the bill under consideration, 
    the bill being confined entirely to deprivation of the right to 
    vote because of race or color. For that reason the point of order 
    is sustained. .

Bill Authorizing Attorney General To Bring Proceedings To Prevent 
    Abridgment of Civil Rights--Amendment To Permit Certain Proceedings 
    Against Attorney General by Persons Affected

Sec. 19.18 To a bill authorizing the Attorney General to institute 
    proceedings against persons engaged in, or about to engage in, acts 
    abridging an individual's civil rights, an amendment to permit an 
    individual to institute proceedings against the Attorney General 
    upon belief that the Attorney General was about to institute such 
    proceedings against him, was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration relating to the protection of civil rights of persons 
within the jurisdiction of the United States. The following amendment 
was offered to the bill: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  H.R. 627 (Committee on the Judiciary).
13.  102 Cong. Rec. 13742, 13743, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 1956.

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

[[Page 8306]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: 
    On page 25, after line 6, insert a new section:

            Fourth--subsection (a). Whenever any private individual 
        believes the Attorney General or any representative of the 
        Federal Government has engaged or is about to engage in any 
        acts or practices authorized in this act, such private 
        individual may institute for the real party in interest a civil 
        action or other appropriate proceeding for redress, or 
        preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or 
        temporary injunction. . . .

    The following exchange (14) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 13743.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, this amendment which has been 
    presented, would attempt to give to the people of the country 
    somewhat the same rights that this act would give to the Attorney 
    General. . . . Whenever a citizen saw that the Attorney General, or 
    any representative of the Federal Government, was about to engage 
    in any action, which would bring people into court as parties 
    defendant, then that individual could go into a Federal court, with 
    the Federal Government standing the cost so that at least such 
    private individual would be in a position of equality before the 
    court. . . .
        This bill is broad enough to make this amendment germane, and I 
    refer to its title as follows:

            To provide means for further securing and protecting the 
        civil rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United 
        States. . . .

        Mr. Keating: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, we are here seeking to amend section 1980 of the 
    Revised Statutes. The first three sections provide for certain 
    remedies in cases of interference with a United States officer in 
    the performance of his duty. . . .
        What the gentleman from Mississippi is seeking to do, as I read 
    his amendment, is to give a cause of action to an individual 
    against the Attorney General. Perhaps we should broaden, extend, or 
    consider the statutes relating to the liability of a public 
    official for not doing his duty, or going beyond the scope of his 
    duty. These are statutes on our books having to do with the 
    violation of duty by a public official and the right of those 
    injured thereby. But that has nothing to do with legislation we are 
    considering here today. Therefore, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman is not germane to the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair has examined the 
    language of the bill and also the language of the amendment and 
    comes to the conclusion that the language of the amendment is 
    merely a reversal of the medal of the language as appears in the 
    bill and for that reason concludes that the amendment is germane 
    and, therefore, overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Aime J. Forand (R.I.). .

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

[[Page 8307]]

Defense Authorization Bill: Amendment Adding New Section Repealing 
    Prohibition on Funds for Legal Officers' Training

Sec. 19.19 To a general authorization bill for the Department of 
    Defense, an amendment adding a new section providing for legal 
    training of armed forces officers at civilian institutions and for 
    the repeal of legislation prohibiting such legal training, was held 
    to be germane to the bill as a whole.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (16) was under 
consideration which was intended in part to enact into permanent law 
certain provisions included at the time in the Department of Defense 
Appropriation Act and the Civil Functions Appropriation Act. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 7992 (Committee on Armed Services).
17. 102 Cong. Rec. 13843, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 21, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Page 
    13, line 23, add a new section 27, as follows:

            Sec. 27. (a) The number of officers of the regular 
        components of the Armed Forces detailed each year to commence 
        training in law at civilian institutions shall not exceed the 
        following numbers: Army, 15; Navy, 5; Air Force, 15; and Marine 
        Corps, 10. . . .

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

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that this amendment is not germane to the bill. The bill 
    relates to points of order. This is not an item that would have 
    been subject under the rules of the House to a point of order. It 
    is a provision whereby without other action by the House it would 
    permit the Department to go ahead and spend money. It is an 
    elaborating proposition, and it practically constitutes an 
    appropriation. Under the circumstances it is not only not germane 
    but it constitutes an appropriation by a committee not authorized 
    by law to bring in such a proposition.

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

        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, I realize that all the gentleman has 
    said is true with regard to the former section 10, but this bill is 
    for stated and other purposes. This subject is under the 
    legislative cognizance of the Congress of the United States. 
    Therefore, it is a subject that is cognizant with respect to this 
    bill and therefore germane.

    The Chairman,(18) without elaboration, ruled that the 
amendment was germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Charles B. Deane (N.C.).

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

[[Page 8308]]

Section of Bill Authorizing Military Construction--Amendment To Strike 
    and Insert Provision Repealing Prohibition on Funds for Legal 
    Officers' Training

Sec. 19.20 To that section of a bill authorizing certain minor military 
    construction and repealing the monetary limitation on minor naval 
    construction, a committee amendment striking that provision and 
    inserting a provision for legal training of armed forces officers 
    at civilian institutions and repealing legislation prohibiting use 
    of funds for such legal training, was held to be not germane.

    The following exchange (19) in the 84th Congress took 
place during consideration of a bill (20) which sought to 
enact into permanent law certain provisions included at the time in the 
Department of Defense Appropriation Act and the Civil Functions 
Appropriation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 102 Cong. Rec. 13841, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 21, 1956.
20. H.R. 7992 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: I make the point of order 
    against the amendment to section 10 which reads as follows:
        On page 5, line 20, strike lines 20 through 25, inclusive, and 
    on page 6, strike lines 1 through 6, inclusive, and insert the 
    following:

            Sec. 10. (a) The number of officers of the Regular 
        components of the Armed Forces detailed each year to commence 
        training in law at civilian institutions shall not exceed the 
        following numbers: Army, 15; Navy, 5; Air Force, 15; and Marine 
        Corps, 10.
            (b) Section 623 of the Department of Defense Appropriation 
        Act, 1956, approved July 13, 1955, is repealed--

        On the ground that the amendment is not germane to the matter 
    sought to be stricken. . . .
        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: May I say to the gentleman that 
    the Armed Services Committee has jurisdiction under the rules of 
    the House over any legislation in this or any other form if it 
    relates to the Department of Defense. This deals with certain 
    specific statutes. It does not make any difference whether they 
    originated in the Appropriations Committee or they are something 
    new that we are writing in. We are well within our jurisdiction 
    when we deal with this particular subject matter.

    The Chairman,(1) without elaboration, sustained the 
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Charles B. Deane (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorities of Department of Defense--Amendment Prohibiting Use of 
    Lands for Defense Purposes Pending Study

Sec. 19.21 To a bill containing diverse provisions relating to

[[Page 8309]]

    authorities of the Department of Defense, an amendment adding a new 
    title precluding that department from utilizing certain real 
    property for deployment of a weapons system pending a study was 
    held germane as confined solely to activities of the Defense 
    Department and not extending to issues of the release of public 
    lands through another department.

    On May 21, 1980,(2) during consideration of H.R. 6974 
(3) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Dan 
Rostenkowski, of Illinois, overruled a point of order in the 
circumstances described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 126 Cong. Rec. 11972, 11973, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. The Department of Defense Authorization for fiscal 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David D.] Marriott [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Marriott:

         TITLE X--RESPONSE TO MX/MPS SYSTEM IMPACT BY THE SECRETARY OF 
                                    DEFENSE

            Sec. 1000. The Secretary of Defense may not use any land 
        made available for the deployment of any part of the MX/MPS 
        system until the Secretary of Defense has provided Congress and 
        the States affected by the system with the following--
            (1) A report setting forth specific social, economic and 
        environmental impacts of the MX/MPS system on the people, 
        lands, and resources affected, and detailing the amount of 
        public land to be partially or completely closed to any or all 
        public use, and setting forth any circumstances which would 
        require the use of area security, rather than point security, 
        for the system;
            (2) A proposal outlining the methods of addressing the 
        social, economic, and environmental impacts of the MX/MPS 
        system so as to minimize the negative effects of such impacts, 
        including specific steps that can be taken to eliminate delays 
        in delivery of necessary impact aid funds to affected states, 
        counties, and communities;
            (3) A study of the feasibility of basing parts of the MX/
        MPS system in more than two States, so as to minimize the 
        social, economic, and environmental impacts on any single 
        State. . . .

        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: . . . I observe that the 
    amendment applies to the MX-MPS system which is contained in title 
    II and was fully debated by the committee.
        The gentleman sets up a new title X applying solely to MX 
    lands.
        Mr. Chairman, I would raise a point of order against the 
    amendment on two grounds. First, the amendment is not now in order 
    as a separate title X. It should have been offered to title II.
        The gentleman would have to ask unanimous consent to open up 
    the MX issue.
        Mr. Chairman, as a second ground, fully appreciating the good 
    and honorable intentions of the highly esteemed gentleman from Utah 
    in offering this amendment, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane to the legislation under consideration 
    today since this bill in even a remote

[[Page 8310]]

    respect, Mr. Chairman, does not authorize the acquisition of public 
    lands in any fashion, nor are the agencies of Government concerned 
    nor the public lands within the jurisdiction of this bill.
        If we examine the amendment, the gentleman deals strictly with 
    three conditions for the withdrawal of land. Therefore, such an 
    amendment would not properly find its place in H.R. 6974. In fact, 
    Mr. Chairman, the law is such that if we make a withdrawal of land 
    over 5,000 acres it has to be done by other legislation. I am 
    constrained, even though appreciating the good intentions of the 
    gentleman from Utah, to make the point of order that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Marriott) is not germane to 
    the bill under the provisions of House rule XVI, clause 7. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair observes that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Marriott) 
    has offered his amendment as a new title X, which is an amendment 
    which must be germane to the bill as a whole and, the Chair feels 
    that the amendment certainly relates to the bill, and that under 
    the precedent a subject may be germane at more than one place in 
    the bill.
        The Chair also makes the observation that the amendment only 
    addresses the authority of the Secretary of Defense to use any 
    available lands for research on and deployment of the MX. Such an 
    amendment is germane since it is not addressed to the question of 
    the acquisition of public lands or the release of public lands by 
    the Department of the Interior and since other authorities of the 
    Defense Department are contained in the bill. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri.

Bill Amending Universal Military Training and Service Act--New Section 
    on Subject Not Covered in Bill or Act (Combat Pay)

Sec. 19.22 To a bill amending the Universal Military Training and 
    Service Act, an amendment relating to additional pay for combat 
    service for all of the armed forces was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
amending the Universal Military Training and Service Act. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. S. 1-1951 (Committee on Armed Services).
 5. 97 Cong. Rec. 3781, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Olin E.] Teague [of Texas] to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: 
    Page 20, after line 18, add a new section, as follows:

            That members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force 
        entitled to receive basic pay shall in addition thereto be 
        entitled to receive a special pay at the monthly rate of $100 
        per month for officers and $75 per month for enlisted persons 
        for combat duty while actually engaged in combat. . . .

[[Page 8311]]

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

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane, as it relates to combat 
    pay, and there is nothing in this bill or the Original Draft Act of 
    1948 dealing with the question of pay or combat pay at all.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 3783, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas covers a subject matter which 
    is not covered in the pending bill or in the act which is sought to 
    be amended by the pending bill.
        The Chair is of the opinion therefore that the amendment is not 
    germane to the pending bill and sustains the point of order.

Defense Production Act--New Title Amending Housing Act

Sec. 19.23 To 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 was 
    held not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of the Defense 
Production Act of 1950,(8) the following amendment was 
offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 9176 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 9. 96 Cong. Rec. 11751, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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. . . .''
        Sec. 508. Section 204(i) of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, 
    as amended, is amended to read as follows:

            (3) The Housing Expediter, upon recommendation of a local 
        advisory board, or upon his own initiative, whenever in his 
        judgment such action is necessary or proper in order to 
        effectuate the purposes of this title or to promote national 
        defense, may by regulation or order establish or reestablish 
        maximum rents for any or all housing accommodations in any 
        defense-rental area. . . .

    In response to the point of order raised by Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, 
of Michigan, that the amendment was not germane to the subject matter 
of the bill, the proponent of the amendment (10) stated: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Barratt O'Hara (Ill.).
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 11752, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. . . .

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Howard W. Smith (Va.).

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

[[Page 8312]]

        The Chair has considered the amendment rather briefly. It seems 
    to relate to a subject that is nowhere touched on in this present 
    bill now before the Committee.
        The Chair is constrained to rule . . . that the amendment is 
    not germane to the pending substitute; therefore sustains the point 
    of order.

Bill as Amended Addressing Diverse Aspects of Foreign Policy, Foreign 
    Aid and Trade--Amendment To Remove Sanctions Against Rhodesia Under 
    Certain Conditions

Sec. 19.24 The test of germaneness of an amendment adding a new section 
    at the end of a bill is its relationship to the entire bill as 
    perfected; thus, where a bill authorizing foreign military 
    assistance had been broadened in its scope by amendments relating 
    to economic assistance to other nations, trade and other aspects of 
    relations with the Soviet Union, matters of foreign policy with 
    respect to human rights abroad, actions to be taken by various 
    countries respecting their internal affairs in order to qualify for 
    assistance from the United States, and issues pertaining to 
    Congressional travel expenses, an amendment to remove military and 
    economic trade sanctions against Rhodesia under certain conditions 
    was held germane to the bill as a whole in its perfected form.

    During consideration of H.R. 12514 (13) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Aug. 2, 1978,(14) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The International Security Assistance Authorization, fiscal 1979.
14. 124 Cong. Rec. 23936-38, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    further amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 19, after line 20, 
        insert the following new section:
            Sec. 26. Section 533(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
        1961 is amended by inserting the number ``(1)'' after the 
        phrase ``Section 533(d)'' and by striking out the period at the 
        end of the paragraph, inserting a semicolon, and adding the 
        following:
            ``(d)(2) In furtherance of this section and the foreign 
        policy interests of the United States, the government of the 
        United States shall not enforce any sanctions against the 
        government and people of Rhodesia before October 1, 1979, 
        unless the President shall determine that (a) the transitional 
        government of Rhodesia has not committed itself to negotiate in 
        good faith at an all-parties conference held under 
        international auspices on all relevant issues; and (b) the 
        transitional government has made no definite plans for the hold

[[Page 8313]]

        ing of free and fair elections including all population groups 
        under recognized international observation. This section shall 
        take effect upon enactment.'' . . .

        Mr. [Charles C.] Diggs [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Maryland on the question of the germaneness, clause 7 of House 
    rule XVI.
        An amendment of this nature is subject to two tests of 
    germaneness. First, it has to be related to the subject matter 
    under consideration; and second, the fundamental purpose of the 
    amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill. 
    In my view, the gentleman's amendment fails both tests. With 
    respect to the subject matter, as compared to the content of the 
    amendment, we note that the amendment in no way really deals with 
    grant military assistance or military training or foreign military 
    sales or narcotics control assistance or economic assistance to 
    Turkey or the various elements of the subject of this bill, H.R. 
    12514.
        To the contrary, the fundamental purpose of the amendment is to 
    lift existing economic trade sanctions against the Government of 
    Rhodesia, an action not within the scope of the bill before us 
    which has as its principal purpose the authorization of 
    international security assistance programs for the fiscal year 
    1979.
        In addition, the bill has other provisions which primarily 
    relate to other kinds of bilateral U.S. assistance. It in no way 
    addresses the issue of nonmilitary trade or economic trade 
    sanctions in general, nor does it seek to apply or to lift such 
    sanctions against any individual company, and it in no way 
    addresses the issue of U.S. imports from any source. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Diggs) has correctly stated the basic rule that applies to any 
    amendment to be offered to a bill, and that is under rule XVI, 
    clause 7, any amendment must be germane to the bill before the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        However, the relationship of the amendment to the bill to be 
    judged is to the bill as modified by all actions of the Committee 
    of the Whole. If one applies the fundamental purpose test to the 
    bill now before us, it is easy, I think, for the Chair to determine 
    that while the fundamental purpose of the legislation does deal 
    with military assistance to foreign countries, the bill, both as 
    reported by the committee and as modified by the Committee of the 
    Whole, goes well beyond the scope of that single purpose, and the 
    bill has been broadened by amendment to the point where this 
    amendment is in order.
        I refer the Chair first to the bill, as reported. On page 2, in 
    section 3, we find an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961 which deals with International Narcotics Control. The 
    pertinent section under International Narcotics Control, section 
    481 of the 1961 act, does not deal with military assistance but 
    with international trade in drugs which, while illicit, is 
    certainly commercial in character. Under that section, section 481, 
    of the 1961 act, the President is given the power to suspend 
    ``economic and military assistance furnished under this or any 
    other act'' if the countries involved in the drug trade do not in 
    fact live up to the

[[Page 8314]]

    standards set in the act. That is a commercial transaction over 
    which the President has control.
        I would refer the Chair further to the section of the bill 
    dealing with assistance to Turkey, and that is on page 13 of the 
    bill. Section 16 of the bill provides economic assistance to Turkey 
    and not military assistance. It is conceded that this would have 
    belonged in the previous economic aid authorization bill, but it 
    was added to this bill, obviously broadening the scope of the bill 
    at that point.
        On the point of economic assistance to Turkey, I would refer to 
    page 29 of the committee report, where it is stated that the 
    specific economic aid given in the bill is under the International 
    Development and Food Assistance Act, which, I believe, permits 
    sales to foreign countries as well as outright grants. That is a 
    commercial transaction and not a military assistance transaction.
        I would call the attention of the Chair to an additional 
    section of the bill, section 5, which allows assistance to police 
    and other law enforcement agencies in foreign countries. On pages 
    14 and 15 of the report there are references to the section, as 
    amended, which would affect principally commercial exports of 
    munitions items. It requires reports of private commercial sales to 
    be made to the State Department, and it transfers jurisdiction from 
    the Commerce Department over this kind of commercial activity.
        I refer the Chair to the Wolff amendment which was adopted 
    today by the Committee of the Whole, a new section on page 19, line 
    20, in which the gentleman from New York offered an amendment that 
    requires that the President conduct a full review of U.S. policy 
    toward the Soviet Union, and this review will cover but is not 
    limited to subparagraph (3) on page 1, ``what linkages do exist,'' 
    and so on, including, ``arms control negotiations, human rights 
    issues, and economic and cultural exchanges.'' And, further, in 
    subparagraph (10), ``United States economic, technological, 
    scientific and cultural relations. . . .''
        It is the contention of the gentleman from Maryland that the 
    amendment before the House is germane since it amends the 1961 act 
    and the amendment covers not only commercial and economic sanctions 
    against Rhodesia, but specifically also covers military and 
    security sanctions against Rhodesia. . . .
        The Chairman: (15) . . . The Chair might point out 
    that the amendment comes at the end of the bill. While the bill, 
    when it was reported from the Committee on International Relations, 
    was primarily confined to bilateral security assistance and related 
    policies, this bill, as perfected in the Committee of the Whole, 
    has been significantly broadened in scope, as well as subject 
    matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill now deals with the use of funds for travel expenses of 
    Members and employees of Congress, as well as matters relating to 
    security and economic assistance to other nations, furnished by 
    this country.
        The bill also now addresses the full range of our relations 
    with the Soviet Union, including all trade and economic matters, 
    and contains broad statements of foreign policy in relation

[[Page 8315]]

    to human rights abroad, relationships with Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, 
    Chile, and Korea, and the actions which other countries must take 
    in relation to their internal affairs in order to receive military 
    or other assistance from the United States.
        It therefore appears to the Chair that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Maryland is germane as a further direction on 
    the use of our foreign assistance and on the operations of foreign 
    relations, and for the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the 
    point of order.

Foreign Assistance--Commission To Administer All Foreign Aid

Sec. 19.25 To a bill authorizing appropriations for assistance to 
    Greece and Turkey through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, 
    an amendment proposing the creation of a Foreign Funds Control 
    Commission, which was to have control over funds proposed in the 
    bill and over funds made available under other legislation, was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (16) was under 
consideration relating to assistance to Greece and Turkey. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 2616 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 4930, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., May 9, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Fred L.] Crawford [of Michigan]: On 
    page 4, line 22, after the period, add a new section:

            Sec. 3a. There is hereby created the Foreign Funds Control 
        Commission, which shall be an independent agency of Government 
        directly responsible to the Congress. . . .
            1The Commission is hereby directed to administer all funds 
        hereafter granted by the Treasury of the United States or 
        previous grants if directed by the Congress to foreign 
        countries, their nationals and agencies of whatever kind or 
        nature.

    In response to the point of order made by Mr. Charles A. Eaton, of 
New Jersey, that the amendment was not germane to the bill, the 
Chairman (18) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    proposes to create a Foreign Funds Control Commission, to be an 
    independent agency of the Government and to have control not merely 
    over the funds proposed to be authorized by the pending legislation 
    but over funds that might be made available under other 
    legislation. Consequently the Chair sustains the point of order and 
    rules that the amendment is not germane.

--Waiving Provisions of Other Laws

Sec. 19.26 To a bill amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
    providing new authorizations and policy declarations, an amendment 
    to pro

[[Page 8316]]

    hibit use of any funds available notwithstanding any other law 
    until the question of further assistance under the act had been 
    approved in a national referendum was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
1963,(19) the following amendment was offered: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 7885 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
20. 109 Cong. Rec. 15608, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 22, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 310. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, is amended by 
    adding at the end thereof the following new section:

            Sec. 648. Notwithstanding any other provision of this or 
        any other Act, none of the funds available to carry out the 
        provisions of this Act, shall be expended until the following 
        question be submitted to qualified electors in a National 
        Referendum.
            Shall the United States continue the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961, or any amendments thereto, subsequent to June 30, 
        1964?

    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 on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the foreign aid bill.

    The following exchange (1) concerned a point of 
procedure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, is it not true 
    that all points of order have been waived on this bill?
        The Chairman: (2) Under the rule, all points of 
    order are waived as to the text of the bill, as reported by the 
    committee. Points of order are not waived as to amendments that 
    might be offered to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman, in ruling on the point of order, stated:

        . . . The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan] makes the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill before the Committee. The Chair is of the 
    opinion that the amendment is not germane to the bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Bill Establishing Silver Content of Certain Coins--Amendment To Limit 
    Silver Exports. .

Sec. 19.27 To a bill establishing the silver content of certain coins, 
    an amendment limiting the export of silver from the United States 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
relating to coinage. The following amendment was offered to the bill: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 8926 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 16839, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 14, 1965.

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

[[Page 8317]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. (Ed) Reinecke [of California]: Page 5, 
    immediately after line 13, insert the following new section:
        ``Sec. 107. During each of the first five fiscal years ending 
    after the date of enactment of this Act, aggregate exports of 
    silver from the United States shall be limited to an amount not 
    exceeding the aggregate imports of silver during such year. . . . 
    The policies set forth in section 2 of the Export Control Act of 
    1949 shall be deemed to include the limitation of exports of silver 
    in accordance with this section.''

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

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. The amendment is not germane to this 
    bill. It attempts to amend the Export Control Act, section 2, which 
    is enforced by the Secretary of Commerce, and not connected with 
    the Department of the Treasury. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Mr. Chairman, it is pretty obvious that the reason we are 
    discussing this legislation today is the extreme shortage of silver 
    in the U.S. Treasury and any continued abuse or misuse of that 
    silver will have an adverse effect on our coinage situation.
        The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Frank M. Karsten (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment 
    and the bill. The Chair would call attention to the fact that the 
    bill provides for the coinage of the United States and the 
    amendment relates to exports, which is a foreign matter to the 
    subject matter of the bill.
        The Chair holds that the subject is not germane.

Bill Extending Title of Agricultural Act Authorizing Secretary of Labor 
    To Assist in Supplying Agricultural Workers From Mexico--Amendment 
    Requiring Secretary of Agriculture To Prescribe Safety and Health 
    Regulations for Such Workers

Sec. 19.28 To a bill extending Title V of the Agricultural Act of 1949, 
    as amended, authorizing the Secretary of Labor to assist in 
    supplying agricultural workers from Mexico, an amendment requiring 
    the Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation with the 
    Interstate Commerce Commission, to prescribe employer regulations 
    for the adequate safety, health, and welfare of workers being 
    transported, was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
amend

[[Page 8318]]

ing title V of the Agriculture Act of 1949, as amended, by striking out 
the termination date. The following amendment was offered to the bill: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 3822 (Committee on Agriculture).
 8. 101 Cong. Rec. 10019, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 6, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 4. Title V of such act, as amended, is further amended by 
    adding at the end thereof the following new section:
        ``Sec. 510. The Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation 
    with the Interstate Commerce Commission, shall prescribe such 
    regulations as may be necessary to require employers to provide 
    adequately for the safety, health, and welfare of workers while 
    they are being transported from reception centers to the places of 
    their employment and returned from such places to reception centers 
    after termination of employment. . . .''

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

        Mr. [Ezekiel C.] Gathings [of Arkansas]: The amendment is not 
    germane inasmuch as it calls for consultation by the Secretary of 
    Agriculture with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the 
    Interstate Commerce Commission is not in anywise affected by this 
    legislation. Furthermore, the Secretary of Agriculture does not 
    administer this program; the program is administered by the 
    Secretary of Labor. . . .

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

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I think it is 
    very evident that the amendment itself only directs that the 
    Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with the Interstate 
    Commerce Commission shall prescribe such regulations as may be 
    necessary. The fact is that this legislation is given to the 
    Secretary of Agriculture for administration, and we leave it with 
    him for that purpose with consultation merely a factor so that he 
    may be assisted in proper regulations as far as they may be 
    enforced by the Interstate Commerce Commission. . . .

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jamie L. Whitten (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From a reading of the amendment it is apparent that all the 
    actions are required of the Secretary of Agriculture; no specific 
    action is required of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
        The amendment attempts to change the provisions of the bill 
    having to do with employee safety, health, and welfare; and it is 
    quite clearly, in the opinion of the Chair, germane to the bill.

Agricultural Commodities: Support and Storage Programs--Amendment To 
    Impose Criminal Penalties Relating to Certain Fees Paid for Storage

Sec. 19.29 To an omnibus agricultural bill being considered by titles 
    and containing a title relating to various commodity conservation, 
    support, and storage programs, including conferral of court

[[Page 8319]]

    jurisdiction over discrimination cases, an amendment in the form of 
    a new section providing a criminal penalty for payment or receipt 
    of gratuities ``as an inducement for . . . storage of any . . . 
    commodity in any warehouse . . .'' was held germane to the title to 
    which offered.

    The following exchange in the 87th Congress, which took place 
during consideration of the Food and Agricultural Bill of 
1962,(10) concerned a point of order made by Mr. Harold D. 
Cooley, of North Carolina, against an amendment offered by Mr. Ross 
Bass, of Tennessee: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 12391 (Committee on Agriculture).
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 14186, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cooley: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the section to 
    which it is offered. The section . . . provides no penalty for any 
    violations of any section of the law. This amendment sets out a 
    criminal offense . . . which is not related to . . . warehousing. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair would like to remind 
    the gentleman . . . that the amendment is not to amend the section 
    but to add a new section to title III. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the gentleman . . . will examine the feed grains program, 
    title III in its entirety, he will find many sections in existing 
    law and also in the title which made the amendment germane to this 
    title.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Appropriations for Flood Damage--Amendment To Create Federal Flood 
    Claims Commission

Sec. 19.30 To a joint resolution making appropriations for 
    rehabilitation of flood-stricken areas, an amendment creating a 
    Federal Flood Claims Commission and providing for payment of 
    indemnities for flood damage was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a proposition was under consideration relating 
to aid for flood-stricken areas.(13) An amendment was 
offered as follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.J. Res. 341 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 12647, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 4, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Errett P.] Scrivner [of Kansas]: On 
    page 1, line 6, add a new section entitled ``Federal Flood Claims 
    Commission,'' and the following:

            There is hereby created a Federal Flood Claims Commission, 
        hereinafter referred to as the Commission, to be composed of 
        the Director of Defense Mobilization, the Adminis

[[Page 8320]]

        trator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and the 
        Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, to direct 
        and supervise under such regulations as it may adopt, the 
        payment of claims for losses of tangible personal property 
        suffered by individuals whose property was damaged by the 
        floods of July 1951 in areas designated by the President as 
        disaster flood areas; and local Federal flood claim boards in 
        each county . . . to receive and process such claims.
            No claim shall be considered for a minimum of less than 
        $300, and the maximum allowable to any one claimant shall be 
        $3,000; no claim shall be entertained from individuals found to 
        be eligible to relief under any other of the provisions of this 
        act. . . .

    Mr. William F. Norrell, of Arkansas, reserved a point of order 
against the amendment, and Mr. Scrivner then discussed the amendment. 
Subsequently,(15) Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, 
moved to strike the last word, and the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 12648.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Norrell: Mr. Chairman, I am willing to further reserve my 
    point of order if I do not waive anything by permitting the 
    gentleman from Mississippi to discuss the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) It is not the practice of the 
    House to reserve a point of order and then debate another 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William M. Colmer (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, Mr. Norrell stated the point of order as follows:

        I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is 
    not germane to the pending House joint resolution; that it sets up 
    a Claims Commission and establishes an indemnification for flood-
    control damages, and the House joint resolution does not do that. 
    It is not germane to the pending resolution; either the paragraph 
    or the entire resolution. There is nothing in it with reference to 
    that.

    The Chairman, in ruling on the point of order, stated:

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas would set up 
    a new commission. The general purposes of the amendment would be to 
    bring about the payment of indemnities, a matter beyond the scope 
    of the pending bill. Therefore, the point of order against this 
    amendment would have to be sustained. . . .

Bill Defining Jurisdiction of Courts and Regulating Recovery of Portal-
    to-Portal Pay--Amendment To Repeal Wages and Hours Provisions in 
    Existing Law

Sec. 19.31 To a bill to define and limit the jurisdiction of the courts 
    and regulate actions arising under certain laws, and particularly 
    to regulate the recovery of portal-to-portal pay, an amendment 
    proposing the repeal of the wages and hours provisions of the Fair 
    Labor Standards Act of 1938 was held not germane.

[[Page 8321]]

    On Feb. 28, 1947, the following part of a bill (17) 
under consideration was read for amendment: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 2157 (Committee on the Judiciary).
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 1564, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 3. No action or proceeding . . . shall be maintained to 
    the extent that such action is based upon failure of an employer to 
    pay an employee for activities . . . engaged in by such employee 
    other than those activities which at the time of such failure were 
    required to be paid for either by custom or practice of such 
    employer at the plant or other place of employment of such employee 
    or by express agreement at the time in effect between such employer 
    and such employee or his collective-bargaining representative.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: On page 5, 
    after section 2, insert a new section as follows:

            Sec. 2\1/2\. The whole of section 6, the whole of section 
        7, and the whole of section 16(b), Public Law 718, of the 
        Seventy-fifth Congress, are hereby repealed.

    The following point of order was raised against the amendment:

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. It is not germane. It deals 
    with sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act not within the scope 
    of this bill.

    The Chairman (19) without elaboration, sustained the 
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas A. Jenkins (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Amend Interstate Commerce Act Regarding Status of Certain 
    Carriers--Amendment Addressing Rates of All Common Carriers

Sec. 19.32 To a bill to amend the Interstate Commerce Act to clarify 
    the status of freight forwarders and their relationship with 
    ``motor'' common carriers, an amendment concerned with rates of all 
    common carriers was held not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(20) to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, the following 
amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 5967 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
 1. 96 Cong. Rec. 12011, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 8, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: 
    Page 5, line 9, insert a new section to read as follows:

            Sec. 4. It shall be unlawful for any carrier subject to 
        this act, to charge or receive for the transportation of 
        property from any point of origin to any point of destination 
        compensation which is greater or less than the compensation 
        charged or received by such carrier for the transportation of 
        like kind of property from such point of destination to such 
        point of origin.

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

[[Page 8322]]

        Mr. [Arthur G.] Klein [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane; it 
    deals with rates of common carriers and the bill has nothing 
    whatever to do with rates.

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

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to say is that this 
    is a transportation bill. It is a bill that affects transportation 
    and it is brought in here by the committee that has that 
    responsibility. . . .

    The following exchange then occurred: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at pp. 12011, 12012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) Does the gentleman's amendment 
    apply to freight forwarders or motor vehicles or what?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John McSweeney (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Motor vehicles or railroads or any other common 
    carriers. Anything that is affected by this bill would be included. 
    The people would be protected under this amendment from this 
    violent and unjust discrimination. . . .
        Mr. Klein: Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the Chairman that 
    this bill refers to compensation of common carriers. In my opinion, 
    the bill that is before the committee at this time simply governs 
    payments between forwarders and motor carriers under contract and 
    has nothing to do with compensation of any other kind of carrier. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: . . . [T]he amendment, 
    as I understand it . . . has to do with all freight rates, all 
    transportation rates, as covered under any title of the act. The 
    legislation that is before us is limited specifically to freight 
    forwarders and their utilization of transportation by motor 
    carriers. . . .

    The Chairman, in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 12012, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 8, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The gentleman from Mississippi admits that the amendment 
    applies to all common carriers. This bill deals exclusively with 
    motor carriers. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Providing for Investigations by Civil Service Commission--
    Amendment Requiring Reports on Investigations Be Made Available to 
    Congressional Committees

Sec. 19.33 To a bill to provide for certain investigations by the Civil 
    Service Commission in lieu of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
    an amendment providing that all findings, records, and reports on 
    such investigations be made available to the committees of Congress 
    upon request was held to be germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
relating to investigations by the Civil

[[Page 8323]]

Service Commission. The following amendment was offered to the bill: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S. 2077 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 6. 98 Cong. Rec. 2127, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 11, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: After line 2 
    on page 5, add a new section to read as follows:

            All findings, records, and reports made or compiled by the 
        Civil Service Commission under this act shall be made available 
        to the committees of the Congress upon the request of such 
        committee.

    Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, made a point of order against 
the amendment on the ground that it was not germane to the 
bill.(7) In defending the amendment, the proponent stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 2128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I believe it is germane. In checking the bill 
    itself, we find we are considering acts having to do with the 
    control of atomic energy, assistance to Greece, the joint 
    resolution providing for relief and assistance to people of 
    countries devastated by war, and the reincorporation of the 
    Institute of Inter-American Affairs, and many other such items. It 
    seems to me from the bill itself in setting up this agency, 
    Congress has a right at the same time to say that the records and 
    findings of the committee that is being set up now should be made 
    available to the committees of the Congress when the committee so 
    requests.

    The Chairman,(8) without elaboration, overruled the 
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section of Bill Providing for Assistance to States in Collecting 
    Cigarette Taxes--New Section To Provide for Payment of Portion to 
    Federal Treasury

Sec. 19.34 To that portion of a bill proposing to assist states in 
    collecting sales and use taxes on cigarettes, an amendment 
    providing that any state recovering taxes by virtue of the 
    enforcement of such provisions should pay into the Treasury of the 
    United States 10 percent of the taxes recovered was held not 
    germane.

    In the 81st Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
which contained the following provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 195 (Committee on Ways and Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. Any person selling or disposing of cigarettes in 
    interstate commerce whereby such cigarettes are shipped to other 
    than a distributor licensed by or located in a State taxing the 
    sale or use of cigarettes shall, not later than the 10th day of 
    each month, forward to the tobacco tax administrator of the State 
    into which such shipment is made, a memorandum or a copy of the 
    invoice covering each and every such shipment of cigarettes. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 6365, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 17, 1949.

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

[[Page 8324]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Earl] Chudoff [of Pennsylvania]: On 
    page 3, at the end of the page add a new section, as follows:

            Sec. 4. Any tax recovered by any State by virtue of the 
        enforcement of this act shall pay into the Treasury of the 
        United States a sum equal to 10 percent of all such taxes 
        recovered.

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

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to this 
    bill or any provision of the bill.

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. James W. Trimble (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania adds a 
    new section, section 4, which is, by its own language, legislation 
    that is not germane to the bill in question. The point of order is 
    sustained.

Bill Amending Small Business Act--Senate Amendment Providing for Legal 
    Fees for Parties Prevailing Against United States

Sec. 19.35 To a House bill narrowly amending the Small Business Act 
    reported from the Committee on Small Business, a Senate amendment 
    adding a new title providing for the payment of attorney fees and 
    other court expenses to parties prevailing against the United 
    States in court litigation and amending title 28 (within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary) was held not 
    germane (pending a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment including such provisions, after the 
    conference report on the bill had been ruled out of order).

    The proceedings of Oct. 1, 1980, relating to H.R. 5612 (addressing 
small business assistance and reimbursement for certain fees), are 
discussed in Sec. 26.26, infra.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 20. Amendment Striking Portion of Text of Bill or Amendment

    A proposal to strike out a portion of a text may be ruled out of 
order as not germane to the proposition under consideration. Generally, 
an amendment which, by striking out a portion of the text, changes the 
purpose and scope of the bill is not germane.(12) Thus, if 
the effect of an amendment striking out language is to alter the

[[Page 8325]]

scope and import of the text to such extent as to present a different 
subject from that under consideration, the amendment is not 
germane.(13) Similarly, it is sometimes stated that a 
proposal to eliminate portions of a text, thereby extending the scope 
of its provisions to subjects other than those originally presented, is 
in violation of the rule requiring germaneness.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 20.3, 20.4, infra.
13. See Sec. 15.44, supra.
14. See Sec. Sec. 9.12, supra, and 20.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, an amendment which by striking out a portion of the 
text limits, narrows or does not change the purpose and scope of the 
bill may be germane.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 20.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Perfecting amendments to a title in a bill may be offered while 
there is pending a motion to strike out the title, and are required to 
be germane to the text to which offered, not to the motion to strike 
out.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 18.2, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment as Changing Scope and Meaning of Text

Sec. 20.1 An amendment simply striking out language already in a bill 
    may not be ruled out as non-germane unless the effect of such 
    amendment would change the scope and meaning of the text.

    The proceedings of June 7, 1977, relating to the Federal Employees 
Political Activities Act of 1977,(17) wherein the Chair 
ruled out amendments to strike language because the effect of the 
amendments was to enlarge the scope of the bill, are discussed in 
Sec. 20.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision Excluding Uniformed Services From Coverage of Bill Affecting 
    Federal Employees--Amendment To Strike Exclusion

Sec. 20.2 To a bill governing the political activities of a certain 
    class of federal employees, an amendment broadening the scope of 
    the bill to cover another class of federal employees is not 
    germane; thus, where a bill contained a provision excluding from 
    its coverage a particular class (members of the uniformed 
    services), the effect of which was to narrow the scope of the bill 
    to another single class (federal civilian employees), amendments 
    proposing to strike out that exclusion from coverage, thereby 
    broadening

[[Page 8326]]

    the scope of the bill to include the separate class, were held not 
    germane.

    On June 7, 1977,(18) during consideration of the Federal 
Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977,(19) the Chair 
held that an amendment which by deleting an exception to the definition 
of the class covered by the bill and by inserting new provisions has 
the effect of including another class, is not germane. The amendment 
and proceedings related thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 17713, 17714, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: 
        Page 28, line 12, strike out ``but does not include a member of 
        the uniformed services'' and insert ``including any member of 
        the uniformed services''. . . .
            Page 38, line 14, immediately before the period insert ``or 
        by reason of being a member of the uniformed services''.
            Page 45, before line 8, insert the following:
            ``(j) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of a uniformed 
        service. Procedures with respect to any such violation shall, 
        under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be the 
        same as those applicable with respect to violations of section 
        892 of title 10.
            Page 46, after line 12, insert the following:
            ``(c) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of the uniformed 
        services. Any such violation shall, under regulations 
        prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be subject to the same 
        penalties as apply in the case of a violation of section 892 of 
        title 10.''.
            Page 47, after line 21, insert the following:
            ``(d) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the 
        Secretary concerned shall carry out the responsibilities 
        imposed on the Commission under the preceding provisions of 
        this section.''. . .
            Page 48, after line 17, insert:
            ``(c) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the 
        Secretary concerned shall prescribe the regulations the 
        Commission is required to prescribe under this section, section 
        7322(9), and section 7324(c)(2) and (3) of this title.''. . .

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order on the grounds that the matter contained in the 
    amendment is in violation of the germaneness rule stated in clause 
    7 of House rule XVI.
        The instant amendment proposes to make the bill applicable to 
    an entirely new class of individuals other than what is covered 
    under the bill.
        The reported bill applies only to civilian employees in 
    executive branch agencies, including the Postal Service and the 
    District of Columbia government, who are presently under the Hatch 
    Act.
        The amendment seeks to add a totally different class of 
    individuals to the bill; namely, military personnel who are not now 
    covered by the Hatch Act. Accordingly the amendment is not germane 
    to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Kindness: Responding [to] the point of order, Mr. Chairman, 
    the bill,

[[Page 8327]]

    as before us at this time, has been expanded in considerable degree 
    by the Clay amendment and by other amendments that have been 
    adopted during the course of the consideration of the bill in the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        However, I would point out that the amendment is germane, and I 
    particularly direct the attention of the chairman and the Members 
    to line 12 of page 28 where, in the definition of the word 
    ``employee'' the words appear, on line 12, ``but does not include a 
    member of the uniformed services.''
        Mr. Chairman, that is the very crux of this whole point. The 
    committee has given consideration, apparently, to the inclusion or 
    exclusion of members of uniformed services under the provisions of 
    this bill. A conscious decision was apparently made; and as 
    reported to the House, this bill has that conscious decision 
    reflected in it not to include members of the uniformed services.
        Mr. Chairman, the issue is directly before the House in that 
    form, so that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is 
    in order, is pertinent, and is germane. It could not be nongermane.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) makes a point of order 
    that the striking of the language, ``but does not include a member 
    of the uniformed services,'' and the remainder of the amendment 
    broadens the scope of the bill in violation of rule XVI, clause 7.
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) argues that because the 
    exclusion from coverage for the military is in the bill and has 
    received consideration, that the germaneness rule should be more 
    liberally interpreted.
        An annotation to clause 7, rule XVI, says that, in general, an 
    amendment simply striking out words already in a bill may not be 
    attacked as not germane unless such action would change the scope 
    and meaning of the text. Cannon's VIII, section 2921; Deschler's 
    chapter 28, sec. 15.3.
        On October 28, 1975, Chairman Jordan of Texas ruled, during the 
    consideration of a bill H.R. 2667, giving the right of 
    representation to Federal employees during questioning as follows:

            In a bill amending a section of title 5, United States 
        Code, granting certain rights to employees of executive 
        agencies of the Federal Government, an amendment extending 
        those rights to, in that case, legislative branch employees, as 
        defined in a different section of that title, was held to go 
        beyond the scope of the bill and was ruled out as not germane.

        The class of employees included in this legislation is confined 
    to civilian employees of the Government, and those specifically so 
    stated and described as being civilian employees of the executive 
    agencies, of the Postal Service and of the District of Columbia 
    government, and a reference to the Hatch Act as currently in force 
    indicates that military personnel are not included in that act.
        It is obvious that the purpose and the scope of the act before 
    us as referred to in its entirety as amended by this bill, is, ``to 
    restore to Federal civilian and Postal Service employees their 
    rights to participate voluntarily, as pri

[[Page 8328]]

    vate citizens, in the political processes of the Nation, to protect 
    such employees from improper political solicitations, and for other 
    purposes.''
        The Chair finds that the striking of the language excluding 
    military employees and inserting language covering the military 
    broadens the class of the persons covered by this bill to an extent 
    that it substantially changes the text and substantially changes 
    the purpose of the bill. The fact that the exclusion of military 
    personnel was stated in the bill does not necessarily bring into 
    question the converse of that proposition. The Chair therefore 
    finds that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I have [a] parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this: 
    Is there a way to appeal the ruling of the Chair within the rules 
    of the House?
        The Chairman: Yes, there is.
        Mr. Kindness: So that I may respectfully appeal the ruling of 
    the Chair at this point?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Ohio desires to do so.
        Does the gentleman desire to appeal the ruling of the Chair?
        Mr. Kindness: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not so desire at this 
    point.

    Subsequently, Mr. Kindness offered another amendment deleting the 
language excluding the uniformed services from coverage under the bill:

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kindness: Page 8, line 12, strike 
        out ``but does not include a member of the uniformed services'' 
        and insert ``including any member of the uniformed services''.
            Page 35, line 2, strike out ``or a member of a uniformed 
        service.''.

        Mr. Clay: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane, that it goes beyond the scope of the 
    bill, and that it amends existing law not cited in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I carefully listened to the ruling 
    of the Chair on a prior amendment which dealt in greater detail 
    with the subject of members of the uniformed services who are 
    specifically excluded from this bill but only by the language that 
    is included in this amendment. All this amendment does is to strike 
    language that is in the bill. That has to be germane. It has to be 
    a part of the bill before us, in the most germane sense, the most 
    consistent sense.
        I would urge that the point of order is not well taken on its 
    face, because the amendment only strikes language that is in the 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that it covered the point made at 
    this time by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) in its first 
    ruling, in which the Chair cited from the House Rules and Manual of 
    the 95th Congress, paragraph 7, of rule XVI and precedents 
    contained in Cannon's volume VIII, sections 2917-2921.
        Let the Chair quote the language that the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Kindness) would find to be most favorable. The language is as 
    follows:

            In general, an amendment simply striking out words already 
        in a bill

[[Page 8329]]

        may not be ruled out as not germane unless such action would 
        change the scope and meaning of the text.

        The Chair would say that the gentleman's position was stronger 
    in the first instance wherein he did supply language, and the Chair 
    feels in making this second ruling that the broadening aspect of 
    the gentleman's initial language is such as to take it out of the 
    scope of the bill. By reversing that language and striking it out 
    and putting it in affirmative terms, as the gentleman now does, the 
    gentleman's amendment is subject to the point of order, and the 
    ruling is the same.
        The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in 
    order.

Amendment Broadening Definition of Criminal Offense

Sec. 20.3 To a bill making it a penal offense for three or more persons 
    acting in concert without authority of law to kill or injure any 
    person in the custody of a peace officer, an amendment proposing to 
    strike out the words ``in the custody of a peace officer'' was held 
    to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, an anti-lynching bill (1) was 
under consideration, which stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 1507 (Committee on Rules discharged).
 2. See 81 Cong. Rec. 3544, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 15, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That for the purposes of this act the 
    phrase ``mob or riotous assemblage,'' when used in this act, shall 
    mean an assemblage composed of three or more persons acting in 
    concert without authority of law to kill or injure any person in 
    the custody of any peace officer with the purpose or consequence of 
    depriving such person of due process of law or the equal protection 
    of the laws.

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: 
    On page 1, strike out all of lines 3 to 9, inclusive, and insert in 
    lieu thereof the following:

            That for the purpose of this act the phrase ``mob or 
        riotous assemblage'' when used in this act shall mean an 
        assemblage composed of two or more persons acting in concert 
        without authority of law to kill, injure, or kidnap any person 
        with the purpose or consequence of depriving such person of due 
        process of law and the equal protection of the law.

    Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of New York, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill. He stated:

        . . . The gentleman's amendment refers to the crime of 
    kidnaping, entirely different from the crime we are attempting to 
    legislate in this bill.

    The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The gentleman from Mississippi offers an amendment to the 
    first section of the bill to include kidnaping in addition to the 
    crime of lynching, but in addition thereto the gentleman, by

[[Page 8330]]

    his amendment, strikes out the words in line 7 ``in the custody of 
    any peace officer.'' The gentleman's amendment would extend the 
    class to which this bill applies to kidnaping. The addition of 
    kidnaping might not be objectionable, but this bill applies to the 
    death or injury of persons ``in the custody of a peace officer'', 
    while the proposed amendment takes those words, quoted, out of the 
    bill. The Chair does not think the amendment is germane, and 
    sustains the point of order.

    The following amendment was then offered:

        Amendment by Mr. Colmer: Page 1, line 5, strike out the word 
    ``three'' and insert in lieu thereof the word ``two'', and in line 
    7, strike out the words ``in the custody of any peace officer.''

    Mr. Gavagan having again raised a point of order, the Chairman 
ruled as follows:

        . . . The ruling of the Chair just made on the previous 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi will apply to 
    this amendment, as to the second provision in the amendment 
    striking out the language of the bill ``in the custody of any peace 
    officer.'' The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Exportation of Arms to Spain--Amendment To Strike Reference to Spain

Sec. 20.4 To a joint resolution prohibiting the exportation of arms and 
    ammunition to Spain, an amendment proposing to strike out the 
    reference to Spain was held to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
which prohibited the exportation of arms to Spain.(5) An 
amendment was offered (6) as described above. In response to 
a point of order raised by Mr. Samuel D. McReynolds, of 
Tennessee,(7) the Speaker (8) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. S.J. Res. 3.
 5. See 81 Cong. Rec. 90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 6, 1937.
 6. Id. at p. 96.
 7. Id. at p. 97.
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Now, what is the purpose and scope of the Senate resolution 
    which is under consideration? There can be no controversy that it 
    relates entirely to the question of the shipment of arms and 
    ammunition to Spain--one particular country--and regulates certain 
    phases of shipments to warring civil factions in that country; but 
    under the suggestion made in the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas it certainly departs entirely from the limitation with 
    reference to the shipment of munitions to the one Government of 
    Spain, and broadens the field so as to apply to any government.

    Relying on the principle that, ``an amendment which, by striking 
out a portion of the text, changes the purpose and scope of a bill, is 
not germane,'' the Speaker sustained the point of order.

[[Page 8331]]

Prohibition on Use of Federal Payment Funds for Abortions--Motion To 
    Strike Reference to Federal Payment Funds

Sec. 20.5 A motion to strike out a portion of the text of an amendment, 
    thereby extending its scope to a more general subject, is not 
    germane; thus, to a substitute amendment to the District of 
    Columbia Appropriation bill prohibiting the use of annual federal 
    payment funds therein for the performance of abortions, an 
    amendment striking the reference to federal payment funds, thereby 
    broadening the scope of the substitute to cover any funds contained 
    in the bill (such as ``local'' District of Columbia funds), was 
    held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 4580 (9) in the Committee 
of the Whole on July 17, 1979,(10) the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The District of Columbia Appropriations for fiscal 1980.
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 19064, 19066, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 17, after line 2, add 
        the following new section:
            ``Sec. 221. None of the funds appropriated under this Act 
        shall be used to pay for abortions.''. . .

        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment 
    as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: ``None of 
        the funds in this Act provided by the Federal payment shall be 
        used to perform abortions.''. . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas as a substitute for the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Dornan: delete from the amendment of the 
        gentleman from Texas the following words: ``provided by the 
        Federal payment''.

    A point of order was made, as follows:

        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: . . . As I understand the 
    amendment it in essence takes it back to the original Dornan 
    amendment without providing for the substitute. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, that is not a point of order, it 
    simply is an accurate description of the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the point 
    of order is that it is a sham amendment in that it just repeats the 
    intent of the original amendment.

[[Page 8332]]

        The Chairman: (11) In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    gentleman from Texas is suggesting that the perfecting amendment 
    broadens the scope of the substitute amendment, and for that reason 
    is not germane. The point of order is sustained under the 
    precedents that a motion to strike cannot broaden the scope of the 
    pending proposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Albert A. Gore, Jr. (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Chair could cite a 
    precedent for his ruling?
        The Chairman: Deschler's Procedure chapter 28, section 15.3.

Surplus Agricultural Commodities--Language Concerning Transportation of 
    Commodities

Sec. 20.6 To that provision in a bill authorizing the President to 
    furnish emergency assistance to friendly nations from stocks of 
    surplus agricultural commodities to be made available ``f.o.b. 
    vessels in United States ports,'' an amendment striking out 
    ``f.o.b. vessels in United States ports'' was held germane, taking 
    into account other provisions in the bill already read for 
    amendment.

    In the 83d Congress, during consideration of the Agricultural Trade 
Development and Assistance Act of 1954,(12) an amendment was 
offered (13) as described above. A point of order was raised 
against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. S. 2475 (Committee on Agriculture).
13. 100 Cong. Rec. 8370, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane in that it extends 
    the scope of authority which is given the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation under this bill. . . . If the amendment were adopted, 
    it would mean that the obligation of the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation would be to furnish transportation anywhere in the 
    world we might ship these commodities. . . .

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Thor C. Tollefson, 
of Washington, stated:

        . . . This bill provides for the disposition of agricultural 
    surplus products to foreign nations and involves necessarily the 
    transportation of those surplus farm products. . . . The language 
    of the present bill gives the President authority on page 6, line 
    21, and I read, ``and shall make funds available to finance the 
    sale and exportation of surplus agricultural commodities.''
        That is contained, of course, in section 1, but it is in the 
    bill, and it gives the President authority to finance the sale and 
    to finance the exportation which would exclude the transshipment of 
    products not only in the United States but on vessels to carry them 
    abroad.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Gerald R. Ford, Jr. (Mich.).

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

[[Page 8333]]

        It seems to the Chair, on the basis of section 204 of the bill, 
    and other related portions of the bill which deal with the question 
    of transportation of the commodities which are involved in this 
    legislation, that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Washington [Mr. Tollefson] is germane; and the Chair so rules.

Motion To Strike Not Germane as Substitute

Sec. 20.7 During consideration of a bill relating to salaries of 
    government employees, it was held that, to an amendment seeking to 
    change specific dollar amounts, an amendment offered as a 
    substitute proposing to strike out other portions of the bill not 
    amended by the original amendment was not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, a bill (15) was under 
consideration comprising an amendment to the Classification Act of 1923 
to increase certain salaries. An amendment was offered (16) 
whose purpose was described by the proponent as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 6217 (Committee on Civil Service).
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 5885, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., July 1, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, this is the 
    amendment which I stated during general debate I would offer for 
    the purpose of eliminating the new salary provisions over and 
    beyond the present range of the Classification Act.
        Under the present classification law the Civil Service 
    Commission has no authority to allocate any position at a salary 
    greater than $9,000 a year unless it is specifically provided for 
    by Congress. Under this bill we originally provided a new grade 
    starting at $9,000 and going to $10,000. The purpose of this 
    amendment is to eliminate this new grade and confine the range of 
    the Classification Act to a top figure of $9,000.

    Mr. Edward H. Rees, of Kansas, offered, as a substitute, an 
amendment striking out specified portions of the bill.(17) 
The following proceedings related to a point of order raised by Mr. 
Cochran:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 5887.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Mississippi]: An amendment is 
    pending. The Clerk read this as an amendment and I doubt if it is 
    germane.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair rules that the 
    gentleman can offer this after the Ramspeck amendment has been 
    disposed of. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. A. Willis Robertson (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he question is on the Ramspeck amendment. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. 
    . . .
        The gentleman from Kansas has offered a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. The only way that 
    can fail to receive

[[Page 8334]]

    consideration is by a point of order being made against it.
        The Chairman: The Chair understood that the gentleman from 
    Missouri made the point of order that if (the Rees amendment) was a 
    substitute it was not germane to the Ramspeck amendment and that, 
    therefore, the Ramspeck amendment would have to be disposed of 
    first before the gentleman from Kansas could offer his amendment.

Pro Forma Amendment

Sec. 20.8 A pro forma amendment to ``strike out the last word'' is 
    germane.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 17.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 21. Substitute Amendment; Amendment in Nature of Substitute; 
    Amendment to Amendment

    An amendment offered to an amendment must be germane to that 
amendment.(20) Accordingly, where an amendment is offered to 
one part of a bill, a substitute amendment which relates to a different 
part of the bill is not germane to the original 
amendment.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 33.5, 33.6, 36.3, infra.
21. See the ruling of Chairman George A. Dondero (Mich.) at 94 Cong. 
        Rec. 7768, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1948. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6396 (Committee on the Judiciary), 
        relating to admission into the United States of certain 
        displaced persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A substitute must be germane to the amendment for which offered and 
must relate to the same portion of the bill being amended by the 
amendment.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See the proceedings of Oct. 8, 1975, relating to H.J. Res. 683, a 
        bill to implement the United States proposal for an early-
        warning system in the Sinai, discussed in Sec. 3.47, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Perfecting amendments to amendments in the nature of a substitute 
or to substitute amendments need to be germane to the inserted language 
contained in said substitutes, it being irrelevant whether or not the 
perfecting amendment might be germane to the underlying (perhaps 
broader) bill which said substitute seeks to strike out and replace. 
The language of the underlying bill proposed to be stricken is not 
taken into consideration when determining the germaneness of a second 
degree amendment to a substitute proposing to insert other language. It 
is only the pending text under immediate consideration against which 
the germaneness of proposed amendments thereto is judged. This test of 
germaneness is consistent with Rule XIX governing the permissible 
degree of amendments in the House (see Ch. 27, Amendments, supra). At 
this stage the House has not finally adopted any version of a

[[Page 8335]]

House-passed bill and is free to reject the pending amendment(s) and 
proceed to other differently drafted amendments which may present 
another test of germaneness to the bill as a whole.
    Of course, an amendment in the nature of a substitute is normally 
an amendment in the first degree for an entire bill and its germaneness 
is measured by its relationship to the underlying bill, whereas a 
substitute amendment is an alternative for a first degree amendment 
already pending.

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

Substitute Must Be Germane to Amendment for Which Offered

Sec. 21.1 The test of the germaneness of a substitute amendment is its 
    relationship to the amendment for which offered and not its 
    relationship to the pending bill; thus, for an amendment 
    establishing a termination date for the Federal Energy 
    Administration, a substitute not dealing with the date of 
    termination but providing instead a reorganization plan for that 
    agency was ruled out as not germane.

    On June 1, 1976,(2) during consideration of a bill 
(3) extending the Federal Energy Administration Act, an 
amendment was offered which sought to change a provision of the bill 
relating to the date of termination of the Federal Energy 
Administration. A substitute for that amendment was then offered. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 16051, 16055, 16056, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. H.R. 12169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Fithian: On page 
        10, after line 4, add the following:
            ``Sec. 3. Section 28 of the Federal Energy Administration 
        Act of 1974 is amended by inserting the following, in lieu 
        thereof,
            `` `Notwithstanding section 527 of the Energy Policy and 
        Conservation Act, upon termination of this Act, as provided for 
        in Section 30 of this Act, all functions of the Federal Energy 
        Administration shall be transferred to existing departments, 
        agencies or

[[Page 8336]]

        offices of the Federal Government, or their successors. The 
        President, through the Director of the Office of Management and 
        Budget, shall file, 12 months before the termination of this 
        Act, a plan and program with the Speaker of the House of 
        Representatives and the President of the Senate, to provide for 
        the orderly transfer of the functions of the Federal Energy 
        Administration to such departments, agencies or offices. Within 
        90 days after the submission of this plan and program, either 
        House of Congress may pass a resolution disapproving such plan 
        and program.' ''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is in several parts. The first, Mr. Chairman, is that the 
    amendment must be germane to the Fithian amendment. I make the 
    point that it is not.
        Mr. Chairman, the Fithian amendment, if the Chair will note, 
    simply relates to the termination of the existence of the FEA as an 
    agency and sets a date for the expiration thereof.
        This amendment goes much further, and if the Chair will consult 
    the amendment, the Chair will find that it relates to the 
    compensation of executives, that it relates and fixes the levels at 
    which executives' salaries and compensation will be held. It deals 
    with the administration being able to employ and fix the 
    compensation of officers and employees and it limits the number of 
    positions which may be at different GS levels.
        It goes much further. It deals with section 527 of the Energy 
    Policy and Conservation Act, which is not referred to in the 
    Fithian amendment and, indeed, which is not referred to elsewhere 
    in the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, it deals with the fixing of the compensation of 
    Federal employees. It deals with the powers of the President, the 
    duties and powers of the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget functioning through and under the President. It deals with 
    the filing of the plans for the termination of the act with the 
    Speaker of the House of Representatives and it provides a plan to 
    deal with the orderly transfer of functions to the Federal Energy 
    Administration to such Departments and so forth.
        It goes further and effectively amends the Reorganization Act 
    by providing that the plan may be approved or disapproved by either 
    House of Congress in a fashion in conformity with the requirements 
    of the Reorganization Act. . . .
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: . . . This amendment simply deals 
    with the termination of the FEA after 15 months. The only 
    difference between my amendment and the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Fithian) would be that it does indicate that the 
    President should through OMB present to the Congress a plan. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 8337]]

    man's amendment might be in order following the Fithian amendment 
    as a separate amendment to the Committee proposal.

Sec. 21.2 A substitute amendment must be germane to the amendment for 
    which offered, it not being sufficient that it relates to a 
    different portion of the bill being amended; thus, to an amendment 
    to add a word to a section of a bill (with the effect of 
    prohibiting indirect as well as direct aid to certain countries), a 
    substitute to add another word in a different portion of the 
    section (with the effect of adding another country to which direct 
    aid was prohibited) was held not germane.

    During consideration of the foreign assistance appropriations for 
fiscal 1978 (5) in the Committee of the Whole on June 22, 
1977,(6) the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 7797.
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 20235, 20236, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
        available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended 
        to finance directly any assistance to Uganda, Cambodia, Laos, 
        or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

        Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 11, line 
        17, after the word ``directly'' add ``or indirectly''.

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 11, line 18, 
        strike out ``or'' and add after ``Vietnam'' ``or Cuba''. . . .

        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that under the rules of germaneness this amendment is out of order 
    inasmuch as it relates to the bill but not to the amendment 
    pending. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that this is not a proper 
    substitute because it goes to a different subject. The point of 
    order is, respectfully, sustained.

Sec. 21.3 The test of germaneness is the relationship between a 
    substitute and the amendment for which offered, and not between the 
    substitute and the original bill; accordingly, where an amendment 
    denied eligibility for certain higher education assistance benefits 
    to persons refusing

[[Page 8338]]

    to register for military service, a substitute denying benefits 
    under the same provisions of law except to persons refusing to 
    register for religious or moral reasons was held germane.

    On July 28, 1982,(8) during consideration of H.R. 6030 
(military procurement authorization for fiscal 1983), Chairman Les 
AuCoin, of Oregon, held that to a proposition denying benefits to 
recipients failing to meet a certain qualification, a substitute 
denying the same benefits to some recipients but excepting others was 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 128 Cong. Rec. 18355-58, 18361, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which is printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 26, after line 22, 
        add the following new section:

                 enforcement of military selective service act

            Sec. 1010. (a) Section 12 of the Military Selective Service 
        Act (50 U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding after subsection 
        (e) the following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) The Director of the Selective Service System shall 
        submit to the Secretary of Education, with respect to each 
        individual receiving, or applying for, any grant, assisted 
        loan, benefit, or other assistance, under title IV of the 
        Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), or 
        participating in any program established, or assisted, under 
        such title, verification of whether such individual has 
        violated section 3 by not presenting and submitting to 
        registration pursuant to section 3. . . .
            ``(3) If the Secretary of Education preliminarily 
        determines that any individual described in paragraph (1) has 
        violated section 3, the Secretary of Education shall notify 
        such individual of the preliminary determination.
            ``(4) Any individual notified pursuant to paragraph (3) may 
        submit to the Secretary of Education within a period of time of 
        not less than 30 days after receiving such notification any 
        information with respect to the compliance or violation of 
        section 3 by such individual.
            ``(5) After the period of time specified in paragraph (4) 
        and taking into consideration any information submitted by the 
        individual, the Secretary of Educaton shall make a final 
        determination on whether each individual notified pursuant to 
        paragraph (3) has complied with or violated section 3.
            ``(6)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
        individual finally determined by the Secretary of Education 
        pursuant to paragraph (5) to have violated section 3 is not 
        eligible for, and may not receive, any grant, assisted loan, 
        benefit, or other assistance, under title IV of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), and may not 
        participate in any program established, or assisted, under such 
        title. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Simon as a substitute for the 
        amendment

[[Page 8339]]

        offered by Mr. Solomon: At the end of the bill add the 
        following new section:
            Sec. 1010. (a) Section 12 of the Military Selective Service 
        Act (50 U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding after subsection 
        (e) the following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) In order to receive any grant, loan, or work 
        assistance under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
        (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), a person who is required under 
        section 3 to present himself for and submit to registration 
        under such section shall--
            ``(A) submit to the institution of higher education which 
        the person intends to attend, or is attending, proof that such 
        person has submitted to such registration;
            ``(B) complete and submit the necessary forms for such 
        registration at the time of filing application for such grant, 
        loan, or work assistance; or
            ``(C) submit a statement that such person refuses to submit 
        to such registration for religious or moral reasons.
            ``(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the Director, 
        after consultation with the Secretary of Education, is 
        authorized to prescribe methods for providing to, and 
        collecting from, institutions of higher education the forms 
        necessary for registration under section 3, and for collecting 
        statements described in paragraph (1)(C) from such 
        institutions.''.
            (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) of this section 
        shall apply to loans, grants, or work assistance under title IV 
        of the Higher Education Act for periods of instruction 
        beginning on or after July 1, 1983. . . .

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order. . . .
        [T]he amendment which I offered and was printed in the Record 
    was a nongermane amendment which had points of order raised against 
    it.
        Subsequently, I appeared before the Rules Committee and asked 
    for those points of order to be waived, which they granted in the 
    rule.
        Now in the amendment that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Simon) is offering, in section (c) he says to submit a statement 
    that such person refuses to submit to such registration for 
    religious and moral reasons. That is additional law which had 
    nothing to do with the amendment and the waiver of points of order 
    that were granted by the Rules Committee. I say that the 
    gentleman's amendment is out of order because of that. . . .
        Mr. Simon: . . . Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is how 
    we can have something that is workable. My aim is the same as that 
    of the gentleman from New York, but I think the gentleman from New 
    York, with all due respect, has not dealt with this whole very 
    complex problem of student loans and grants.
        I think the amendment that I have is the only workable one. I 
    think it is totally within the province of the amendment that the 
    gentleman has.
        I think the substitute amendment that I have offered is in 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair finds that both the amendment and the substitute 
    amendment prescribe limitations on eligibility under title IV of 
    the Higher Education Act of 1965, both in similar ways.
        The question of the waiver granted to the Solomon amendment by 
    the rule is not relevant to the point of order since the test of 
    germaneness is whether the substitute amendment is ger

[[Page 8340]]

    mane to the amendment, not to the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that the amendment is in order and 
    the gentleman is recognized.

Substitute Changing Different or Lesser Portion of Pending Section

Sec. 21.4 A substitute for a pending amendment may be offered to change 
    a different or lesser portion of the pending section if it relates 
    to the same subject matter as the amendment; thus, for a perfecting 
    amendment making several changes in a pending section, a substitute 
    adding language at the end of the section rather than striking and 
    inserting within the section was held in order since relating to 
    the same subject as the amendment.

    During consideration of the Foreign Aid Authorization for fiscal 
year 1979,(9) the Chair overruled a point of order against 
the amendment described above. The proceedings in the Committee of the 
Whole on Aug. 1, 1978,(10) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 12514.
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 23732, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Stratton: Page 18, immediately after 
        line 4, insert the following new subsection:
            (e) It is the sense of the Congress that further withdrawal 
        of ground forces of the United States from the Republic of 
        Korea may seriously risk upsetting the military balance in that 
        region and requires full advance consultation with the 
        Congress. Prior to any further withdrawal the President should 
        report to the Congress on the effect of any proposed withdrawal 
        plan on preserving deterrence in Korea; the reaction 
        anticipated from North Korea; a consideration of the effect of 
        the plan on increasing incentives for the Republic of Korea to 
        develop an independent nuclear deterrent . . . and the possible 
        implications of any proposed withdrawal on the Soviet-Chinese 
        military situation.

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, unless I am mistaken, the gentleman has not 
    bothered to look at my amendment. My amendment makes specific 
    changes in the text on section 19. I am not clear where the 
    gentleman's amendment would come in section 19. He cannot 
    substitute a straight wording, as I understand it, for something 
    that has a series of changes in 3 pages of a particular section.
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Chairman, my amendment would come at the end 
    of section 19.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair might inform the 
    gentleman from New York

[[Page 8341]]

    that it is a proper substitute amendment. Both the proposed 
    amendment and the substitute are perfecting amendments to the 
    section and deal with the same subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfecting Amendment--Substitute Perfecting Lesser Portion of Same Text

Sec. 21.5 For an amendment perfecting a bill, an amendment germane 
    thereto perfecting a lesser portion of the same text is in order as 
    a substitute; thus, for an amendment dealing with the role of an 
    agency in regulating commercial diving activities on the Outer 
    Continental Shelf by promulgation of interim and final standards, a 
    substitute relating only to the role of that agency in issuing 
    interim regulations was held in order as germane.

    On Feb. 1, 1978,(12) during consideration of the Outer 
Continental Shelf Lands Act amendments (H.R. 1614), the Chair overruled 
a point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 1816-18, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fish: Page 192, lines 15 and 16, 
        strike out ``, the Secretary of Labor,''.
            Page 193, line 10, strike out ``achievable'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``feasible''.
            Page 193, line 15, strike out ``(1)''.
            Page 193, strike out lines 16 through 22, and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``of this section, the Secretary of the Department 
        in which the Coast Guard is operating shall promulgate 
        regulations or standards applying to diving activities in the 
        waters above the Outer Continental Shelf, and to other 
        unregulated hazardous working conditions for which he 
        determines such''.
            Page 194, strike out lines 3 through 10.
            Page 197, line -- , strike out ``Secretary of Labor'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``Secretary of the Department in which 
        the Coast Guard is operating.''. . .

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Fish: On page 193, strike 
        lines 15 to 24 and on page 194 strike lines 1 to 3 and insert: 
        ``(c) Notwithstanding section 4(b)(1) of the Occupa-''.

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        I do so because I was not exactly sure which amendment the 
    gentleman was going to offer, and I still have not got it in front 
    of me, but if indeed his amendment strikes or is an amendment to a 
    provision which I strike, I do not think it is in order. . . .

[[Page 8342]]

        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Fish) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I just want a clarification here. If I 
    understand the gentleman here, the gentleman is striking out lines 
    15 through 24 on page 193 and lines 1 and 2 on page 194. . . .
        Well, now, Mr. Chairman, this language in my amendment calls 
    for some revision of that language, but does not strike out several 
    of the lines, the lines that are the subject of the gentleman's 
    offered substitute. I just was not aware that that would be in 
    order in the light of the part of my amendment that deals with 
    pages 193 and 194.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) 
    insist on his point of order?
        Mr. Fish: Yes, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mr. Murphy of New York: . . . Mr. Chairman, I would say that 
    the substitute strikes a portion of the language; that the 
    amendment of the gentleman clearly strikes a much larger area and, 
    accordingly, would be in order. . . .
        Mr. Fish: . . . Mr. Chairman, this has been characterized as a 
    substitute to my amendment. I understood if that be the case, it 
    would have to be substantially the same.

        I direct the Chairman's attention to the fact that my amendment 
    addresses itself to the lines on pages 192 and 193 in three places 
    and pages 194 and 197; so I do not see how the gentleman from New 
    York can be offering a substitute that is narrow in focus and 
    dealing with only one of the several issues that is covered by my 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. In the opinion of the 
    Chair, the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Murphy) deals with a lesser portion of the bill that the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) desires to perfect, and as 
    conceded by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) in a more 
    restricted fashion. The Murphy substitute deals only with interim 
    regulations, while the Fish amendment deals with OSHA's role in 
    promulgating both interim and final regulations.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order and holds the 
    substitute to be in order.

Perfecting Amendment to Section or Subsection--Motion To Strike Not 
    Proper Substitute

Sec. 21.6 For a perfecting amendment to a subsection striking out one 
    activity from those covered by a provision of existing law, a 
    substitute striking out the entire subsection, thereby eliminating 
    the applicability of existing law to a number of activities, was 
    held more general in scope and not germane.

    On Aug. 18, 1982,(14) during consideration of H.R. 5540, 
the Defense Industrial Base Revital

[[Page 8343]]

ization Act, in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair made the 
following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 21967, 21968, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs now printed in the 
    reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment in 
    lieu of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 5540

            . . . Sec. 2. Title III of the Defense Production Act of 
        1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2091 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
        after section 303 the following:
            ``Sec. 303A. (a) It is the purpose of this section to 
        strengthen the domestic capability and capacity of the Nation's 
        defense industrial base. The actions specified in this section 
        are intended to facilitate the carrying out of such purpose.
            ``(b)(1) The President, utilizing the types of financial 
        assistance specified in sections 301, 302, and 303, and any 
        other authority contained in this Act, shall take immediate 
        action to assist in the modernization of industries in the 
        United States which are necessary to the manufacture or supply 
        of national defense materials which are required for the 
        national security or are likely to be required in a time of 
        emergency or war. . . .
            ``(c) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
        Secretary of Commerce, shall--
            ``(1) determine immediately, and semiannually thereafter, 
        those industries which should be given priority in the awarding 
        of financial assistance under subsection (b);
            ``(2) determine the type and extent of financial assistance 
        which should be made available to each such industry; and
            ``(3) with respect to the industries specified pursuant to 
        paragraph (1), indicate those proposals, received under 
        subsection (e), which should be given preference in the 
        awarding of financial assistance under subsection (b) based on 
        a determination that such proposals offer the greatest prospect 
        for improving productivity and quality, and for providing 
        materials which will reduce the Nation's reliance on imports. . 
        . .
            ``(m)(1) All laborers and mechanics employed for the 
        construction, repair, or alteration of any project, or the 
        installation of equipment, funded, in whole or in part, by a 
        guarantee, loan, or grant entered into pursuant to this section 
        shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on 
        projects of similar character in the locality as determined by 
        the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Act entitled `An 
        Act relating to the rate of wages for laborers and mechanics 
        employed on public buildings of the United States and the 
        District of Columbia by contractors and subcontractors, and for 
        other purposes', approved March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a et 
        seq.), and commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act.

    When consideration of H.R. 5540 resumed on Sept. 23, 
1982,(16) an amendment was offered by Mr. Bruce F. Vento, of

[[Page 8344]]

Minnesota, and proceedings ensued as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 128 Cong. Rec. 24963, 24964, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:
            Page 41, line 24, strike out ``, or the installation of 
        equipment,''.
            Page 42, beginning on line 15, strike out ``, or the 
        installation of equipment,''. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Beginning on page 41, line 22, 
        strike all of subsection (m) through page 43, line 2.

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the substitute offered by the gentleman is 
    clearly not in order. Under rule 19, Cannon's Procedure VIII, 
    section 2879, the precedents provide that ``to qualify as a 
    substitute an amendment must treat in the same manner the same 
    subject carried by the amendment for which it is offered.''
        My amendment would remove language from the committee bill and 
    limit the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act in terms of one type 
    of activity. The gentleman's substitute would strike the entire 
    section of the committee bill which my amendment seeks to perfect 
    and thereby eliminate the Davis-Bacon provisions of this 
    legislation.
        In this case, the amendment offered by the gentleman clearly 
    does not treat the subject in the same manner which my amendment 
    does. Also, under Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.1, 
    decisions made by the Chair on August 12, 1963, December 16, 1963, 
    and June 5, 1974, a motion to strike out a section or paragraph is 
    not in order while a perfecting amendment is pending. In addition, 
    the decisions of the Chair of December 16, 1963, and June 5, 1974, 
    and contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.4, 
    provides that a provision must be perfected before the question is 
    put on striking it out. A motion to strike out a paragraph or 
    section may not be offered as a substitute for pending motion to 
    perfect a paragraph or section by a motion to strike and insert. 
    The gentleman's amendment attempts to accomplish indirectly 
    something that he is precluded from doing directly. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: . . . It does appear to me from what the 
    gentleman has said in support of his point of order that he is 
    claiming that my substitute would treat a different matter or in a 
    different manner the same matter as the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman.
        The language to which both amendments are directed is language 
    in the bill that is applying the Davis-Bacon Act to activities 
    under the bill in question. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    is reducing the extent of that coverage by taking out the 
    installation of equipment.
        My substitute also reduces that by eliminating the language so 
    there

[[Page 8345]]

    would be no extension of Davis-Bacon to the activities beyond the 
    present coverage of Davis-Bacon.
        So the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) is affecting Davis-Bacon by reducing its 
    coverage. Mine also would affect the reduction of Davis-Bacon, only 
    in a broader manner; and I, therefore, believe the amendment is in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for the reasons advocated by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota that the substitute is too broad in its scope in its 
    striking the whole of subsection (m).
        The Chair would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) it would be appropriate as a separate amendment but it 
    is not in order as a substitute because of the scope of the 
    amendment.
        The point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota is 
    sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As the above proceedings indicate, a motion 
to strike out an entire subsection of a bill is not, in any event, a 
proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to the subsection, since 
it is broader in scope, but may be offered after disposition of the 
perfecting amendment.

Sec. 21.7 For an amendment inserting an additional labor standard to 
    those contained in a section of a bill, a motion to strike out the 
    entire section was ruled out as not a proper substitute for the 
    perfecting amendment, and not germane in that it had the effect of 
    enlarging the scope of the perfecting amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 14747 (amending the Sugar Act of 1948) 
in the Committee of the Whole on June 5, 1974,(17) it was 
demonstrated that a motion to strike out a section is not in order as a 
substitute for a perfecting amendment to that section. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 17868, 17869, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: Page 18, after line 5, 
        insert:
            (5) That the producer who compensates workers on a piece-
        rate basis shall have paid, at a minimum, the established 
        minimum hourly wage.

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. O'Hara: In lieu of the

[[Page 8346]]

        amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan insert the 
        following: ``Section 11 of the bill, page 15, strike out all of 
        line 11 through line 6 of page 17 and renumbering the `(3)' on 
        line 7, page 17 as `(1)', and strike out line 15 on page 17 
        through line 5 on page 18.''. . .

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment in that it is not germane to the provisions of my 
    amendment. It deals with different parts of section 11. . . .
        Mr. Symms: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment is germane to the 
    gentleman's amendment. It strikes it and all the labor provisions 
    from the bill.
        The Chairman: (18) It is the ruling of the Chair 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James A. Burke (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Symms) as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) is not a proper substitute. 
    The substitute would strike portions of section 11 not affected by 
    the pending amendment. And, the substitute is broader in scope than 
    the amendment to which offered and is not germane thereto. The 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment to House Rule To Provide for Selection of Acting Committee 
    Chairman--Substitute Amending Different Rule

Sec. 21.8 To an amendment modifying a rule of the House to provide for 
    selection of an acting committee chairman during the disability of 
    the permanent chairman, a substitute amendment was held to be not 
    germane which sought to amend a different rule of the House and to 
    modify methods of selecting the committee chairmen and vice 
    chairmen at the commencement of a Congress.

    During consideration of that part of the Legislative Reorganization 
Act of 1970 (19) which related to the calling of committee 
meetings, an amendment was offered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 17654 (Committee on Rules). 116 Cong. Rec. 24036, 91st Cong. 
        2d Sess., July 14, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: 
    Section 102 of title 1 is amended by adding a new subsection on 
    page 8 after line 19:

            (f) Whenever the chairman of any standing committee is 
        unable to discharge his responsibilities, the committee by 
        majority vote shall designate a member with full authority to 
        act as chairman until such time as the chairman is able to 
        resume his responsibilities.

    To such amendment, an amendment was offered (20) stating 
in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 24037.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Substitute amendment offered by Mr. [Bertram L.] Podell [of New 
    York] for the amendment offered by Mr. Fascell: On page 8, after 
    line 19, insert the following:

            (c) Clause 3 of Rule X of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended to read:

[[Page 8347]]

            (3) At the commencement of each Congress, each standing 
        committee shall elect a chairman and a vice-chairman from among 
        its members; in the temporary absence of the chairman, the 
        vice-chairman shall act as chairman. . . .

        On page 8, delete lines 14 through 17 and insert the following:

            (d) If the chairman of any standing committee is not 
        present at any . . . meeting of the committee, the vice-
        chairman shall preside. . . . If neither the chairman nor the 
        vice-chairman is present, the committee shall then designate a 
        Member of the committee to serve as chairman temporarily. . . .

    Mr. Bernice F. Sisk, of California, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at pp. 24037, 24038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, in support of the point of 
order, stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 24038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment, in my opinion, is 
    definitely subject to a point of order under the provisions which 
    the Chair first announced inasmuch as it applies to chairmen and 
    the election of chairmen of committees, and we are now considering 
    a section of the bill which has to do only with committee meetings.

    The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York goes 
    beyond the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida. It is 
    not germane to the amendment offered. But the Chair would like to 
    inform the gentleman from New York that a portion of the amendment 
    could be germane following section 118, as a new section.

Amendment Requiring Vessels in Bill Be Constructed From American 
    Steel--Substitute To Require All Materials in Vessels Be American

Sec. 21.9 To an amendment requiring that merchant marine vessels 
    constructed pursuant to the bill under consideration be constructed 
    of steel produced in the United States, a substitute amending 
    another portion of the bill to require all materials used in such 
    construction to be produced in the United States, unless certain 
    findings were made, was held not germane as beyond the scope of the 
    amendment to which offered.

    During consideration of the Energy Transportation Security Act of 
1977(4) in the Committee of the Whole, a point of order 
against the amendment described above was sustained, demonstrating that 
the test of germaneness of a substitute for a pending amendment is the 
relationship between the substitute and the amend

[[Page 8348]]

ment (and not between the substitute and the bill to which the 
amendment has been offered). The proceedings of Oct. 19, 
1977,(5) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 1037.
 5. 123 Cong. Rec. 34217, 34218, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Cunningham [III, of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cunningham: On page 9, line 24 
        after the word ``constructed'' insert the following: ``of steel 
        produced in the United States,''. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Mr. Cunningham:
            That H.R. 1037 be amended by inserting on page 10, line 2, 
        after the word ``subsidy'', the following: ``In all such 
        construction the shipbuilder, subcontractors, materialmen, or 
        suppliers shall use, so far as practicable, only articles, 
        materials, and supplies of the growth, production, or 
        manufacture of the United States as defined in paragraph K of 
        section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930; Provided however, That 
        with respect to other than major components of the hull, 
        superstructure, and any material used in the construction 
        thereof, (1) if the Secretary of Commerce determines that the 
        requirements of this sentence will unreasonably delay 
        completion of any vessel beyond its contract delivery date, and 
        (2) if such determination includes or is accompanied by a 
        concise explanation of the basis therefor, then the Secretary 
        of Commerce may waive such requirements to the extent 
        necessary.''

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of 
    order against the substitute amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine 
    and Fisheries is attempting to amend the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 
    1930 by expanding the definition of the material that was included 
    in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act under 
    the rules of the House was confined exclusively to the Committee on 
    Ways and Means and not to the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
    Fisheries, and I think it is not germane to this bill. It is a 
    matter that is wholly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means. Mr. Chairman, we have lived long enough with the 
    Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act without having to resurrect that buzzard. . 
    . .
        Mr. Murphy of New York: . . . The language of the substitute 
    amendment is direct language taken from the Merchant Marine Act of 
    1970. It is, of course, language that came from the committee. It 
    is language that we feel is germane to the precise bill because it 
    goes to the construction standards of the vessels that will be 
    constructed under the act. Therefore, I would hope that the Chair 
    would overrule the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: . . . It seems to me that 
    the question here is whether the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Murphy) is germane to the

[[Page 8349]]

    amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Cunningham). Mr. Chairman, I think that it is clearly a violation 
    of our rules of germaneness because it does go to the Smoot-Hawley 
    Tariff Act of 1930 and far expands on the amendment which was 
    submitted by the gentleman from Washington.
        The title of the bill, which is to require that a percentage of 
    the U.S. oil imports be carried on U.S.-flag ships, does not 
    contain tariff references, nor does it give the sweeping power to 
    the Secretary of Commerce that is included in the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York, nor does the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York really modify the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Washington because it is far greater in scope and 
    effect.
        Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the amendment is clearly 
    nongermane and the point of order should be sustained.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Washington offers an amendment on page 9, 
    line 24, to insert the words ``of steel produced in the United 
    States'' after the word ``constructed''. To that amendment the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) offers a substitute which 
    provides that:

            In all such construction the shipbuilder, subcontractors, 
        material men, or suppliers shall use, so far as practicable, 
        only articles, materials, and supplies of the growth, 
        production, or manufacture of the United States . . .

        The narrow question before the Chair is whether the substitute 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) is 
    germane to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Cunningham). The Chair would observe certainly of the proposed 
    substitute that it is far broader than the item of steel referred 
    to in the base amendment and refers to ``articles, materials, and 
    supplies'' and so on. Therefore the Chair would have to rule that 
    the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) 
    is not germane and the point of order by the gentleman from Florida 
    is sustained.

Income Ceiling for Occupants of Housing Projects--Substitute 
    Authorizing President To Set Maximum Wage Levels for Public Housing 
    Occupants

Sec. 21.10 For a proposed amendment requiring that an applicant for 
    admission to a low-rent housing project not have income exceeding 
    $2,000 per annum, a substitute amendment authorizing instead the 
    President to set from time to time the maximum annual wage level 
    for occupants of public housing units was held to be germane.

    In the 83d Congress, during consideration of the Housing Act of 
1954,(7) the following proposal,

[[Page 8350]]

in the form of an amendment offered by Mr. O. Clark Fisher, of 
Texas,(8) was under consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 7839 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 8. See 100 Cong. Rec. 4479, 4480, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 2, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec.--. Section 15(8)(a) of the United States Housing Act of 
    1937, as amended, is hereby amended by adding a proviso as follows: 
    ``Provided, That maximum income limits for admission to such low-
    rent housing project may not exceed $2,000 per annum, and for 
    continued occupancy may not exceed $2,300 per annum''.

    To such amendment, a substitute amendment was offered: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 4480.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Holifield for the amendment 
    offered by Mr. Fisher: ``Provided further, That the President shall 
    from time to time set the annual maximum wage level for occupants 
    of public housing units, taking into consideration the number of 
    persons in each family, the current purchasing power of the dollar 
    in relation to the cost of living and wage levels of each 
    locality.''

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

        Mr. Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the amendment 
    which the gentleman from Texas offered, and which is now pending.
        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    offered it as a substitute amendment. I do not offer this amendment 
    as an amendment to the gentleman's amendment.
        Mr. Fisher: It is not germane to the bill. . . .
        It relates to wages and has no reference to rents. It is not 
    germane to the subject matter covered in the pending bill nor to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.
        The Chairman: (10) . . . Both amendments would 
    appear to deal with the financial income of the applicants for 
    occupancy in these facilities. One amendment fixes income limits. 
    The other delegates authority for the income to be fixed. Both 
    amendments seem to deal with the same subject matter. The Chair 
    holds that the amendment is germane and overrules the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. B. Carroll Reece (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment to War Powers Bill Relating to Wages and Hours--Substitute 
    Imposing Penalties for Causing Strike

Sec. 21.11 Where a pending amendment to the Second War Powers Bill 
    related to the question of hours or days of labor and compensation 
    therefor, an amendment offered as a substitute which sought to 
    impose penalties for causing a strike or lockout was held to be not 
    germane to the pending amendment.

    In the 77th Congress, during proceedings related to the Second

[[Page 8351]]

War Powers Bill of 1952,(11) a proposition was under 
consideration as described above.(12) An amendment was 
offered, as follows: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. S. 2208 (Committee on the Judiciary).
12. The amendment described had been offered by Mr. Howard W. Smith 
        (Va.).
13. 88 Cong. Rec. 1736, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Folger offers the following amendment as a substitute for 
    the Smith amendment: Amend title IV of S. 2208, by adding after the 
    period in line 11, the following:

            Whoever, during the period of this war and while the United 
        States is engaged therein shall order . . . or cause any 
        strike, walk-out, or lock-out of workers (a strike, walk-out, 
        or lock-out resulting) in any plant . . . or other place 
        engaged in defense or war production work, shall be guilty of a 
        felony. . . .

    Mr. Joseph E. Casey, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane. In response, Mr. Alonzo D. Folger, of 
North Carolina, stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 1737.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the Chair observed yesterday this is an unusual bill in that 
    it deals with many subjects, but at the same time is designed and 
    intended to expedite and to prevent interference with war 
    production in this country. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this 
    strikes at the very root of interference with and therefore tends 
    to expedite the war production in this country. . . .

    The Chairman (15) made the following observation with 
respect to the point at issue:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The question here presented is whether the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from North Carolina is germane to the 
    pending amendment--not to the pending bill.

    Subsequently, in ruling on the point of order, he stated:

        . . .  Of course, the Chair does not now undertake to pass upon 
    the question of whether the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    North Carolina would be in order if offered as an amendment seeking 
    to include a new title in the pending bill.
        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia relates only to 
    the question of hours, days, or weeks of labor and compensation 
    therefor . . .
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, 
    among other things, deals with strikes, walk-outs, lock-outs, and 
    imposes penalties. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Virginia does not go nearly that far and does not undertake to 
    impose penalties. The Chair is therefore of the opinion that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina is much 
    broader than the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
    and is not therefore germane.

[[Page 8352]]

Amendment Barring Induction Into Armed Services Unless Voluntary 
    Enlistments Insufficient--Substitute To Create Joint Committee To 
    Investigate Voluntary Enlistment Campaign

Sec. 21.12 For an amendment providing that no person be inducted into 
    the armed services until the President proclaims that a sufficient 
    number of persons cannot be attained by voluntary enlistment to 
    meet military requirements, a substitute proposing to create a 
    joint congressional committee to conduct an investigation of the 
    voluntary enlistment campaign was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during proceedings relating to the Selective 
Services Act of 1948,(16) an amendment was under 
consideration as described above. The following amendment was offered: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 8509, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Substitute amendment offered by Mr. [Paul W.] Shafer [of 
    Michigan] for the committee amendment: . . .

            Sec. --. (a) There is hereby created a joint congressional 
        committee to be known as the Joint Committee on Voluntary 
        Enlistments. . . .

            (b) The joint committee shall conduct a thorough study and 
        investigation of the voluntary enlistment campaign required by 
        section 23 of this act and shall report to the Senate and the 
        House of Representatives the results of its study and 
        investigation. . . .

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

        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan that it is not germane to the amendment for which it is 
    offered as a substitute. It very obviously contains subject matter 
    the provisions of which are not even contemplated by the bill, let 
    alone the committee amendment for which it seeks to serve as a 
    substitute.

    The Chairman,(18) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 8510, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair invites attention to the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Shafer] is 
    offered as a substitute for an amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Andrews]. The amendment for which it is offered 
    as a substitute is limited to certain things. It relates wholly to 
    the time of induction and the determination that a sufficient 
    number cannot in the judgment of the President be obtained by 
    voluntary enlistment and by voluntary requests for call to active 
    duty. The

[[Page 8353]]

    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Shafer] goes 
    far beyond the scope of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Andrews] and proposes to create a joint congressional 
    committee and deals with other matters beyond the scope of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York.
        The Chair is constrained to rule that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Shafer] is not germane as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Andrews].
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment to Substitute Not Required To Affect Same Page and Line 
    Numbers as Substitute.

Sec. 21.13 An amendment to a substitute is not required to affect the 
    same page and line numbers as the substitute in order to be 
    germane, it being sufficient that the amendment is germane to the 
    subject matter of the substitute. Accordingly, to a substitute to 
    require that certain emergency energy conservation plans (entailing 
    the use of auto stickers indicating certain days an auto would not 
    be operated) be established (1) only after consultation with state 
    governors, and (2) only after consideration of rural and suburban 
    needs, an amendment striking out and inserting language elsewhere 
    in the bill which also related to the use of auto stickers as part 
    of the energy conservation plans, was held germane to the two 
    diverse conditions already required by the substitute.

    During consideration of S. 1030 (20) in the Committee of 
the Whole on Aug. 1, 1979,(1) Chairman Dante B. Fascell, of 
Florida, overruled a point of order against an amendment to a 
substitute and held that the amendment was germane to the substitute. 
The amendment and proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Emergency Energy Conservation Act of 1979.
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 21939, 21944-47, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Toby] Moffett [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Moffett as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Rinaldo: Page 45, after line 9, insert 
        the following new subsection:
            ``(d) Needs of Rural and Certain Other Areas.--Any system 
        under this section shall be established only after consultation 
        with the Governors of the States involved and shall provide 
        appropriate consideration of the needs of those in subur

[[Page 8354]]

        ban and rural areas, particularly those areas not adequately 
        served by any public transportation system, through the 
        geographical coverage of the system, through exemptions under 
        subsection (c)(8), or through such other means as may be 
        appropriate.

        Mr. [Andrew] Maguire [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Maguire to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Moffett as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Rinaldo: At the end insert the following: Page 43, beginning on 
        line 24, strike out ``day of each week that vehicle will not be 
        operated'' and insert ``day of each week the owner of that 
        vehicle has selected for that vehicle not to be operated''.

        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the Maguire amendment, although offered to the 
    Moffett amendment, is really a direct amendment to the bill before 
    us. Therefore, it is not germane to the Moffett substitute. In 
    addition, the Moffett substitute goes to page 45, line 9 of the 
    bill before us. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey (Mr. Maguire) goes to page 43, line 24.
        In addition, it is also not germane for that purpose.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: I do, Mr. Chairman, and I 
    am sure the gentleman from New Jersey desires to do so also.
        Mr. Chairman, the question of where the amendment might lie in 
    the bill with regard to page or section is not important. I would 
    observe to the Chair that the amendment offered originally by the 
    minority goes to several pages in the bill. I would point out that 
    what is involved here is the text of the amendments, and whether or 
    not the language and the purposes and the concepts of the amendment 
    are germane and are relative and relevant to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Connecticut.
        I believe that a reading of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut will show that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Maguire) is in fact germane to 
    it in terms of concept and in terms of purposes for which the 
    amendment happens to be offered. For that reason, I think that the 
    point of order should be rejected. . . .
        Mr. Maguire: Mr. Chairman, the key point is that this is a 
    refinement of the material that the Moffett substitute deals with. 
    Therefore, the page on which it appears is irrelevant, and the 
    point of order should be overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the substitute and the amendment, and 
    states that while the page references are different, the principal 
    matter of concern is the relationship between the amendment and the 
    substitute. Clearly, there is a substantive relationship that goes 
    beyond the question of the pages, since both deal with auto sticker 
    plans.
        On the matter of the scope of the amendment and its 
    germaneness, the Moffett substitute imposes conditions

[[Page 8355]]

    on the entire auto sticker plan in the bill in two diverse aspects. 
    One is a requirement of consultation with Governors, and the other 
    is a special consideration which would be required for suburban and 
    rural areas. The amendment to the substitute clearly deals with 
    another diverse element of the plan itself, and, because of the 
    diverse scope of the substitute, is germane to the substitute.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Substitute Amendment to Concurrent Resolution on Budget--Amendment to 
    Substitute as Enlarging Scope.

Sec. 21.14 To a substitute amendment to a concurrent resolution on the 
    budget changing one functional category only, an amendment changing 
    not only that category but several other categories of budget 
    authority and outlays and covering an additional fiscal year was 
    held to be more general in scope and therefore was ruled out as not 
    germane.

    On May 2, 1979,(2) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 107 (first concurrent resolution on the budget, 
fiscal 1980), the 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 amendment and proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 9556, 9562-64, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the matter relating 
        to the appropriate level of total new budget authority decrease 
        the amount by $8,113 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        budget outlays decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the amount of the deficit 
        decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of the 
        public debt decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to Function 050 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $3,351 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $1,177 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 350 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $102 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $34 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 450 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $75 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $25 million. . . .

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California as 
        a

[[Page 8356]]

        substitute for the amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the 
        matter relating to National Defense for fiscal year 1980, 
        strike out the amount specified for new budget authority and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$137,808,000,000''.
            In the matter relating to National Defense for fiscal year 
        1980, strike out the amount specified for outlays and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$125,070,000,000''.
            Increase the aggregate amounts in the first section (other 
        than the amount of the recommended level of Federal revenues 
        and the amount by which the aggregate level of Federal revenues 
        should be decreased) accordingly. . . .

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
    amendment offered as a substitute. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: My amendment is an amendment to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Charles H. 
    Wilson) as a substitute for the amendment. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California as a substitute 
        for the amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman; Strike all after 
        line 1 and insert:
            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
        pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $510,800,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is zero;
            (2) the appropriate level of total new budget authority is 
        $586,255,609,000.
            (3) the appropriate level of total budget outlays is 
        $510,567,609,000.
            (4) the amount of the deficit in the budget which is 
        appropriate in the light of economic conditions and all other 
        relevant factors is zero and . . .
            Sec. 3. Based on allocations of the appropriate level of 
        total new budget authority and of total budget outlays as set 
        forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the first section of this 
        resolution, the Congress hereby determines and declares 
        pursuant to section 301(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act 
        of 1974 that, for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979, 
        the appropriate level of new budget authority and the estimated 
        budget outlays for each major functional category are as 
        follows:
            (1) National Defense (050):
            (A) New budget authority, $112,974,000,000;
            (B) Outlays, $101,686,000,000.
            (2) International Affairs (150):
            (A) New budget authority, $12,932,000,000;
            (B) Outlays, $8,223,000,000. . . .
            Sec. 6. Pursuant to section 304 of the Congressional Budget 
        Act of 1974, the appropriate allocations for fiscal year 1979 
        made by H. Con. Res. 683 are revised as follows:
            (a)--
            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $458,485,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is $15,000,000;
            (2) the appropriate level of total new budget authority is 
        $555,659,000,000;
            (3) the appropriate level of total budget outlays is 
        $492,820,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: . . . I raise the 
    point of order

[[Page 8357]]

    against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the 
    Wilson amendment, which addresses itself to one function, national 
    defense, and this addresses itself far beyond that; and, therefore, 
    it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . It is my understanding that the 
    Charles H. Wilson amendment although it only addressed itself to 
    defense, it, by the language, inferred all that was in the 
    amendment of the gentlewoman from New York, by striking that. It 
    struck every section of the Holtzman amendment.
        If I am not germane here, certainly I am germane to the 
    Holtzman amendment and will offer my amendment to the Holtzman 
    amendment in the nature of an amendment to the Holtzman amendment, 
    if that be the necessary case.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is ready to rule upon 
    the point of order of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Charles H. Wilson) deals only with the national defense functional 
    category for fiscal 1980. The amendment thereto offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. John L. Burton) deals not only with 
    defense but with several other functional categories and is more 
    general in scope.
        Therefore, the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    John L. Burton) is not germane and the point of order is sustained.

Provisions Affecting Standards for Compensation of Postal Workers at 
    Levels Comparable to Private Sector--Amendment to Substitute

Sec. 21.15 To a proposition that postal employees receive compensation 
    equal to that paid for comparable levels of work in the private 
    sector and that such compensation be uniform in all areas of the 
    Nation, an amendment providing for pay differentials between postal 
    carriers or clerks and their supervisors was held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Postal Reform Act 
of 1970,(4) amendments affecting the following language of 
the bill were offered: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 17070 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 20211, 20212, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 205. Policy on compensation and benefits ``It shall be the 
    policy of the Postal Service to maintain for each wage area 
    compensation and benefits for all employees on a standard of 
    comparability to the compensation and benefits paid for comparable 
    levels of work in the private sector of the economy in the 
    corresponding wage area. The Postal Service, consistent with 
    subchapter II of this chapter and collective bargaining agreements, 
    shall define the boundaries of each wage

[[Page 8358]]

    area. It shall be the policy of the Postal Service to provide 
    adequate and reasonable differentials in rates of pay between 
    employees in the clerk and carrier grades in the line work force 
    and supervisory and managerial employees.

    An amendment was offered by Mr. Graham B. Purcell, Jr., of Texas: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 20432, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 18, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Purcell: On page 177, delete lines 
        19 to 24, and on page 178 delete lines 1 to 3. Insert beginning 
        on line 19, page 177, the following:
            ``It shall be the policy of the Postal Service to maintain 
        compensation and benefits for all employees on a standard of 
        comparability to the compensation and benefits paid for 
        comparable levels of work in the private sector of the economy. 
        Such policy may be applied on an area basis, in which event the 
        Postal Service, consistent with subchapter II of this chapter 
        and collective bargaining agreements, shall define the 
        boundaries of any such wage area. It shall be the policy of the 
        Postal Service to provide adequate and reasonable differentials 
        in rates of pay between employees in the clerk and carrier 
        grades in the line work force and supervisory and managerial 
        employees.''

    Subsequently, an amendment was offered by Mr. Sam M. Gibbons, of 
Florida: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 20434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gibbons as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Purcell: On page 177, strike out line 
        19 and all that follows down through the period in line 2 on 
        page 178 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``It shall be the policy of the Postal Service to maintain 
        compensation and benefits for all employees on a standard of 
        comparability to the compensation and benefits paid for 
        comparable levels of work in the private sector of the economy; 
        but there shall not be established, for any position or class 
        of positions under the Postal Service situated in any specific 
        area or location, a rate of compensation (including premium 
        compensation) which is higher than the rate of compensation 
        (including premium compensation) for the same position or class 
        of positions in any other specific area or location.''
            On page 192, immediately after the period in line 9, insert 
        the following: ``No such agreement shall contain any provision 
        which establishes, for any position or class of positions under 
        the Postal Service situated in any specific area or location, a 
        rate of compensation (including premium compensation) which is 
        higher than the rate of compensation (including premium 
        compensation) for the same position or class of position in any 
        other specific area or location.''

    An amendment to such substitute amendment was offered by Mr. 
Fletcher Thompson, of Georgia: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 20438.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Thompson of Georgia to the 
        substitute amendment offered by Mr. Gibbons: After the second 
        paragraph insert: ``It shall further be the policy of the 
        Postal Service to provide adequate and reasonable differentials 
        in rates of pay between employees in

[[Page 8359]]

        the clerk and carrier grades in the line work force and 
        supervisory and managerial employees. The Postal Service shall, 
        in carrying out this policy, fix salary levels for the type of 
        first line supervisors now in PFS 7 at a level which is not 
        less than a level approximately as much higher as their rates 
        of pay now exceed those in present grade PFS 5. There shall be 
        appropriate and reasonable differentials between PFS 7 and 8 
        and between all higher grades similar to those in effect on the 
        day immediately before the date of enactment of this section.''

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

        Mr. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The gentleman is 
    amending something in mine that mine does not touch at all. . . .
        . . . [H]e is trying to amend my substitute with something that 
    is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Thompson of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, the language that I 
    inserted is the language which was in the original section which 
    was stricken. It does not affect the area wage. It does provide 
    that the supervisors will, in effect, be paid a greater wage than 
    will the letter carriers or clerks because of their 
    responsibilities.
        Inasmuch as it was in the original section, it certainly should 
    be germane to any amendment to the original section.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has read the language in the amendment and also in 
    the substitute and the language deals exactly with the same section 
    of the bill and touches on the same subjects.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The section of the bill being amended 
(Sec. 205), and the Purcell amendment for which the Gibbons substitute 
was offered, both contained statements of policy similar to those 
contained in the Gibbons substitute as well as the additional statement 
of policy contained in the Thompson amendment. As explained in the 
introduction to this section, supra, the Chair does not normally look 
at language in the bill proposed to be stricken by the original 
amendment, but only at matter proposed to be inserted by the 
substitute, in measuring the germaneness of amendments to the 
substitute. Here, the substitute dealt with two compensation policies, 
and the addition of a third within the same class (compensation) was 
considered germane.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Must Be Germane to Bill as Whole--
    Incidental Portion of Amendment as Not Determining Germaneness

Sec. 21.16 The germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill depends on its relationship to

[[Page 8360]]

    the bill as a whole, and is not necessarily determined by the 
    content of an incidental portion of the amendment which, if 
    considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee.

    The proceedings of Aug. 2, 1973, which related to H.R. 9130 (the 
trans-Alaska pipeline authorization) are discussed in Sec. 30.36, 
infra.

Sec. 21.17 For a proposition reported from the Committee on Interior 
    and Insular Affairs authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 
    establish national petroleum reserves on certain public lands and 
    authorizing exploration for oil and gas on naval petroleum reserve 
    number 4 with annual reports to Congress, an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute containing similar provisions and also 
    requiring a task force study of the values and best uses for 
    subsistence, scenic, historical, and recreational purposes, and for 
    fish and wildlife, of the public lands in that naval petroleum 
    reserve was held germane despite the inclusion of that incidental 
    portion which, if considered separately, would have been tested for 
    germaneness only in relation to the portion of the bill to which 
    offered.

    On July 8, 1975,(10) during consideration of H.R. 49 in 
the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, held that the 
test of germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a substitute for a 
bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole and is not necessarily 
determined by the content of an incidental portion of the amendment 
which, if offered separately, might not be germane to the portion of 
the bill to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 21631-34, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Melcher: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
            That in order to develop petroleum reserves of the United 
        States which need to be regulated in a manner to meet the total 
        energy needs of the Nation, including but not limited to 
        national defense, the Secretary of the Interior, with the 
        approval of the President, is authorized to establish national 
        petroleum reserves on any reserved or unreserved public lands 
        of the United States (except lands in the National Park System, 
        the Na

[[Page 8361]]

        tional Wildlife Refuge System, the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
        System, the National Wilderness Preservation System, areas now 
        under review for inclusion in the Wilderness System in 
        accordance with provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and 
        lands in Alaska other than those in Naval Petroleum Reserve 
        Numbered 4). . . .
            (f) The Secretary of the Interior with the approval of the 
        President, is hereby authorized and directed to explore for oil 
        and gas on the area designated as Naval Petroleum Reserve 
        Numbered 4 if it is included in a National Petroleum Reserve 
        and he shall report annually to Congress on his plan for 
        exploration of such reserve, Provided, That no development 
        leading to production shall be undertaken unless authorized by 
        Congress. He is authorized and directed to undertake a study of 
        the feasibility of delivery systems with respect to oil and gas 
        which may be produced from such reserve: Provided further, That 
        the Secretary of the Interior shall, through a Task Force, 
        including representatives of the State of Alaska, the Arctic 
        Slope Regional Corporation, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 
        and the Office of National Petroleum Reserves established by 
        this Act, functioning cooperatively, study and review the 
        values and best uses of the public domain lands contained in 
        Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4 as subsistence lands for 
        natives, scenic, historical, recreational, fish and wildlife, 
        wilderness or for other purposes, and, within three years, 
        submit to Congress his recommendations for such designation of 
        areas of those lands as may be appropriate and, Provided 
        further, That oil and gas exploration within the Utukok River 
        and Teheshepuk Lake areas and others containing significant 
        subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, historical or 
        scenic values, shall be conducted in a manner so as to preserve 
        such surface values.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order. . . .
        The bill, H.R. 49, authorizes as follows:

            To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish on 
        certain public lands of the United States national petroleum 
        reserves the development of which needs to be regulated in a 
        manner consistent with the total energy needs of the Nation, 
        and for other purposes.

        Mr. Chairman, if we refer to the bill in toto, nowhere will we 
    find in that bill language relating to subsection (f) of the 
    amendment submitted to us. I regret that I cannot give the Chair 
    the precise citation.
        I will state that the point of order goes to the section 
    relating to the words,

            Provided further, That the Secretary of the Interior shall, 
        through a Task Force, including representatives of the State of 
        Alaska, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the U.S. Fish 
        and Wildlife Service and the Office of National Petroleum 
        Reserves established by this Act, functioning cooperatively, 
        study and review the values and best uses of the public domain 
        lands contained in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4 as 
        subsistence lands for natives, scenic, historical, 
        recreational, fish and wildlife, wilderness or for other 
        purposes, and, within three years submit to Congress his 
        recommendations for such designation of areas of those lands as 
        may be appropriated. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, a fundamental rule of the House of 
    Representatives is that the burden of establishing the germaneness 
    of an amendment falls upon the offeror and does not fall upon the

[[Page 8362]]

    Member challenging the germaneness. I would point out that nowhere 
    else in the bill is there a proviso for a provision for a study 
    involving groups, and nowhere in the title of the legislation is 
    there anything that would justify or authorize a study of the kind 
    that is set forth here in the amendment.
        As a matter of fact, nowhere in the amendment that was reported 
    by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to the House of 
    Representatives is there anything which would relate to a study. A 
    study of the kind that is before us is totally different and alien.
        The purpose of the legislation is to establish a program of 
    national strategic reserves and for the development of the 
    petroleum reserves and not for the establishment of a study. It is 
    not for the establishment of a study relating to fish and wildlife 
    values, historical values, and matters of that sort.
        So since the burden falls upon the offeror of the amendment, 
    the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Melcher), I would point out that he 
    has assumed for himself a burden which is impossibly heavy, and 
    that is to provide a study of such sweeping import relating to 
    totally different matters than those which are contained in the 
    bill.
        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, the point of order should be 
    sustained.
        Mr. Melcher: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Chairman, I think the point is covered in rule XVI at 
    section 798c where it says as follows:

            . . . the test of the germaneness of an amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute for a bill is its relationship to the 
        bill as a whole, and is not necessarily determined by the 
        content of an incidental portion of the amendment which, if 
        considered separately, might be within the jurisdiction of 
        another committee.

        Mr. Chairman, I think that about settles the point.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The proviso cited by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    is on page 8 of the mimeographed form of the Melcher amendment.

        Had this proviso been presented separately, the germaneness 
    would have been measured against the portion of the Interior 
    Committee amendment to which offered. However, having been 
    presented as a part of an overall substitute, the Chair would rule 
    that the provision objected to is merely incidental to the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment, and that under the precedent 
    cited by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Melcher), in section 
    798(b) of the Manual the amendment is germane to the text when 
    viewed as a whole.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Special Rule Permitting Point of Order Based on Germaneness To Be Made 
    Against Portion of Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 21.18 Under the terms of a special rule, a point of order based on 
    the germaneness of only a portion of an amendment to the original 
    bill was permitted to be made against a section of an amendment in

[[Page 8363]]

    the nature of a substitute being read as original text for 
    amendment; the section of the amendment, which sought to make 
    permanent changes in law, was held to be not germane to a 
    proposition authorizing appropriations for one fiscal year.

    On May 24, 1978,(11) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (H.R. 10929) reported from the Committee on 
Armed Services authorizing appropriations and personnel strength for 
the armed forces for one fiscal year and containing minor conforming 
changes to existing law. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was, pursuant to a special rule, to be read as original text for 
amendment. A section of the amendment imposed permanent restrictions on 
troop withdrawals from the Republic of Korea, in part making reductions 
in troop strength contingent upon the conclusion of a peace agreement 
with North Korea. The terms of the special rule permitted a point of 
order based on the germaneness rule to be made against that section of 
the amendment. The special rule (H. Res. 1188) stated: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 15293-15295, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. See 124 Cong. Rec. 15094, 15095, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., May 23, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 . . . and 
    other weapons . . . and to prescribe the authorized personnel 
    strength for each active duty component . . . of the Armed Forces 
    and of civilian personnel of the Department of Defense . . . and 
    for other purposes. After general debate . . . 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 consider 
    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. . . .

[[Page 8364]]

    The proceedings of May 24, 1978, were as follows:

        The Chairman: (13) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, May 23, 1978, all time for general debate on the bill had 
    expired. Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles 
    the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the reported bill 
    as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 ``Department of Defense Appropriation 
        Authorization Act, 1979''.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    accordance with the rule, House Resolution 1188, I make a point of 
    order that section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute, if offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as 
    introduced, would be in violation of clause 7 of House Rule XVI 
    regarding germaneness. This provision which deals with the 
    withdrawal of troops from Korea, and section 805 which deals with 
    the withdrawal of troops from Korea, is not germane to the 
    Department of Defense authorization bill.
        Mr. Chairman, a key criterion in determining germaneness is a 
    committee's jurisdiction over a matter. The Korean troop withdrawal 
    issue falls clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations. Both sections 805(a) and 805(b) fall 
    clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations, pursuant to clause 1, subparagraph (k) of House Rule X.
        Compelling evidence of the primary jurisdiction of the 
    International Relations Committee over the issue of troop 
    withdrawal from Korea is found in the fact that all legislation, 
    the President's arms transfer request, and related reports have 
    been referred solely to the International Relations Committee.
        Thus, there can be no doubt that the issue of the Korean troop 
    withdrawal lies within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations, and accordingly section 805 is not germane 
    to this bill.
        In addition, the issue of U.S. troop withdrawal from Korea is 
    not relevant to either the subject matter or to the purpose of H.R. 
    10929, as introduced. As introduced, H.R. 10929 consists entirely 
    of provisions relating to the annual authorizations for the 
    Department of Defense. It contains no general policy provisions for 
    the Department of Defense. It contains no general policy provisions 
    of any type, let alone any policy provisions relevant to the 
    withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea. It is well established that 
    an amendment of a general and permanent nature is not germane to a 
    bill containing only temporary authorizations.
        Thus, by whatever test of germaneness one examines, section 805 
    is not germane to H.R. 10929. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki), makes the point of order 
    that section 805 is not germane on the ground that it deals with a 
    matter that is related to

[[Page 8365]]

    something that has been before his committee. As he indicated 
    before the Committee on Rules, if this had been introduced as an 
    original bill, it would have been referred sequentially to the 
    Committee on International Relations as well as to the Committee on 
    Armed Services.
        I submit, Mr. Chairman, that, first of all, the question of 
    germaneness does not depend on what committee it might be referred 
    to sequentially. In fact, the whole idea of sequential referral is 
    a relatively new concept. I believe, in fact, that it has only been 
    practiced in this House during this present Congress, and perhaps a 
    few times previously.
        H.R. 10929, is the annual authorization bill for the Department 
    of Defense. It traditionally covers a wide variety of topics 
    relating to defense. I would point out that the title of the bill 
    after it lists the various items that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    has already referred to concludes, ``and for other purposes.''
        Traditionally, matters related to the defense of our country 
    which the Committee on Armed Services has regarded as being of 
    importance have been included in this annual legislation year after 
    year. Section 805 is no different from any of the other matters we 
    have traditionally handled under ``general provisions.''
        It is true that the gentleman's committee has had legislation 
    before it regarding the transfer of American equipment to Korean 
    forces; but section 805 refers to the stationing and positioning of 
    U.S. ground forces; ``no ground combat units of the 2d Infantry 
    Division,'' and so on and so forth. It makes no reference to any 
    transfer of equipment to Korean forces. We are providing here for 
    the stationing of troops in an area that is of great importance to 
    our national security. If that is not something which is within the 
    concern of the Committee on Armed Services, then I do not know what 
    our proper area of responsibility is.
        Subsection (b) of section 805 spells out the recommendations of 
    the committee as to what the minimum ground combat strength of our 
    Armed Forces stationed in the Republic of Korea should be based on 
    information we gleaned in an on-the-spot visit to Korea in January; 
    so it is clearly within the province of the Committee on Armed 
    Services. The gentleman from Wisconsin does not dispute that. The 
    gentleman could not dispute it; but to suggest that because if it 
    were introduced as a bill under today's procedures it might have 
    been referred sequentially to the gentleman's committee or to some 
    other committee, completely misses the point. If the size and 
    location of Armed Forces of the United States are not a 
    responsibility of the Committee on Armed Services, and are instead 
    the responsibility of the Committee on International Relations, 
    then something is very drastically wrong in this House.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, the authority to determine where 
    American Forces shall be stationed is clearly within the province 
    of the Congress. The Constitution provides that Congress shall not 
    only ``raise and support armies,'' but that we shall provide for 
    the ``regulation and governing of the land and naval forces,'' in 
    section 8 of article I.

[[Page 8366]]

        Congress has previously enacted the war powers bill, which 
    limits the authority of the President as far as the stationing of 
    troops abroad is concerned. The Constitution does not give a broad 
    grant of power to the Commander in Chief alone in stationing troops 
    abroad. He has no constitutional power to put troops wherever he 
    wants to, because Congress has determined that he cannot put troops 
    abroad under certain conditions without the expressed approval of 
    the Congress of the United States.
        Well, if we can limit the President's ability to send troops 
    overseas, it follows that we can also limit his ability to bring 
    those troops back home, if in the opinion of the Congress, we 
    determine that that withdrawal action, which certainly is the case 
    of Korea, would increase the risks of war.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that the point of order be overruled. 
    Section 805 is clearly within the authority of the committee. It is 
    clearly germane to the broad purposes of the bill and the House 
    should have the right to vote on this important question.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    Wisconsin makes a point of order against section 805 of the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Armed Services, on the grounds that section 805 of 
    said amendment would not have been germane if offered to the bill 
    H.R. 10929, as introduced.
        As indicated by the gentleman from Wisconsin, the special order 
    providing for consideration of this measure, House Resolution 1188, 
    allows the Chair to entertain a point of order on the basis stated 
    by the gentleman, that section 805 of the committee amendment would 
    not have been germane as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 in its 
    introduced form.

        The bill as introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed 
    Services contains authorizations of appropriations and personnel 
    strengths of the Armed Services for fiscal year 1979. It contains 
    no permanent changes to law or statements of policy except for 
    minor conforming changes to existing law relating to troop and 
    personnel strengths.
        Section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute prohibits: First the withdrawal of ground combat units 
    from the Republic of Korea until the enactment of legislation 
    allowing the retention in Korea of the equipment of such units, and 
    second, the reduction of combat units below a certain level in the 
    Republic of Korea until a peace settlement is reached between said 
    Republic and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea ending the 
    state of war on the Korean peninsula.
        The subject matter of section 805 of the committee amendment is 
    unrelated to H.R. 10929 as introduced. The strength levels 
    prescribed in the bill are for 1 fiscal year only and deal with the 
    overall strength of the Armed Forces, not with the location of 
    Armed Forces personnel. As indicated in the argument of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin, the withdrawal of American Forces 
    stationed abroad pursuant to an international agreement, and the 
    relationship of that withdrawal to peace agreements between foreign 
    nations and to the transfer of American military equipment to 
    foreign powers, are

[[Page 8367]]

    issues not only beyond the scope of the bill but also within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations. Although 
    committee jurisdiction over an amendment is not the sole test of 
    germaneness, the Chair feels that it is a convincing argument in a 
    case such as the present one where the test of germaneness is 
    between a limited 1-year authorization bill and a permanent 
    statement of policy contingent upon the administration of laws 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the Chair may have just stated a 
    novel concept which has never before been heard in a ruling. That 
    is that the sequential referral rule somehow serves as the basis 
    for jurisdiction, and thus can support a point of order dealing 
    with a section in a bill such as the one before us.
        The parliamentary inquiry I have is this: Simply because under 
    the new procedure adopted for the first time in this Congress the 
    rules allow sequential referral at the discretion of the Speaker, 
    does that mean that a committee that has primary jurisdiction, such 
    as the Committee on Armed Services, may be challenged on the floor 
    and have a point of order sustained removing a provision that might 
    be partially under the jurisdiction of another committee on a 
    sequential referral?
        The Chairman: The ruling of the Chair does not stand for that 
    proposition.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland 
    understood the Chair to say that the argument of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin was persuasive to the Chair regarding jurisdiction. If 
    that is the case, it seems to me every committee of this House is 
    somehow going to be challenged on the floor henceforth if its 
    jurisdiction is shared to the slightest degree by another 
    committee.
        The Chairman: All the Chair has stated is that section 805 is 
    not germane to the introduced bill, and the rule provides that the 
    point of order would lie on that ground.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I have this further parliamentary 
    inquiry:
        Then the ruling of the Chair is based on germaneness of this 
    amendment to this bill and does not go to any effect the sequential 
    jurisdiction would have on the provision?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    The point of order having been sustained against the nongermane 
portion of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, the 
Chair directed the Clerk to read the substitute without the nongermane 
portion as original text for amendment, pursuant to the special rule.

Joint Resolution Authorizing Loan Agreement With Britain--Amendment in 
    Nature of Substitute Prohibiting Loans to Foreign Governments Until 
    Budget Balanced

Sec. 21.19 To a joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of

[[Page 8368]]

    the Treasury to carry out a certain loan agreement between the 
    United States and the United Kingdom, an amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute for the joint resolution providing that it shall be 
    unlawful for the government or any department thereof to lend or 
    give money to any foreign government until the budget is balanced 
    was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration to implement the purposes of the Bretton Woods Agreements 
Act by authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to carry out an 
agreement with the United Kingdom. The bill stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. S.J. Res. 138 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
15.  See 92 Cong. Rec. 8915, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 13, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
    consultation with the National Advisory Council on International 
    Monetary and Financial Problems, is hereby authorized to carry out 
    the agreement dated December 6, 1945, between the United States and 
    the United Kingdom which was transmitted by the President to the 
    Congress on January 30, 1946.

    An amendment was offered (16) as described above. Mr. 
Wright Patman, of Texas, raised the point of order that the amendment 
was not germane to the bill. The Chairman, (17) in ruling on 
the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 8938.
17. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane. The section now under consideration 
    authorizes the carrying out of the agreement dated December 6, 
    1945. Section 2 provides for the implementing of or the financing 
    or the carrying out of that agreement.
        The pending amendment is not related to the subject matter and 
    the Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Amendment in Nature of Substitute Striking Section of Bill

Sec. 21.20 To a bill consisting of two sections, an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute striking out all after the enacting clause 
    and inserting language of the second and final section was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration which sought to provide rules for the judicial 
interpretation of acts of Congress. The following exchange 
(19) concerned a point of

[[Page 8369]]

order raised against a substitute amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 3 (Committee on the Judiciary).
19. 105 Cong. Rec. 11794, 11795, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order to the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I followed the reading of the amendment and it is 
    word for word carrying section 2 of the bill after the enacting 
    clause. It is really an amendment to strike out section 1 and all 
    that this amendment does is simply to repeat what the Committee has 
    just voted on. It comes too late, Mr. Chairman, because section 1 
    has already been read. . . .
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this is a 
    substitute amendment which, in effect, strikes out section 1. There 
    is no reason why a Member cannot offer a substitute amendment 
    changing the provisions of any section, either amending the section 
    or striking it out in toto. That is what this amendment does. It is 
    a substitute amendment substituting a new bill as it is, with the 
    elimination of section 1.
        The Chairman: (20) . . . The only function of the 
    Chair is to rule on the germaneness of the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute. The Chair believes the amendment is germane and, 
    therefore, the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Clark W. Thompson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent demonstrates that while it 
may be too late to offer a perfecting (or striking) amendment to a 
section of the bill already passed in the reading for amendment, it may 
be permissible to accomplish that result by an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute for the entire bill offered at the end of the reading.

Amendment Rewriting Concurrent Resolution on Budget Not Germane to 
    Perfecting Amendment Making More Limited Changes

Sec. 21.21 An amendment (in effect in the nature of a substitute) 
    rewriting an entire concurrent resolution on the budget covering 
    two fiscal years is not germane to a perfecting amendment proposing 
    certain changes in figures for one of the years covered by the 
    resolution.

    On May 2, 1979,(1) during consideration of the first 
concurrent resolution on the budget, fiscal year 1980 (House Concurrent 
Resolution 107), the Chair sustained a point of order against an 
amendment, thus holding that to a perfecting amendment to a concurrent 
resolution on the budget changing amounts in functional categories and 
aggregates only for one fiscal year, an amendment which addresses the 
budget for another fiscal year as well and which contains other 
unrelated

[[Page 8370]]

matter, as a redraft of the entire resolution, is not germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 9556, 9564-66, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Ms. Holtzman: In the matter relating 
        to the appropriate level of total new budget authority decrease 
        the amount by $8,113 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of total 
        budget outlays decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the amount of the deficit 
        decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to the appropriate level of the 
        public debt decrease the amount by $2,705 million;
            In the matter relating to Function 050 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $3,351 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $1,177 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 350 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $102 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $34 million. . . .
            In the matter relating to Function 450 decrease the amount 
        for budget authority by $75 million; and decrease the amount 
        for outlays by $25 million.

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Ms. Holtzman: Strike all after line 1 and insert:

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the Congress hereby determines and declares, 
    pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
    that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--

            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $510,800,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level 
        of Federal revenues should be decreased is zero;
            Sec. 6. Pursuant to section 304 of the Congressional Budget 
        Act of 1974, the appropriate allocations for fiscal year 1979 
        made by H. Con. Res. 683 are revised as follows: . . .

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: The gentleman's 
    amendment is a substitute for the entire resolution; the Holtzman 
    amendment is not. It touches on matters not dealt with in the 
    Holtzman amendment, namely, changes for fiscal year 1979. It is, 
    therefore, not germane to the amendment of the gentlewoman from New 
    York (Ms. Holtzman). . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
    Holtzman) deals only with fiscal year 1980 targets. The amendment 
    thereto offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. John L. 
    Burton) deals not only with 1980 but with fiscal 1979 revisions and 
    contains other language. The amendment is not germane to the 
    Holtzman amendment. The Chair so rules and sustains the point of 
    order.

[[Page 8371]]

Test of Germaneness of Amendment to Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 21.22 The test of germaneness of a perfecting amendment to an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute for a bill is its 
    relationship to said substitute, and not to the original bill; 
    thus, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute only extending 
    for one year the entitlement authorization for revenue-sharing 
    during fiscal year 1981 and containing conforming changes in the 
    law which would not effectively extend beyond that year, an 
    amendment extending the revenue-sharing program for three years was 
    held broader in scope and was ruled out as not germane.

    On Nov. 13, 1980,(3) during consideration of the State 
and Local Fiscal Assistance Act Amendments of 1980 (4) in 
the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that, to a proposition 
to appropriate or to authorize appropriations for only one year, an 
amendment to extend the appropriation or authorization to another year 
is not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 126 Cong. Rec. 29523-28, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. H.R. 7112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) When the Committee rose on 
    Wednesday, November 12, 1980, section 1 had been considered as 
    having been read and opened for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any amendments to section 1?
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Horton: Strike out everything after the enacting clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
        Section 1. Short Title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act Amendments of 1980''.
        Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

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

    An amendment was offered:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York] to 
        the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Horton: On page 1 of the amendment of the gentleman from New 
        York, strike out

[[Page 8372]]

        section 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations for Local Share.--
        Section 105(c)(1) of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act 
        of 1972 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: 
        ``In addition, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Trust Fund to pay the entitlements of units of local government 
        hereinafter provided $4,566,700,000 for each of the entitlement 
        periods beginning October 1 of 1980, 1981, and 1982.''. . .
            ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations for Allocations to 
        State Governments.--
            ``(1) In general--In the case of each entitlement period 
        described in paragraph (2), there are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Trust Fund $2,300,000,000 for each such 
        entitlement period to make allocations to State governments. . 
        . .
            ``(2) Entitlement periods.--The following entitlement 
        periods are described in this paragraph:
            ``(A) The entitlement period beginning October 1, 1981, and 
        ending September 30, 1982; and
            ``(B) The entitlement period beginning October 1, 1982, and 
        ending September 30, 1983.''. . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    not germane to the Horton substitute. It is in violation of rule 
    XVI against nongermane amendments. The Horton substitute is limited 
    to an extension of this legislation in 1981 only. The amendment, 
    however, seeks to add language dealing with fiscal years 1982 and 
    1983. This is a different subject from that of the Horton 
    substitute and does not conform to the rule. The Horton substitute 
    was very carefully drafted and restricted to units of local 
    government for the entitlement period beginning October 1, 1980, 
    and ending September 30, 1981.
        The proposed amendment is a different subject matter, dealing 
    with State governments for a different period of time. . . .
        Mr. Wydler: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to the amendment that I 
    have offered deals with exactly the same subject matter as in the 
    amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Horton). It does deal with a longer time period, but it is the same 
    time period exactly that is contained in the legislation. It deals 
    with other matters which are contained in the general legislation, 
    so I feel it is well within the parameters of the bill it is trying 
    to be substituted for.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the fundamental purpose of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton), in 
    the nature of a substitute, is to extend for 1 year the entitlement 
    authorization for revenue-sharing payments to local governments 
    during fiscal year 1981.
        Any amendment offered thereto must be germane to the Horton 
    amendment. It will not be sufficient that the amendment be germane 
    to the committee bill. Under the precedents, to a proposition to 
    appropriate for only 1 year, an amendment to extend the 
    appropriation to another year, is not germane; Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume 8, section 2913.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the Horton amendment and the 
    conforming changes therein have as their funda

[[Page 8373]]

    mental purpose the extension of local entitlements for only 1 year 
    and do not thereby open up the amendment to permanent or multiyear 
    changes in the revenue-sharing law.
        For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute was a three-year bill, but the Horton substitute, the 
relevant text, was a one-year provision only. Although in the form of 
an amendment to the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act, all 
provisions thereof applied only to the entitlement period, fiscal year 
1981.

Agriculture Bill: Provision Similar to One Contained in Original Bill 
    Offered as Amendment to Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 21.23 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute amending 
    several Acts within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Agriculture, an amendment directing the Secretary of Agriculture to 
    establish emergency temporary work standards for agricultural 
    workers exposed to pesticide chemicals, notwithstanding provisions 
    of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor), and 
    repealing certain work regulations promulgated under that Act, was 
    held to be not germane, despite inclusion of a similar provision in 
    the bill to which the amendment in the nature of a substitute had 
    been offered.

    On July 19, 1973, (6) during consideration of a bill to 
amend and extend the Agriculture Act of 1970 (7) in the 
Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that the test of 
germaneness is the relationship between an amendment and the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to which it is offered, and not between 
an amendment and the bill for which the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute has been offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 6 119 Cong. Rec. 24962, 24963, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. . H.R. 8860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilmer] Mizell  [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mizell to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Foley: On page 53, line 
        3, insert the following:
            Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding section 6(c) of the 
        Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 654(c)) 
        or any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture 
        shall pro

[[Page 8374]]

        vide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5, title 5, 
        United States Code, for an emergency temporary standard 
        prohibiting agricultural workers from entering areas where 
        crops are produced or grown (such emergency standard to take 
        immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register) if 
        he determines (1) that such agricultural workers are exposed to 
        grave danger from exposure to pesticide chemicals, as defined 
        in section 201(q) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 
        (21 U.S.C. 321(q)), and (2) that such emergency standard is 
        necessary to protect such agricultural workers from such 
        danger.
            (b) Such temporary standard shall be effective until 
        superseded by a standard prescribed by the Secretary of 
        Agriculture by rule, no later than six months after publication 
        of such temporary standard. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
    order against the amendment in that it is not germane because it 
    would have the effect of amending the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act which is under the jurisdiction of the Education and 
    Labor Committee. . . .
        Mr. Mizell: Mr. Chairman, this language was in the committee 
    bill that was reported to the House, and the Foley substitute 
    eliminated this section of the bill, and so for that reason, I 
    offer the amendment at this time, and I think it is germane to the 
    bill since this bill does cover a number of subjects. . . .
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, the rule 
    under which this legislation came to us precluded a point of order 
    being raised against the Mizell amendment, the one that was 
    contained in the original Agriculture Committee bill since this 
    bill was a clean bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture.
        What we are now dealing with is a situation in which this is an 
    amendment to a substitute.
        The subject matter covered by the amendment is clearly not 
    germane to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, since 
    it is covered by the Committee on Education and Labor, and thus I 
    believe the point of order ought to be sustained by the Chair. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.  William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair advises the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Mizell) that as far as the rule is concerned, it has no relevance 
    concerning the point of order at this time. It is true that the 
    content is the amendment as offered by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Mizell) on the original bill, but the amendment 
    before the House at this time is in the nature of a substitute.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that the point of order must be 
    sustained.

Amendment as Broader Than Proposition Being Amended

Sec. 21.24 To an amendment proposing to add a new paragraph to a 
    section of a bill, an amendment providing that certain procedures 
    not be permitted ``under this section'' was ruled out as not 
    germane.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  116 Cong. Rec. 24040, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 14, 1970. See Sec. 
        18.6, supra.

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

[[Page 8375]]



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 22. Committee Amendment

    Committee amendments in a bill occupy the same status as those 
offered from the floor, so far as being subject to the same points of 
order.(10)Thus, the rule of germaneness applies to committee 
amendments as well as those offered by individual Members. 
(11) Therefore, the rule of germaneness may be summarized as 
follows: 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 (12)and during the markups in subcommittee and 
in full committee, as well as to amendments offered from the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. For illustrative precedents on this point, see, for example, 
        Sec. Sec. 22.1 and 37.12, infra.
11. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 3.41 and 12.8, supra.
12. See Sec. 4.31, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A committee amendment, whether or not in the nature of a 
substitute, should be germane to the bill as introduced. Of course, a 
resolution providing for consideration of the bill with the committee 
amendment may waive points of order against the committee 
amendment.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 45.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule requiring germaneness of amendments has been applied with 
respect to a committee amendment to a Consent Calendar 
bill.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 16.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority of Secretary of Navy Respecting Construction for Shore 
    Activities--Amendment To Amend Surplus Property Act

Sec. 22.1 To a bill giving the Secretary of the Navy certain authority 
    with respect to the construction of public works designed to 
    promote specified naval shore activities, a committee amendment 
    seeking to amend the Surplus Property Act to require title to all 
    ships, boats, barges and floating drydocks of the Navy to remain in 
    the Navy was held not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (15) was under 
consideration which provided in part as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 626 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
16. See 91 Cong. Rec. 305, 306, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 17, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Navy is hereby 
    authorized to establish . . . the following naval shore activities 
    by the construction of such temporary or permanent public works as 
    he may consider nec

[[Page 8376]]

    essary, including buildings, facilities, accessories, and services 
    . . . with approximate costs as indicated: Ship repair and laying-
    up facilities, $230,222,000; fleet training facilities, amphibious 
    and operational, $12,000,000; aviation facilities, $74,500,000; 
    storage facilities, $19,950,000 (and the like). . . .

    A committee amendment was read, stating: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Add a new section as follows:

            Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Surplus 
        Property Act of 1944, and of the act approved March 11, 1941 
        (55 Stat. 31, as amended, title to all ships, boats, barges, 
        and floating drydocks of the Navy Department shall remain in 
        the United States; and possession thereof shall remain in the 
        Navy Department and none of the foregoing shall be disposed of 
        in any manner: Provided That lease thereof may be made in 
        accordance with such act of March 11, 1941, as amended, for 
        periods not beyond the termination of the present war.

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

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against section 4 on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill.
        . . . May I say that the original bill is an authorization bill 
    to establish or develop naval shore activities by the construction 
    of such temporary or public works as may be considered necessary, 
    and so forth.
        Section 4, an amendment, has absolutely nothing to do with 
    that. Section 4 amends the Surplus Property Act, which does not 
    enter into the original bill at all. In adding section 4 it is 
    sought to have the Navy retain title to every type of ship, boat, 
    barge, or floating drydock that is now in possession of the Navy 
    Department, and I submit that is not germane to the original bill 
    and is, therefore, subject to a point of order.

    The following exchange (18) also concerned the point of 
order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 308, 309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, one of the 
    objectives of this bill is to provide facilities for inactive 
    ships. There would be no justification to dispose of these ships, 
    then provide facilities for inactive ships. . . .
        What we are seeking to do is to utilize the facilities by not 
    disposing of ships; otherwise it would be probably a waste of 
    public money if we go ahead and dispose of the ships, then turn 
    around and provide facilities for inactive ships. . . .
        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole [of New York]: . . . It seems to me 
    there is a proper relationship between the construction of a shore 
    establishment necessary for the operation of a ship and the 
    disposal or the conduct of the ship itself. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: . . . I remind 
    the Chair that this is an amendment. It is a committee amendment, 
    true, but it has no higher privilege and is entitled to no greater 
    weight than if it were an amendment proposed on the floor by the 
    committee or by any member of the Committee of the Whole. Inasmuch 
    as this amendment definitely is not ger

[[Page 8377]]

    mane to the bill under consideration which provides for 
    construction . . . and inasmuch as this amendment is not a 
    limitation for the repairs and for shore facilities and for the 
    housing authorized in this bill, but is an amendment to the general 
    law covering all ships . . . and floating drydocks of the Navy 
    Department, applying to property that is covered by two acts 
    heretofore passed by the Congress . . . I submit that the amendment 
    is not germane to the bill under consideration. . . . The bill 
    provides for construction--the amendment prevents disposal of other 
    types and classes of property. . . .
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    question of germaneness to me is not important when a bill is 
    drafted by the committee if the matter included in the committee 
    draft has to do with the subject matter over which the committee 
    has jurisdiction. . . .
        My view is that when a Member introduces a bill and it goes 
    before a committee it becomes a committee bill when the committee 
    reports it out, and that an individual by introducing a bill and 
    referring it to a committee cannot prevent the committee from 
    adding to the bill anything over which the committee has 
    jurisdiction. . . .

    The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. A.S. Mike Monroney (Okla.).
20. See 91 Cong. Rec. 309, 310, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 17, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cochran] makes the point 
    of order against the committee amendment, which provides that title 
    to all ships, boats, barges, and floating drydocks of the Navy 
    Department shall remain in the United States, on the ground that it 
    is not germane to the bill. This amendment, although a committee 
    amendment, occupies the same position with respect to the rule of 
    germaneness as an amendment offered from the floor.
        The Chair has carefully read the bill. It is the opinion of the 
    Chair that the substance of this bill relates solely to the 
    construction of public works. It would be rather futile to argue 
    that this amendment comes within the rule of germaneness because if 
    the argument of those opposing the point of order were sustained 
    any amendment proposing a change in any other activity of the Navy 
    Department could also be considered as germane. Therefore the Chair 
    sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from Missouri.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 23. Instructions in Motion To Commit or Recommit

    An amendment incorporated in a motion to recommit with instructions 
must be germane to the bill sought to be amended.(1) Thus, 
it is not in order to propose, as part of a motion to recommit, any 
proposition which would not be germane if proposed as an amendment to 
the bill. (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 23.7 and 23.10, infra.
 2. See Sec. 23.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 22, 1949, when the reading of the engrossed copy of a

[[Page 8378]]

bill was the unfinished business before the House, the 
Speaker(3) stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
that instructions accompanying a motion to recommit were required to be 
germane to the engrossed copy (perfected version) of the bill. 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 4. See the proceedings at 95 Cong. Rec. 2936, 2937, 81st Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Mar. 22, 1949. Under consideration was H.R. 1437 
        (Committee on Armed Services), the Army and Air Force Act of 
        1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order against a motion to recommit with instructions has 
been made prior to completion of the reading of such motion where the 
matter contained in the instructions had been ruled out as not germane 
when offered as an amendment in the Committee of the 
Whole.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 23.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the precedents indicate that a motion to recommit a bill with 
instructions may not direct the committee to report back forthwith with 
a nongermane amendment, it may be in order to incorporate in such 
motion an amendment that is identical to one that had been made in 
order for consideration pursuant to a waiver of the germaneness rule, 
and then rejected in Committee of the Whole. See the proceedings of 
Aug. 4, 1976,(6) relating to the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, 
wherein the House adopted a motion to recommit the bill with 
instructions in order to restore a perfecting committee amendment which 
had been tentatively adopted in Committee of the Whole but then not 
reported to the House because of adoption in Committee of an amendment 
striking out the language of the committee amendment. (The House had 
subsequently rejected the amendment striking out such language.) House 
Resolution 1242 had specifically waived points of order under the 
germaneness rule to permit the consideration of the amendment 
recommended by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy printed in the 
bill. The amendment was not germane because it provided for a rules 
change to permit privileged consideration of resolutions of 
disapproval, whereas the original bill provided no such mechanism. 
Pursuant to such waiver, the identical language was restored by 
incorporation in the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 122 Cong. Rec. 25425-27, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instructions in the motion to recommit must be germane to the 
subject matter of the bill even though not proposing a direct amendment 
thereto.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 23.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While instructions must be germane to the section of the bill to

[[Page 8379]]

which offered (see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2709), an amendment in 
the form of a new title at the end of a bill need only be germane to 
the bill as a whole. (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 23.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendments to a motion to recommit must be germane to the subject 
matter of the bill (and not necessarily to the motion to recommit to 
which offered).(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6888; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2711.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a motion to recommit with instructions is ruled out on a 
point of order because containing matter not germane to the bill, 
another motion to recommit may be offered.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 23.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair does not rule on hypothetical questions, and therefore 
declines to rule in advance as to the germaneness of instructions 
accompanying a motion to recommit.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 109 Cong. Rec. 25249, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 1963 
        (remarks of Speaker John W. McCormack (Mass.) in response to 
        parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Charles A. Halleck 
        (Ind.)).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instructions Must Be Germane to Bill

Sec. 23.1 Instructions included in a motion to commit or recommit the 
    pending proposition must be germane thereto.

    The principle that instructions included in a motion to commit or 
recommit must be germane to the bill is illustrated by the proceedings 
of July 12, 1978, discussed in Sec. 23.2, infra. .

Concurrent Resolution Related to Domestic Situation in Soviet Union--
    Instructions To Address Diplomatic Initiatives by United States

Sec. 23.2 To a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress 
    that trials of Soviet dissidents are matters of concern to the 
    American people and impose obstacles to cooperation and confidence 
    between the United States and Soviet Union, and urging the Soviet 
    leadership to seek humanitarian resolutions to those cases and to 
    improve the climate in relations between the two countries, 
    amendments contained in three consecutive motions to commit with 
    instructions, to urge the recall of United States negotiators at 
    the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT), and/or urging that no 
    further negotiations at such talks proceed until

[[Page 8380]]

    the Soviet Union indicates the reliability of entering into a SALT 
    agreement, were held not germane as unrelated to the subject matter 
    of the resolution, which addressed only specific domestic actions 
    by the Soviet Union and not general or specific diplomatic 
    initiatives by the United States towards the Soviet Union.

    On July 12, 1978,(12) during consideration of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 95, it was demonstrated that instructions 
included in a motion to commit or recommit a proposition must be 
germane to that proposition. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  124 Cong. Rec. 20500-05, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Without objection, the 
    previous question is ordered on the Senate concurrent resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.  Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on concurring in the 
    Senate concurrent resolution. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker . . . I have a 
    motion to commit under the rule. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    commit with instructions.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. Ashbrook moves to commit Senate Concurrent Resolution 95 to 
    the Committee on International Relations with instructions to 
    report the concurrent resolution back forthwith with the following 
    amendment: Strike period after last paragraph and insert the 
    following: ``and it is further resolved that the Congress urges the 
    President of the United States to recall our representatives at the 
    SALT talks as further evidence of the commitment of this nation to 
    the principles set out in this resolution, and that no further 
    negotiations proceed until the Soviet Union by its actions more 
    clearly indicates the reliability of entering into a SALT treaty 
    with that nation.''
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I raise 
    a point of order on the motion to commit with instructions. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the instructions go beyond the scope of Senate 
    Concurrent Resolution 95 now before us. The instructions would add 
    a further resolving clause that the Congress urge the President of 
    the United States to recall our representatives at the SALT talks.
        This clearly goes beyond the resolution, which is intended to 
    express a condemnation of the Soviet Union, that is, the 
    unhappiness of the Congress with the manner in which they are 
    trying one Anatoly Shcharansky for treason and for what we believe 
    is his right to express his opinion, and violations on the part of 
    that government of the Helsinki Final Act. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . Mr. Speaker, in the first place, it is not 
    a motion to recommit. Under rule XVII it is clearly stated:

            It shall be in order, pending the motion for, or after the 
        previous question shall have been ordered on

[[Page 8381]]

        its passage, for the Speaker to entertain and submit a motion 
        to commit, with or without instructions, to a standing or 
        select committee.

        I would hold and suggest that the motion is completely 
    consistent with the language of the concurrent resolution. We are 
    going so far in the concurrent resolution in the Congress to urge 
    that the Supreme Soviet, not even in this country, but the Supreme 
    Soviet and its leadership take certain actions, and certainly that 
    the President of the United States take action. Again, we are not 
    telling him he has to; we are merely urging him to take an action 
    which, by the basic sense of the concurrent resolution, cannot be 
    in itself a law. It is a resolution expressing the intentions, the 
    desires, the wishes of Congress urging anyone, whether it be the 
    President of the United States or the Supreme Soviet, to take 
    action. It is consistent with that, and I would hope that the Chair 
    would hold it in order. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Speaker, if I may be heard further on the 
    point of order I raised, the motion to commit that the gentleman 
    from Ohio has made, with instructions, goes not only beyond the 
    scope of the resolution before us, but the language of the 
    instructions is not germane to the Senate resolution, Senate 
    Concurrent Resolution 95 that is before us. Therefore, I again 
    submit that it is out of order. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    desire to be heard further? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule 
    on the point of order made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) against the motion to commit with instructions offered by 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook).
        The motion to commit offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
    provides that instructions will be given to the Committee on 
    International Relations to report the concurrent resolution back 
    with an amendment.
        Therefore, the terms of the amendment must be taken into 
    account in order to ascertain the germaneness of the motion to the 
    resolution pending before the House. . . .
        The resolution before the House is an expression of the sense 
    of Congress with respect to the actions now underway in the Soviet 
    Union. It is not a matter relating to the President of the United 
    States, nor does it relate to all matters of negotiations between 
    this country and the Soviet Union and to this country's conduct of 
    those negotiations.
        Furthermore, the last clause in the proposed amendment provides 
    that:

            No further negotiations proceed until the Soviet Union by 
        its actions more clearly indicates the reliability of entering 
        into a SALT Treaty with that nation.

        In the opinion of the Chair, that language, together with the 
    fact that the instructions relate to matters pertaining to the 
    President and not to an expression of the sense of Congress 
    contained in the resolution itself, renders the proposed amendment 
    beyond the scope of the original resolution and, therefore, it is 
    not germane.
        The point of order is sustained. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: At this point, the Chair will restate 
    the question before the House in view of the proceedings which have 
    intervened.
        The question is on the adoption of the Senate concurrent 
    resolution.

[[Page 8382]]

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I offer a further motion to commit, 
    which I think will be consistent with the objections raised by the 
    Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ashbrook moves to commit Senate Concurrent Resolution 
        95 to the Committee on International Relations with 
        instructions to report the concurrent resolution back forthwith 
        with the following amendment: Strike period after last 
        paragraph and insert the following:'' and it is further 
        resolved that it is the sense of Congress that the 
        representatives of the United States at the SALT talks be 
        withdrawn as further evidence of the commitment of this nation 
        to the principles set out in this resolution, and that no 
        further negotiations proceed until the Soviet Union by its 
        actions more clearly indicates the reliability of entering into 
        a SALT treaty with that nation.''. . .

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    motion.
        Mr. Speaker, this relates to the negotiations of SALT, which is 
    not in any way within the scope of Senate Concurrent Resolution 95.
        The gentleman from Ohio attempts to meet the objection or 
    ruling of what the Speaker has pointed out in the first sentence of 
    the gentleman's motion to instruct by changing it, that it is the 
    sense of Congress rather than that the Congress urges the 
    President; but the amended instructions do not in any way, Mr. 
    Speaker, meet the Speaker's concern that the last sentence that the 
    Speaker points out in this ruling, that no further negotiations 
    proceed until the Soviet Union . . . indicates the reliability of 
    entering into a SALT treaty with that nation.
        Mr. Speaker, I submit this is far and beyond the scope of the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . As far as the point of order is concerned, 
    one of the tests is whether or not it would have been germane if it 
    had been offered in committee. I think clearly it would have been 
    germane if it had been offered in committee, whether it had been 
    accepted or rejected.
        Again we go back to the original statement and the original 
    reasons. They are matters of deep concern to the American people. I 
    am referring to the deplorable actions of the Soviet Union and we 
    are talking about building confidence in our negotiations with the 
    Soviet Union.
        I think, consistent with the ruling of the Chair on the other 
    point of order, this amendment would be germane at this point, 
    because it calls for the sense of Congress, and it calls for no 
    action on the part of the President. It is consistent with the 
    entire body of the concurrent resolution, and I would urge the 
    Chair to uphold my right to offer this motion to commit. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        The resolution before the House does not address the matter of 
    the SALT treaty or the reliability of the Soviet Union with respect 
    to the SALT treaty. And, in addition to that, the amendment to the 
    resolution would provide that no further negotiations by the State 
    Department proceed with respect to a specific area of foreign 
    relations, which is not a subject matter of the concurrent 
    resolution. . . .
        Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment 
    contained in the motion to commit is broader

[[Page 8383]]

    than the subject matter of the resolution and is, therefore, not 
    germane to the resolution.
        The point of order is therefore sustained.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I offer a further motion to commit.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ashbrook moves to commit Senate Concurrent Resolution 
        95 to the Committee on International Relations with 
        instructions to report the concurrent resolution back forthwith 
        with the following amendment: Strike period after last 
        paragraph and insert the following: ``and it is further 
        resolved that it is the sense of Congress that the United 
        States recall our representatives at the SALT talks. . . .

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against 
    the instructions in this motion to commit Senate Concurrent 
    Resolution 95 for the same reasons that I pointed out and stated 
    before. . . . We are not dealing with SALT negotiations in this 
    resolution. . . . [T]he instructions to recall our United States 
    representatives at the SALT talks truly have no basis. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined the motion to commit offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook), which would commit the 
    concurrent resolution to the Committee on International Relations 
    with instructions to report back the concurrent resolution with an 
    amendment. The amendment that would be reported back provides as 
    follows:

            It is further resolved that it is the sense of Congress 
        that the United States recall our representatives at the SALT 
        talks as further evidence of the commitment of this Nation to 
        the principles set out in this resolution.

        As stated in the last ruling by the Chair, there is nothing in 
    the concurrent resolution before the House pertaining to the SALT 
    talks or to this country's diplomatic initiatives toward the Soviet 
    Union. It is for that reason that the Chair believes that any 
    reference to a specific diplomatic relationship between the two 
    countries, be it the SALT talks or space exploration or cooperation 
    in the International Olympics, would not be germane to a resolution 
    which merely expresses congressional concern over actions of Soviet 
    leaders.
        For that reason, it is the opinion of the Chair that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio in his motion to 
    commit is broader than the scope of the concurrent resolution and, 
    therefore, is not germane.
        Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.

Supplemental Military Authorizations--Instructions To Address Foreign 
    Policy Objectives

Sec. 23.3 During consideration of a bill authorizing military 
    expenditures, a motion to recommit with instructions was ruled out 
    on a point of order because it contained provisions seeking to 
    prescribe foreign policy objectives.

[[Page 8384]]

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of supplemental military 
authorizations for fiscal 1967,(14) the following motion was 
reported.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 4515 (Committee on Armed Services).
15.  113 Cong. Rec. 5155, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin] moves to recommit the bill 
    H.R. 4515 to the Committee on Armed Services with instructions to 
    report the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
    amendment:
        On page 4, line 10, after ``$624,500,000'', insert:

                   Title I--Statement of Congressional Policy

            Sec. 401. None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be 
        used except in accordance with the following declaration by 
        Congress of . . .
            (2) its support of efforts being made by the President of 
        the United States and other men of good will throughout the 
        world to prevent an expansion of the war in Vietnam. . . 
        .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  Mr. Reuss had previously offered the declaration of policy stated 
        above as an amendment during consideration of the bill; the 
        amendment had been held to be not germane. See Sec. 4.32, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order was made, as follows:

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the instructions contained in the motion to 
    recommit are not germane to the bill under consideration. . . . 
    (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Parliamentarian's Note: In the actual proceedings, Mr. Rivers made 
        the above point of order prior to completion of the reading of 
        the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
19. 113 Cong. Rec. 5155, 5156, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill presently before the House authorizes appropriations 
    for military procurement, research, development, and military 
    construction, both in the United States and abroad.
        The amendment in the motion to recommit with instructions 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, provides for a new section 
    to be added at the end of the bill which would contain a 
    ``Statement of congressional policy''. . . .
        Because of the nature of this amendment, the Chair is of the 
    opinion that it deserves the attention and consideration of a 
    committee of this House other than armed services, which reported 
    the bill now before the Committee. Were this amendment introduced 
    as a bill, it would be within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs.
        The bill before the House deals with military authorizations; 
    the motion to recommit goes to the foreign policy of the United 
    States. . . .
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    After such ruling, another motion to recommit was made and 
rejected. During the proceedings, the following exchange occurred: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 5156.

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

[[Page 8385]]

        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: I respectfully ask the Speaker 
    if the rule which made this bill in order provided for only one 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state it applies to one valid 
    motion to recommit. The other motion was ruled out of order.

Amendment Containing Change    in Permanent Law Not Germane to Joint 
    Resolution Continuing Appropriations

Sec. 23.4 To a joint resolution reported from the Committee on 
    Appropriations continuing appropriations and containing diverse 
    legislative provisions relating to funding directions and 
    limitations, an amendment in the form of a motion to recommit with 
    instructions containing a permanent change in existing law (within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service) 
    relating to salaries and allowances of certain federal employees 
    was conceded to be nongermane.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 370 (continuing 
appropriations) in the House on Dec. 10, 1981,(1) the 
Speaker (2) sustained a point of order against a motion to 
recommit with instructions, as described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 127 Cong. Rec. 30497, 30500-02, 30530, 30536-38, 97th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the order of the House of yesterday, I call up the joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 370)) making further continuing 
    appropriations for the fiscal year 1982, and for other purposes, 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 370

            Resolved . . . That the following sums are appropriated, 
        out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
        and out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, 
        and funds, for the several departments, agencies, corporations, 
        and other organizational units of the Government for the fiscal 
        year 1982, and for other purposes, namely:
            Sec. 101. (a)(1) Such amounts as may be necessary for 
        projects or activities (not otherwise specifically provided for 
        in this joint resolution) for which appropriations, funds, or 
        other authority would be available. . . .
            Sec. 118. Notwithstanding any other provision of the joint 
        resolution, the funds made available by this joint resolution 
        which would be available under H.R. 4560, the Departments of 
        Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related 
        Agencies Appropriation Act, 1982, as reported to the Senate on 
        November 9, 1981, for Student Financial Assistance shall be 
        subject to the following additional conditions:
            (1) The maximum Pell Grant a student may receive in 1982-
        1983 academic year is $1,800, notwith

[[Page 8386]]

        standing section 411(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Higher Education 
        Act of 1965. . . .
            Sec. 132. Notwithstanding any other provision of title 23, 
        United States Code, or of this joint resolution, the Secretary 
        of Transportation shall approve, upon the request of the State 
        of Indiana, the construction of an interchange to appropriate 
        standards at I-94. . . .
            Sec. 135. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 305 
        of H.R. 4120 made applicable by section 101(h) of this joint 
        resolution, but subject to subsection (b) of this section, 
        nothing in section 101(h) shall (or shall be construed to) 
        require that the rate of salary or basic pay, payable to any 
        individual for or on account of services performed after 
        December 31, 1981, be limited to or reduced to an amount which 
        is less than--
            (1) $59,500, if such individual has an office or position 
        the salary or pay for which corresponds to the rate of basic 
        pay for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 
        of title 5, United States Code;
            (2) $58,500, if such individual has an office or position 
        the salary or pay for which corresponds to the rate of basic 
        pay for level IV. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a motion to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves to recommit House Joint Resolution 370 to 
        the Committee on Appropriations, with instructions to that 
        Committee to report the joint resolution back to the House 
        forthwith, with the following amendment:

            Strike out all after the resolving clause, and insert in 
        lieu thereof: . . .
            Sec. 141. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
        this joint resolution:
            (a) Section 4109 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1) of this section, 
        the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, may pay an 
        individual training to be an air traffic controller of such 
        Administration, during the period of such training, at the 
        applicable rate of basic pay for the hours of training 
        officially ordered or approved in excess of 40 hours in an 
        administrative workweek.''.
            (b) Section 5532 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        retired or retainer pay of a former member of a uniformed 
        service shall not be reduced while such former member is 
        temporarily employed, during the period described in paragraph 
        (2) or any portion thereof, under the administrative authority 
        of the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, to 
        perform duties in the operation of the air traffic control 
        system or to train others to perform such duties.
            ``(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection 
        shall be in effect for any period ending not later than 
        December 31, 1984, during which the Administrator, Federal 
        Aviation Administration, determines that there is an unusual 
        shortage of air traffic controllers performing duties under the 
        administrative authority of such Administration.''. . . .
            (g) Section 8344 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(h)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, 
        subsections (a), (b),

[[Page 8387]]

        (c), and (d) of this section shall not apply to any annuitant 
        receiving an annuity from the Fund while such annuitant is 
        employed, during any period described in section 5532(f)(2) of 
        this title or any portion thereof, under the administrative 
        authority of the Administrator, Federal Aviation 
        Administration, to perform duties in the operation of the air 
        traffic control system or to train other individuals to perform 
        such duties. . . .
            (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, or 
        any other provision of law, payments under this section shall 
        be made only from appropriations provided in appropriation 
        Acts. . . .

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I raise the 
    point of order against the motion to recommit on the basis that the 
    instructions contain matter which is not germane to the joint 
    resolution.
        The general rule, as stated in section 18.1 of chapter 28 of 
    Deschler's Procedure, is as follows:

            It is not in order to propose, as part of a motion to 
        recommit, any proposition which would not be germane if 
        proposed as an amendment to the bill.

        Mr. Speaker, section 141 of the amendment in the motion to 
    recommit with instructions contains matter which clearly is not 
    germane to the joint resolution.
        Specifically, section 141 authorizes additional pay for air 
    traffic controllers and certain other employees of the Federal 
    Aviation Administration, exempts such employees from the limitation 
    on premium pay, and exempts military and civil service retirees who 
    are reemployed by FAA from those provisions of existing law which 
    prohibit the simultaneous receipt of civil service pay and 
    retirement pension.
        The provisions of section 141 are nongermane for several 
    reasons.
        First, section 141 permanently authorizes payment of additional 
    compensation whereas the provisions of the continuing resolution 
    are limited to fiscal year 1982.
        Second, the subject matter of all of the provisions of section 
    141 of the amendment are within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Post Office and Civil Service--not the Committee on 
    Appropriations.
        Finally, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of section 141 of the 
    amendment are not germane to the fundamental purpose of the 
    continuing resolution.
        The fundamental purpose of House Joint Resolution 370 is to 
    appropriate funds for certain programs and activities in fiscal 
    year 1982 or to limit the use of funds for certain programs and 
    activities. Section 141 which authorizes additional pay for certain 
    employees of the FAA clearly is not germane to that purpose of the 
    resolution. . . .
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Michigan, my good 
    friend, insists on his point of order and wants to deny the air 
    traffic controllers this pay raise before Christmas, I must concede 
    the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Amendment Providing for Transfer of Unexpended Balances of Funds 
    Previously Appropriated, in Lieu of Appropriation of New Budget 
    Authority

Sec. 23.5 It is not germane to change a direct appropria

[[Page 8388]]

    tion of new budget authority from the general fund of the Treasury 
    into a reappropriation (in effect a rescission) of funds previously 
    appropriated for an entirely different purpose in a special reserve 
    account; thus, to a bill providing new budget authority for 
    emergency agricultural credit, an amendment contained in a motion 
    to recommit with instructions to provide, in lieu of that new 
    budget authority, for a transfer of unexpended balances of funds 
    previously appropriated for a totally unrelated purpose was held to 
    be not germane.

    The proceedings of Feb. 28, 1985, relating to H.R. 1189, the 
Emergency Farm Credit Appropriation for fiscal 1986, are discussed in 
Sec. 15.39, supra.

Amendment in Motion To Recommit as Waiving Laws Within Other 
    Committees' Jurisdiction

Sec. 23.6 While ordinarily an amendment waiving provisions of law 
    within another committee's jurisdiction is not germane to a bill 
    reported by a different committee, where the bill as amended 
    already contains diverse provisions relating to the subject of the 
    amendment, a waiver of other provisions of law on that subject may 
    be germane; thus, to a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture relating to registration of pesticides but also 
    including provisions on liability under other federal law and on 
    judicial review of regulations and pesticide use, an amendment in 
    the form of a new title included in a motion to recommit waiving 
    any other law otherwise requiring payment of attorneys' fees for 
    civil actions brought under the law being amended was held germane 
    to the bill as a whole, committee jurisdiction no longer being the 
    exclusive test of germaneness since the bill as a whole and as 
    amended contained matters within another committee's jurisdiction.

    On Sept. 19, 1986,(3) during consideration of H.R. 2482 
(4) in the House, Speaker Pro Tempore Steny A. Hoyer, of 
Maryland, overruled a point of order against

[[Page 8389]]

the amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 132 Cong. Rec. 24741, 24742, 24746, 24747, 24769, 99th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
 4. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    sec. 811. review of regulations.

        Section 16 (7 U.S.C. 136n) is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following:
        ``(e) Review of Regulations.--
        ``(1)(A) Any regulation issued under this Act and first 
    published in the Federal Register in final form after the effective 
    date of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
    Amendments of 1986 shall be reviewable only as provided by this 
    subsection. Any person may obtain judicial review of the regulation 
    by filing a petition for review in the United States court of 
    appeals for the circuit wherein the person resides or has its 
    principal place of business or in the United States Court of 
    Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Any petition under 
    this paragraph for review of a regulation shall be filed within 120 
    days after the date of promulgation of the regulation as designated 
    by the Administrator in the Federal Register.''. . .
    sec. 821. liability.

        (a) Pesticide Use.--An agricultural producer shall not be 
    liable in any action brought after the effective date of this Act 
    under any Federal statute for damages caused by pesticide use 
    unless the producer has acted negligently, recklessly, or 
    intentionally. Proof that the agricultural producer used the 
    pesticide in a manner consistent with label instructions shall 
    create a rebuttable presumption that the agricultural producer did 
    not act negligently. . . .
        Amendment offered by Mr. Bedell as a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Roberts: Section 821(a) of the text of 
    H.R. 5440 (the Amendment in the nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
    2482), is amended (page 138, lines 2 through 10) to read as 
    follows:
    sec. 821. liability for lawful application.

            (a) Pesticide Use and No Private Right of Action.--(1) 
        Liability under Federal environmental statutes for the costs of 
        response or damage incurred with respect to a release or 
        threatened release into the environment of a pesticide shall, 
        in any case where the application was in compliance with label 
        instructions and other applicable law, be imposed on the 
        registrant or other responsible parties, not the agricultural 
        producer, unless the producer has acted negligently, 
        recklessly, or with the intent to misuse such pesticide. There 
        shall be a rebuttable presumption that the application was in 
        compliance with label instructions and otherwise lawful. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. 
    Bedell as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Roberts.
        The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
    agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Ron] Marlenee [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Clerk will report the motion 
    to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 8390]]

            Mr. Marlenee moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2482 (as 
        amended by H.R. 5440) to the Committee on Agriculture with the 
        instructions that it adopt the following amendment and 
        forthwith report it back to the House:
            Amendment to the text of H.R. 5440 (the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute to H.R. 2482), after page 163, line 21, 
        insert the following new title:

                     TITLE XII--LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS

                       fees and expenses in civil actions

            Sec. 1201. The Act is amended by inserting the following 
        new section after section 31:
            ``Sec. 32. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
        attorneys fees or expenses shall be awarded for any civil 
        action brought under section 3(a) of this Act for failure to 
        meet deadlines.''. . . .

        Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order on the motion to recommit that the motion is not germane 
    under clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Marlenee: . . . Mr. Speaker, my amendment, I submit, is 
    germane for the following reasons:
        The title of the bill is for ``other purposes'' than amending 
    FIFRA.
        Other examples of enactments amended by this bill or by the 
    underlying FIFRA Act are the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act.
        The bill authorizes a program and funding for the pesticide 
    program. It also adds a new program, reregistration, new section 
    3(a) of FIFRA. Both this 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 H.R. 5440) and some will come from 
    appropriated funds.
        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 
    that germaneness.
        The bill (title VIII) is rife with references to courts and 
    court review. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] makes a point of order 
    that the amendment proposed by the instructions in the motion to 
    recommit offered by the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Marlenee] is 
    not germane. Volume III, section 2709 of Cannon's Precedents 
    indicates that it is not in order to include in a motion to 
    recommit instructions to insert an amendment not germane to the 
    section of the bill to which offered. While an earlier version of 
    this amendment was held not germane when offered as an amendment to 
    title I of the bill being read title by title, this amendment 
    proposes to add a new title at the end of the bill limiting the 
    award of attorneys' fees in certain civil actions brought under 
    section 16 of the FIFRA law. The test of germaneness is now 
    properly measured against the bill taken as a whole. The Chair 
    notes that section 202 of the bill deals with civil actions against 
    the United States for just compensation, and that the bill 
    extensively amends other sections of the FIFRA law in titles VIII 
    and IX. In the opinion of the Chair, since the bill already deals 
    with issues relating to adminis

[[Page 8391]]

    trative procedure and judicial review of actions taken under this 
    act, the amendment is germane to the bill as a whole, and the point 
    of order is overruled.

Injunctions Against Deprivation of Voting Rights--Amendment Providing 
    for Jury Trials in Resulting Contempt Cases

Sec. 23.7 To a bill giving federal courts authority to entertain civil 
    actions for injunctive relief in cases of deprivation of voting 
    rights, a motion to recommit with instructions to report back with 
    an amendment providing for jury trials in contempt cases arising 
    from actions instituted under the act was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (5) 
to provide means of further securing and protecting the civil rights of 
persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, a motion to 
recommit was offered (6) as described above. A point of 
order was raised against the motion, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 9517, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the wording of the motion to recommit is not 
    germane to the bill. We have already debated the germaneness of the 
    wording of this motion in Committee of the Whole. But, I have this 
    additional observation to make . . . that this proposed amendment 
    is to the act, whereas it is inserted as an amendment to a section 
    of the act. . . .
        I urge that if the amendment were to the act, as it purports to 
    be, it would have to be at some other point in the bill and could 
    not be an amendment to the act in the middle of one of the sections 
    of the act.

    The Speaker (7) overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Prohibiting Poll Tax--Instructions To Change Form to Joint 
    Resolution To Amend Constitution

Sec. 23.8 During consideration of a bill, reported by the Committee on 
    House Administration, prohibiting poll taxes, a motion to recommit 
    the bill with instructions to report it back in the form of a joint 
    resolution amending the Constitution to accomplish the purpose of 
    the bill, was held to be not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill (8) 
prohib

[[Page 8392]]

iting poll taxes, a motion to recommit with instructions was reported 
(9) as described above. The Speaker,(10) stating 
that, ``a constitutional amendment involving this question would lie 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary and not 
within the Committee on House Administration,'' sustained a point of 
order raised by Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 3199 (Committee on House Administration).
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 10247, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1949.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instructions Not Proposing Direct Amendment to Bill

Sec. 23.9 Instructions contained in a motion to recommit must be 
    germane to the subject matter of the bill whether or not the 
    instructions propose a direct amendment thereto; thus, a motion to 
    recommit a joint resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment 
    for representation of the District of Columbia in Congress, with 
    instructions that the Committee on the Judiciary consider a 
    resolution retroceding populated portions of the District to 
    Maryland, was held not germane to the joint resolution.

    On Mar. 2, 1978,(11) the Speaker (12) 
sustained a point of order against the following motion to recommit 
House Joint Resolution 554 (a Constitutional amendment for District of 
Columbia representation in Congress):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 5272, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the joint resolution?
        Mr. Wiggins: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Wiggins of California moves to recommit the joint 
        resolution (H.J. Res. 554) to the Committee on the Judiciary 
        with instructions that it consider a resolution to retrocede 
        the populated portions of the District of Columbia to the State 
        of Maryland.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, do not motions to recommit have to be 
    germane to the legislation before us?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that he is 
    correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    motion to re

[[Page 8393]]

    commit on the ground that it is not germane to the legislation 
    before us because it suggests retrocession of the territory of the 
    District of Columbia to the State of Maryland, which is not at any 
    point encompassed in this legislation. The bill deals only with the 
    creation of the offices of two Senators and of Members of Congress 
    for the District of Columbia. Since this proposition would not have 
    been germane to the bill as an amendment, it is not now germane.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Wiggins) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Wiggins: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, I am trodding on what is virgin ground for me. I 
    am not sure what the rules of germaneness are with respect to a 
    motion to recommit with instructions, the focus of which is to 
    instruct the Committee on the Judiciary, from whence the joint 
    resolution came, to reconsider an alternative means of achieving 
    the objective of the legislation.
        It would strike me, as a matter of first blush, that an 
    alternative means of achieving a common result is, of course, quite 
    germane; but I have no doubt that the precedents of the House have 
    previously considered this measure, and I will yield to those 
    precedents.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) 
    desire to be heard further?
        Mr. Bauman: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        Upon that subject, Mr. Speaker, I question the appropriateness 
    of the instructions in view of the fact that the retrocession, as I 
    understand it, would not require a constitutional amendment, but, 
    in fact, a simple statutory act by the Congress.
        Mr. Wiggins: Mr. Speaker, if I may be heard just a few moments 
    longer to clarify the situation, I am advised by my parliamentary 
    experts on either side that the rules of the House require that 
    amendments be germane. This motion to recommit is, of course, not 
    an amendment.
        Secondly, it is my view, contrary to the position taken by the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman), that a retrocession 
    procedure, which I personally favor, would require a constitutional 
    amendment and may not be achieved solely by reason of legislation.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        With regard to germaneness, an amendment of a similar type 
    would not have been germane to the joint resolution.
        Furthermore, the principle of germaneness is applicable to the 
    extent that the House cannot direct a committee to consider another 
    unrelated subject under the guise of a motion to recommit whether 
    or not the motion is in the form of a direct amendment to the bill 
    (Cannon's VIII, 2704).
        Therefore, the gentleman's point of order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Instructions in this form, since not 
proposing an amendment, do not technically fall within Rule XVI, clause 
7, prohibiting nongermane amendments. But the rule has been applied to 
prohibit instructions directing a committee to study or consider a 
nongermane

[[Page 8394]]

approach (see Sec. 796, House Rules and Manual, 101st Cong.), and to 
prohibit instructions directing the committee not to report back to the 
House until an unrelated contingency occurs (see 8 Cannon's Precedents 
Sec. 2704).

Repeal of Oleomargarine Tax--Amendment To Repeal Other Revenue Laws

Sec. 23.10 To a bill seeking the repeal of the tax on oleomargarine, an 
    amendment which was contained in a motion to recommit with 
    instructions and which sought the repeal of certain provisions of 
    the general revenue laws affecting substances other than 
    oleomargarine was held not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration to repeal the tax on oleomargarine. A motion was made 
(14) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the motion, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 2245 (discharged from the Committee on Agriculture).
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 5007, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 28, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: The proposed motion 
    is not germane to the bill. It seeks to amend a provision of law 
    with which this bill does not deal.

    The Speaker,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair would hold that the bill under consideration is 
    one which deals solely with oleomargarine. The instructions 
    contained in the motion to recommit deal with a part of the general 
    revenue laws and other substances which do not include 
    oleomargarine. Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Prescribing Amounts of Coverage Under Federal Deposit Insurance 
    Act--Amendment To Limit Coverage Except Where Collateral Pledged

Sec. 23.11 To a bill prescribing the amount and extent of deposit 
    insurance coverage for various savings institutions, an amendment 
    to a motion to recommit limiting the insurance coverage under the 
    bill as to time deposits, and permitting coverage in excess of that 
    limitation upon the pledging of sufficient collateral, was held 
    germane.

    On Feb. 5, 1974,(16) during consideration of H.R. 11221, 
amending the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the House defeated an 
amendment reported from Committee of the Whole striking out a section, 
rejected the previous question on a straight motion to

[[Page 8395]]

recommit, and then amended the motion to include instructions to 
reinsert in the bill amendments which had tentatively been adopted in 
Committee of the Whole but then deleted by the amendment striking out 
that section as so amended. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 2079-81, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ben B.] Blackburn [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (17) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the procedure, with 
    the defeat of the Wylie amendment in the Whole House, we have now 
    before us the original bill, and the original bill did not contain 
    the provision which would have permitted credit unions to share in 
    such deposits.
        Now, Mr. Speaker, am I correct in that? If the credit union 
    provision was added by the committee, are we not now back to the 
    original bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the committee amendment 
    on page 7 is no longer in the bill, as it was not reported from 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the 
    bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and 
    was read the third time.
        Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Blackburn moves to recommit the bill H.R. 11221 to the 
        Committee on Banking and Currency.

        [The previous question was voted down.]
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the motion to recommit. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
    motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashley to the motion to recommit 
        offered by Mr. Blackburn: At the end of the motion, add the 
        following instructions: With instructions to report back 
        forthwith with the following amendment: On page 7, immediately 
        after line 2, insert the following new subsection:
            (d) Section 107(7) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 
        U.S.C. 1757(7)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following: ``; and to receive from an officer, employee, or 
        agent of those nonmember units of Federal, State, or local 
        governments and political subdivisions thereof enumerated in 
        section 207 of this Act (12 U.S.C. 1787) and in the manner so 
        prescribed payments on shares, share certificates, and share 
        deposits''.
            And on page 2, section (2) lines 16 through 25 be 
        eliminated and on page 3, lines 1 through 10 be eliminated and 
        that the following language be inserted in lieu thereof:
            ``(i) an officer, employee, or agent of the United States 
        having official custody of public funds and lawfully investing 
        or depositing the same in time deposits in an insured bank. . . 
        .
            And that on page 3, section (B), lines 13 through 17 be 
        eliminated and the following language be inserted:

[[Page 8396]]

            ``(B) The Corporation may limit the aggregate amount of 
        funds that may be invested or deposited in time deposits in any 
        insured bank by any depositor referred to in subparagraph (A) 
        of this paragraph on the basis of the size of any such bank in 
        terms of its assets. Provided, however, such limitation may be 
        exceeded by the pledging of acceptable securities to the 
        depositor referred to in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph 
        when and where required.''. . .

        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make [a] point of 
    order on the amendment to the motion to recommit . . . . The last 
    part of the amendment to which I refer is entitled ``B'', beginning 
    with, ``The corporation may limit'' and so forth. I say that the 
    final language is not germane to the bill.
        That language is as follows:

            Provided, however, such limitation may be exceeded by the 
        pledging of acceptable securities to the depositor referred to 
        in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph when and where required.

        Mr. Speaker, since the bill deals basically with insuring of 
    accounts and has nothing to do with pledging of collateral, it, 
    therefore, is not germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I wish 
    to state that the gentleman had not made a point of order on this 
    matter in the committee when this first came up, and it is not 
    timely now. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, in response to the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Stephens) I will only say that the fact 
    that the point of order was not raised against the amendment in the 
    Committee of the Whole does not preclude me from offering one in 
    connection with the motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order is 
    timely and it appears clear to the Chair that the question of 
    limitation of funds is in the first section of the bill; and the 
    Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.


 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
 B. APPLICATION OF RULE TO PARTICULAR FORMS OF AMENDMENT OR PROPOSITION
 
Sec. 24. Amendment Proposing Permanent Legislation Offered to Temporary 
    Legislation

    This section (18) discusses precedents which support the 
principle that an amendment proposing a permanent change in law 
(19) or in procedures under House rules, (20) is, 
in general, (1) not germane if of

[[Page 8397]]

fered to legislation of a temporary character or to provisions 
affecting funds authorized for a limited time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also, for example, Sec. 39, infra, discussing amendments to 
        bills that extend existing law. And see Sec. 15, supra, 
        discussing amendments to appropriation bills, especially 
        Sec. Sec. 15.23-15.25 (amendments providing permanent 
        legislation offered to provisions affecting funds appropriated 
        for one year); and Sec. 23.4 (instructions, affecting permanent 
        law, contained in a motion to recommit a joint resolution 
        continuing appropriations).
19. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 24.4 and 24.5, infra.
20. See Sec. 24.3, infra.
 1. For an instance, on the other hand, in which the Chair took the 
        view that an amendment apparently permanent in form could in 
        fact be construed to amount to a temporary measure, see 
        Sec. 24.7, infra. See also Sec. 24.8, 
        infra.

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

Bill Authorizing Appropriations for Armed Forces for One Year--
    Amendment Imposing Permanent Restrictions on Troop Withdrawals From 
    Korea

Sec. 24.1 To a proposition authorizing appropriations for one fiscal 
    year, an amendment making permanent changes in law is not germane; 
    thus, where a bill reported from the Committee on Armed Services 
    authorized appropriations and personnel strengths for the armed 
    forces for one fiscal year and contained minor conforming changes 
    to existing law, a section of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute imposing permanent restrictions on troop withdrawals 
    from the Republic of Korea, in part making reduction of troop 
    strength contingent upon the conclusion of a peace agreement on the 
    Korean peninsula, was held to be not germane (pursuant to a special 
    order allowing such a point of order) since proposing permanent law 
    to a one-year authorization, and containing statements of policy 
    contingent on the administration and enactment of laws within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations.

    On May 24, 1978,(2) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration a bill (H.R. 10929) reported from the Committee on Armed 
Services authorizing appropriations and personnel strength for the 
armed forces for one fiscal year and containing minor conforming 
changes to existing law. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was, pursuant to a special rule, to be read as original text for 
amendment. A section of the amendment imposed permanent restrictions on 
troop withdrawals from the Republic of Korea, in part making reductions 
in troop strength contingent upon the conclusion of a peace agreement 
with North Korea. The terms of the special rule permitted a point of 
order based on the germaneness rule to be made against that section of 
the amendment. The special rule (H. Res. 1188) stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 124 Cong. Rec. 15293-95, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. See 124 Cong. Rec. 15094, 15095, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., May 23, 1978.

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

[[Page 8398]]

        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 . . . and 
    other weapons . . . and to prescribe the authorized personnel 
    strength to each active duty component . . . of the Armed Forces 
    and of civilian personnel of the Department of Defense . . . and 
    for other purposes. After general debate . . . 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 consider 
    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. . . .

    The proceedings of May 24, 1978, were as follows:

        The Chairman: (4) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, May 23, 1978, all time for general debate on the bill had 
    expired. Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles 
    the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the reported bill 
    as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 ``Department of Defense Appropriation 
        Authorization Act, 1979''.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin] Mr. Chairman, in 
    accordance with the rule, House Resolution 1188, I make a point of 
    order that section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute, if offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as 
    introduced, would be in violation of clause 7 of House Rule XVI 
    regarding germaneness. This provision which deals with the 
    withdrawal of troops from Korea, and section 805 which deals with 
    the withdrawal of troops from Korea, is not germane to the 
    Department of Defense authorization bill.
        Mr. Chairman, a key criterion in determining germaneness is a 
    committee's jurisdiction over a matter. The Korean troop withdrawal 
    issue falls clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations. Both sections 805(a) and 805(b) fall

[[Page 8399]]

    clearly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations, pursuant to clause 1, subparagraph (k) of House Rule X.
        Compelling evidence of the primary jurisdiction of the 
    International Relations Committee over the issue of troop 
    withdrawal from Korea is found in the fact that all legislation, 
    the President's arms transfer request, and related reports have 
    been referred solely to the International Relations Committee.
        Thus, there can be no doubt that the issue of the Korean troop 
    withdrawal lies within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations, and accordingly section 805 is not germane 
    to this bill.
        In addition, the issue of U.S. troop withdrawal from Korea is 
    not relevant to either the subject matter or to the purpose of H.R. 
    10929, as introduced. As introduced, H.R. 10929 consists entirely 
    of provisions relating to the annual authorizations for the 
    Department of Defense. It contains no general policy provisions for 
    the Department of Defense. It contains no general policy provisions 
    of any type, let alone any policy provisions relevant to the 
    withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea. It is well established that 
    an amendment of a general and permanent nature is not germane to a 
    bill containing only temporary authorizations.
        Thus, by whatever test of germaneness one examines, section 805 
    is not germane to H.R. 10929. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki), makes the point of order 
    that section 805 is not germane on the ground that it deals with a 
    matter that is related to something that has been before his 
    committee. As he indicated before the Committee on Rules, if this 
    had been introduced as an original bill, it would have been 
    referred sequentially to the Committee on International Relations 
    as well as to the Committee on Armed Services.
        I submit, Mr. Chairman, that, first of all, the question of 
    germaneness does not depend on what committee it might be referred 
    to sequentially. In fact, the whole idea of sequential referral is 
    a relatively new concept. I believe, in fact, that it has only been 
    practiced in this House during this present Congress, and perhaps a 
    few times previously.
        H.R. 10929, is the annual authorization bill for the Department 
    of Defense. It traditionally covers a wide variety of topics 
    relating to defense. I would point out that the title of the bill 
    after it lists the various items that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    has already referred to concludes, ``and for other purposes.''
        Traditionally, matters related to the defense of our country 
    which the Committee on Armed Services has regarded as being of 
    importance have been included in this annual legislation year after 
    year. Section 805 is no different from any of the other matters we 
    have traditionally handled under ``general provisions.''
        It is true that the gentleman's committee has had legislation 
    before it regarding the transfer of American equipment to Korean 
    forces; but section 805 refers to the stationing and positioning of 
    U.S. ground forces; ``no ground combat units of the 2d Infantry 
    Division,'' and so on and so forth. It

[[Page 8400]]

    makes no reference to any transfer of equipment to Korean forces. 
    We are providing here for the stationing of troops in an area that 
    is of great importance to our national security. If that is not 
    something which is within the concern of the Committee on Armed 
    Services, then I do not know what our proper area of responsibility 
    is.
        Subsection (b) of section 805 spells out the recommendations of 
    the committee as to what the minimum ground combat strength of our 
    Armed Forces stationed in the Republic of Korea should be based on 
    information we gleaned in an on-the-spot visit to Korea in January; 
    so it is clearly within the province of the Committee on Armed 
    Services. The gentleman from Wisconsin does not dispute that. The 
    gentleman could not dispute it; but to suggest that because if it 
    were introduced as a bill under today's procedures it might have 
    been referred sequentially to the gentleman's committee or to some 
    other committee, completely misses the point. If the size and 
    location of Armed Forces of the United States are not a 
    responsibility of the Committee on Armed Services, and are instead 
    the responsibility of the Committee on International Relations, 
    then something is very drastically wrong in this House.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, the authority to determine where 
    American Forces shall be stationed is clearly within the province 
    of the Congress. The Constitution provides that Congress shall not 
    only ``raise and support armies,'' but that we shall provide for 
    the 'regulation and governing of the land and naval forces,'' in 
    section 8 of article I.
        Congress has previously enacted the war powers bill, which 
    limits the authority of the President as far as the stationing of 
    troops abroad is concerned. The Constitution does not give a broad 
    grant of power to the Commander in Chief alone in stationing troops 
    abroad. He has no constitutional power to put troops wherever he 
    wants to, because Congress has determined that he cannot put troops 
    abroad under certain conditions without the expressed approval of 
    the Congress of the United States.
        Well, if we can limit the President's ability to send troops 
    overseas, it follows that we can also limit his ability to bring 
    those troops back home, if in the opinion of the Congress, we 
    determine that that withdrawal action, which certainly is the case 
    of Korea, would increase the risks of war.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that the point of order be overruled. 
    Section 805 is clearly within the authority of the committee. It is 
    clearly germane to the broad purposes of the bill and the House 
    should have the right to vote on this important question.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    Wisconsin makes a point of order against section 805 of the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Armed Services, on the grounds that section 805 of 
    said amendment would not have been germane if offered to the bill 
    H.R. 10929, as introduced.
        As indicated by the gentleman from Wisconsin, the special order 
    providing for consideration of this measure, House Resolution 1188, 
    allows the Chair to entertain a point of order on

[[Page 8401]]

    the basis stated by the gentleman, that section 805 of the 
    committee amendment would not have been germane as a separate 
    amendment to H.R. 10929 in its introduced form.
        The bill as introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed 
    Services contains authorizations of appropriations and personnel 
    strengths of the Armed Services for fiscal year 1979. It contains 
    no permanent changes in law or statements of policy except for 
    minor conforming changes to existing law relating to troop and 
    personnel strengths.
        Section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute prohibits: First the withdrawal of ground combat units 
    from the Republic of Korea until the enactment of legislation 
    allowing the retention in Korea of the equipment of such units, and 
    second, the reduction of combat units below a certain level in the 
    Republic of Korea until a peace settlement is reached between said 
    Republic and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea ending the 
    state of war on the Korean peninsula.
        The subject matter of section 805 of the committee amendment is 
    unrelated to H.R. 10929 as introduced. The strength levels 
    prescribed in the bill are for 1 fiscal year only and deal with the 
    overall strength of the Armed Forces, not with the location of 
    Armed Forces personnel. As indicated in the argument of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin, the withdrawal of American Forces 
    stationed abroad pursuant to an international agreement, and the 
    relationship of that withdrawal to peace agreements between foreign 
    nations and to the transfer of American military equipment to 
    foreign powers, are issues not only beyond the scope of the bill 
    but also within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations. Although committee jurisdiction over an amendment is not 
    the sole test of germaneness, the Chair feels that it is a 
    convincing argument in a case such as the present one where the 
    test of germaneness is between a limited 1-year authorization bill 
    and a permanent statement of policy contingent upon the 
    administration of laws within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the Chair may have just stated a 
    novel concept which has never before been heard in a ruling. That 
    is that the sequential referral rule somehow serves as the basis 
    for jurisdiction, and thus can support a point of order dealing 
    with a section in a bill such as the one before us.
        The parliamentary inquiry I have is this: Simply because under 
    the new procedure adopted for the first time in this Congress the 
    rules allow sequential referral at the discretion of the Speaker, 
    does that mean that a committee that has primary jurisdiction, such 
    as the Committee on Armed Services, may be challenged on the floor 
    and have a point of order sustained removing a provision that might 
    be partially under the jurisdiction of another committee on a 
    sequential referral?
        The Chairman: The ruling of the Chair does not stand for that 
    proposition.

[[Page 8402]]

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland 
    understood the Chair to say that the argument of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin was persuasive to the Chair regarding jurisdiction. If 
    that is the case, it seems to me every committee of this House is 
    somehow going to be challenged on the floor henceforth if its 
    jurisdiction is shared to the slightest degree by another 
    committee.
        The Chairman: All the Chair has stated is that section 805 is 
    not germane to the introduced bill, and the rule provides that the 
    point of order would lie on that ground.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I have this further parliamentary 
    inquiry:
        Then the ruling of the Chair is based on germaneness of this 
    amendment to this bill and does not go to any effect the sequential 
    jurisdiction would have on the provision?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

    The point of order having been sustained against the nongermane 
portion of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, the 
Chair directed the Clerk to read the substitute without the nongermane 
portion as original text for amendment, pursuant to the special rule.

Bill Authorizing Annual Appropriation for Agency--Amendment Permanently 
    Affecting Organization of Agency

Sec. 24.2 An amendment making permanent changes in the law relating to 
    the organization of an agency is not germane to a title of a bill 
    which only authorizes annual appropriations for such agency for one 
    fiscal year.

    On Nov. 29, 1979,(5) during consideration of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission Authorization Act (6) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 34083, 34089, 34090, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. H.R. 2608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title I reads as follows:

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

         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980

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

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

[[Page 8403]]

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

        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from Arizona 
    (Mr. Udall) insist upon his point of order against the amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Department of Energy Annual Authorization Bill--Amendment Requiring 
    Secretary To Issue Regulations and Permanently Affecting Law and 
    House Rules

Sec. 24.3 To that title of an annual Department of Energy authorization 
    bill authorizing funds for the Economic Regulatory Administration 
    within the Department, an amendment requiring the Secretary of the 
    Department to issue regulations, pursuant to authority delegated to 
    him by the President under permanent law, to control the price and 
    allocation of oil, and making such regulations subject to 
    congressional review under procedures changing the Rules of the 
    House, was held to be not

[[Page 8404]]

    germane, being a permanent change in law and in the Rules of the 
    House.

    On Oct. 12, 1979,(8) during consideration of H.R. 3000 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 28097-99, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Add the following new 
        section 202:
            ``Sec. 202(a) There are authorized to be appropriated such 
        funds as may be necessary to the Department of Energy for the 
        fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, for a study by the 
        Department of Energy to consider exercising the authority 
        granted to the President, and by delegation from him, to the 
        Department of Energy, under section 12(g) of the Emergency 
        Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, as amended, pursuant to which 
        the Energy Department may reimpose price and allocation 
        controls.
            (b) Not later than fifteen days from the date of the 
        enactment of this Act the Secretary of Energy shall file a 
        report to both Houses of Congress in which the Secretary shall 
        examine the middle distillate situation and, in so doing, make 
        detailed findings with respect to all matters required to be 
        addressed in findings made pursuant to section 12(d)(1)) of the 
        Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973. In making the 
        report, the Secretary shall examine the middle distillate 
        situation as though he were reaching an initial decision to 
        decontrol the product. . . .
            (c)(1) If the Secretary finds in accordance with section 
        12(d)(1) of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 that 
        a decontrol decision is not warranted he shall, without regard 
        to any administrative procedural requirements which ordinarily 
        apply to such action, immediately exercise the authority 
        delegated to him under section 12(f) of the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973 and order reimposition of price and 
        allocation controls.
            (2)(A) The controls the Secretary shall order reimposed 
        pursuant to subsection (c)(1) of this section shall be those 
        which existed at the time middle distillate controls were 
        effectively removed from the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act 
        of 1973 requirements in 1976, unless the Secretary shall find 
        that any part of such requirements is inequitable or 
        inappropriate, in which case the Secretary shall modify such 
        part as he deems necessary and appropriate; provided however, 
        that the Secretary shall submit a detailed explanation of each 
        such modification to both Houses of Congress pursuant to the 
        Procedures of section 551 of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
        Act, and that such modification shall not take effect if either 
        House of Congress disapproves such modification within twenty-
        one days under the Procedures of section 551 of the Energy 
        Policy and Conservation Act. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is recognized on his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, first of 
    all, the amendment is a very complex amendment, as the Chair is 
    well aware.
        Amongst the problems, from the standpoint of germaneness, which 
    exist

[[Page 8405]]

    with regard to the amendment, subsection (c)(2))(A) of the 
    amendment states that the Secretary shall do certain things if the 
    Secretary makes certain findings. So the first problem we have is 
    that the Secretary is required to make findings--and this is not 
    germane to the bill--and that he must then reimpose controls on 
    middle distillates under regulations in effect in 1976. This, then, 
    requires that the regulations relate back to a time earlier than 
    the effective date of the legislation.
        It also requires, I believe, that the price controls carry 
    forward after the effective date for the expiration of the 1-year 
    authorization which is before the House. The Secretary then could 
    only modify these regulations if neither House vetoes the 
    regulations.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, the Chair will observe that there is no 
    provision for one-House vetoes or for this kind of action in the 
    bill.
        To repeat, the amendment is not germane to the bill, which only 
    authorizes funds for fiscal year 1980.
        There are further reasons. First, it modifies prior pricing 
    laws by subjecting certain regulations to a one-House veto. These 
    regulations are not otherwise subject to a one-House veto on the 
    basis of the statute, and the Chair will find there is no reference 
    to one-House vetoes anywhere in the bill.
        The proposal further is nongermane by waiving procedural 
    requirements of law, and, further, it is not germane by requiring 
    reimposition of controls based on a finding different from that 
    which is required by the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act.
        The amendment is further nongermane because it is a limitation 
    on all regulations which modify the reimposed regulations. Thus 
    once the President reimposes controls, which under the amendment 
    must be reimposed as they appeared in the Code of Federal 
    Regulations in 1976, he may only modify the regulations by 
    subjecting them to a one-House veto. This limitation would apply to 
    all future regulations, including regulations prescribed after 
    fiscal year 1980.
        So the amendment goes beyond the term of the bill before us. 
    Thus the requirements in the regulations extend beyond the fiscal 
    year 1980, and again this renders the proposal nongermane.
        It provides new regulatory powers, not contained in existing 
    law, in a bill which is simply a 1-year extension of financial 
    authorizations to the Department of Energy, since it requires 
    regulation of middle distillates without making the findings 
    required under the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act.
        Next, it permits additional regulatory actions without being 
    subject to statutory procedures, a good number of which, I believe, 
    would clearly be in contravention of existing law, again being 
    nongermane by reason of imposing new statutory powers on a 
    Secretary and new statutory duties on a Secretary in a proposal 
    which is simply a 1-year authorization for the funding of the 
    Department of Energy. . . .
        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, in the opening of the amendment it 
    deals with the appropriation of such funds in this act. They are 
    authorized to be appropriated and to be expended for the purpose of 
    this study.
        Mr. Chairman, indeed the amendment is complex, but the study 
    that is

[[Page 8406]]

    anticipated here tracks Public Law 94-163, which indeed is covered 
    and affected by this 1-year authorization that we have before us.
        The fact of the matter is that the opposition of the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) raises substantive points which are 
    not, in my judgment, points of order, but insofar as he has, the 
    law does provide for a congressional review and indeed a veto of 
    the actions by the Secretary. The powers assumed in this are powers 
    that the Secretary now possesses.
        This simply talks in terms of using those powers for purposes 
    designed in this particular measure.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendment clearly is in 
    order. The entire title and the legislation itself deal with the 
    Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act. This deals with the Emergency 
    Petroleum Allocation Act, just as does the entire title of the 
    bill.
        So clearly I think, since we have considered such regulation, 
    decontrol, and reimposition of controls, this amendment is 
    certainly in the tenor and the nature of the legislation and the 
    amendments we have considered today. . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler [of Texas)] . . . Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. Although the 
    amendment is cast in the form of a study, it requires the 
    reimposition of price controls if the Secretary of the Department 
    of Energy makes certain findings, and it requires that ``the 
    Secretary shall modify'' such findings of the Emergency Petroleum 
    Allocation Act ``as he deems necessary and appropriate.'' This is 
    the language in the gentleman's amendment.
        This language in the amendment has the effect of changing 
    existing law. There is a mechanism already under existing law, the 
    Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act, which allows the President to 
    make this determination.
        Finally, the provisions dealing with the reimposition of price 
    controls under EPAA, while being vested with the President, are in 
    existing law.
        In addition, the application of this amendment would extend 
    beyond the fiscal year 1980, which is the period of time that the 
    authorization bill addresses. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair concurs with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) 
    that the first part of the amendment authorizing a study during 
    fiscal year 1980 is indeed in order.
        The Chair rules, however, based on two other observations. 
    Subsection (c) of the amendment would require the Secretary under 
    certain circumstances to reimpose price allocation controls. This 
    is a requirement that constitutes a permanent change in law and is 
    not in order in a bill which is essentially a 1-year 
    reauthorization of the Economic Regulatory Administration.
        Moreover, the Chair would observe that on the second page of 
    the amendment, in the first paragraph, the procedural changes 
    constitute a change in the rules of the House by changing the time 
    for Congressional review as specified in the Energy Policy and 
    Conservation Act, and would not be germane in title II, and the 
    Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

[[Page 8407]]

Bill Extending Time Limit for Negotiation of Disputes Under Railway 
    Labor Act--Amendment Providing Permanent Procedures for Settlement 
    of Disputes

Sec. 24.4 To a bill extending the time limit for negotiation of labor 
    disputes under the Railway Labor Act for purposes of permitting 
    additional time for negotiation of a particular labor dispute, an 
    amendment providing permanent procedures for the settlement of all 
    emergency labor disputes by amendment of the Railway Labor Act was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration which related to settlement of a labor dispute between 
certain railroad companies and their union employees. An amendment was 
offered (11) whose purpose was explained by the proponent, 
Mr. William E. Brock 3d, of Tennessee, as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.J. Res. 559 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
11. See 113 Cong. Rec. 15912, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1967.
12. Id. at p. 15914.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I propose to do two things: first, to put off the strike 
    for 90 days as is proposed in the bill, and second, during this 
    period, to take an entirely different approach, based upon the 
    problem, not the symptom that we are treating with compulsory 
    arbitration. I would prohibit industrywide bargaining and require 
    as an alternative carrier-by-carrier negotiations.

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

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . First, the amendment 
    goes beyond the fundamental purpose of the legislation before the 
    committee today. As such it is not germane to the fundamental 
    purposes of the measure.
        I would cite that the amendment deals with sections of the 
    Railway Labor Act other than those presently before us. . . .
        . . . [T]he pending measure is limited to a specific labor 
    dispute, whereas the amendment . . . deals with all labor disputes.
        The legislation pending before the committee today deals with 
    railroads in one specific instance . . . whereas the amendment . . 
    . deals with every industry covered by the Railway Labor Act, which 
    would also include the airlines. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, in addition to this I would point out that 
    legislation dealing with a specific subject or a specific set of 
    circumstances under the rules may not be amended by a provision 
    which is general in nature even when of the class or the specific 
    subject involved.

    The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).

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

[[Page 8408]]

        . . . The Chair will call attention to ``Cannon's Precedents,'' 
    volume 8, page 479, section 2912, which reads as follows:

            To a bill proposing measures to meet a declared emergency 
        and limited in operation to a period of five years an amendment 
        proposing permanent legislation of the same character was held 
        not to be germane.

        Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
    is permanent legislation and the resolution before the committee is 
    limited to an existing situation and is not permanent in nature, 
    the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane.

Ceiling on District of Columbia Employees for One Year--Amendment 
    Proposing Hiring Preference System as Permanent Law

Sec. 24.5 To a proposition establishing a ceiling on the number of 
    employees in the District of Columbia government for one year, an 
    amendment proposing a hiring preference system as permanent law is 
    not germane, as going beyond the year and the issue of the number 
    of employees covered by the measure to which offered.

    During consideration of the District of Columbia Appropriations for 
fiscal 1990 (14) in the House on Oct. 11, 
1989,(15) it was held that to a Senate amendment raising a 
ceiling on the number of employees of the District of Columbia 
government during the fiscal year funded by the bill, a House amendment 
proposing also to address in permanent law a hiring preference system 
for such employees was not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 3026.
15. 135 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: 6 The Clerk will designate 
    the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 15: Page 21, line 24, strike out 
        ``38,475'' and insert ``39,569''.

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dixon moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 15, and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the number stricken 
        and inserted by said amendment, insert the following 
        ``39,262.''
            Sec. 110A. (a) No funds appropriated by this Act may be 
        expended for the compensation of any person appointed to fill 
        any vacant position in any agency under the personnel control 
        of the Mayor unless:
            (1) The position is to be filled by a sworn officer of the 
        Metropolitan Police Department; or
            (2) The position is to be filled as follows:

[[Page 8409]]

            (A) By a person who is currently employed by the District 
        of Columbia government at a grade level that is equal to the 
        grade level of the position to be filled; or
            (B) By a person who is currently employed by the District 
        of Columbia government at a grade level higher than the grade 
        level of the position to be filled, and who is willing to 
        assume a lower grade level in order to fill the position. . . .
            Sec. 110B. (a) Application for Employment, Promotions, and 
        Reductions in Force.
            (1) In general.--The rules issued pursuant to the 
        amendments to the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive 
        Merit Personnel Act of 1978 made by the Residency Preference 
        Amendment Act of 1988 (D.C. Law 7-203) shall include the 
        provisions described in paragraph (2).
            (2) Description of policies.--
            (A) Policy regarding application for employment.--The Mayor 
        of the District of Columbia may not give an applicant for 
        District of Columbia government employment in the Career 
        Service who claims a District residency preference more than a 
        5 point hiring preference over an applicant not claiming such a 
        preference, and, in the case of equally qualified applicants, 
        shall give an applicant claiming such a preference priority in 
        hiring over an applicant not claiming such a preference.
            (B) Policy regarding promotions and reductions in force for 
        career service employees.--In calculating years of service for 
        the purpose of implementing a reduction in force, the Mayor may 
        not credit an employee in the Career Service who claims a 
        District residency preference with more than 1 year of 
        additional service credit . . . .
            (C) Individuals subject to provisions.--The amendments to 
        the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit 
        Personnel Act of 1978 made by the Residency Preference 
        Amendment Act of 1988 shall apply only with respect to 
        individuals claiming a District residency preference or 
        applying for employment with the District of Columbia on or 
        after March 16, 1989.
            (b) Scope of 5-Year District Residency Requirement for 
        Employees Claiming Preference.--
            (1) Career service employees.--Section 801(e)(5) of the 
        District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel 
        Act of 1978 (section 1-608.1(e)(5), D.C. Code), as amended by 
        the Residency Preference Amendment Act of 1988 (D.C. Law 7-
        203), is amended by adding at the end the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(7)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Mayor 
        may not require an individual to reside in the District of 
        Columbia as a condition of employment in the Career Service. . 
        . .''
            (2) Educational service employees.--Section 801A(d) of such 
        Act (section 1-609.1(d), D.C. Code), as amended by the 
        Residency Preference Amendment Act of 1988 (D.C. Law 7-203), is 
        amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 
        ``(7)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Boards may 
        not require an individual to reside in the District of Columbia 
        as a condition of employment in the Educational Services. . . .

        Mr. [Walter E.] Fauntroy [Delegate from the District of 
    Columbia]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the amendment 
    contained in the motion is not germane to Senate amendment 15 and 
    therefore violates clause 7 of House rule XVI, for the reason that 
    Senate amendment 15 merely relates to the employment ceiling for 
    the District of Columbia government, while this amendment inserts 
    language in section 110B under section 132 of the District's 
    budget.

[[Page 8410]]

        That language relates to a hiring preference system for career 
    and educational employees of the District government and among 
    other things, makes the new D.C. preference system effective as of 
    March 16, 1989, provides for a maximum five-point hiring preference 
    for new employees, provides that residency will be a tie-breaker 
    rather than a point advantage to a resident who claims preference 
    on promotions, provides that the 5-year residency requirement will 
    apply only to applicants who claim preference and are appointed on 
    or after March 16, 1989, and for educational service, provides that 
    residency will be required of only those employees who receive a 
    preference on or after March 16, 1989.
        In short, Mr. Speaker, the amendment introduces an entirely new 
    subject and is therefore not germane. . . .
        Mr. [Steny H.] Hoyer [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, on the point 
    of order of the gentleman from the District of Columbia (Mr. 
    Fauntroy), the amendment in question, amendment No. 15, is added to 
    section 110 of the bill, line 6, which deals with personnel levels. 
    The amendment itself deals with the preference system that has been 
    discussed by the District of Columbia.
        Mr. Speaker, in last year's District of Columbia bill there was 
    a requirement that the District of Columbia promulgate a preference 
    system. In point of fact, on March 16, 1989, they issued a 
    preference system. That preference system, however, was to be 
    modified subsequent to the adoption of the bill on the House floor, 
    but then went to the Senate. The Senate dealt with personnel 
    levels. It did not deal, however, with the preference system.
        In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, the preference system was drawn, 
    in this Member's opinion, to an extent that in fact the residency 
    requirement is still in effect because of the substantial 
    discrepancies between the preference between the District of 
    Columbia residents and nonresidents, effectively making 
    nonresidents second-class employees, which of course obviates the 
    substitute of the residency requirement by preference system.
        I, therefore, submit to the Chair that the amendment at this 
    point in the bill is relevant to the personnel system and the 
    personnel levels and who are eligible for those personnel positions 
    in the District of Columbia, and I would, therefore, submit to the 
    Chair that it is not nongermane and was, in fact, germane to the 
    subject matter before the conference. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the arguments of the gentleman 
    from the District of Columbia (Mr. Fauntroy) are accurate 
    pertaining to the point of order, and so his point of order is 
    sustained.

Bill Relating to Deployment of Missile Systems--Amendment Permanently 
    Making Expenditures Contingent on Certifications by Secretary of 
    Defense

Sec. 24.6 To a title of a bill authorizing the procurement, research 
    and development of certain military missile systems for one fiscal 
    year,

[[Page 8411]]

    broadened by amendment to restrict deployment beyond that fiscal 
    year of one system pending tests and reports to Congress, an 
    amendment permanently making expenditure of any funds for that 
    missile system contingent upon certification made by the Secretary 
    of Defense with respect to the impact of United States grain sales 
    on Soviet military preparedness was held to be not germane being an 
    unrelated contingency involving agricultural exports.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for 
fiscal 1984 (17) in the Committee of the Whole on July 21, 
1983,(18) the Chair, in sustaining a point of order against 
the amendment described above, reiterated the principle that it is not 
germane to make the authorization of funds in a bill contingent upon 
unrelated events or policy determinations. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 2969.
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 20050, 20184, 20189, 20190, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 301. In addition to the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 103 for procurement of missiles for the 
        Air Force, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Air Force for fiscal year 1984 for procurement of missiles the 
        sum of $2,557,800,000 to be available only for the MX missile 
        program.

        research, development, test, and evaluation for mx missile and 
                          small mobile missile systems

            Sec. 302. (a) In addition to the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 201 for research, development, test, 
        and evaluation for the Air Force, there is hereby authorized to 
        be appropriated to the Air Force for fiscal year 1984 for 
        research, development, test, and evaluation for the land-based 
        strategic ballistic missile modernization program--
            (1) $1,980,389,000 to be available only for research, 
        development, test, and evaluation for the MX missile program. . 
        .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (19) Are there amendments 
    to title III?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Price: Page 16, after line 18, 
        insert the following new section:

                       limitation on expenditure of funds

            Sec. 303. (a) None of the funds authorized by clause (2) of 
        section 302(a) may be obligated or expended for research, 
        development, test, or evaluation for an intercontinental-range 
        mobile ballistic missile that would weigh more than 33,000 
        pounds or that would carry more than a single warhead.
            (b) The Secretary of Defense may not deploy more than 10 MX 
        missiles until--
            (1) demonstration of subsystems and testing of components 
        of the small mobile intercontinental ballistic missile system 
        (including missile guidance and propulsion subsystems) have 
        occurred . . .

[[Page 8412]]

            (c) The Secretary of Defense may not deploy more than 40 MX 
        missiles until--
            (1) the major elements (including the guidance and control 
        subsystems) of a mobile missile weighing less than 33,000 
        pounds as a part of an intercontinental ballistic missile 
        system have been flight tested . . .
            (d)(1) Not later than January 15 of each year from 1984 
        through 1988, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
        Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
        Representatives a report--
            (A) on the progress being made with respect to the 
        development and deployment of the MX missile system.

    The amendment offered by Mr. Price was agreed to.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 20. 129 Cong. Rec. 20187, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: At the end of title III, 
        add the following new section:

                            limitation on mx program

            Sec 303. No funds may be expended for the MX missile 
        program during any fiscal year during which United States grain 
        suppliers make sales of grain to the Soviet Union, except that 
        the preceding limitation shall not apply during any fiscal year 
        if the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the sale 
        of grain to the Soviet Union by United States grain suppliers 
        during that year will not assist the Soviet Union in preparing, 
        maintaining, or providing for its armed forces. . . .

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: . . . I make a point of order 
    that the amendment is not germane to title III. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is not germane to title III. 
    Although title III was originally a 1-year authorization, it has 
    been amended by the Price amendment to go beyond fiscal year 1984.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver) would 
    be a permanent change in the law making the MX program conditional 
    upon an unrelated contingency involving agricultural exports. Under 
    the precedents the amendment is not germane and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price).

Temporary Increase in Debt Ceiling--Amendment Construed as Having 
    Temporary Effect Despite Form

Sec. 24.7 Although the Chair will not ordinarily look behind the text 
    of a bill and consider the probable effects of its provisions, or 
    amendments thereto, in determining issues of germaneness, the Chair 
    has ruled that an amendment the fundamental purpose of which 
    amounted to a permanent change in law could in fact be understood 
    to be a temporary change in law, in light of prior legislative 
    treatment of the subject in question (the

[[Page 8413]]

    statutory ceiling on public debt), and thus could properly be 
    offered to a bill whose fundamental purpose was to provide a 
    temporary increase in the statutory ceiling on the 
    debt.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The proceedings of May 13, 1987, relating to H.R. 2360, extension 
        of the public debt limit, are discussed in Sec. 46.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Making Expiration Date in Bill Inapplicable to Certain 
    Provisions

Sec. 24.8 On one occasion, it was held that, to that section of a bill 
    providing that the provisions of the bill shall remain in force 
    only until a certain date, an amendment making such expiration date 
    inapplicable to particular provisions of the bill was held germane.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
to expedite the payment for land acquired during the war period. An 
amendment was offered (3) whose purpose was described by the 
proponent, Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, in these terms:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. S. 919 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 3. 90 Cong. Rec. 9363, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [The] amendment merely provides in the event it becomes a 
    law it shall be permanent insofar as creating a right of trial by 
    jury for those persons whose property is taken for flood control 
    and river and harbor improvements.

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

        Mr. [Clarence E.] Hancock [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment. This bill by its terms is 
    temporary. The amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
    Whitten] would affect one small section of the bill and make it 
    permanent, without consideration by the committee having 
    jurisdiction thereof.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John M. Coffee (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Mississippi is germane. It properly refers to the section of 
    the bill referred to in the amendment. The Chair overrules the 
    point of order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See also Sec. 40.1, infra, for discussion of amendments continuing 
        temporary law offered to bills amending such law.

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

[[Page 8414]]


                                 

[[Page 8415]]


                               CHAPTER 28


                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule

                               VOLUME 10

A. General Principles

    Sec. 1. Introduction
    Sec. 2. Proposition to Which Amendment Must be Germane
    Sec. 3. Amendment as Relating to Subject Matter Under Consideration
    Sec. 4. Committee Jurisdiction of Subject Matter as Test
    Sec. 5. Fundamental Purpose of Amendment as Test
    Sec. 6. Amendment Accomplishing Result of Bill by Different Method
    Sec. 7. Amendment Substituting Different Agency To Administer 
            Provisions
    Sec. 8. Individual Proposition Offered as Amendment to Another 
            Individual Proposition
    Sec. 9. General Amendments to Specific or Limited Propositions; 
            Amendments Enlarging Scope of Proposition
   Sec. 10. Specific Amendments to General Propositions; Amendments as 
            Within Scope
   Sec. 11. Amendment Adding to Two or More Propositions of Same Class
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by Evan Hoorneman, J.D. Manuscript editing 
by Joan Deschler Bamel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Sec. 12. Amendment Extending Coverage of Bill to Other Subjects of 
            Same Class
   Sec. 13. Proposition and Amendment as Affecting Different Classes of 
            Persons or Entities

[[Page 8416]]

   Sec. 14. Amendments Conferring Powers Not granted in Bill
   Sec. 15. Amendments to Appropriation Bills; Rescission Bills
   Sec. 16. Consent Calendar Bills

B. Application of Rule to Particular Forms of Amendment or Proposition

   Sec. 17. In General; Amendment to Special Rule; Amendment to 
            Concurrent Resolution
   Sec. 18. Amendment Offered to Particular Paragraph, Section, or 
            title
   Sec. 19. Amendment Adding New Section or Title to Bill
   Sec. 20. Amendment Striking Portion of Text of Bill or Amendment
   Sec. 21. Substitute Amendment; Amendment in Nature of Substitute; 
            Amendment to Amendment
   Sec. 22. Committee Amendment
   Sec. 23. Instructions in Motion To Commit or Recommit
   Sec. 24. Amendment Proposing Permanent Legislation Offered to 
            Temporary Legislation



                               VOLUME 11

C. House-Senate Relations

   Sec. 25. Rule of Germaneness in the Senate
   Sec. 26. Senate Amendments to House Bills and Amendments; Conference 
            Agreements
   Sec. 27. --Amendment to Senate Amendment
   Sec. 28. Requirement That Amendments to Motions To Instruct 
            Conferees Be Germane

D. Amendments Imposing Qualifications or Restrictions

   Sec. 29. In General; Amendments Providing for Exceptions or 
            Exemptions

[[Page 8417]]

   Sec. 30. Amendments Providing for Conditions or Qualifications
   Sec. 31. --Amendment Postponing Effectiveness of Legislation Pending 
            Contingency
   Sec. 32. Amendments Providing for Restrictions or Limitations
   Sec. 33. --Amendments Affecting Powers Delegated in Bill
   Sec. 34. --Restrictions on Use or Availability of Funds

E. Relation of Amendment or Bill to Existing Law

   Sec. 35. Amendments to Bill Which Amend Existing Law
   Sec. 36. Amendments Repealing Existing Law to bill Amending that Law
   Sec. 37. Amendments to Bills Which Repeal Existing Law
   Sec. 38. Amendments to Bills Which Incorporate Other Law or Matter
   Sec. 39. Amendments to Bill Extending Existing Law or Authority 
            Under Existing Law
   Sec. 40. Amendment Continuing Temporary Law to Bill Amending That 
            Law
   Sec. 41. Amendment Changing Existing Law to Bill Citing or Making 
            Minor Revisions in That Law
   Sec. 42. Amendment Changing or Citing Existing Law to Bill Not 
            Citing That Law

F. Procedural Matters

   Sec. 43. Generally; Point of Order and Debate Thereon
   Sec. 44. Timeliness of Point of Order
   Sec. 45. Consideration Under Special Rule; Waiver of Points of 
            Order; Effect on Germaneness Requirement
   Sec. 46. Factors in Chair's Ruling; Refusal by Chair To Rule; 
            Anticipatory and Hypothetical Rulings

Index to Precedents at end of Volume 11





[[Page 8419]]


                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                       C. HOUSE-SENATE RELATIONS
 
Sec. 25. Rule of Germaneness in the Senate


    No comprehensive analysis is intended here of the Senate's 
requirements of germaneness of amendments. (1) There is no 
general Senate rule prohibiting nongermane amendments, except after 
cloture has been invoked on a measure under Senate Rule XXII. Under 
unanimous-consent agreements, the Senate sometimes prohibits any 
nongermane amendments to particular bills, (2) or may 
prohibit a certain class of nongermane amendments to a 
bill.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, generally, Senate Procedure, Riddick, S. Doc. 97-1 (1981). A 
        new Senate Procedure manual is being prepared as these volumes 
        are being published.
 2. See, for example, the parliamentary inquiry and point of order by 
        Senator Forrest C. Donnell (Mo.) at 96 Cong. Rec. 4774, 81st 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 5, 1950.
 3. See, for example, 96 Cong. Rec. 16461, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 
        12, 1950.
            The fact that an amendment has been considered by the 
        Senate does not necessarily, of course, make an amendment of a 
        similar nature germane when offered in the House. See Sec. 
        13.11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Senate procedures, no point of order based on a question of 
germaneness in the above circumstances can be raised until after 
conclusion of debate on the amendment in question, unless time is 
yielded for such a point of order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the proceedings at 98 Cong. Rec. 6910, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        10, 1952. See also 98 Cong. Rec. 6918.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Senate rule (5) also prohibits nongermane amendments 
on general appropriation bills; under the rule, questions of 
germaneness are submitted to the whole Senate for disposition without 
debate, the Chair not ruling on the ques

[[Page 8420]]

tion; (6) but such procedure has not uniformly been 
followed.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Senate Rule XVI clause 4.
 6. See 128 Cong. Rec. 6166, 6167, 6169, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 31, 
        1982, wherein, during consideration of H.J. Res. 409, 
        continuing appropriations for 1982, an amendment to a general 
        appropriation bill repealing a provision in the Internal 
        Revenue Code that provided a tax deduction to Members of 
        Congress was considered by the Senate to be germane, but was 
        ruled out as legislation in violation of Senate Rule XVI, 
        clause 4, the ruling of the Presiding Officer being sustained 
        on appeal.
 7. See, for example, 51 Cong. Rec. 10712, 10717, 63d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 19, 1914.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 14, 1970, points of order were pending against an amendment 
to a general appropriation bill,(8) on grounds both that the 
amendment constituted legislation, and that it was not 
germane.(9) The presiding officer (10) summarized 
the procedures to be followed in such a case, as follows: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 19928 (Committee on Appropriations), supplemental 
        appropriations for fiscal 1971.
 9. See the proceedings at 116 Cong. Rec. 41339, 41340, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Dec. 14, 1970.
10. Senator J. Caleb Boggs (Del.).
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 41340, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 14, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The hour of 2:23 p.m. having arrived, the question is on the 
    issue of germaneness. A point of order was raised by the Senator 
    from Delaware (Mr. Williams) against the language on page 20, line 
    12, beginning with the word ``provided'' down through line 22, as 
    being legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The manager of the bill, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
    Byrd] has raised the question of germaneness of this language to 
    the House-passed language. Under rule XVI, paragraph 4, and the 
    precedents and practices of the Senate, if a point of order is made 
    against a pending amendment to a general appropriation bill on the 
    ground that it is legislation, and the question of germaneness to 
    the House provisions of the bill is raised, the question of 
    germaneness is submitted to the Senate for decision and takes 
    precedence over the point of order which is not ruled on, and the 
    point of order falls or the question is settled if the Senate 
    decides that the amendment is germane to the provisions of the bill 
    to which it is offered.

    In addition to the above, another rule (12) prohibits 
nongermane amendments to bills after cloture has been invoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Senate Rule XXII clause 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Senate on occasion has considered adopting a rule as to 
germaneness similar to that of the House. For example, in 1965 
(13) and in 1967 (14) unsuccessful attempts were 
made to require germaneness of amendments gen

[[Page 8421]]

erally, as in the House. The following remarks were made by Senator 
Joseph S. Clark, of Pennsylvania, on Aug. 2, 1965: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 111 Cong. Rec. 19051, 19052, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 
        1965.
14. See 113 Cong. Rec. 5271, 5272, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 19052, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I believe that we should exercise the kind of judgment 
    which has motivated other legislative bodies, both here and abroad, 
    and impose on ourselves a measure of self-discipline by adopting a 
    rule to require germaneness of amendments, realizing full well that 
    there may occasionally be an abuse of such a rule.
        However, I challenge the Senator from Louisiana to name one 
    abuse under the rule which I propose which would be half as bad as 
    the practice of permitting a nongermane amendment, or a 
    constitutional amendment, to be added to a foreign aid 
    authorization bill or to a simple joint resolution dealing with the 
    question of American Legion baseball. . . .

    Senator Clark further made the point, which he stated again on Mar. 
2, 1967,(16) that desirable bills are sometimes impeded in 
their passage when amended by controversial nongermane proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 5271, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some useful guidelines for the application of the rule of 
germaneness in the Senate were provided by the Presiding Officer in the 
Senate on April 22, 1982,(17) during consideration of S. 
1630, the Criminal Code Reform Act. The Presiding Officer stated the 
following general principles: (1) an amendment adding new language is 
germane if restricting but not broadening the effect of the section to 
which offered; (2) an amendment adding a new section is germane if 
restricting authorities otherwise available; (3) an amendment adding to 
a list of exemptions from authorities is a restriction and therefore 
germane, while an amendment adding to a list of penalties is broadening 
and nongermane; (4) an amendment merely striking out language is 
germane regardless of effect on the scope of the bill; (5) an amendment 
striking out a figure and inserting another figure is germane; (6) the 
general test of germaneness is not a subject matter test but a 
technical test as indicated in 1 through 5 above, and broadening 
amendments, though related to the subject matter, are nongermane; but 
where an ambiguity exists in the effect of the amendment as broadening 
or restrictive, the Chair does not interpret law and submits the 
question to the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 7449-53, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 8422]]



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                       C. HOUSE-SENATE RELATIONS
 
Sec. 26. Senate Amendments to House Bills and Amendments; Conference 
    Agreements

    Rules in effect in the 93d Congress permitted any Member to demand 
a separate vote in the House on any motion, order, or rule to dispose 
of any Senate amendment which would be subject to a point of order 
under the germaneness rule and permitted a separate vote in the House 
on any nongermane Senate amendment or portion thereof included in a 
conference agreement.(18) If as a result of such a vote, any 
such Senate amendment was rejected, the conference agreement as a whole 
was considered rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See former Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 
        (1973); Rule XXVIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b 
        (1973). From 1971 until 1973, clause 3 of Rule XX, which had 
        been enacted as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
        1970, provided that House conferees could not agree, without 
        prior permission of the House, to Senate amendments that would 
        violate clause 7 of Rule XVI if offered in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By changes adopted in the second session of the 93d 
Congress,(19) the procedure permitting separate debate and 
votes on nongermane Senate amendments was extended to nongermane matter 
that (1) originally appeared in a Senate bill, (2) was not included in 
the House-passed version of that bill, and (3) appeared again in the 
conference report. The test for identifying such matter is whether it 
would have been ruled nongermane if offered in the House as an 
amendment to the House-passed version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Res. 998, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each such matter contained in a conference report is subject to a 
point of order that it is not germane to the House-passed version. If 
the Speaker sustains the point of order, Members are permitted to offer 
a privileged motion to reject the nongermane matter specified in the 
point of order. The motion is decided by majority vote after 40 minutes 
of debate, equally divided between those in favor and those opposed to 
the motion.
    Furthermore, the procedure for dealing with nongermane Senate 
amendments was extended to permit separate debate and votes on 
nongermane matter in Senate amendments reported in disagreement by a 
conference committee or pending before the House, the stage of 
disagreement having been reached. The provision relates to motions to 
recede and concur in a Senate amendment, with or without an amendment.

[[Page 8423]]

    On a motion to recede and concur, the rule permits points of order 
against nongermane matter in the Senate amendment, provided such points 
are raised immediately after the motion is offered and before debate 
begins. Each sustained point of order may be followed by a privileged 
motion to reject, 40 minutes of debate, and a vote.
    In the case of a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment with an amendment, it is in order, immediately after the 
motion is offered and before debate begins, to raise the same kind of 
points of order. However, these apply to the version of the amendment 
as it would appear if the motion were adopted. That is, the entity 
against which points of order can be raised is the proposed amended 
version of the Senate amendment. Copies of this version must be 
available on the floor when the motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment is offered.
    As a result of another change in the rules, all procedures relating 
to nongermane Senate amendments are now consolidated in a single 
rule.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Rule XXVIII clause 5, including matter transferred from Rule XX 
        clause 1 relating to the procedure concerning disposition of 
        Senate nongermane amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to adoption of the rules described above, it was held that a 
Senate amendment to a House bill is not subject, in the House, to the 
point of order that it is not germane to the House bill.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 113 Cong. Rec. 34032, 34033, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 28, 
        1967, especially remarks of Mr. Jones and Mr. Colmer, for 
        discussion of efforts to modify this principle. For a 
        discussion in the House concerning the Senate practice of 
        adding nongermane amendments to House bills, including specific 
        instances thereof prior to 1970, see 115 Cong. Rec. 34305-309, 
        91st Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 17, 1969. For an instance in which 
        the House, by unanimous consent, concurred in a nongermane 
        Senate amendment to House amendments to a Senate bill, see 116 
        Cong. Rec. 12874, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 23, 1970. Under 
        consideration was S. 3253 (Committee on Public Works), to name 
        certain buildings in Chicago after Everett McKinley Dirksen, 
        with a Senate amendment authorizing emergency payments to 
        ``impacted area'' educational agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has also been held, and is still true, that, when a Senate 
amendment reported in disagreement by conferees or otherwise before the 
House is under consideration, a proposal to amend must be germane to 
the Senate amendment.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 27.35, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendments to Senate amendments reported from conference in

[[Page 8424]]

disagreement are subject to the same test of germaneness under clause 7 
of Rule XVI applicable to any other amendment in the House, and 
conferees' motions are given no wider latitude regarding 
germaneness.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 27.30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII, a point of order against a 
nongermane Senate provision included in a conference report may be made 
before debate begins on the report, and if the Chair sustains the point 
of order, a motion to reject that portion of the conference report, 
debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled, is in order; 
it is then in order, following the disposition of that motion, to make 
further points of order and motions to reject. If any such motion is 
adopted, the conference report is considered as rejected and the 
pending motion (which is offered by the manager of the conference 
report) is, in the case of a House bill with a Senate amendment, to 
recede from disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur therein 
with an amendment consisting of the portion of the conference report 
not rejected. Such a motion is debatable for one hour, equally divided 
and controlled by the majority and minority (pursuant to clause 2(a) of 
Rule XXVIII).
    If the conference report is on a Senate bill with a House amendment 
and a motion to reject a nongermane Senate portion of the conference 
report is agreed to, the pending question under clause 4 of Rule XXVIII 
is on House insistence upon its original amendment, the House being 
unable at that stage to amend its own amendment to the Senate bill.
    By unanimous consent, the proceedings by which the House had agreed 
to a motion to reject a nongermane Senate provision included in a 
conference report, pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII, by a voice 
vote, were vacated in order to allow full debate and a recorded vote on 
the motion to reject.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the proceedings of Oct. 15, 1986, discussed in Sec. 26.31, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the motion to reject a nongermane portion of the conference 
report is not agreed to, debate commences on the conference report 
itself.                          -------------------

Separate Vote on Nongermane Senate Provisions Agreed to in Conference, 
    Where Senate Bill is Amended by Inserting House Bill in Lieu 
    Thereof

Sec. 26.1 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the

[[Page 8425]]

    Speaker indicated that under clause 4(a)(2), Rule XXVIII, a point 
    of order could be made against a portion of a conference report on 
    a Senate bill containing Senate matter not germane to the House-
    passed version, which point of order if sustained would permit a 
    separate vote on the nongermane portion of the conference report, 
    in the absence of a special rule waiving that point of order.

    On Aug. 22, 1980,(5) the House had under consideration 
S. 2719 (6) when a parliamentary inquiry was addressed to 
the Chair as described above. The inquiry and the Speaker's response 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 126 Cong. Rec. 22660, 22661, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2719) 
    to amend and extend certain Federal laws relating to housing, 
    community and neighborhood development and preservation, and 
    related programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Wylie: If we take up the Senate bill and amend it by 
    striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu 
    thereof the House bill, do we limit the ability of any Member of 
    this House to require a separate vote on any possible Senate 
    provision agreed to in conference which would have been ruled 
    nongermane if offered as an amendment to the House bill on the 
    House floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would respond that a 
    Member's right would not be limited by those circumstances. Under 
    rule XXVIII, clause 4, a point of order may be made against a 
    provision in a conference substitute which would not have been 
    germane to the House-passed bill. If the Chair holds that the 
    Senate amendment or provision would not have been germane, then a 
    motion to reject that provision may be made. Therefore, the 
    gentleman's rights are protected by the rule.
        Mr. Wylie: Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, 
    then any nongermane Senate provision brought back from conference 
    may be subjected to a separate vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The answer is that it may be subjected 
    to a separate vote under the rules of the House. The only way in 
    which it would not be subject to a separate vote would be if the 
    conference committee were to come under a rule adopted by the House 
    which would waive points of order.

[[Page 8426]]

Point of Order Against Provision as Constituting Appropriation on 
    Legislative Bill To Be Disposed of Before Germaneness Point of 
    Order Under Rule XXVIII

Sec. 26.2 A point of order under clause 2 of Rule XX or under clause 5 
    of Rule XXI which, if sustained, would vitiate an entire conference 
    report or motion to dispose of a Senate amendment as constituting 
    an appropriation on a legislative bill, must be disposed of prior 
    to points of order against a portion of a motion under clause 4 or 
    5 of Rule XXVIII alleged to contain a nongermane Senate provision 
    to a House measure and which, if sustained, would merely permit a 
    separate vote on rejection of that portion of the conference report 
    or motion.

    The proceedings of Oct. 1, 1980, during consideration of H.R. 5612 
(relating to assistance for small business), are discussed in 
Sec. 26.26, infra.

Germaneness of Senate Amendment Modified by House Amendment Prior to 
    Conference Not Determined by Relationship to Original House-passed 
    Bill

Sec. 26.3 The test of germaneness under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, of a 
    portion of a conference report originally contained in a Senate 
    amendment is its relationship to the final House version of the 
    bill committed to conference, and not to the original House-passed 
    bill which may have been superseded by a House amendment to the 
    Senate amendment prior to conference; thus, where the House (by 
    unanimous consent) amended a Senate amendment to include matter 
    germane to the Senate amendment although not germane to the 
    original House-passed bill, the Chair stated that a germaneness 
    point of order would not lie against the Senate amendment as so 
    modified in a conference report.

    On July 28, 1983,(8) during consideration in the House 
of the conference report on H.R. 2973 (inter

[[Page 8427]]

est and dividend tax withholding repeal], the principle described above 
was demonstrated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 21401, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: . . . I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John J. Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Speaker, under rule 28, it seems to me that 
    after the reading of any conference report a point of order lies 
    if, in fact, there is a provision in the conference report that is 
    not germane to the bill that was passed by the House, and I do not 
    think CBI is germane to the repeal of withholding.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In answer to the gentleman, by 
    unanimous consent the House, prior to sending the bill to 
    conference, joined both issues as a House amendment to the Senate 
    amendment, so there is no germaneness question. . . .
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Speaker, in other words, a unanimous-consent 
    request was offered on the floor of the House during a House 
    session to join both these issues and no one objected to that 
    unanimous-consent request?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.

Motion To Reject Nongermane Portion of Conference Report To Be Disposed 
    of Before Other Points of Order Allowed

Sec. 26.4 Pursuant to clause 4(b) of Rule XXVIII, where a point of 
    order against a portion of a conference report has been sustained 
    on the ground that it was not germane to the House-passed version, 
    the Speaker will not entertain another point of order against the 
    conference report or against another portion thereof until a motion 
    to reject the portion held nongermane, if made, has been disposed 
    of.

    The proceedings of Dec. 15, 1975, relating to the conference report 
on S. 622, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, are discussed in 
Sec. 26.15, infra.

Point of Order That Conferees Exceeded Scope of Matters Committed to 
    Them--Timeliness After Adoption of Motion To Reject and Recognition 
    for Motion To Recede and Concur With Amendment

Sec. 26.5 Once a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a conference 
    report has been adopted by the House pursu

[[Page 8428]]

    ant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII, a point of order against the entire 
    conference report under clause 3 of that rule comes too late if the 
    Speaker has recognized a Member to offer a motion to recede and 
    concur in the pending Senate amendment with an amendment consisting 
    of that portion of the conference report not rejected.

    Proceedings relating to consideration of the conference report on 
S. 622, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, are discussed in detail 
in Sec. 26.15, infra. After the motion discussed therein, to reject a 
nongermane portion of the conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII, 
clause 4, had been adopted, the following motion was made: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 40681, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 15, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Staggers moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the Senate amendments to the House amendment 
        and concur with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the 
        following:

        That this Act may be cited as the ``Energy Policy and 
    Conservation Act''

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

            Sec. 2. Statement of purposes.
            Sec. 3. Definitions. . . .

        Mr. Staggers [during the reading]: (11) Mr. Speaker, 
    I ask unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and 
    printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 40710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from West Virginia?. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reserving the right to object, several Members engaged in colloquy 
with the Speaker as to the parliamentary status of the motion, the 
effect of the prior rejection of the conference report, and the rules 
governing debate on the motion. John B. Anderson, of Illinois, 
indicated during the exchange (13) that he was prepared to 
make a point of order against a section of the bill on the ground that 
it was in violation of clause 3 of Rule XXVIII, in that it contained a 
proposition beyond the scope of the matters committed to the conference 
committee. Subsequently, the following inquiry raised the issue of the 
timeliness of such a point of order when the conference report had been 
rejected pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII and the Staggers motion to 
recede and concur with an amendment was pending:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 121 Cong. Rec. 40711, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker I have 
    asked the

[[Page 8429]]

    gentleman [Mr. John H. Rousselot, of California] to yield so that I 
    may make this parliamentary inquiry.
        Should the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot), who is 
    now maintaining a reservation of objection, formally object, would 
    it then be in order for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) 
    to make a point of order against the language presently in the 
    conference report which is under consideration on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) on the 
    basis of scope?
        The Speaker: It would not be in order.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, is that not in order under any 
    circumstances?
        The Speaker: Not at this point, the report has been rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A possible issue arising under Rule XXVIII, 
clause 4, is whether the point of order based on clause 3, that the 
conferees have exceeded the scope of the matters committed to them, may 
be made following the adoption, pursuant to clause 4, of the first 
motion to reject nongermane matter. Rule XXVIII, clause 4(d) states 
that ``if any such motion to reject has been adopted, after final 
disposition of all points of order and motions to reject under the 
preceding provisions of this clause, the conference report shall be 
considered as rejected and the question then pending before the House 
shall be whether to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an 
amendment which shall consist of that portion of the conference report 
not rejected.'' Thus, under the rule, there is a hiatus between the 
adoption of the first motion to reject and the final disposition of all 
other such motions, during which time one might consider the report as 
still technically before the House, and thus a point of order under 
clause 3 would be in order during that time. But while the report is 
not technically rejected until after the final disposition of further 
points of order, the rule states that the points of order in order at 
that time (after the adoption of the first motion to reject) are those 
made in order under the preceding provisions of the clause, those based 
on germaneness. Such an interpretation would preclude the point of 
order under clause 3 after adoption of the first motion to reject.

Debate on Motion To Reject Nongermane Portion of Conference Report

Sec. 26.6 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, 40 minutes for debate on a 
    motion to reject a nongermane portion of a conference report is 
    equally divided between the proponent and an opponent of the motion 
    to reject, and rec

[[Page 8430]]

    ognition is not based upon party affiliation; and the House 
    conferee who has been recognized for 20 minutes in opposition to a 
    motion to reject a nongermane portion of a conference report is 
    entitled to close debate on the motion to reject.

    H.R. 5247, a bill reported from the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, consisted of one title relating to grants to state and 
local governments for local public works construction projects. A new 
title added by the Senate and contained in a conference report provided 
grants to state and local governments to assist them in providing 
public services. On Jan. 29, 1976,(14) a point of order was 
made in the House, pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, against the title 
added by the Senate. The title was held to be not germane, because it 
proposed a revenue-sharing program within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Government Operations, and because the approach taken in 
the Senate version was not closely related to the methods used to 
combat unemployment as delineated in the House bill.(15) 
After the Speaker had ruled on the point of order, a motion was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. For further discussion of the ruling on the issue of germaneness, 
        see Sec. 4.99, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Brooks moves that the House reject title II of H.R. 
        5247, as reported by the committee of conference.

        The Speaker: (16) The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
    Jones) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Brooks) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Do 
    we have 20 minutes on the minority side?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the division of time is 
    between those in favor and those opposed to the motion to reject 
    title II. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Jones] has 20 minutes and 
    the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks] has 20 minutes.
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas, on behalf of Mr. Jones:] 
    Mr. Speaker, I have one other speaker, the majority leader. I do 
    not know what the courtesy is, or the appropriate protocol, in a 
    matter of this kind.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Wright] may close debate.

Sec. 26.7 The House conferee who has been recognized for 20

[[Page 8431]]

    minutes in opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane portion of 
    a conference report is entitled to close debate on the motion to 
    reject.

    The proceedings of June 23, 1976, relating to the conference report 
on S. 3201, to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act, are 
discussed in Sec. 26.23, infra.

After Rejection of Nongermane Portion of Conference Report--Motion To 
    Recede and Concur in Senate Amendment With Amendment Consisting of 
    Remainder of Conference Report

Sec. 26.8 Where the House agrees to a motion to reject a nongermane 
    portion of a conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, 
    the pending question, in the form of a motion offered by the 
    manager of the conference report, is to recede from disagreement to 
    the Senate amendment and concur with an amendment consisting of the 
    remaining portions of the conference report not rejected on the 
    separate vote, and one hour of debate, equally divided between the 
    majority and minority parties, is permitted on that pending 
    question.

    The proceedings of Dec. 12, 1979,(17) during 
consideration of H.R. 595 (18) in the House, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 35522, 35527, 35528, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. A bill authorizing the General Services Administration to dispose 
        of tin from the national stockpile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Mollohan [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 595) to authorize 
    the Administrator of General Services to dispose of 35,000 long 
    tons of tin in the national and supplemental stockpiles, to provide 
    for the deposit of moneys received from the sale of such tin, and 
    for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Larry] McDonald [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    matter contained in clause 3 of section 3 of the substitute for the 
    text of the bill recommended in the conference report would not be 
    germane to H.R. 595 under clause 7 of rule XVI if offered in the 
    House and is therefore subject to a point of order under clause 
    4(a) of rule XXVIII. . . .
        Mr. Mollohan: . . . I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.

[[Page 8432]]

        Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. McDonald moves, pursuant to the provisions of clause 
        4(b) of rule XXVIII, that the House reject clause 3 of section 
        3 of the substitute for the text of the bill recommended in the 
        conference report.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McDonald) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia 
    (Mr. Mollohan) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McDonald). 
    . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. McDonald].
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I object 
    to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    272, nays 122, not voting 39, as follows: . . .
        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. Mollohan: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mollohan moves pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII and 
        the actions of the House, that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the text of the 
        bill and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill insert the 
        following:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Strategic and Critical 
        Materials Transaction Authorization Act of 1979''.

            Sec. 2. There is authorized to be appropriated the sum of 
        $237,000,000 for the acquisition of strategic and critical 
        material under section 6(a) of the Strategic and Critical 
        Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98e). Before any 
        acquisition using funds appropriated under the authorization of 
        this section may be carried out, a list of the materials to be 
        acquired shall be submitted to the Committees on Armed Services 
        of the Senate and House of Representatives, and such 
        acquisition may not then be carried out until the end of the 
        60-day period beginning on the date such list is received by 
        such committees.
            Sec. 3. The President is hereby authorized to dispose of 
        materials determined to be excess to the current requirements 
        of the National Defense Stockpile in the following quantities:
            (1) 35,000 long tons of tin. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Mollohan) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Maine (Mr. Emery) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Mollohan).

Sec. 26.9 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, where the House adopts a 
    motion to reject a

[[Page 8433]]

    portion of a conference report containing a modification of a 
    nongermane Senate amendment, the conference report is considered as 
    rejected and the manager is recognized to offer a motion 
    (considered to be the pending question) to recede and concur in the 
    Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the remainder of 
    the conference report.

    The proceedings of Dec. 2, 1982, relating to rejection of matter 
found to be nongermane in the conference report on H.R. 2330 (the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorization), are discussed in more 
detail in Sec. Sec. 26.34 and 26.35, infra. The following exchange 
(20) occurred after adoption of the motion to reject a 
portion of the conference report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 128 Cong. Rec. 28552, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore [William H. Natcher, of Kentucky]: 
    Pursuant to clause 4, rule XXVIII, a motion to reject section 23 of 
    the conference report having been adopted, the conference report is 
    considered as rejected and the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Udall] 
    is recognized to offer an amendment consisting of the remainder of 
    the conference report.
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    clause 4, rule XXVIII, and the action of the House, I move that the 
    House recede from its disagreement and concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Udall moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        Senate amendment with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, insert the 
        following.

After Rejection of Nongermane Portion of Conference Report Originally 
    Contained in Senate Bill--Pending Motion To Insist Upon House 
    Amendment to Senate Bill

Sec. 26.10 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that under Rule XXVIII clause 4, the adoption by the House of a 
    motion to reject a nongermane portion of a conference report 
    originally contained in a Senate bill would require the House to 
    vote on a pending motion to insist upon the House amendment to the 
    Senate bill. [Note: Under that rule, the House cannot amend its own 
    amendment to a Senate bill.)

    The proceedings of June 23, 1976, relating to the conference report 
on S. 3201, to amend the Public Works and Economic De

[[Page 8434]]

velopment Act, are discussed in Sec. 26.23, infra.

Motion To Recede and Concur With Amendment--Point of Order Permitted 
    Under Rule XXVIII Against Portion of Motion Containing Senate 
    Amendment

Sec. 26.11 Pursuant to clause 5(b) of Rule XXVIII, a Member may make a 
    point of order against a portion of a motion to recede and concur 
    in a Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement, 
    with a further amendment, on the ground that that portion of the 
    Senate amendment contained in the motion was not germane to the 
    House-passed measure; and a motion rejecting that portion of the 
    motion to recede and concur with an amendment is in order if the 
    point of order is sustained.

    The proceedings of July 31, 1974, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 8217, to provide exemptions from tariff duty of certain 
equipment on United States vessels, are discussed in section 26.30, 
infra.

Point of Order Based on Nongermaneness of House Amendment to Senate 
    Amendment Should Be Under Rule XVI, Clause 7, Not Rule XXVIII

Sec. 26.12 Where a motion is made to concur in a Senate amendment with 
    an amendment, and such proposed House amendment contains new matter 
    and is not germane to the Senate amendment, any point of order 
    against the House amendment should be based on Rule XVI, clause 7, 
    rather than on Rule XXVIII, clauses 5(a) and 5(b), which permits 
    points of order against Senate matter (including Senate amendments 
    proposed to be amended by a motion to concur with an amendment); 
    thus, where a point of order is based on the contention that a 
    House amendment would not be germane to the Senate amendment, under 
    Rule XXVIII, the Chair may treat the point of order as having been 
    raised under Rule XVI, clause 7.

    On June 30, 1987,(21) during consideration of H.R. 1827 
(sup

[[Page 8435]]

plemental appropriations for fiscal year 1987), the motion described 
above was offered to the following amendment in disagreement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 133 Cong. Rec. 18294, 18295, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 5: Page 3, after line 7, insert:

                            Administrative Provision

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
        funds appropriated for fiscal year 1987 shall be used for the 
        purpose of granting any patent for vertebrate or invertebrate 
        animals, modified, altered, or in any way changed through 
        engineering technology, including genetic engineering.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the motion.
        The text of the motion is as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 5 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:

                      Economic Development Administration

                    economic development assistance programs

            Not to exceed $14,100,000 appropriated and available for 
        obligation and expenditure under section 108(a)(1) of Public 
        Law 99-190, as amended, shall remain available for obligation 
        through September 30, 1988: Provided, That the Economic 
        Development Administration shall close out the audits 
        concerning grants to New York, New York pursuant to title I of 
        the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        of 1976, not later than August 1, 1987.

                        Patent and Trademark Office

                           salarles and expenses

            None of the funds appropriated by this or any prior Act to 
        the Patent and Trademark Office shall be used to purchase the 
        mass storage requirement (PTO-10) portion of the U.S. Patent 
        and Trademark Office Automation Project. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against amendment No. 5 reported in disagreement of the 
    supplemental appropriation conference report on page 13 of the 
    report, and on page 3 lines 19 through 23 of the printed bill now 
    before us which relates to procurement by the U.S. Patent and Trade 
    Market Office automation project pursuant to rule XXVIII, clause 
    5(a)(1). This rule relates to nongermane matter in amendments in 
    disagreement.
        As I interpret it, the rule states that any matter introduced 
    as a new issue in a conference committee which would have been 
    otherwise ruled out of order if it came before the House, would 
    likewise be made eligible for a point of order as reported in 
    amendments in disagreement from the conference committee should 
    there be a motion from the House to recede from its disagreement 
    with the Senate.
        Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment introduced as new material in 
    the con

[[Page 8436]]

    ference committee would delay procurement funds for the Patent 
    Office for the purchase of mass storage requirement equipment. The 
    purchase is part of the overall automation of the U.S. Patent 
    Office and I urge my point of order be sustained.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
    Frenzel] is raising a point of order against the motion, is that 
    correct, as being not germane to the Senate amendment under rule 
    XVI, clause 7?
        Mr. Frenzel: Yes, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] 
    concedes the point of order and the point of order is sustained 
    against the motion.

Rejection of Previous Question on Special Rule Waiving Points of Order 
    Against Conference Report--Amendment Permitting Motion To Reject 
    Nongermane Portion and Allowing an Amendment Adding Language of 
    Original Nongermane Senate Amendment

Sec. 26.13 The House rejected the previous question on a special rule 
    which waived all points of order against a conference report, thus 
    permitting an amendment allowing a point of order against, and 
    motion to reject, a nongermane portion therein, and, upon adoption 
    of the motion to reject, a motion to amend that portion of the 
    conference report not rejected by adding the language of the 
    original nongermane Senate amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 5 (2) in the House on Apr. 
19, 1988,(3) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Communications Act 
        amendments.
 3. 134 Cong. Rec. 7345, 7346, 7354, 7355, 7484, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Martin] Frost [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 427 and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 427

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider the conference report on the bill 
        (H.R. 5) to improve elementary and secondary education, and all 
        points of order against the conference report and against its 
        consideration are hereby waived, and the conference report 
        shall be considered as having been read when called up for 
        consideration. A motion to recommit the conference report may 
        not contain instructions.
            Sec. 2. 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

[[Page 8437]]

        House on the State of the Union for the consideration of a bill 
        containing the text printed in section three of this 
        resolution, and the first reading of the bill shall be 
        dispensed with. After general debate, which shall be confined 
        to the bill and which shall not exceed thirty minutes, equally 
        divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, the bill 
        shall be considered as having been read for amendment under the 
        five-minute rule. No amendment to the bill shall be in order in 
        the House or in the Committee of the Whole. At the conclusion 
        of the consideration of the bill, the Committee shall rise and 
        report the bill to the House, and the previous question shall 
        be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to commit, which may not 
        contain instructions.

    Subsequently, the previous question was moved, but upon a vote the 
motion was rejected.

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Lott: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: ``That upon the adoption of this 
        resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference 
        report on the bill (H.R. 5) to improve elementary and secondary 
        education, and all points of order against the conference 
        report and against its consideration, except as provided by 
        section 2 of this resolution are hereby waived, and the 
        conference report shall be considered as having been read when 
        called up for consideration.
            ``Sec. 2. It shall be in order pursuant to clause 4 of rule 
        XXVIII of the Rules of the House to raise a point of order 
        against sec. 6101 of the conference report. If, pursuant to 
        such clause, the point of order is sustained and the section is 
        then rejected by a vote of the House, it shall immediately be 
        in order, without intervening motion, for any Member to offer a 
        preferential motion to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
        H.R. 5, together with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
        recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment 
        which shall consist of the text of that portion of the 
        conference report not rejected together with the text of sec. 
        7003 of said Senate amendment as a substitute for sec. 6101 of 
        the conference report as rejected by the House, said motion 
        shall be considered as having been read, and all points of 
        order against said motion are hereby waived.''. . . .

        Mr. Lott: . . . I would like to urge the adoption of this 
    substitute rule which would provide for the consideration of the 
    ban on dial-a-porn language in the conference report and also, of 
    course, the conference report on H.R. 5, the education bill. . . . 
    Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute and the resolution.
        The Speaker: (4) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The queston is on the resolution, as amended.
        The resolution, as amended, was agreed to. . . .

[[Page 8438]]

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Bliley [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, 
    pursuant to the rule just adopted and clause 4 of rule XXVIII, I 
    make a point of order against section 6101 of the conference 
    report, and ask to be heard on my point of order.
        [There was no argument on the point of order, as the Speaker 
    ruled immediately as follows:)
        The Speaker: The gentleman's point of order is well-taken, the 
    modification of the Senate provision in question is not germane to 
    the bill as passed by the House. The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Bliley: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bliley moves pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVIII and 
        House Resolution 427 as adopted by the House that the House do 
        now reject section 6101 of the conference report on the bill 
        H.R. 5. . . .

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. Bliley: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bliley moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
        H.R. 5 together with the Senate amendment thereto, and recede 
        and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting 
        of the text of that portion of the conference report on the 
        bill H.R. 5 not rejected by the House together with the text of 
        section 7003 of the Senate amendment in place of section 6101 
        as rejected by the House, as follows: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the 
        following:
        Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.

            (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Augustus 
        F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School 
        Improvement Amendments of 1988''.
            (b) Table of Contents.--. . .

                       PART B--PROHIBITION OF DIAL-A-PORN
        Sec. 6101. Amendment to the Communications Act of 1934.

            Section 223(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended
            (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking out ``under eighteen 
        years of age or to any other person without that person's 
        consent''; . . .

        Mr. Bliley: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) that the 
    House recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment 
    consisting of the text of that portion of the conference report on 
    the bill H.R. 5 not rejected by the House together with the text of 
    section 7003 of the Senate amendment in place of section 6101 as 
    rejected by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Bliley: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 8439]]

        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas 
    397, nays 1, not voting 34.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Lott's amendment to the special rule 
was necessary if the measures affecting education and communications 
issues respectively were to be combined in one measure for 
consideration. Otherwise, upon rejection of the nongermane portions on 
a separate vote under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, the pending question would 
have been whether to concur with an amendment not including the 
nongermane communications portion.

Amendment Regulating Telephone Communications Not Germane to Education 
    Bill

Sec. 26.14 To a bill relating to education, an amendment regulating 
    telephone communications within the jurisdiction of another 
    committee is not germane.

    The proceedings of Apr. 19, 1988, relating to H.R. 5 (the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act), are discussed in Sec. 26.13, 
supra.

Bill Imposing Fuel Economy Standards on Manufacturers--Amendment To 
    Provide Loan Guarantees for Automotive Research and Development

Sec. 26.15 To a title of a House-passed bill reported from the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce containing a program 
    to improve automotive fuel efficiency by imposing fuel economy 
    standards upon manufacturers, a modified portion of a Senate 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute contained in a conference 
    report providing loan guarantees for automotive research and 
    development (a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Science and Technology) was conceded to be nongermane, and a motion 
    was agreed to pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4 rejecting that 
    portion of the conference report.

    On Dec. 15, 1975,(6) during consideration of the 
conference report on S. 622 (the Energy Policy and Conservation Act) in 
the House,

[[Page 8440]]

the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 40671, 40676, 40677, 40680, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 622) to 
    increase domestic energy supplies and availability; to restrain 
    energy demand; to prepare for energy emergencies; and for other 
    purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report. . . .
        Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order to that part of section 301 which adds to the new 
    motor vehicle improvements and cost saving account a new title V, 
    part B, entitled ``Application Advanced Automotive Technology.''
        My point of order is that it is nongermane, pursuant to clause 
    4, rule XXVIII.

        Part B of title V was not in the House bill, as passed in H.R. 
    7014, but it was in the Senate version and it is in the conference 
    report.
        If the section had been offered as an amendment on the House 
    floor, it would have been subject to a point of order as 
    nongermane. Hence, it is subject to a nongermaneness point of order 
    now under rule XXVIII, clause 4.
        May I point out to the Speaker that the automotive R & D part 
    of title V is wholly unrelated to the oil pricing and conservation 
    thrust of the bill. Besides, the Science and Technology Committee 
    has jurisdiction of all nonnuclear energy R. & D. matters, and this 
    is an R. & D. incentive program which clearly falls in that 
    jurisdiction.
        The original Senate version of section 546 was contained in 
    title II of the Senate bill (S. 1883). H.R. 9174 was introduced on 
    July 31, 1975, by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McCormack) and 
    was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology. H.R. 9174 
    basically included all of title II of the Senate bill (S. 1883), 
    specifically the loan guarantee provision. The committee 
    jurisdiction was positively established by that referral.
        Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I think that 
    this is not a good point of order, but out of grace and in order to 
    give the House a chance to vote on this as an orderly procedure--I 
    protested the disorderly procedure with the ERDA bill which was 
    before us--but in order to have orderly procedure I will not 
    contest the point of order, and I do not think my good friend from 
    West Virginia, the chairman of the committee (Mr. Staggers) will 
    contest it. Under those circumstances, I think it is appropriate 
    for the Chair to rule on the point of order with regard to 
    germaneness in order that we may proceed. . . .
        The Speaker: The point of order is conceded and sustained.
        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, may I reserve the 
    right to make a point of order? I am going to make a point of order 
    against the whole conference report.
        The Speaker: (7) That would come later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Teague: But the Speaker will reserve my right?
        The Speaker: Could the Chair make himself clear to the 
    gentleman? That

[[Page 8441]]

    might depend upon the outcome of the motion the gentleman from 
    California will make.
        Mr. Dingell: I think the gentleman wants to be heard; he 
    desires to be heard.
        I ask unanimous consent that he be heard at this time on the 
    point of order. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair has no authority to hear arguments on 
    matters not related to the point of order made by the gentleman. If 
    the gentleman from California makes a motion, the business which 
    transpires after the motion made by the gentleman will determine 
    whether certain other points of order will be in order. . . .
        Mr. Goldwater: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Goldwater moves that part B, title V in section 301 of 
        S. 622 be rejected.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) is 
    recognized for 20 minutes and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers) is recognized for 20 minutes.

    The motion was agreed to.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 40681, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Bill Providing for Disposal of Tin From National Stockpile--
    Amendment Providing for Disposal of Silver

Sec. 26.16 To a House bill providing for the disposal of tin from the 
    national stockpile, a Senate amendment included in the conference 
    report providing for the disposal of silver from the stockpile was 
    conceded to be nongermane and held to be subject to a motion to 
    reject under Rule XXVIII clause 4.

    The proceedings of Dec. 12, 1979, relating to H.R. 595, authorizing 
the Administrator of General Services to dispose of tin from the 
national stockpile, are discussed in Sec. 26.8, supra.

Bill Amending Internal Revenue Code To Provide Tax Credits--Amendment 
    Regarding Tax Credits for Home Purchases

Sec. 26.17 To a House bill containing several sections amending diverse 
    portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and 
    business tax credits, that part of a Senate amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute which added a new section relating to tax credits 
    for new home purchases and amended a portion of the law amended by 
    the House bill was held to be germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(9) it was demonstrated that the test 
of the ger

[[Page 8442]]

maneness of a portion of a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
substitute adding a new section to a House bill is the relationship of 
that section to the subject of the House bill as a whole. The 
proceedings during consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2166, 
the Tax Reduction Act of 1975, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 8900, 8902, 8930, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)

        The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
    Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2166) to 
    amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for a refund of 
    1974 individual income taxes, to increase the low income allowance 
    and the percentage standard deduction, to provide a credit for 
    certain earned income, to increase the investment credit and the 
    surtax exemption, and for other purposes, having met, after full 
    and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
    their respective Houses as follows:
        That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of 
    the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In 
    lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment 
    insert the following: . . .

           TITLE II--REDUCTIONS IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES . . .

        Sec. 208. Credit for purchase of new principal residence. . . .

    TITLE VI--TAXATION OF FOREIGN OIL AND GAS INCOME AND OTHER FOREIGN 
                                INCOME . . .

        Sec. 602. Taxation of earnings and profits of controlled 
    foreign corporations and their shareholders. . . .

                    TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

        Sec. 701. Certain unemployment compensation.
        Sec. 702. Special payment to recipients of benefits under 
    certain retirement and survivor benefit programs. . . .
    Sec. 208. Credit for Purchase of New Principal Residence

        (a) Allowance of Credit.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A 
    of chapter 1 (relating to credits allowed) is amended by 
    redesignating section 44 as section 45 and by inserting after 
    section 43 the following new section:
    ``Sec. 44. Purchase of New Principal Residence.

        ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual there is 
    allowed, as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for 
    the taxable year, an amount equal to 5 percent of the purchase 
    price of a new principal residence purchased or constructed by the 
    taxpayer. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the conference report on the ground it 
    contains matter which is in violation of . . . clause 7, of rule 
    XVI. The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is that 
    section of the report dealing with the tax credit on sales of new 
    homes. It ap

[[Page 8443]]

    pears in section 208 of the conference report, on page 14, as 
    reported by the Committee on Conference. . . .
        [A] careful scrutiny of the titles of the House bill, as it was 
    sent to the Senate, shows many types of tax measures, but nothing 
    relating to the sale of homes. This clearly is an addition of a 
    very divergent nature to the bill and deals with the nonbusiness 
    and nonpersonal type of credit. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak 
    against the point of order.
        Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad bill. It was a broadly based 
    bill when it left this House to go to the other body. It has many 
    diverse sections and many different kinds of tax treatments. It 
    does deal with tax credits. It did deal with tax credits when it 
    left the House, both for individuals and for corporations.
        Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this falls totally within the 
    purview of the bill as we passed it in the House and should be 
    considered germane to the bill.
        The Speaker: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) makes the point of 
    order against section 208 of the conference report on the bill H.R. 
    2166 on the ground that it would not have been germane to H.R. 2166 
    as passed by the House and is thus subject to the provisions of 
    clause 4, rule XXVIII.
        In passing upon any point of order against a portion of the 
    Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute which the conferees 
    have incorporated in their report, the Chair feels it is important 
    to initially characterize the bill H.R. 2166 in the form as passed 
    by the House. The House-passed bill contained four diverse titles, 
    and contained amendments to diverse portions of the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954. Title I of the House bill provided a refund 
    of 1974 individual income taxes. Title II provided for reductions, 
    including credits, in individual income taxes. Title III made 
    several changes in business taxes, and title IV further affected 
    business taxes by providing for the repeal of the percentage 
    depletion for oil and gas.
        The Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute contained 
    provisions comparable to all four titles in the House-passed bill, 
    and also contained a new title IV amending other portions of the 
    Internal Revenue Code, making further amendments to the code with 
    respect to tax changes affecting individuals and businesses, and a 
    new title VI and title VII, relating to taxation of foreign and 
    domestic oil and gas income and related income, and to the tax 
    deferment and reinvestment period extension, respectively. The 
    provision against which the gentleman makes the point of order was 
    contained in section 205 of title II of the Senate amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Chair would call the attention of the House to the 
    precedent contained in Cannon's VIII, section 3042, wherein the 
    Committee of the Whole ruled that to a bill raising revenue by 
    several diverse methods of taxation . . . an amendment in the form 
    of a new section proposing an additional method of taxation--a tax 
    on the undistributed profits of corporations--was held ger

[[Page 8444]]

    mane. The Chair would emphasize that the portion of the Senate 
    amendment included in the conference report against which the point 
    of order has been made was in the form of a new section to the 
    House bill, and was not an amendment to a specific section of the 
    House bill. As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, 
    section 14.4, the test of germaneness in such a situation is the 
    relationship between the new section or title and the subject 
    matter of the bill as a whole.
        The Chair would also point out that section 203 of the House 
    bill, on page 10, amends the same portion of the code which this 
    part of the conference report would amend.
        For these reasons, the Chair holds that section 208 of the 
    conference report is germane to the House-passed bill and overrules 
    the point of order.

Amendment Authorizing Payments to Social Security Recipients

Sec. 26.18 To a House bill containing several diverse amendments to the 
    Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and business tax 
    credits, that part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute contained in a conference report which authorized 
    appropriations for special payments to social security recipients 
    was deemed not to be related to tax benefit provisions in the 
    Internal Revenue Code and was held to be not germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(11) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 2166,(12) it was held that to a 
proposition seeking to reduce tax liabilities of individuals and 
businesses by providing diverse tax credits within the Internal Revenue 
Code, an amendment to provide rebates to recipients under retirement 
and survivor benefit programs was not germane. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 8911, 8912, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Tax Reduction Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        (a) Payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, at the 
    earliest practicable date after the enactment of this Act, make a 
    $50 payment to each individual, who for the month of March, 1975, 
    was entitled . . . to--
        (1) a monthly insurance benefit payable under title II of the 
    Social Security Act,
        (2) a monthly annuity or pension payment under the Railroad 
    Retirement Act of 1935, the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, or the 
    Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, or
        (3) a benefit under the supplemental security income benefits 
    program established by title XVI of the Social Security Act; . . .
        (c) Coordination With Other Federal Programs.--Any payment made

[[Page 8445]]

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

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

        Therefore, in a broadly based bill such as this kind, where 
    various kinds of rebates are passed along to different segments of 
    the public, it seems to me that this is perfectly within the scope 
    of the bill and should be determined germane to the bill. . . .
        The Speaker: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title V of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    ``Miscellaneous Provisions'' contained sections which did not amend 
    the Internal Revenue Code and which could not be considered germane 
    to any portion of the House-passed bill or the bill as a whole. 
    Specifically, section 501 of the Senate amendment providing a 
    special payment to recipients of benefits under certain retirement 
    and survivor benefit programs, a modification of which was 
    incorporated into section 702 of the conference report, is not 
    germane to the House-passed bill. That provision is not related to 
    the Internal Revenue Code and would provide an authorization of 
    appropriations from the Treasury.
        For this reason, the Chair holds that the section 702 of the 
    conference report is not germane to the House bill and sustains the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Conable: Mr. Speaker, I move the House reject the 
    nongermane amendment covered by my point of order.

[[Page 8446]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 20 
    minutes in support of his motion.

--Amendment To Provide Unemployment Benefits

Sec. 26.19 To a House bill amending diverse portions of the Internal 
    Revenue Code to provide individual and business tax credits, a 
    portion of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    contained in a conference report providing certain unemployment 
    compensation benefits--a matter not within the class of tax 
    benefits contained in the House bill--was conceded to be not 
    germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(14) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 2166,(15) a point of order against 
a Senate matter in the report was conceded and held to be not germane. 
The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 8911, 8933, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The Tax Reduction Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

                Sec. 701. Certain Unemployment Compensation.

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

[[Page 8447]]

    against the conference report on the ground that it contains matter 
    which is in violation of the provisions of clause 7 of rule XVI. 
    The nongermane matter that I am specifically referring to is that 
    section of the report dealing with section 701, providing certain 
    unemployment compensation benefits. . . .
        I have looked over the House bill, and I can find no reference 
    therein to unemployment compensation benefits. As nearly as I can 
    figure it, this particular section came from a Senate nongermane 
    amendment and has no relation whatsoever to anything that was 
    contained in the House bill.
        I, therefore, say the point of order should be sustained.
        The Speaker: (16) Does the gentleman from Oregon 
    desire to be heard upon the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance, although a point of order 
against the nongermane Senate matter contained in the conference report 
was sustained, no motion was made under Rule XXVIII clause 4 to reject 
that matter.

--Amendment Affecting Certain Foreign Tax Credits

Sec. 26.20 To a House bill containing several sections amending diverse 
    portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide certain individual 
    and business tax credits, a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute contained in a conference report, which added a new 
    section to the House bill and which dealt with earnings and profits 
    of controlled foreign corporations and included limitations on the 
    use of foreign tax credits from foreign oil-related income, was 
    held germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(17) the House had under consideration 
the conference report on H.R. 2166, the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. A 
point of order, raised against language in the report on grounds of 
nongermaneness, was overruled as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 8909, 8915, 8933, 8934, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 8448]]

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

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

        House bill.--No provision.
        Senate amendment.--The Senate amendment repeals the foreign tax 
    credit on all foreign oil-related income and allows any taxes on 
    that income as a deduction. The amendment also provides that 
    foreign oil-related income is to be taxed at a 24-percent rate.
        Conference substitute.--The conference substitute modifies the 
    Senate amendment and applies a strict limitation on the use of 
    foreign tax credits from foreign oil extraction income and foreign 
    oil-related income. . . .
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the conference report on the ground that it 
    contains matter which is in violation of the provisions of clause 7 
    of rule XVI. The nongermane matter that I am specifically referring 
    to is that section of the report dealing with taxation of earnings 
    and profits of controlled foreign corporations and their 
    shareholders in section 602 as reported by the committee of 
    conference. . . .
        As the Speaker well knows, I am sure, from listening carefully 
    to the explanations regarding previous points of order, at no point 
    during the consideration of the House-passed bill is there any 
    mention of foreign taxation and the dealings of foreign taxes 
    insofar as American corporations and their subsidiaries are 
    concerned.
        Title I of the 1975 tax bill dealt with the refund for 1974 
    taxes. Title II dealt with reductions in individual income taxes. 
    Title III dealt with certain changes in business taxes, the title 
    which dealt with the investment tax credit or income tax total, 
    particularly as related to small businesses.
        This particular provision, Mr. Speaker, in no way deals with a 
    matter that was covered, mentioned, or dealt with by the bill that 
    is presented to the House, or voted upon by the House. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Speaker, the bill that 
    the House passed had a great many diverse sections in it; it had 
    credits. The matter that has been raised is an amendment to the 
    Internal Revenue Code very clearly, and much of it is in the way of 
    a credit. We have dealt with credits here both for individuals and 
    for corporations in the bill that the House passed.
        It seems to me that in a bill of this scope and in a bill that 
    deals as broadly with tax credits and matters such as this that 
    does involve an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code, it is

[[Page 8449]]

    very clearly within the province of the bill, and should be ruled 
    germane.
        The Speaker: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.  Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Bill Relating to Boating Safety--Amendment to Internal Revenue Code To 
    Promote Reforestation

Sec. 26.21 A point of order pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, that a 
    conference report on a House bill relating to boating safety, 
    reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
    contained a nongermane Senate amendment amending the Internal 
    Revenue Code to promote reforestation, was conceded and sustained.

    On Sept. 25, 1980,(19) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the conference report on H.R. 4310, the 
Recreational Boating Safety and Facilities Improvement Act of 1980. The 
conference report stated in part: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 126 Cong. Rec. 27410, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 25572, 25574, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 16, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Conference Report (H. Report No. 96-132)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        4310) to amend the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 to improve 
        recreational boating safety and facilities through the 
        development, administration, and financing of a national 
        recreational boating safety and facilities improvement program, 
        and for other purposes, having met, after full and free 
        conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
        respective Houses as follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill and agree to 
        the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the 
        following:

        TITLE I--RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY AND FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT

            Sec. 101. This title may be cited as the ``Recreational 
        Boating Safety and Facilities Improvement Act of 1980.''
            Sec. 102. The Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 (Public Law 
        92-75, 85 Stat. 213), as amended, is amended as follows:
            (1) In section 2 by striking the first sentence and 
        inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``It is declared to be 
        the policy of Congress and the purpose of this Act to improve 
        recreational boating safety and facilities and to foster 
        greater development, use, and enjoyment of all the waters of 
        the United States by encouraging and assisting participation by 
        the several States, the boating industry, and the boating 
        public in the development, administration, and financing of a 
        national recreational boating safety and facilities improvement 
        program; by authorizing the establishment of national 
        construction

[[Page 8450]]

        and performance standards for boats and associated equipment; 
        and by creating more flexible authority governing the use of 
        boats and equipment.'' . . .

                            TITLE III--REFORESTATION
        Sec. 301. Amortization of Reforestation Expenditures.

            (a) In General.--Part VI of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
        the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to itemized 
        deductions for individuals and corporations) is amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following new section:
        ``Sec. 194. Amortization of Reforestation Expenditures.

            ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--In the case of any qualified 
        timber property with respect to which the taxpayer has made (in 
        accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary) an 
        election under this subsection, the taxpayer shall be entitled 
        to a deduction with respect to the amortization of the 
        amortizable basis of qualified timber property based on a 
        period of 84 months. Such amortization deduction shall be an 
        amount, with respect to each month of such period within the 
        taxable year, equal to the amortizable basis at the end of such 
        month divided by the number of months (including the month for 
        which the deduction is computed) remaining in the period. Such 
        amortizable basis at the end of the month shall be computed 
        without regard to the amortization deduction for such month. 
        The 84-month period shall begin on the first day of the first 
        month of the second half of the taxable year in which the 
        amortizable basis is acquired. . . .
            ``(c) Definitions and Special Rule.--For purposes of this 
        section--
            ``(1) Qualified timber property.--The term `qualified 
        timber property' means a woodlot or other site located in the 
        United States which will contain trees in significant 
        commercial quantities and which is held by the taxpayer for the 
        planting, cultivating, caring for, and cutting of trees for 
        sale or use in the commercial production of timber products.

    The proceedings on Sept. 25, 1980, were as follows:

        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 4310) to amend the Federal Boat 
    Safety Act of 1971 to improve recreational boating safety and 
    facilities through the development, administration, and financing 
    of a national recreational boating safety and facilities 
    improvement program, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Under the rule, the 
    conference report is considered as read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order under clause 4 of rule XXVIII that title III of the 
    conference report accompanying H.R. 4310 is a nongermane amendment.
        Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4310, as it passed the House, related to 
    boating safety. It did not amend the Internal Revenue Code. Title 
    III now in the conference report relates to a trust fund for 
    reforestation and contains a significant amendment to the Internal 
    Revenue Code. It would have been nongermane to H.R. 4310 when that 
    bill was originally considered by the House.
        The purpose of the bill before us is to amend the Federal Boat 
    Safety Act to improve recreational boating safety

[[Page 8451]]

    and facilities through the development and financing of a national 
    improvement program. Title III provides several Federal initiatives 
    to promote reforestation on both private and public timberlands by 
    providing an amortization schedule and investment credit for a 
    limited amount of qualifying reforestation expenditures each year, 
    as well as the establishment of a trust fund to finance the 
    reforestation activities.
        There should be no question that title III is nongermane to the 
    purposes of the bill. It has been a long established principle of 
    germaneness that--

            An amendment changing existing law in order to achieve one 
        individual purpose is not germane to a proposition which does 
        not amend that law and which seeks to accomplish another 
        individual purpose. (Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28)

        This is exactly the case before us today. In general the bill 
    would amend the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 whereas title III 
    would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. There is 
    no relationship or similarity of purpose between boat safety and 
    reforestation, except that some boats are made of wood. I contend, 
    Mr. Speaker, that title III should be ruled nongermane and 
    considered in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI. . . .
        Mr. Biaggi: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Frenzel moves that the House reject title III of the 
        conference report accompanying H.R. 4310.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
    Frenzel) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Biaggi) will be recognized for 20 minutes.

Grants to States for Local Public Works Construction Projects--Grants 
    To Assist States in Providing Public Services

Sec. 26.22 Where a House bill reported from the Committee on Public 
    Works and Transportation consisted of one title relating to grants 
    to state and local governments for local public works construction 
    projects, a new title added by the Senate and contained in a 
    conference report providing grants to state and local governments 
    to assist them in providing public services was held not germane to 
    the House bill as proposing a revenue sharing program within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations and as using 
    an approach not closely related to that (public works construction) 
    contained in the House version.

    On Jan. 29, 1976,(2) during consideration of the 
conference report

[[Page 8452]]

on H.R. 5247,(3) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, held that 
a title added by the Senate in the conference report was not germane to 
the House bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones, Jr. of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5247) to authorize a local 
    public works capital development and investment program, and ask 
    unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in 
    lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order that title II of the conference report to H.R. 5247 
    constitutes a nongermane Senate amendment to the House-passed bill 
    and is in violation of clause 4 of rule XXVIII of the House rules. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 5247 was before the House in May, it was 
    for the sole purpose of authorizing appropriations for the 
    construction of public works projects to help alleviate 
    unemployment. Along with 312 other Members of the House, I 
    supported that legislation.
        However, when the bill was before the Senate, title II, an 
    entirely different and unrelated matter, was added. Title II is not 
    a public works provision. Title II simply authorizes appropriations 
    for the basic day-to-day support of the budgets of State and local 
    governments. It is, in short, a revenue sharing provision.
        Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, must have recognized this as 
    revenue sharing legislation when you referred identical legislation 
    introduced in the House exclusively to the Government Operations 
    Committee. Title II clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the 
    Government Operations Committee, not the Public Works Committee.
        Even in the Senate, this provision came out of the Government 
    Operations Committee, not the Public Works Committee. Perhaps if 
    the Senate had a rule on germaneness as we do, we would not be 
    facing this problem right now.
        Had title II been offered in the House when this bill was 
    before us on the floor, it would clearly have been subject to a 
    point of order as nongermane under clause 7 of rule XVI. It, 
    therefore, continues to be nongermane under clause 4 of House rule 
    XXVIII dealing with conference reports.
        Mr. Speaker, I recognize that committee jurisdiction is not the 
    exclusive test of germaneness. I do not base my point of order on 
    this issue alone. This provision simply has nothing to do with 
    public works, the only matter which was before the House in H.R. 
    5247. To the contrary, the use of title II funds for construction 
    purposes is specifically prohibited. Furthermore, there is not one 
    word in title II to guarantee that the funds will be used to 
    stimulate employment, the primary purpose of H.R. 5247.
        Mr. Speaker, title II does not come within the jurisdiction of 
    the Public Works Committee. It does not constitute public works or 
    emergency employment legislation, and it could not have been 
    incorporated into the bill

[[Page 8453]]

    when it was previously before the House. For these reasons, I 
    respectfully request that my point of order be sustained. . . .
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: . . . There has been a 
    certain confusion presented here, and that is in the meaning of the 
    rule which this House passed and which my esteemed chairman, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) referred to. Clause 4, rule 
    XXVIII, was passed by this House in 1970 and 1972. This procedure 
    which the House adopted in 1972 was intended to do away with the 
    situation wherein the Senate . . . attached to a House-passed bill 
    matter that was wholly unrelated to the subject on which the House 
    had acted. . . .
        The bill as reported from the conference does not contain 
    provisions whose subject and substance is different. Title I of the 
    conference report version is almost identical with the House-passed 
    bill. Title II, upon which there is now brought a question of a 
    separate vote, is the conference version and is also directed, as 
    is title I, to the question of assistance in unemployment, and is 
    so aimed at correcting it at the local level. . . . The allocation 
    of funds is dependent on the extent to which unemployment in any 
    area exceeds the national average, so that both the public works, 
    title I, and title II, countercyclical assistance, have the same, 
    identical goal. That is, to ease the current recession. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: . . . The 
    fundamental method used in the original bill to stimulate the 
    economy is to provide for the construction of public works 
    projects. The methods used in the amendment provide for the 
    stabilization of budgets of general purpose governments, the 
    maintenance of basic services ordinarily provided by the State and 
    local governments, emergency support grants to State and local 
    governments to coordinate budget-related actions with the Federal 
    Government. Clearly, the methods provided for in the Senate 
    amendment are on their face so different from those in the House 
    bill as to preclude their being considered as the same or closely 
    allied. For this reason, then, the amendment is in violation of 
    clause 4, rule XVI.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) makes the point of order 
    that title II of the conference report, which was contained in the 
    Senate amendment to H.R. 5247, would not have been germane if 
    offered as an amendment in the House and is thus subject to a point 
    of order under rule XXVIII, clause 4.
        The test of germaneness in this case is the relationship 
    between title II of the conference report and the provisions of 
    H.R. 5247 as it passed the House. The Chair believes that had title 
    II been offered as an amendment in the House it would have been 
    subject to a point of order on two grounds.
        First, one of the requirements of germaneness is that an 
    amendment must relate to the fundamental purpose of the matter 
    under consideration and must seek to accomplish the result of the 
    proposed legislation by a closely related means--Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 28, sections 5 and 6. The fundamental purpose of 
    the bill when considered by the House was to combat

[[Page 8454]]

    unemployment by stimulating activity in the construction industry 
    through grants to States and local governments to be used for the 
    construction of local public works projects.
        While the fundamental purpose of title II of the conference 
    report is related to the economic problems caused by the recession, 
    specifically unemployment, the means proposed to alleviate that 
    problem are not confined to public works construction. Title II 
    authorizes grants to States and local governments to pay for 
    governmental services such as police and fire protection, trash 
    collection and public education. The managers, in their joint 
    statement, specifically state that the grants under title II are 
    for the ``maintenance of basic services ordinarily provided by the 
    State and local governments and that State and local governments 
    shall not use funds received under the act for the acquisition of 
    supplies or for construction unless essential to maintain basic 
    services.'' An additional purpose of this title is to reduce the 
    necessity of increases in State and local government taxes which 
    would have a negative effect on the national economy and offset 
    reductions in Federal taxes designed to stimulate the economy. The 
    Chair therefore finds that the program proposed by title II of the 
    report is not closely related to the method suggested in the House 
    version of the bill.
        Second, title II of the report proposes a revenue sharing 
    approach to the problems faced by State and local governments 
    during the present recession. General revenue sharing is a matter 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations 
    under rule X, clause 1(h)(4), and a bill, H.R. 6416, in many 
    respects identical to title II of the report, was introduced in the 
    House on April 28, 1975, and referred to that committee. While 
    committee jurisdiction is not the exclusive test of germaneness--
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 4.16--it is a relevant 
    test where, as here, the scope of the House bill is within one 
    committee's jurisdiction. The precedents indicate that as a bill 
    becomes more comprehensive in scope the relevance of the test is 
    correspondingly reduced. The bill, as it passed the House, was not 
    a comprehensive antirecession measure overlapping other committees' 
    jurisdictions, but proposed a specific remedy, local public works 
    construction assistance, to a complex problem. Given the limited 
    scope of the bill as it passed the House, the Chair finds the 
    jurisdiction test quite persuasive in this instance.
        For the reasons just stated, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 26.23 Where a House amendment reported from the Committee on 
    Public Works and Transportation consisted of one title relating to 
    grants to state and local governments for local public works 
    construction projects, a new title contained in the Senate bill and 
    in the conference report providing grants to state and local 
    governments to assist them in providing public services was held 
    not germane to the House amendment, as proposing a revenue-sharing 
    program within

[[Page 8455]]

    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations, and not 
    closely related to the public works construction provisions 
    contained in the House version.

    During consideration of the conference report on S. 3201 
(4) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that 
to be germane, an amendment must not only seek to accomplish the same 
result as the matter proposed to be amended but must contemplate a 
method of achieving that end which is closely related to the method 
contained in the proposition to which offered. The proceedings of June 
23, 1976,(5) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. A bill to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act.
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 20020-29, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 3201) to amend the 
    Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, to increase the 
    antirecessionary effectiveness of the program, and for other 
    purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order that title II of the conference report constitutes a 
    nongermane Senate provision to the House-passed version of the 
    bill, in violation of rule XXVIII, clause 4. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, we are in the identical position we were in last 
    January when a House-passed bill authorizing grants for public 
    works construction projects was brought back to the House 
    containing a Senate amendment that established an entirely new 
    program of Federal assistance to State and local governments.
        The Chair will recall that at that time I raised the same point 
    of order and the Chair sustained it on two grounds: First, that the 
    program proposed in title II did not relate sufficiently to the 
    fundamental purpose of the House-passed bill; and second, that 
    title II proposes a revenue-sharing program which is within the 
    jurisdiction of the Government Operations Committee.
        Mr. Speaker, we have precisely the same situation here. The 
    House has passed H.R. 12972, providing solely for the construction 
    of public works projects to help cut unemployment. The Senate added 
    a provision for grants to State and local governments to pay for 
    basic governmental services, and that provision has been brought 
    back again as title II of the conference report.
        Title II is still a form of revenue sharing and clearly not 
    germane to the subject matter of H.R. 12972. Also, it is not within 
    the jurisdiction of the Public Works and Transportation Committee. 
    . . .
        Mr. Jones of Alabama: . . . Mr. Speaker, this proposition has 
    been resolved before. We concede the point of order.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
    Jones) concedes the

[[Page 8456]]

    point of order. The point of order is sustained. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Brooks moves the House reject title II of S. 3201 as 
        reported by the Committee of Conference.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) is 
    recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Brooks) has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Wright) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Wright) has the right to close debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that in the event that 
    title II would be voted down, the recourse for the House would be 
    to send this bill, as amended, back to the Senate, and they could 
    then appoint another conference committee and we could proceed with 
    the bill and pass the bill without even having to get it vetoed?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the House 
    could insist upon its amendment and return the bill to the Senate.

House Bill Authorizing Funds for States To Create Public Works Jobs--
    Amendment Mandating Expenditure of Previously Appropriated Funds 
    Deferred Under Impoundment Control Act

Sec. 26.24 In a conference report on a House bill (originally reported 
    from the Committee on Public Works and Transportation) authorizing 
    funds for state and local governments to create new public works 
    jobs, a Senate amendment adding a new title to mandate the 
    expenditure of previously appropriated funds for public works and 
    reclamation (as a purported disapproval of the deferral of such 
    funds under the Impoundment Control Act) and to set a discount rate 
    for reclamation and public works projects--matters within the 
    respective jurisdictions of the Committees on Appropriations and 
    Interior and Insular Affairs--was conceded to be nongermane and 
    subject to a point of order under clause 4 of Rule XXVIII and to a 
    motion to reject that portion.

[[Page 8457]]

    On May 3, 1977,(8) the House had under consideration the 
conference report on H.R. 11 when the situation described above 
occurred; the proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 13242, 13243, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 11) to increase the 
    authorization for the Local Public Works Capital Development and 
    Investment Act of 1976, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Robert A.] Young of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the inclusion of title II 
    of the conference report on H.R. 11 is in violation of clause 4 of 
    rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
        Mr. Speaker, it should be obvious to my colleagues that this 
    bill--H.R. 11--has come back from conference with an unrelated, 
    nongermane amendment.
        Title 1 of this bill authorizes $4 billion to be channeled to 
    State and local governments throughout the country to create new 
    public works jobs. The goal is to reduce the Nation's high 
    unemployment rate.
        In contrast, title 2 concerns previously approved water 
    projects, with a principal goal of providing new flood control, 
    water management and recreational benefits.
        The jurisdiction over title 2 currently rests with the 
    Appropriations Committee, and no longer involves the Public Works 
    Committee. Therefore, title 2 should be excluded from consideration 
    now and allowed to be handled by the appropriate committee.
        My argument of nongermaneness is based on several precedents 
    cited in Deschler's Procedure. May I call your attention to 4.25 of 
    Deschler's chapter 28 which reads:

            To a bill reported by the Committee on Public Works 
        authorizing funds for highway construction and for mass 
        transportation systems which use motor vehicles on highways, an 
        amendment relating to urban mass transit (a subject within the 
        jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency) and to 
        rapid rail transportation and assistance to the railroad 
        industry (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce) was ruled out as not germane. 
        118 Congressional Record 34111, 34115, 92d Congress, 2nd 
        Session, Oct. 5, 1972.

        I would also like to cite [4.9] reading:

            An amendment relating to railroads generally, which was 
        offered to a bill pertaining solely to urban transportation, 
        was ruled out as not germane. 116 Congressional Record 34191, 
        91st Congress, 1st Session, Sept. 29, 1970.

        Finally I ask you to refer to 4.12 which reads:

            To a bill establishing penalties for desecration of the 
        American flag, an amendment establishing certain restrictions 
        upon exporting the flag was ruled out as not germane. 113 
        Congressional Record 16495, 90th Congress, 1st Session, June 
        20, 1967.

[[Page 8458]]

        These precedents form the basis of my point of order--that 
    title 2 is simply not germane to the local public works bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    (Mr. Roe) wish to be heard in debate on the point of order?
        Mr. Roe: No, Mr. Speaker. We concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
    Roe) concedes the point of order. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Young of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move, in conformity with 
    the matter involved in the point of order, that the House reject 
    title II of the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Young) is recognized for 20 minutes on his motion.

Bill Restricting Antitrust Remedies Against Local Governments--
    Amendment To Repeal Limitation on Agency's Use of Funds To Conduct 
    Antitrust Actions Against Local Governments

Sec. 26.25 To a House bill restricting remedies under existing 
    antitrust law against local governments, but not addressing 
    authority of a federal agency to prosecute antitrust actions or the 
    availability of appropriated funds to that agency for that purpose, 
    a Senate amendment included in a conference report repealing a 
    limitation in an appropriation law for that year on the use of 
    funds by that agency to conduct antitrust actions against local 
    governments was held not germane, since the amendment related to 
    agency activities and funds not addressed in the House bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 6027 (10) in the House on 
Oct. 11, 1984,(11) the Speaker Pro Tempore sustained a point 
of order in the circumstances described above. The conference report, 
submitted on Oct. 10,(12) and the proceedings of Oct. 11, 
were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984.
11. 130 Cong. Rec. 32219, 32220, 32223, 32224, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. Id. at p. 31441.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey] submitted the 
    following conference report and statement on the bill (H.R. 6027) 
    to clarify the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the 
    official conduct of local governments:

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. No. 98-1158)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        6027) to clarify the application of the Federal

[[Page 8459]]

        antitrust laws to the official conduct of local governments, 
        having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to 
        recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as 
        follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill and agree to 
        the same with an amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment insert the following. . . .
            Sec. 5. Section 510 of the Department of Commerce, Justice, 
        and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation 
        Act, 1985 (Public Law 98-411), is repealed. . . .

        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 616, I 
    call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 6027) to clarify 
    the application of the Clayton Act to the official conduct of local 
    governments, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill. . . .
        Mr. Rodino (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the conference report be considered as read.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Charles] Wilson [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of 
    order.
        I make the point of order that the last section of the 
    conference report contains nongermane matters within the definition 
    of clause 4 of rule XXVIII.  . . .
        Mr. Speaker, if the objectionable section had been offered to 
    the House bill, it would have been in violation of the provisions 
    of clause 7 of rule XVI of the House rules. The provision is a 
    repeal of appropriations law.
        That provision deals with spending levels for the Federal Trade 
    Commission for this fiscal year. The legislation is a permanent 
    piece of legislation that amends our antitrust laws. These 
    amendments reduce monetary damages that local governments may be 
    liable for in antitrust suits.
        That has nothing to do with the provision of the last section 
    of this conference report to which my point of order is directed.
        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order against section 5 of the conference report. The fundamental 
    purpose of this conference report is to provide for continued 
    enforcement of the antitrust laws without severely damaging local 
    governments. This legislation before us continues to ensure that 
    antitrust violations will be prosecuted; but limits the amount of 
    damages which can be assessed in such a case against a local 
    governmental unit. It allows the aggrieved party to ensure that 
    injunctive relief will be available to terminate anticompetitive 
    activity of a local government.
        The fundamental purpose of the section against which the 
    gentleman raises a point of order is to permit the Federal Trade 
    Commission to continue to bring antitrust suits against 
    municipalities. The Federal Trade Commission is limited in the 
    remedies that it may pursue: The FTC cannot seek damages, only 
    injunctive relief. That is what this bill is all about, preventing 
    damage suits while leaving injunctive remedies in place.

[[Page 8460]]

        Mr. Speaker, I believe that the provisions of section 5 are 
    wholly consistent with the fundamental purpose of the rest of the 
    conference report and are therefore germane and the point of order 
    should not be sustained. . . .
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: . . . The so-called 
    taxicab rider which would be repealed by section 5 of this bill 
    currently impedes the ability of the FTC to bring the very type of 
    injunctive relief enforcement which the bill before us envisions 
    and presumes. While removing the threat of money damages, we do not 
    intend that local governments be totally immune from Federal 
    antitrust laws. Suits for injunctive relief will be a safety net 
    against potential anticompetitive activities by localities.
        Thus, repeal of section 510 of Public Law 98-411 is fully 
    consistent with the overall purposes of this bill. To remove 
    section 5 from this legislation would, ironically, prevent the FTC 
    enforcement when a locality is involved in anticompetitive conduct.

        Again, the FTC would not recover money damages under the 
    structure of H.R. 6027, but it could seek an injunction to bring 
    anticompetitive activities by localities to a halt. The fair 
    balance in this legislation would be distorted if the FTC remains 
    unable to exercise its normal statutory responsibilities to enforce 
    compliance with our antitrust laws.
        Section 5 is consistent with the fundamental purposes of this 
    legislation and should remain in this bill. It is germane in a 
    logical, substantive sense. This is an antitrust bill. The FTC is 
    an antitrust enforcement agency. H.R. 6027 is an amendment to the 
    Clayton Act. The FTC, along with the Department of Justice, 
    enforces that very same Clayton Act.
        Section 510 of Public Law 98-411 was, in reality, legislation 
    on an appropriation bill, so its repeal is germane, but the fact is 
    that its original enactment was not germane. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . [T]he Chair has had the 
    opportunity of reviewing the point of order raised by the gentleman 
    from Texas that pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVIII, the conferees 
    on H.R. 6027 have agreed to a nongermane Senate provision. Section 
    5 of the conference report on H.R. 6027 contains the substance of 
    section 3 of the Senate amendment, which repealed section 510 of 
    Public Law 98-411, the State, Justice, Commerce Appropriation Act 
    for fiscal year 1985. The section proposed to be repealed prohibits 
    the expenditure of funds in that appropriation act for the Federal 
    Trade Commission to conduct antitrust actions against 
    municipalities or other units of local government.
        H.R. 6027 as passed by the House only addresses the issue of 
    antitrust remedies for claims against local governments, and merely 
    limits monetary relief for a Federal or private cause of action 
    against a local government under the Clayton Act. While the House 
    bill may limit the remedies which the FTC may obtain in such suits, 
    in the same way it limits any claimant, the House bill does not 
    address the general authority of the FTC to prosecute antitrust 
    actions, or the conditions under which the FTC may use its 
    appropriated funds for the coming fiscal year.
        The Chair would also point out that the conference report and 
    Senate

[[Page 8461]]

    amendment directly amend a general appropriation act not addressed 
    in the House bill.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order. 
    . . .
        Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to clause 4(b) of 
    rule XXVIII, to strike section 5 of the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] 
    is entitled to 20 minutes in support of his motion.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the Chair sustains a point of order that 
conferees have agreed to a nongermane Senate provision, a motion to 
reject that provision is in order pursuant to clause 4(b) of Rule 
XXVIII, and is debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided between the 
Member making the motion and a Member opposed; if the motion to reject 
is not agreed to, debate commences on the conference report itself.

House Bill Narrowly Amending Small Business Act--Senate Amendment 
    Providing for Payment of Attorney Fees to Parties Prevailing 
    Against United States in Court

Sec. 26.26 To a House bill narrowly amending the Small Business Act 
    reported from the Committee on Small Business, a Senate amendment 
    adding a new title providing for the payment of attorney fees and 
    other court expenses to parties prevailing against the United 
    States in court litigation on any subject matter, and amending 
    title 28 (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary) was held not germane, pending a motion to recede and 
    concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment including such 
    provisions, after the conference report on the bill had been ruled 
    out of order.

    The proceedings of Oct. 1, 1980,(14) during 
consideration of H.R. 5612 in the House, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 126 Cong. Rec. 28638-42, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Smith of Iowa moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        5612) to amend section 8(a) of the Small Business Act and 
        concur therein with the following amendment:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        Senate, insert the following:

[[Page 8462]]

           ``Part A. Small Business Administration Minority Business 
                         Development Program Amendments

                     TITLE II--EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT

            Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the ``Equal Access to 
        Justice Act''.

                              findings and purpose

            Sec. 202. (a) The Congress finds that certain individuals, 
        partnerships, corporations, and labor and other organizations 
        may be deterred from seeking review of, or defending against, 
        unreasonable governmental action because of the expense 
        involved in securing the vindication of their rights in civil 
        actions and in administrative proceedings. . . .

           award of fees and other expenses in certain agency actions

            (Sec. 203. (a)(1) Subchapter I of chapter 5 of title 5, 
        United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
        ``Sec.  504. Costs and fees of parties

            ``(a)(1) An agency that conducts an adversary adjudication 
        shall award, to a prevailing party other than the United 
        States, fees and other expenses incurred by that party in 
        connection with that proceeding, unless the adjudicative 
        officer of the agency finds that the position of the agency as 
        a party to the proceeding was substantially justified or that 
        special circumstances make an award unjust.''
            ``(d)(1) Fees and other expenses awarded under this section 
        may be paid by any agency over which the party prevails from 
        any funds made available to the agency, by appropriation or 
        otherwise, for such purpose. If not paid by any agency, the 
        fees and other expenses shall be paid in the same manner as the 
        payment of final judgments is made pursuant to section 2414 of 
        title 28, United States Code. . . .''

        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, this amendment retains all of 
    the language agreed to by the conferees, but it specifically 
    provides that the provisions for the payment of judgments, 
    attorney's fees and other expenses are effective only to the extent 
    and in the amounts approved in advance in appropriations acts. . . 
    .
        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I will 
    again raise a point of order of an appropriation in a legislative 
    bill, for the reason that this amendment, if adopted, would require 
    an affirmative action at any time against, for example, the 
    Comptroller General before he could issue a voucher authorizing the 
    payment of funds from the Treasury as to whether or not the award 
    of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to this proposed bill was 
    something heretofore authorized and for which funds had theretofore 
    been appropriated.
        This would be an added burden and an added activity on the part 
    of the Comptroller General and would constitute, I respectfully 
    submit, an appropriation on a legislative bill. . . .
        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I further 
    make a point of order. . . .
        [T]he amendment, as I understand it, further allows for 
    attorneys' fees to be paid in excess of what was prescribed for in 
    the legislation out of the Small Business Committee. The general 
    application of the bill is far in excess. I still think that the 
    germaneness of the amendment of the gentleman is in question. . . .

[[Page 8463]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The Chair will dispose 
    of the appropriation point of order first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Then the Chair will take up the matter of germaneness.
        On page 22 of the motion the following limitation under section 
    207 is included:

            The payment of judgments, fees and other expenses in the 
        same manner as the payment of final judgments as provided in 
        this act is effective only to the extent and in such amounts as 
        are provided in advance in appropriation acts.

        Therefore, the point of order is overruled under clause 5 rule 
    XXI.
        The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Rostenkowski) if he desires to make a point of order as to the 
    germaneness of a portion of the motion offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa.
        Mr. Rostenkowski: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the attorneys' 
    fees is not germane to the narrow small business bill.
        Therefore, the gentleman's amendment strikes at the germaneness 
    of the bill that is being considered before us. Therefore, Mr. 
    Speaker, if it is in excess, I would deem that the amendment is not 
    germane.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is now ready to rule. While 
    the motion is germane to the Senate amendment which contains the 
    provision concerning attorneys' fees, the Chair would rule that the 
    language is not germane to the original House bill which narrowly 
    amended the Small Business Act in an unrelated way. That is, under 
    clause 5 of rule XXVIII, the Chair would sustain a point of order 
    as to title II of the motion.
        Does the gentleman from Illinois have a motion to reject that 
    portion?
        Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rostenkowski moves to strike title II of the motion 
        offered by the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Smith.

Housed-passed Bill Relating to Employment and Training--Senate 
    Provision To Promote Formation of Labor-Management Committees

Sec. 26.27 A Senate provision contained in a conference report, 
    proposing the establishment of programs to encourage the formation 
    of joint labor-management committees, was held not germane to the 
    House-passed bill, which amended the Comprehensive Employment and 
    Training Act with respect to improved employment and training 
    services but did not address labor-management relations.

    During consideration of the conference report on S. 2570 in the 
House on Oct. 14, 1978,(16) a point of order against the 
provision de

[[Page 8464]]

scribed above was conceded. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 38559-62, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 2570) to amend the 
    Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 to provide 
    improved employment and training services, to extend the 
    authorization, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Pursuant to the rule, 
    the statement of the managers is considered as read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
    of order with respect to the conference report on S. 2570, 
    Comprehensive Employment and Training Act Amendments of 1978, on 
    the grounds that the conference report contains nongermane matter. 
    Specifically, section 6 of the report proposes to include a ``Labor 
    Management Cooperation Act of 1978.''. . .
        Mr. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order. I think 
    it is valid.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I make a motion of high privilege to 
    reject the nongermane matter which was the subject of the point of 
    order just sustained.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ashbrook moves to reject section 6 of the conference 
        report.

    In speaking on his motion, Mr. Ashbrook further addressed the 
issues affecting the germaneness of the Senate provision:

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, the point of order was conceded for 
    obvious reasons. It is a statutory enactment.
        Mr. Speaker, this section has absolutely nothing to do with the 
    Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. Further it was not 
    contained in the House bill H.R. 12542 nor was it contained in the 
    amendments of the House to the bill S. 2570.
        This section was added by the Senate. In examining the 
    substance of this section, it is quite clear that it is not germane 
    to the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. The joint 
    statement of managers accompanying the conference report 
    specifically notes that it is: ``a separate statute to provide for 
    the establishment of programs to encourage the formation of joint 
    labor management committees.''
        The purpose of such committees would be to improve 
    communications between labor and management, to enhance job 
    security and organizational effectiveness and to assist labor 
    organizations and employers in resolving problems not susceptible 
    to resolution within the collective bargaining process. These joint 
    labor management committees would operate on a plant, area and 
    industrywide basis.
        Significantly, this section of the conference report amends 
    several sections of existing law in the Labor-Management Relations 
    Act of 1947. It amends section 203 and 205 to provide for 
    administration of this new program by Federal mediation and 
    conciliation services.
        In addition, section 6 of the conference report amends section 
    203(C) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The effect of this 
    amendment is to

[[Page 8465]]

    make employer payments to such joint labor management committees a 
    mandatory subject of bargaining.
        I believe that the precedents unequivocally establish that this 
    section of the conference report is nongermane. For instance, under 
    section 799 of the annotation of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives--on page 539--it is stated:

            Generally to a bill amending one existing law, an amendment 
        changing the provisions of another law or prohibiting 
        assistance under any other law is not germane (May 11, 1976).

        Further in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 33, 
    precedents are cited with respect to amendments changing existing 
    law to bills not citing the law. For instance the precedent cited 
    at section 33.2 holds that to a bill amending two sections of the 
    Fair Labor Standards Act an amendment proposing changes in the 
    Tariff Act of 1930 was ruled out as nongermane (113 Cong. Rec. 
    27214, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 28, 1967).
        In sum, because section 6 of the conference report amends 
    existing law that was not the subject of the House passed bill to 
    reauthorize the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, such 
    section should be ruled out as nongermane. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) to reject section 6 of 
    the conference report.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker Pro Tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it. . . .
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Symms) there were--ayes 61, noes 
    96.
        So the motion was rejected.

House Bill Concerning Foreign Relations and Operation of State 
    Department and Other Agencies--Senate Amendment To Provide 
    Guidelines for Acceptance of Foreign Gifts

Sec. 26.28 To a House bill containing diverse amendments to existing 
    laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International 
    Relations, relating to foreign relations and the operation of the 
    Department of State and related agencies, a portion of a Senate 
    amendment thereto contained in a conference report, amending the 
    Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (within the jurisdiction of the 
    same committee) to provide guidelines and procedures for the 
    acceptance of foreign gifts by United States employees and to 
    provide that the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
    adopt regulations governing acceptance by Members and House 
    employees of foreign gifts, was held germane when a point of order 
    was raised against a portion of the conference report under Rule 
    XXVIII clause 4.

[[Page 8466]]

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 6689 
(18) in the House on Aug. 3, 1977,(19) the 
Speaker Pro Tempore overruled a point of order in the circumstances 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 1978.
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 26532, 26533, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       foreign gifts and decorations

        Sec. 515. (a)(1) Section 7342 of title 5, United States Code, 
    is amended to read as follows:
    ``Sec. 7342. Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and 
    decorations

        ``(a) For the purpose of this section--
        ``(1) `employee' means--
        ``(A) an employee as defined by section 2105 of this title and 
    an officer or employee of the United States Postal Service or of 
    the Postal Rate Commission . . .
        ``(F) a Member of Congress as defined by section 2106 of this 
    title (except the Vice President) and any Delegate to the Congress 
    . . .
        ``(6) `employing agency' means--
        ``(A) the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the 
    House of Representatives, for Members and employees of the House of 
    Representatives, except that those responsibilities specified in 
    subsections (c)(2)(A), (e), and (g)(2)(B) shall be carried out by 
    the Clerk of the House . . .
        (D) the department, agency, office, or other entity in which an 
    employee is employed, for other legislative branch employees and 
    for all executive branch employees . . .
        ``(b) An employee may not-- . . .
        ``(2) accept a gift or decoration, other than in accordance 
    with the provisions of subsections (c) and (d).
        ``(c)(1) The Congress consents to--
        ``(A) the accepting and retaining by an employee of a gift of 
    minimal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of 
    courtesy; and
        ``(B) the accepting by an employee of a gift of more than 
    minimal value when such gift is in the nature of an educational 
    scholarship or medical treatment or when it appears that to refuse 
    the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise 
    adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States, except 
    that--
        ``(i) a tangible gift of more than minimal value is deemed to 
    have been accepted on behalf of the United States and, upon 
    acceptance, shall become the property of the United States. . . .
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Caputo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        I would like to make a point of order and I regret that it 
    comes at so late an hour and after the previous discussion. I make 
    the point of order that the matter contained in section 515 of the 
    conference report would not be germane to H.R. 6689 under clause 7 
    of rule XVI if offered in the House and is therefore subject to a 
    point of order under clause 4 of rule XXVIII.
        Let me state that the language in the conference report 
    substantially changes the terms under which the Members of Congress 
    can accept or authorize acceptance of things of value from foreign 
    governments.
        The Constitution clearly provides in article I that each House 
    shall write its

[[Page 8467]]

    own rules. The House has a rule of its own on this matter, rule 44, 
    which we only recently modified, under which Members of Congress 
    could receive things of value from foreign governments.
        The conference report changes that rule because it is a 
    subsequent act of this House and in direct conflict with that rule. 
    In Jefferson's Manual, section 335 and Deschler's Procedures, 
    chapter 5, that is clearly improper. We cannot change the rules of 
    the House in that manner. Let me read from Jefferson's Manual, 
    section 335 briefly. It says:

            But a committee may not report a recommendation which, if 
        carried into effect, would change a rule of the House unless a 
        measure proposing amendments to House rules has initially been 
        referred to the Committee of the Whole by the House.

        This has not been referred to the Committee of the Whole by the 
    House as required by the precedents. Indeed, this is the first time 
    the House has viewed this matter and it would have been impossible 
    for us to have referred it to the Committee of the Whole. It was 
    put in by the other body. We never considered it.
        If the Chair does not sustain my point of order, he will be in 
    effect sustaining the other body in writing the rules of this 
    House. . . .
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, clause 4 of 
    House rule 43 deals only with gifts to employees. It does not deal 
    with gifts of foreign governments, which is the subject of this 
    amendment.
        Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we have specifically provided that 
    nothing in this section shall be construed in derogation of any 
    regulations prescribed by any Member or agency, and in this 
    instance it would be the Congress or the Ethics Committee, which 
    provides for more stringent limitations on the receipt of gifts and 
    declarations by employees.
        We are dealing with this in this amendment, because it deals 
    with the foreign gifts and declarations section which affects other 
    members of the Government not having anything to do incidentally 
    with Members of the House and in no way changes the rules of the 
    House.
        Mr. Caputo: Mr. Speaker, on page 21 of the committee report, 
    section 515 says such act is amended and then it says, ``a Member 
    of Congress.'' It clearly applies to Members of Congress.
        Let me state what it does. It permits Members of Congress to 
    accept gifts of more than minimum value.
        Page 22, section (c)(1)(B) clearly changes rule 24.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order that the 
    conference report contains, in section 515, matter contained in the 
    Senate amendment which would not have been germane to the bill if 
    offered in the House.
        Section 515 amends the Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act to 
    provide new guidelines and procedures relating to the acceptance by 
    employees of the United States of gifts and awards from foreign 
    governments. The section provides that the Committee on Standards

[[Page 8468]]

    of Official Conduct shall have the functions of regulating the 
    minimum value of an acceptable gift for Members and employees of 
    the House of Representatives, of consenting to the acceptance by 
    Members and employees of gifts in certain circumstances, and of 
    disposing of unacceptable gifts through the General Services 
    Administration. H.R. 6689, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
    as passed by the House, contained a wide variety of amendments to 
    existing laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations relating generally to the foreign relations 
    of the United States and the operations of the Department of State, 
    the U.S. Information Agency, and the Board for International 
    Broadcasting. It thus appears to the Chair that an amendment to the 
    Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act, a law within the jurisdiction 
    of the committee and relative to our foreign relations, would have 
    been germane to the bill if offered in the House, particularly 
    since section 111 of the House bill dealt with foreign employment 
    by officers of the United States notwithstanding article I, section 
    9 of the Constitution. The Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act arose 
    from the identical constitutional provision. The fact that the 
    Senate amendment placed new responsibilities on a standing 
    committee of the House does not render the provision subject to a 
    point of order, since no attempt is made to amend the rules of the 
    House or to otherwise exceed the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The point of order was based on the grounds 
that the provision had the effect of amending the Rules of the House, 
to allow the acceptance of gifts prohibited by House Rule 43, the Code 
of Official Conduct. The actual effect of the provision, however, was 
merely to assign the regulatory authority under the Act in relation to 
the House of Representatives, not to supersede a more restrictive 
standard imposed by the Rules or standards of the House of 
Representatives.

Bill Requiring Oil Imports To Be Carried on United States Vessels--
    Amendment Relating to Construction of Vessels in Domestic and 
    Foreign Commerce

Sec. 26.29 To a House bill requiring that a percentage of United States 
    oil imports be carried on United States-flag vessels, a modified 
    portion of a Senate amendment contained in a conference report 
    dealing with the construction of vessels in either domestic or 
    foreign commerce to meet certain antipollution requirements was 
    held not germane.

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 8193 
(1) in

[[Page 8469]]

the House on Oct. 10, 1974,(2) it was held that to a bill 
imposing vessel cargo preference rules for the importation of certain 
products in foreign commerce, a Senate amendment relating to 
construction of vessels used in foreign and domestic commerce was not 
germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The Energy Transportation Security Act.
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 35181, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the bill (H.R. 8193) to require that a 
    percentage of United States oil imports be carried on United 
    States-flag vessels, and ask unanimous consent that the statement 
    of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [of Delaware]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against section 6 of the conference report under 
    rule 28, clause 4(a), and rule 16, clause 7, the germaneness rule.
        Section 6 is not germane because it deals with a different 
    subject matter--the construction requirements of vessels--than the 
    bill which deals with the regulation of oil imports.
        The conference report amends section 901 of the Merchant Marine 
    Act of 1936 (46 U.S.C. 1241) which deals with the operation, 
    charter, and cargo of vessels.
        Section 6 of the conference report--originally adopted by the 
    Senate and not in the House bill--deals with the construction of 
    vessels and antipollution procedures contained in the Ports and 
    Waterways Safety Act of 1972.
        Section 6 has nothing to do with vessel cargoes. It requires 
    construction of vessels with double bottoms for use on certain 
    limited waters of the United States. This is in no way related to 
    the purpose or intent of the bill which is to place cargo 
    preference rules on the importation of oil and oil products.
        Under the precedents of the House under rule 16, clause 7 
    similar amendments have been held nongermane. See precedents V, 
    5884 and decisions of Chairman Garrett, May 6, 1913 (page 1234) and 
    Speaker Clark, May 8, 1913 (page 1381). . . .
        Mrs. Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, the bill as amended by the Senate, 
    and as modified by the conferees, makes explicit the fact that the 
    U.S.-flag tankers subject to the bill must be constructed and 
    operated using the ``best available pollution technology.'' In any 
    case, this would in all probability be inferred from the term 
    ``U.S.-flag commercial vessels'' in the House-passed bill--see 
    Public Law 92-340.
        In addition, the provision requires that certain tankers have 
    double bottoms, but the requirement in no way changes the thrust of 
    the House bill. In all candor, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see how it can 
    be argued that a provision requiring pollution prevention 
    technology and standards on the vessels carrying the preference 
    cargo mandated by the bill can be considered nongermane. . . .
        The Speaker: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Delaware makes a point of order against 
    section

[[Page 8470]]

    6 of the conference report on H.R. 8193 on the ground that the 
    section is not germane to the provisions of the bill as passed by 
    the House.
        The bill as passed by the House related solely to the 
    requirement that a percentage of U.S. oil imports to be carried on 
    U.S.-flag vessels and provided regulations in relation thereto. 
    Section 7 of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    directed to the construction of vessels transporting oil either in 
    foreign or domestic commerce. As modified by section 6 of the 
    conference report, that portion of the conference report is clearly 
    not related to the subject matter of the House bill, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order that section 6 of the conference report 
    is not germane to H.R. 8193.
        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. du Pont moves that the House reject section 6 of the 
        bill, H.R. 8193, as reported by the committee of conference.

        (Mr. du Pont asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Speaker, the Chair has just ruled that section 
    6 of the bill as reported by the committee of conference is not 
    germane. Let me say to my colleagues what this means. This is not a 
    point of order similar to a point of order made in a regular House 
    procedure. In that case section 6 would simply be stricken from the 
    bill under consideration and that would be the end of it, but that 
    is not the situation we have here.
        We are dealing with a conference report and because we are 
    dealing with a conference report we are entitled to a separate vote 
    on the nongermane section, so even though section 6 of the 
    conference report was ruled not germane, the debate now occurs on 
    that section, and at the end of 40 minutes we will have a vote 
    solely on section 6, and then we will go on to consider the rest of 
    the conference report.

Certain Exemptions From Tariff Duty Applicable to United States 
    Vessels--Amendment To Extend Unemployment Benefits

Sec. 26.30 To a bill exempting from tariff duty certain equipment and 
    repairs for vessels operated by or for agencies of the United 
    States, a modified section of a Senate amendment thereto extending 
    benefits under the unemployment compensation program was held to be 
    not germane.

    On July 31, 1974,(4) the House had under consideration 
the conference report on H.R. 8217, a bill exempting from tariff duty 
certain equipment and repairs for vessels operated by or for agencies 
of the United States. A Senate amendment, reported from conference in 
disagreement, had added nongermane provisions, including pro

[[Page 8471]]

posed changes relating to unemployment compensation and the Social 
Security program. Some modification of the Senate provisions was 
proposed, by means of a motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
amendment with a further amendment. A point of order was made on the 
grounds that such portion of the Senate amendment as was contained in 
the motion was not germane to the House-passed measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 26082, 26083, 26088, 26089, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 8217) to exempt from duty 
    certain equipment and repairs for vessels operated by or for any 
    agency of the United States, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arkansas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the statement.
        (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the 
    House of July 16, 1974.) . . .
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mills moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, H.R. 8217, and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment to the text of the bill (page 2, after line 6)), 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 3. The last sentence of section 203(e)(2) of the 
        Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 
        (as added by section 20 of Public Law 93-233 and amended by 
        section 2 of Public Law 93-256 and by section 2 of Public Law 
        93-329) is amended by striking out ``August 1, 1974'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``April 30, 1975''.
            Sec. 4. (a) The second sentence of section 204(b) of the 
        Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1971 is amended to 
        read as follows: ``Amounts appropriated as repayable advances 
        and paid to the States under section 203 shall be repaid, 
        without interest, as provided in section 905(d) of the Social 
        Security Act.''. . .
            Sec. 5. Section 1631 of the Social Security Act is amended 
        by adding the following at the end thereof:

           ``reimbursement to states for interim assistance payments

            ``(g)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (d)(1) and subsection 
        (b) as it relates to the payment of less than the correct 
        amount of benefits, the Secretary may, upon written 
        authorization by an individual, withhold benefits due with 
        respect to that individual and may pay to a State (or a 
        political subdivision thereof if agreed to by the Secretary and 
        the State) from the benefits withheld an amount sufficient to 
        reimburse the State (or political subdivision) for interim 
        assistance furnished on behalf of the individual by the State 
        (or political subdivision). . . .

        Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order on section 3 of this bill because it does not conform to the 
    House germaneness rule, rule 28, clause 5(b)(1).
        In no way can this section be germane to the House-passed H.R. 
    8217.

[[Page 8472]]

        The House bill dealt with exempting from duty certain equipment 
    and repairs for vessels operated by or for any agency of the United 
    States where the entries were made in connection with vessels 
    arriving before January 5, 1971.
        Section 3 deals with the unemployment compensation program as 
    it relates to extended benefits. This has nothing to do with the 
    ``repair of vessels.''
        Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is necessary to take time to 
    explain why the Senate unemployment compensation amendment is 
    nongermane to the House-passed tariff bill.
        It is nongermane on its face, and I ask that my point of order 
    be sustained. . . .
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the point of order is 
    well taken. I cannot resist the point of order.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Pickle: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Pickle moves that the House reject section 3 of the 
        proposed amendment to the Senate amendment to the text of the 
        bill H.R. 8217.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Mills) will be recognized for 20 minutes.

Bill Authorizing Appropriations to Carry Out Commodity Exchange Act--
    Senate Provisions Authorizing Transfer of Forest Lands and Changing 
    Basis for Computing Emergency Compensation Under Agricultural Act

Sec. 26.31 On a conference report on a Senate amendment to a House 
    bill, where the House bill only authorized appropriations to carry 
    out the Commodity Exchange Act and made technical improvements in 
    that Act, the Chair sustained points of order and entertained 
    motions to reject two nongermane Senate provisions included in the 
    conference report, pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII, as follows: 
    (1) a provision authorizing the transfer of national forest lands 
    in Nebraska; and (2) a provision changing the basis for computation 
    of emergency compensation for the 1986 wheat program under the 
    Agricultural Act of 1949.

    On Oct. 15, 1986,(6) the House had under consideration 
the con

[[Page 8473]]

ference report (7) on H.R. 4613, the Futures Trading Act of 
1986, when the proceedings described above occurred, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 132 Cong. Rec. 31498, 31499, 31502-06, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. For complete conference report and statement, see the proceedings 
        of the House of Oct. 14, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. de la Garza submitted the following conference report and 
    statement on the bill (H.R. 4613) to reauthorize appropriations to 
    carry out the Commodity Exchange Act, and to make technical 
    improvements to that Act:

                      Conference Report (H. Rept. 99-995)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        4613) to reauthorize appropriations to carry out the Commodity 
        Exchange Act, and to make technical improvements to that Act, 
        having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to 
        recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as 
        follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment 
        as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment, insert the following:
        Section 1. Short Title and Table of Contents.

            (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Futures 
        Trading Act of 1986''.
            (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as 
        follows:
            Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

                                   Amendments

                            TITLE I--FUTURES TRADING
        Sec. 101. Fraudulent Practices.

            Section 4b of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6b) is 
        amended--
            (1) by striking out ``on or subject to the rules of any 
        contract market,'' the second place it appears in the first 
        sentence; and
            (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``Nothing in this section shall apply to any activity that 
        occurs on a board of trade, exchange, or market, or 
        clearinghouse for such board of trade, exchange, or market, 
        located outside the United States, or territories or 
        possessions of the United States, involving any contract of 
        sale of a commodity for future delivery that is made, or to be 
        made, on or subject to the rules of such board of trade, 
        exchange, or market''. . . .
            Sec. 202. Basis for Computation of Emergency Compensation 
        Under the 1986 Wheat Program.
            Section 107D(c)(1)(E)(ii) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 
        (7 U.S.C. 1445b-3(c)(1)(E)(ii)) is amended by striking out 
        ``marketing year for such crop'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``first 5 months of the marketing year for the 1986 crop and 
        the marketing year for each of the 1987 through 1990 crops''. . 
        . .
        Sec. 207. Transfer of Land.

            (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d), 
        the Secretary of Agriculture shall convey to the Nebraska Game 
        and Parks Commission, all right, title, and interest of the 
        United States in approximately 173 acres of National Forest 
        System land in Dawes County, Nebraska, as depicted on a 
        Department of Agriculture, Forest Service map entitled `Land 
        Conveyance, Nebraska National Forest', dated October, 1985. The 
        map and legal description of the land conveyed by this section 
        shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 
        office of the Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 
        . . .

[[Page 8474]]

        Mr. [Charles O.] Whitley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    make a point of order against the nongermane amendment contained in 
    the conference report relating to the transfer of national forest 
    lands in the State of Nebraska.
        The Speaker: (8) The gentleman from North Carolina 
    (Mr. Whitley) will identify that portion of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitley: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is specifically 
    made against section 207 of title II of the conference report. . . 
    .
        Mr. [E] de la Garza [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Speaker, the 
    committee and the conference committee agreed on the text of the 
    legislation which is the Commodity Futures Trade Commission.
        The other body then added various and sundry other bills and we 
    have to concede the point that they were not germane and they were 
    extraneous to the matter. Therefore, I find myself in the situation 
    where I could not but otherwise yield to the point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The point of order is conceded and sustained. . . 
    .
        Mr. Whitley: Mr. Speaker, I move to delete section 207 from the 
    conference report. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Whitley].
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the conference report to H.R. 4613 under 
    rule XXVIII, clause 4, of the House rules for the reason that it 
    contains a Senate amendment that is in violation of rule XVI, 
    clause 7, because it contains matter nongermane to H.R. 4613 as 
    passed by the House.
        H.R. 4613, as reported by the Committee on Agriculture, and 
    adopted in the House, was a bill 'to authorize appropriations to 
    carry out the Commodity Exchange Act, and to make technical 
    improvements in that act.'
        The Senate added a nongermane amendment to H.R. 4613, section 
    504, entitled ``Basis For Computation Of Emergency Compensation 
    Under the 1986 Wheat Program'' that amends the Agricultural Act of 
    1949 relating to the wheat program for cooperating farmers. It is 
    an amendment that would have violated rule XVI, clause 7, had such 
    matter been offered as an amendment in the House. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) . . . In the opinion of 
    the Chair, section 202 of the conference report as added in the 
    Senate would not have been germane to the House-passed bill; so the 
    point of order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John J. Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Speaker, I move to reject the matter in the 
    conference report originally contained in section 504 of the Senate 
    amendment to H.R. 4613 and now contained in section 202 of the 
    conference report entitled ``Basis for Computation of Emergency 
    Compensation Under the 1986 Wheat Program'' (H. Rept. 99-995). . . 
    .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Madigan]. . . .
        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a

[[Page 8475]]

    quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is 
    not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present. . . 
    .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    162, nays 239, not voting 31.
        So the motion was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: By unanimous consent, the proceedings above 
by which the House had agreed to Mr. Whitley's motion to reject the 
nongermane Senate provision included in the conference report, pursuant 
to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII, by a voice vote, were vacated in order to 
allow full debate and a recorded vote on the motion to reject. 
Subsequently, the motion was adopted and the conference report was 
rejected. .

House Amendment to Senate Joint Resolution Authorizing Conference on 
    Library and Information Services--Senate Amendment Rendering 
    Prohibition Against Sex Discrimination Inapplicable to College 
    Fraternities and Sororities

Sec. 26.32 To a House amendment in the nature of a substitute for a 
    Senate joint resolution, authorizing the President to call a White 
    House Conference on Library and Information Services, a portion of 
    a Senate amendment contained in the conference report which 
    provided that the prohibition against sex discrimination contained 
    in title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 shall not apply to 
    college social fraternities and sororities and to certain voluntary 
    youth service organizations was held not germane, thereby 
    permitting a motion under clause 4 of Rule XXVIII to reject that 
    portion of the conference report.

    On Dec. 19, 1974,(10) the House had under consideration 
the conference report on Senate Joint Resolution 40, to authorize and 
request the President to call a White House Conference on Library and 
Information Services. The conference report stated in part as follows: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 41389, 41392, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
11. See 120 Cong. Rec. 40547-50, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 17, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. No. 93-1619)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the amendments of 
        the House to the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 40) to authorize 
        and request the President to call a White House Con

[[Page 8476]]

        ference on Library and Information Services in 1976, having 
        met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend 
        and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate to the amendment of the House to the 
        text of the joint resolution and agree to the same with an 
        amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be 
        inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following:
        That (a) the President of the United States is authorized to 
        call a White House Conference on Library and Information 
        Services not later than 1978.

            (b)(1) The purpose of the White House Conference on Library 
        and Information Services (hereinafter referred to as the 
        ``Conference'') shall be to develop recommendations for the 
        further improvement of the Nation's libraries and information 
        centers and their use by the public. . . .
            Sec. 3. (a) Section 901(a) of the Education Amendments of 
        1972 is amended by striking out ``and'' at the end of clause 
        (4) thereof and by striking out the period at the end of clause 
        (5) thereof and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and'', and by 
        inserting at the end thereof the following new clause:
            ``(6) This section shall not apply to membership 
        practices--
            ``(A) of a social fraternity or social sorority which is 
        exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1954, the active membership of which consists 
        primarily of students in attendance at an institution of higher 
        education, or
            ``(B) of the Young Men's Christian Association, Young 
        Women's Christian Association, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Camp 
        Fire Girls, and voluntary youth service organizations which are 
        so exempt, the membership of which has traditionally been 
        limited to persons of one sex and principally to persons of 
        less than nineteen years of age''. . . .

           Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference

            The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the 
        conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
        amendments of the Senate to the amendments of the House to the 
        joint resolution (S.J. Res. 40) to authorize and request the 
        President to call a White House Conference on Library and 
        Information Services in 1976, submit the following joint 
        statement to the House and the Senate in explanation of the 
        effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and 
        recommended in the accompanying conference report:
            The House amendment to the text of the joint resolution 
        struck out all after the resolving clause and inserted a 
        substitute text. The Senate concurred with the amendment of the 
        House to the text of the joint resolution with an amendment 
        which was a substitute for both the House amendment to the text 
        of the joint resolution and the Senate joint resolution. The 
        House recedes from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
        Senate to the amendment of the House to the text of the joint 
        resolution with an amendment which is a substitute for both the 
        House amendment and the Senate amendment thereto. The 
        differences between the House amendment, the Senate amendment 
        to the House amendment, and the substitute agreed to in 
        conference are noted below except for minor technical and 
        clarifying changes made necessary by reason of the conference 
        agreement. . . .
            16. Amendment to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 
        1972. The Senate amendment amends section 901(a) of the 
        Education Amendments

[[Page 8477]]

        of 1972 (Public Law 92-318, 86 Stat. 373), relating to the 
        prohibition of sex discrimination, to provide that section 901 
        shall not apply to membership practices of (1) certain social 
        fraternities and social sororities consisting primarily of 
        students in attendance at an institution of higher education; 
        and (2) voluntary youth service organizations, including the 
        YMCA, the YWCA, Girl Scouts, Campfire Girls, and Boy Scouts, 
        the membership of which traditionally has been limited to 
        persons of one sex and to persons 19 years of age or less.
            The Senate amendment also provides that this amendment 
        shall be effective on, and retroactive to July 1972.
            There is no comparable House provision. The House recedes 
        with an amendment clarifying the exemption from the provisions 
        of title IX of the membership practices of the YMCA's, YWCA's, 
        Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Campfire Girls. The conferees 
        agree that any reference to fraternities, sororities, or 
        organizations exempted under section 501(a) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1954 shall be limited to those fraternities, 
        sororities, or organizations which are socially oriented and do 
        not engage in political activities. Social fraternities which 
        are service oriented shall also qualify under clause 6(A) of 
        section 901(a). For purposes of section 901(a), alumni of 
        fraternities and sororities shall not be deemed to be active 
        members.

    A point of order was made against a portion of the conference 
report, as follows:

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against section 3 of the conference report, that 
    section which amends section 901(a) of the Education Amendments of 
    1972, on the basis that had this been offered as an amendment 
    during the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 40 in the 
    House, it would have been a nongermane amendment.
        Under clause 4, rule XXVIII a motion can be offered to handle 
    this matter separately. Thus I make a point of order that that 
    section of the conference report is nongermane under the rules of 
    the House. . . .
        The Speaker: (12) It is obvious to the Chair that 
    section 3 of the conference report is not germane to the House 
    amendment. The point of order is sustained. Does the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger) have a motion to reject the section?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: I do have a motion to reject, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to strike.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin moves to strike section 3 of the 
        conference report. . . .

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to strike section 3, 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Steiger of Wisconsin) there were--yeas 37, nays 102.
        So the motion to strike was rejected.

[[Page 8478]]

Bill Addressing Official Conduct of Federal Officials--Amendment 
    Authorizing Appointment of Prosecutor To Investigate Public and 
    Private Conduct

Sec. 26.33 The Speaker sustained a point of order, under Rule XXVIII 
    clause 4, that a Senate provision contained in a conference report, 
    authorizing the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate 
    and prosecute alleged criminal conduct of certain federal 
    officials, including but not limited to conduct directly related to 
    their official duties, would not have been germane if offered to 
    the House-passed bill, which addressed in various ways only the 
    official conduct of federal officials.

    On Oct. 12, 1978,(13) during consideration in the House 
of S. 555, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, a point of order was 
sustained against a provision contained in the conference report. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 124 Cong. Rec. 36459-61, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Wiggins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against title VI of the conference report. That, for 
    the Speaker's information, is the title dealing with the special 
    prosecutor language in the conference report. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, my point of order is based upon rule XXVIII, which 
    is the germaneness section. It is my position, Mr. Speaker, that 
    title VI is a nongermane Senate amendment and it violates that 
    section of the House rules which I have cited. . . .
        [T]he language in the special prosecutor amendment added by the 
    Senate is so broad and sweeping that it covers in several respects 
    private individuals, that is to say, new classes of people who are 
    not covered under the sweep of the ethics bill. . . .
        The special prosecutor bill, which is tacked onto the ethics 
    bill, is a complicated and important piece of legislation. It was 
    considered in detail by a different subcommittee in the Committee 
    on the Judiciary which did not consider the ethics bill. It is true 
    that the Committee on the Judiciary reported out a special 
    prosecutor bill but it was never brought to the floor of the House 
    and, indeed, has never been debated nor subject to amendment by 
    Members of this House.
        It is a far-reaching piece of legislation, it is complicated, 
    different in form, different in purpose, different in all respects 
    from the ethics bill which we did consider several days ago.
        I hope that the Speaker, when the Speaker is prepared to rule, 
    will recognize that germaneness, if it is to have any meaning at 
    all, is offended in a fundamental way by allowing the Senate to 
    tack on an issue which is so basically different and unrelated to 
    the ethics bill which we considered earlier. . . .

[[Page 8479]]

        Mr. [James R.] Mann [of South Carolina]: . . . The House 
    amendment to S. 555 is actually the text of H.R. 1 as passed by the 
    House. The text of H.R. 1, as finally approved, was actually the 
    text of an amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. 
    Thus, the issue, as I understand it, is whether the provisions of 
    title VI of the conference report would have been germane to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute which eventually became the 
    text of House bill, H.R. 1, had the provisions of title VI been 
    offered as an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. I believe that the provisions of title VI would have 
    been germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute and 
    that the Chair should therefore overrule the point of order. . . .
        The basic test for determining germaneness is whether the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment is germane to the fundamental 
    purpose of the bill. The question here, then, is whether the 
    fundamental purpose of title VI is germane to the fundamental 
    purpose of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I submit 
    that it is. The purpose of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, which is subtitled the ``Ethics in Government Act,'' is 
    to promote ethical conduct by Federal Government officials and 
    certain other private citizens. The purpose of title VI of the 
    conference report is also to promote ethical conduct.
        A second test for germaneness is whether the subject matter of 
    the amendment relates to the subject matter of the bill. The 
    question here is whether the subject matter of title VI of the 
    conference report relates to the subject matter of the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. I submit that it does.
        The subject matter of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute was broad. It encompassed ethical standards and conduct 
    involving officials in all three branches of the Federal 
    Government--legislative, executive, and judicial--as well as 
    certain private citizens.
        With regard to Federal Government employees and officials, it 
    required detailed financial disclosure statements to be filed by 
    people in all three branches of Government. It established an 
    Office of Government Ethics with broad authority, including the 
    power to promulgate regulations pertaining to ``conflicts of 
    interest and ethics in the executive branch.'' It amended our 
    Federal criminal law in the area of conflicts of interest. . . .
        The gentleman from California concedes that the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute encompasses private citizens. He argues, 
    however, that those private citizens are connected in some way with 
    the Government.
        Mr. Speaker, I submit that the private citizens covered in 
    title VI of the conference report encompass only one narrow group. 
    The President's campaign manager is connected to the Government 
    just as much as the partner of some Government employee who may be 
    violating some law in appearing before some Government agency. He 
    is connected in the same way as the business partner of a 
    Government employee would be connected. . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) . . . In looking at 
    the gentleman's point of

[[Page 8480]]

    order in this instance the gentleman from California makes two 
    points, one as title VI relates to new classes of persons not 
    covered by the House-passed bill, and the other in terms of the 
    breadth of the types of conduct subject to investigation by the 
    special prosecutor. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It seems that under what is being considered here, the breadth 
    of the investigation which the special prosecutor may undertake, 
    goes far beyond the scope of the activity regulated by the House-
    passed bill. In looking at title VI, it authorizes the special 
    prosecutor to investigate any violation of any Federal criminal law 
    other than a violation constituting a petty offense--conduct which 
    may or may not directly relate to the official duties of the 
    persons covered. For that reason . . . the Chair does sustain the 
    point of order.

Bill Authorizing Appropriations for Nuclear Regulatory Commission--
    Amendments to Organic Law Governing Commission

Sec. 26.34 To a House bill authorizing appropriations for two years for 
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission but not directly or indirectly 
    amending the Atomic Energy Act regarding nuclear energy policy, a 
    modification of a Senate amendment contained in a conference report 
    providing a ten-year review and monitoring program to limit foreign 
    uranium imports, thereby proposing an extensive change in policy 
    under the organic law governing that agency's operations, was 
    conceded to be not germane.

    On Dec. 2, 1982,(15) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 2330, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
authorization for 1982 and 1983, a point of order was made, pursuant to 
Rule XXVIII, clause 4, against a Senate amendment contained in the 
conference report. The Senate amendment as modified in the conference 
report stated in part as follows, and the point of order was made by 
Mr. Bill Frenzel, of Minnesota, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 28537, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Uranium Supply

        Sec. 23. (a)(1) Not later than 12 months after the date of 
    enactment of this section, the President shall prepare and submit 
    to the Congress a comprehensive review of the status of the 
    domestic uranium mining and milling industry. This review shall be 
    made available to the appropriate committees of the United States 
    Senate and the House of Representatives. . . .
        (b)(1) Chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended 
    by adding the following new section at the end thereof:
        Sec. 170B. Uranium Supply.
        ``a. The Secretary of Energy shall monitor and for the years 
    1983 to 1992

[[Page 8481]]

    report annually to the Congress and to the President a 
    determination of the viability of the domestic uranium mining and 
    milling industry and shall establish by rule, after public notice 
    and in accordance with the requirements of section 181 of this Act, 
    within 9 months of enactment of this section, specific criteria 
    which shall be assessed in the annual reports on the domestic 
    uranium industry's viability. The Secretary of Energy is authorized 
    to issue regulations providing for the collection of such 
    information as the Secretary of Energy deems necessary to carry out 
    the monitoring and reporting requirements of this section. . . .

        ``e. (1) During the period 1982 to 1992, if the Secretary of 
    Energy determines that executed contracts or options for source 
    material or special nuclear material from foreign sources for use 
    in utilization facilities within or under the jurisdiction of the 
    United States represent greater than thirty-seven and one-half 
    percent of actual or projected domestic uranium requirements for 
    any two consecutive year period, then the Secretary shall 
    immediately revise criteria for services offered under paragraph 
    (A) of section 161 v. to enhance the use of source material of 
    domestic origin for use in utilization facilities licensed, or 
    required to be licensed, under section 103 or 104b. of this Act 
    within or under the jurisdiction of the United States arising under 
    existing contracts or option contracts. . . .
        ``f. In order to protect essential security interests of the 
    United States, upon the initiation of an investigation under 
    subsection e. to determine the effects on the national security of 
    imports of source material or special nuclear material pursuant to 
    section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it shall be 
    unlawful to execute a contract or option contract resulting in the 
    import of additional source material or special nuclear material 
    from foreign sources, which is intended to be used in domestic 
    utilization facilities licensed, or required to be licensed, under 
    section 103 or 104b. of this Act. This prohibition shall remain in 
    effect for a period of two years or until the President has taken 
    action to adjust the importation of source material and special 
    nuclear material so that such imports will not threaten to impair 
    the national security, whichever first occurs.''. . .
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order against 
    section 23 of the conference report substitute. . . .
        I make a point of order that the matter contained in section 23 
    of the conference substitute recommended in the conference report 
    would not be germane to H.R. 2330 under clause 7 of rule XVI if 
    offered in the House and is, therefore, subject to a point of order 
    under clause 4 of rule XXVIII.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) Does the gentleman 
    from Arizona (Mr. Udall) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 8482]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
    Frenzel) is recognized for 20 minutes on his motion.

Sec. 26.35 To a House bill authorizing appropriations for two years for 
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission but not amending the Atomic 
    Energy Act with respect to nuclear energy policy, provisions in a 
    Senate amendment contained in a conference report amending several 
    sections of that Act making permanent changes in the law relating 
    to limitation on use of special nuclear material, disclosure of 
    Department of Energy information, and deadlines for promulgation of 
    environmental standards by EPA and NRC for uranium mill tailings 
    were conceded to be nongermane under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, 
    permitting a divisible motion to reject those portions of the 
    conference report.

    On Dec. 2, 1982,(17) a point of order was made against 
portions of a conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 4, 
which permits such points of order against nongermane matter contained 
in conference reports. The conference report stated in part as follows, 
and the point of order was made by Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 28544, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               LIMITATION ON USE OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL

        Sec. 14. Section 57 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
    2077) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsection:
        ``e. Special nuclear material, as defined in section 11, 
    produced in facilities licensed under section 103 or 104 may not be 
    transferred, reprocessed, used, or otherwise made available by any 
    instrumentality of the United States or any other person for 
    nuclear explosive purposes.'' . . .
        Sec. 18. (a) Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is 
    amended--
        (1) by striking in subsection a. ``one year after the date of 
    enactment of this section''
        (B) the Commission's requirements are modified to conform to 
    such standards.
        Such suspension shall terminate on the earlier of April 1, 1984 
    or the date on which the Commission amends the October 3 
    regulations to conform to final standards promulgated by the 
    Administrator under subsection b. During the period of such 
    suspension, the Commission shall continue to regulate by product 
    material (as defined in section 11 e. (2)) under this Act on a 
    licensee-by-licensee basis as the Commission deems necessary to 
    protect public health, safety, and the environment.
        ``(3) Not later than 6 months after the date on which the 
    Administrator promulgates final standards pursuant to

[[Page 8483]]

    subsection b. of this section, the Commission shall, after notice 
    and opportunity for public comment, amend the October 3 
    regulations, and adopt such modifications, as the Commission deems 
    necessary to conform to such final standards of the Administrator. 
    . . .
        (b)(1) Section 108(a) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 
    Control Act of 1978 is amended by adding the following new 
    paragraph at the end thereof:
        ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 
    subsection, after October 31, 1982, if the Administrator has not 
    promulgated standards under section 275 a. of the Atomic Energy Act 
    of 1954 in final form by such date, remedial action taken by the 
    Secretary under this title shall comply with the standards proposed 
    by the Administrator under such section 275 a. until such time as 
    the Administrator promulgates the standards in final form.''.
        (2) The second sentence of section 108(a)(2) of the Uranium 
    Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 is repealed. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
    matter contained in sections 14, 17, and 18 of the substitute for 
    the Senate amendment in the conference report would not be germane 
    to H.R. 2330 if offered in the House and is, therefore, subject to 
    a point of order under the rules of the House.
        I make this point of order, Mr. Speaker, because sections 14, 
    17, and 18 would be permanent changes in law and this bill is a 2-
    year authorization bill; also, the three sections contain matters 
    that fall within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I concede the 
    point of order and wish to be heard in the regular order on the 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

        Section 14 of the conference report . . . is nongermane as an 
    amendment to the House bill authorizing appropriations for the 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Section 14 was a Senate amendment 
    that deals with special nuclear material by amending the Atomic 
    Energy Act of 1954, but special nuclear material is material that 
    is used for the purpose of making nuclear weapons and is, 
    therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
    Services.

[[Page 8484]]

        The language of section 14, as adopted by the conferees, would 
    therefore have been nongermane had such an amendment been offered 
    in the House.
        Section 17, which was a Senate amendment to the House bill, is 
    also nongermane since it would revise permanent law through a 2-
    year authorization. This section would revise a statute dealing 
    with the release of information concerning security measures by the 
    Secretary of Energy, and other matters that involve the nuclear 
    weapons program of the Department of Energy.

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



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                       C. HOUSE-SENATE RELATIONS
 
Sec. 27. --Amendment to Senate Amendment

    The reader will note from prior sections in this chapter that when 
judging the germaneness of an amendment to a proposition under 
consideration and originating in the House, the amendment must relate 
to the subject matter and to the pending text under immediate 
consideration. For example, in sections 2 and 18, supra, it is 
demonstrated that an amendment must be germane to the pending portion 
of the bill to which offered, or to the amendment to which offered, as 
the case may be, whether in the form of a motion to strike out and 
insert, to strike out, or to insert. Similarly, section 21, supra, 
indicates that perfecting amendments to amendments in the nature of a 
substitute or to substitute amendments need only be germane to the 
inserted language contained in said substitutes, it being irrelevant 
whether or not the perfecting amendment might be germane to the 
underlying (perhaps broader) bill which said substitute seeks to strike 
out and replace. In that contest, the language of the underlying bill 
proposed to be stricken is not taken into consideration when 
determining the germaneness of a second degree amendment to a 
substitute proposing to insert other language. It is only the pending 
text under immediate consideration against which the germaneness of 
proposed amendments thereto is judged. This test of germaneness is 
consistent with Rule XIX governing the permis

[[Page 8485]]

sible degree of amendments in the House (see Chapter 27, Amendments, 
supra). At this stage, the House has not finally adopted any version of 
a House-passed bill and is free to reject the pending amendment(s) and 
proceed to other differently drafted amendments which may present 
another test of germaneness to the bill as a whole.
    With respect to proposed House amendments to Senate amendments to a 
House-passed bill, however, the language of the underlying House-passed 
bill may be relevant to the question of the germaneness of a 
subsequently proposed amendment to a Senate amendment, especially where 
the Senate amendment has stricken out language in the House-passed 
bill, since in such a situation the House should not be bound only to 
language or a modification thereof which is germane to Senate inserted 
provisions, but should be permitted to insist upon retention of all or 
a portion of House-passed stricken language without having to insist 
upon disagreement with the entire Senate-inserted language, in an 
effort to reach a germane compromise with the Senate. Thus where a 
Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in a House bill, the 
test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and concur with an 
amendment is the relationship between the language in the motion and 
the provisions in the House bill proposed to be stricken, as well as 
those to be inserted (if any) by the Senate amendment.(19) 
On the other hand, it is not sufficient that an amendment to a Senate 
amendment be germane to the original House bill if it is not germane to 
the subject matter of a Senate amendment which merely inserts new 
matter and does not strike out House provisions.(20) In that 
case, House-passed text may have no direct bearing on the germaneness 
of a House amendment to the Senate-inserted amendment. Therefore, while 
it is generally true that a proposed House amendment must always be 
germane to the particular Senate amendment to which 
offered,(1) the form of the Senate amendment is relevant in 
determining whether underlying House-passed text is also language to 
which the proposed amendment must relate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 27.9, 27.10, 27.13, 27.22, 27.25 and 27.41, infra.
20. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6188 and 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2936.
 1. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6188-91, 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2936 and Sec. Sec. 27.2 and 27.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test of the germaneness of an amendment to a motion to concur 
in a Senate amendment with

[[Page 8486]]

an amendment is the relationship between the amendment and the motion, 
and not between the amendment and the Senate amendment to which the 
motion has been offered,(2) since at that stage the 
amendment is being offered to a proposition initially pending in and 
not yet adopted by the House, rather than directly to a Senate 
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 27.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Formerly, a Senate amendment was not subject to the point of order 
that it was not germane to the House bill,(3) but under 
recent changes in the rules points of order may be made and separate 
votes demanded on portions of Senate amendments and conference reports 
containing language which would not have been germane if offered in the 
House. Clause 4 of Rule XXVIII permits points of order against language 
in a conference report which was originally in the Senate bill or 
amendment and which would not have been germane if offered to the 
House-passed version, and permits a separate motion to reject such 
portion of the conference report if found nongermane.(4) For 
purposes of that rule, the House-passed version, against which Senate 
provisions are compared, is that finally committed to conference, 
taking into consideration all amendments adopted by the House, 
including House amendments to Senate amendments.(5) Clause 5 
of Rule XXVIII permits points of order against motions to concur or 
concur with amendment in nongermane Senate amendments, the stage of 
disagreement having been reached, and, if such points of order are 
sustained, permits separate motions to reject such nongermane matter. 
Clause 5 of Rule XXVIII is not applicable to a provision contained in a 
motion to recede and concur with an amendment (the stage of 
disagreement having been reached) which is not contained in any form in 
the Senate version, the only requirement in such circumstances being 
that the motion as a whole be germane to the Senate amendment as a 
whole under clause 7 of Rule XVI.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3425.
 4. See Sec. 26, supra.
 5. See Sec. 26.3, supra.
 6. See Sec. Sec. 27.4 and 27.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a Senate amendment reported in disagreement by conferees is 
under consideration, a proposal to amend must, under clause 7 of Rule 
XVI, be germane to the Senate amendment.(7) A point of order 
may therefore be sustained against a motion to concur in a Senate 
amendment with

[[Page 8487]]

an amendment, on the grounds that the proposed amendment is not germane 
to the Senate amendment.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 27.35, infra.
 8. See Sec. 27.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, where a Senate amendment proposing legislation on a 
general appropriation bill is reported back in disagreement and a 
motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment is offered, 
the proposed amendment is subject to the rule of 
germaneness.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senate amendments proposing legislation on appropriation bills may 
be amended by germane amendments. And while it has been held that a 
Senate amendment proposing legislation on a general appropriation bill 
may be subject to an amendment of a similar nature offered in the 
House, the requirement remains in such circumstances that the House 
amendment be germane to the Senate amendment.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See the proceedings at 116 Cong. Rec. 41504, 41505, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Dec. 15, 1970, in which a Senate amendment proposing 
        legislation on a general appropriation bill (H.R. 17755, 
        Committee on Appropriations, comprising Department of 
        Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1971) was reported 
        back from conference in disagreement, pursuant to provisions of 
        Rule XX clause 2 (House Rules and Manual Sec. 829) prohibiting 
        conferees from agreeing to certain Senate amendments. A motion 
        to concur in the amendment with a further amendment was held to 
        be in order, even though such further amendment was also 
        legislative in nature.
            See the ruling of Speaker McCormack at p. 41505. For 
        further discussion of the rules with respect to legislation on 
        appropriation bills, see Ch. 26, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where, in the consideration of a Senate bill reported from 
conference in total disagreement, a motion to concur in Senate 
amendments to a House amendment to the bill is pending or is rejected, 
the Senate amendments are open to germane amendments.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See the remarks of Speaker McCormack at 113 Cong. Rec. 19033, 90th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1967, made in response to the 
        parliamentary inquiry of Mr. Adams. The bill under 
        consideration was S.J. Res. 81, providing for settlement of a 
        railway labor dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment to a Senate amendment is germane if it merely changes 
the effective date of provisions of law contained in the Senate 
amendment.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See the ruling of Speaker pro tempore John J. O'Connor (N.Y.) at 81 
        Cong. Rec. 976, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1937, quoted in 
        Sec. 27.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While it is normally not in order under the guise of an amendment

[[Page 8488]]

to a numbered Senate amendment to amend an unamended portion of the 
House engrossed bill,(13) a motion to delete all funding for 
a program has been offered as an amendment to a Senate amendment which 
reduced the funding in the original House bill--thus necessitating 
either an amendment to the House engrossed bill to strike the entire 
paragraph or some other drafting technique to eliminate the 
funding.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 27.8, infra.
14. See 133 Cong. Rec. 18297, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1987 
        (motion offered by Mr. Whitten during consideration of H.R. 
        1827, supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
        1987).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Amendment Appropriating Funds for Asbestos Hazards Abatement--
    House Amendment Earmarking Funds for Refinancing Municipal Bond 
    Debt

Sec. 27.1 When a motion is offered that the House recede from its 
    disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur therein with an 
    amendment, the proposed amendment must be germane to the Senate 
    amendment; and where a Senate amendment appropriated funds for 
    abatement of asbestos hazards in schools, a proposed House 
    amendment to such amendment which would also have earmarked a 
    portion of those funds for the refinancing of the bond debt of the 
    recycle energy system of a specified city was ruled out as 
    nongermane, being totally unrelated to the issue of asbestos 
    hazard.

    On Aug. 10, 1984,(15) during consideration in the House 
of a motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate amendment and 
concur with an amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 
6040,(16) Speaker Pro Tempore Doug Barnard, Jr., of Georgia, 
ruled that the House amendment was not germane to the Senate amendment. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 130 Cong. Rec. 23988, 23989, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Senate amendment No. 55: Page 17, after line 23, insert:

                       abatement, control, and compliance

            For an additional amount for ``Abatement, control, and 
        compli

[[Page 8489]]

        ance'', $50,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, That this amount shall be available for the purposes 
        of the Asbestos School Hazards Abatement Act of 1984.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 55 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:

                       abatement, control, and compliance

            For an additional amount for ``Abatement, control, and 
        compliance'', $63,000,000, to remain available until expended. 
        Of this amount, $50,000,000 shall be available for the purposes 
        of the Asbestos School Hazards Abatement Act of 1984 (including 
        up to ten percent for administrative expenses as provided for 
        in said Act): Provided, That this sum shall not be available 
        for asbestos removal projects until the Environmental 
        Protection Agency develops comprehensive guidelines to classify 
        and evaluate asbestos hazards and appropriate abatement 
        options. And of this amount, $13,000,000 shall be available to 
        the City of Akron, Ohio, to refinance the bond debt of the 
        recycle energy system of such city: Provided, That such sum may 
        not exceed sixty percent of such debt: Provided further, That 
        the facilities of such recycle energy system shall be made 
        available to the Federal Government as a laboratory facility 
        for municipal waste to energy research. . . .

        Mr. [Robert L.] Livingston [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order that the amendment in the motion is not germane to 
    the Senate amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Livingston: Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment provided $5 
    million for abatement, control, and compliance, to remain available 
    until expended for the purposes of the Asbestos School Hazards 
    Abatement Act of 1984.
        The amendment in the motion not only provides funds for the 
    same product as the Senate amendment, but goes far beyond the scope 
    of the Senate amendment by earmarking $13 million for the city of 
    Akron, OH, to refinance the bond debt of the recycle energy system 
    of that city.
        A motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an 
    amendment must be germane to the Senate amendment. This amendment 
    introduces a new and wholly unrelated purpose and subject into the 
    Senate amendment. There is no relationship whatever between the 
    subject and purpose of the original Senate amendment, which is 
    asbestos hazards, and the bond debt of the city of Akron for its 
    recycle energy system. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The proposed amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment. 
    Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Computation of Civil Service Retirement Annuities--House Amendment 
    Regarding Mortgage Bond Taxability

Sec. 27.2 An amendment to a Senate amendment must be germane thereto; 
    and where a

[[Page 8490]]

    Senate amendment, reported from conference in disagreement on a 
    joint resolution making continuing appropriations, provided for 
    computation of civil service retirement annuities, an amendment 
    (proposed in a motion to recede and concur with an amendment) which 
    sought to amend provisions of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act 
    relating to mortgage bond taxability under the Internal Revenue 
    Code was held not germane.

    On Dec. 13, 1980,(17) during consideration of H.J. Res. 
637 (further continuing appropriations, fiscal year 1981), the Chair 
sustained a point of order against a motion that the House recede from 
its disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur with an amendment. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 34097, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment 129: Page 64, after line 21, insert:
            Sec. 196. (a) The annuity of an employee retiring under the 
        civil service retirement system with at least five years but 
        less than twenty years of service as a law enforcement officer 
        or firefighter under the civil service system, or any 
        combination thereof, shall be computed with respect to the 
        service of such employee as such a law enforcement officer or 
        firefighter, or any combination thereof, by multiplying 2\1/2\ 
        percent of such employee's average pay by the years of such 
        service.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 129 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment insert the following:
            Sec. 196. The table contained in paragraph (1) of 
        subsection (n) of section 1104 of the Omnibus Reconciliation 
        Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-499, approved December 5, 1980) is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item:
            ``San Bernardino, California--225,000,000 Financing owner-
        occupied residences in the overall Shandin Hills Project of the 
        State College Redevelopment Project Number 4.''. . .

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I renew my 
    point of order . . . on the grounds that [the amendment] is not 
    germane to the Senate amendment or a House amendment on any 
    provision passed in either House, and therefore amounts to 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Mississippi 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I cannot argue the point of order. 
    The basis for the committee bringing this to the Congress is that 
    this really fits as an

[[Page 8491]]

    emergency situation which must be handled. If we wait it will force 
    an 8- or 10-month delay. It was thought that we should bring it to 
    the Members on emergency grounds. I have no defense against the 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The motion is not germane to the Senate amendment, and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order for that reason.

Special Census in Areas Impacted by Influx of--Legal Aliens--Amendment 
    Prohibiting Counting of Aliens in Determining Reapportionment

Sec. 27.3 When a Senate amendment reported from conference in 
    disagreement is under consideration, an amendment thereto must be 
    germane to the Senate amendment; thus, to a Senate amendment 
    authorizing the President to order a special census in state or 
    local government areas determined to have been significantly 
    impacted by an influx of legal aliens within 6 months of a regular 
    census, an amendment not only modifying that provision but also 
    prohibiting the counting of all aliens (legal and illegal) in 
    determining reapportionment of the House of Representatives was 
    held to be not germane because broadening the scope of the Senate 
    amendment beyond the issue of a special census in those areas 
    impacted by legal aliens.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 610 (continuing 
appropriations for fiscal 1981) in the House on Sept. 30, 
1980,(19) the proceedings described above occurred as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 126 Cong. Rec. 28503, 28504, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (20) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 35: Page 12, after line 4, insert:
            Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when 
        the President determines that a State, county, or local unit of 
        general purpose government is significantly affected by a major 
        population change due to a large number of legal immigrants 
        within six months of a regular decennial census date, he may 
        order a special census, pursuant to section 196 of title XIII 
        of the United States Code, or other method of obtaining a 
        revised estimate of the population, of such jurisdiction or 
        subsections of that jurisdiction in which the immigrants are 
        concentrated. Any such special census of revised estimate shall 
        be conducted solely at Federal expense. Such special census or 
        revised estimate shall be conducted no later than twelve months 
        after the regular census date

[[Page 8492]]

        and shall be designated the official census statistics and may 
        be used in the manner provided by applicable law.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 35 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:
            Sec. 118. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
        when the President determines that a State, county, or local 
        unit of general purpose government is significantly affected by 
        a major population change due to a large number of legal 
        immigrants within six months of a regular decennial census 
        date, he may order a special census, pursuant to section 196 of 
        title XIII of the United States Code. . . .
            (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the number 
        of Representatives in Congress to which each State would be 
        entitled under the twentieth decennial census shall be 
        determined only on the basis of the number of persons in each 
        State who are citizens of the United States.

        Mr. [Robert] Garcia [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
    of order against the motion to recede and concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment.
        Mr. Speaker, the motion to recede and concur is not in order 
    because it does not meet the germaneness test under clause 7 of 
    rule 16 of the rules of the House which provide that, ``no motion 
    or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration 
    shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
        Under the precedents of the House germaneness is determined by 
    the text of the amendment and the burden of proof must be carried 
    by the proponent of the amendment.
        The Senate amendment is limited to situations such as the 
    unprecedented influx of Cuban refugees who were lawfully admitted 
    into the country after the census got underway. Senator Chiles' 
    amendment is limited in scope and addresses a unique problem not 
    heretofore encountered in the census.
        The amendment is limited to a specific period of time and to a 
    specific category of people who enter the country lawfully around 
    the time the census is taken.
        Specifically, the Senate amendment authorizes the Secretary of 
    Commerce to conduct a special census, within 6 months of the 
    decennial census, in order where there has been an unprecedented 
    influx of legal aliens. The number of legal aliens counted in this 
    special census would then be added to the official census figures 
    and used for all legal purposes. The House amendment on the other 
    hand would fundamentally alter and enlarge the purpose of the 
    Senate amendment, and accordingly, the entire motion to recede and 
    concur with an amendment is not in order.
        The House amendment directly impacts on the reapportionment of 
    the House following the decennial census. Specifically, the 
    amendment to the Senate amendment would base the apportionment of 
    seats in the House on the number of citizens counted in the census. 
    It would exclude legal as well as illegal aliens counted in the 
    census and incorporated into the apportion

[[Page 8493]]

    ment base. Unlike the Senate amendment which is limited to a 
    specific situation, the amendment to the Senate amendment 
    encompasses legal as well as illegal aliens counted in the census. 
    Moreover, it is not restricted to any time frame so that any alien 
    who enters the country regardless of the circumstances and legality 
    of their entry are subject to exclusion from the census.
        Thus, the amendment is not germane because it vitiates the 
    applicability of the Senate amendment for all legal purposes. Mr. 
    Speaker, for the foregoing reasons, I must insist on my point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. [Joseph M.] McDade [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I 
    rise in opposition to the point of order. Under the precedents, 
    when a motion is made to recede and concur in an amendment of the 
    Senate with a further amendment, the only test is whether the 
    proposed amendment is germane to the Senate amendment reported in 
    disagreement.
        This amendment is germane to the Senate amendment. Both the 
    Senate amendment, and the amendment in the motion, constitute 
    permanent law, since they both contain the phrase ``Notwithstanding 
    any other provision of law.''
        Both of the amendments deal with the same subject, that is, the 
    census. Both deal with the question of who shall be included in the 
    census.
        The amendment is germane, and the point of order should be 
    overruled. . . .
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York makes the point of 
    order that the amendment contained in the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) is not germane to the 
    Senate amendment No. 35. Under the precedents as cited in 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 21, when a Senate 
    amendment reported in disagreement by conferees is under 
    consideration, a proposal to amend must be germane to the Senate 
    amendment.
        Senate amendment No. 35 provides that the President may order a 
    special census to be taken if he determines that a State or local 
    unit of government is significantly impacted by a major population 
    change due to a large number of legal aliens within 6 months of a 
    regular decennial census, and that such census in those areas when 
    conducted would be designated as the official census under all 
    applicable law.
        The proposed amendment to the Senate amendment, in addition to 
    a slight modification of the Senate language, contains, the 
    additional requirement that representation in Congress to which 
    each State would be entitled under the 20th Decennial Census shall 
    be determined only on the basis of the number of persons in each 
    State who are U.S. citizens. In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    proposed amendment represents a significant broadening of the issue 
    presented by the Senate amendment No. 35, as it addresses not only 
    those areas impacted by legal immigrants within 6 months of a 
    general census, but attempts to legislate on the issue of whether 
    legal and illegal aliens in all areas of the United States should 
    be counted for reapportionment of the House of Representatives. The 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 8494]]

Point of Order Should Be Based on Rule XVI, Not Rule XXVIII

Sec. 27.4 Where a motion is made to concur in a Senate amendment with 
    an amendment, and such proposed House amendment contains new matter 
    and is not germane to the Senate amendment, any point of order 
    against the House amendment should be based on Rule XVI, clause 7, 
    rather than on Rule XXVIII, clauses 5(a) and 5(b), which permits 
    points of order against Senate matter (including Senate amendments 
    proposed to be amended by a motion to concur with an amendment); 
    thus, where a point of order is based on the contention that a 
    Senate amendment as proposed to be amended would not have been 
    germane to the House bill, under Rule XXVIII, the Chair may treat 
    the point of order as having been raised under Rule XVI, clause 7.

    On June 30, 1987,(1) during consideration of H.R. 1827 
(supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1987), the motion 
described above was offered to the following amendment in disagreement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 133 Cong. Rec. 18294, 18295, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 5: Page 3, after line 7, insert:

                            Administrative Provision

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
        funds appropriated for fiscal year 1987 shall be used for the 
        purpose of granting any patent for vertebrate or invertebrate 
        animals, modified, altered, or in any way changed through 
        engineering technology, including genetic engineering.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the motion.
        The text of the motion is as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 5 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:

                      Economic Development Administration

                    economic development assistance programs

            Not to exceed $14,100,000 appropriated and available for 
        obligation and expenditure under section 108(a)(1) of Public 
        Law 99-190, as amended, shall remain available for obligation 
        through September 30, 1988: Provided, That the Economic

[[Page 8495]]

        Development Administration shall close out the audits 
        concerning grants to New York, New York pursuant to title I of 
        the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act 
        of 1976, not later than August 1, 1987.

                          Patent and Trademark Office

                             salaries and expenses

            None of the funds appropriated by this or any prior Act to 
        the Patent and Trademark Office shall be used to purchase the 
        mass storage requirement (PTO-10) portion of the U.S. Patent 
        and Trademark Office Automation Project. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against amendment No. 5 reported in disagreement of the 
    supplemental appropriation conference report on page 13 of the 
    report, and on page 3 lines 19 through 23 of the printed bill now 
    before us which relates to procurement by the U.S. Patent and Trade 
    Market Office automation project pursuant to rule XXVIII, clause 
    5(a)(1). This rule relates to nongermane matter in amendments in 
    disagreement.
        As I interpret it, the rule states that any matter introduced 
    as a new issue in a conference committee which would have been 
    otherwise ruled out of order if it came before the House, would 
    likewise be made eligible for a point of order as reported in 
    amendments in disagreement from the conference committee should 
    there be a motion from the House to recede from its disagreement 
    with the Senate.
        Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment introduced as new material in 
    the conference committee would delay procurement funds for the 
    Patent Office for the purchase of mass storage requirement 
    equipment. The purchase is part of the overall automation of the 
    U.S. Patent Office and I urge my point of order be sustained.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
    Frenzel] is raising a point of order against the motion, is that 
    correct, as being not germane to the Senate amendment under rule 
    XVI, clause 7?
        Mr. Frenzel: Yes, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] 
    concedes the point of order and the point of order is sustained 
    against the motion.

Point of Order, Based on Nongermane Senate Matter, Against Portion of 
    Motion To Recede and Concur With Amendment

Sec. 27.5 Pursuant to clause 5(b) of Rule XXVIII, a Member may make a 
    point of order against a portion of a motion to recede and concur 
    in a Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement, 
    with a further amendment, on the ground that that portion of the 
    Senate amendment contained in the motion was not germane to the 
    House-passed measure; and a motion rejecting that portion of the 
    motion to re

[[Page 8496]]

    cede and concur with an amendment is in order if the point of order 
    is sustained.

    The proceedings of July 31, 1974, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 8217, to provide exemptions from tariff duty of certain 
equipment on United States vessels, are discussed in section 26.30, 
supra.

Test of Germaneness of Amendment to Motion To Concur in Senate 
    Amendment With Amendment

Sec. 27.6 The test of the germaneness of an amendment to a motion to 
    concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment is the relationship 
    between the amendment and the motion, and not between the amendment 
    and the Senate amendment to which the motion has been offered.

    On Aug. 3, 1973,(3) there was pending a motion to concur 
in a Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate bill with a 
further amendment. The Speaker indicated in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry that any amendment offered to the pending motion upon rejection 
of the previous question thereon must be germane to the amendment 
contained in the motion. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 28121, 28122, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (S. 1888) to extend and amend the 
    Agricultural Act of 1970 for the purpose of assuring consumers of 
    plentiful supplies of food and fiber at reasonable prices.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: (4) The Clerk will read the conference 
    report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the conference report.
        (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the 
    House of July 31, 1973.)
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the Senate amendment to the 
    House amendment.
        The Clerk proceeded to read the Senate amendment to the House 
    amendment.
        (For Senate amendment to House amendment, see proceedings of 
    the Senate of July 31, 1973.) . . .
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Poage moves to concur in the Senate amendment to the 
        House amendment to the bill, S. 1888, with an amendment as 
        follows: On page 48, line 14, in the engrossed Senate 
        amendment, insert the following new subsection (d) to section 
        815 of paragraph 27:
            ``(d) The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to implement 
        policies under this Act which are designed to encourage 
        American farmers to produce to their full capabilities dur

[[Page 8497]]

        ing periods of short supply to assure American consumers with 
        an adequate supply of food and fiber at fair and reasonable 
        prices.'' . . .

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, as I 
    understand the situation now, it is a very delicate parliamentary 
    situation. What we are voting on is a Senate amendment to a House 
    amendment to a Senate bill. That means it has been amended to the 
    first degree, and with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture 
    adding this innocuous amendment, that is an amendment to the second 
    degree, and no more are allowed.
        My question is, On the motion for the previous question, if the 
    question is voted down, should a substitute or an amendment be 
    offered to the motion of the chairman, must it be germane to the 
    innocuous amendment?
        The Speaker: The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Texas 
    is now before the House. The amendment contained in the motion of 
    the gentleman from Texas would be subject to a germane amendment if 
    the previous question on this motion were rejected.

Test of Germaneness of Portion of Conference Report Originally 
    Contained in Senate Amendment--Effect of House Amendment to Senate 
    Amendment Prior to Conference

Sec. 27.7 The test of germaneness under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, of a 
    portion of a conference report originally contained in a Senate 
    amendment is its relationship to the final House version of the 
    bill committed to conference, and not to the original House-passed 
    bill which may have been superseded by a House amendment to the 
    Senate amendment prior to conference; thus, where the House (by 
    unanimous consent) amended a Senate amendment to include matter 
    germane to the Senate amendment although not germane to the 
    original House-passed bill, the Chair stated that a germaneness 
    point of order would not lie against the Senate amendment as so 
    modified in a conference report.

    The proceedings of July 28, 1983, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 2973 (interest and dividend tax withholding repeal), are 
discussed in Sec. 26.3, supra.

Amendment to Provisions Not in Disagreement

Sec. 27.8 During consideration of a Senate amendment in disagreement, a 
    motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an 
    amendment is not in order if its effect is to amend a part of the 
    House-passed bill not in disagreement.

[[Page 8498]]

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1944. During consideration of certain Senate 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement, Mr. Stephen Pace, 
of Georgia, made a motion that ``the House recede and concur in the 
amendment of the Senate'' with an amendment striking out unamended 
language passed by the House, in addition to language stricken by the 
Senate, and inserting language in lieu thereof not relevant to the 
language stricken by the Senate.(6) A point of order was 
made as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 2481 (Committee on Appropriations).
 6. See motion reported at 89 Cong. Rec. 7041, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 2, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order against the language of the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Georgia that it is not relevant to the subject 
    matter. The motion is offered in part in lieu of language which has 
    not been stricken from the bill and in regard to which the two 
    Houses are not in disagreement. . . .

    The Speaker,(7) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the matter stands, the gentleman has offered a motion to 
    strike out certain language that the two Houses have agreed to. The 
    Chair sustains the point of order. . . .

Senate Amendment Striking Language in House Bill--Test of Germaneness 
    of House Amendment

Sec. 27.9 Where a Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in a 
    House bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and 
    concur with an amendment is the relationship between the language 
    in the motion and the provisions in the House bill proposed to be 
    stricken by the Senate amendment.

    The proceedings of Dec. 12, 1974, relating to H.R. 16901, the 
agriculture, environment and consumer appropriations bill for fiscal 
1975, are discussed in Sec. 27.14, infra.

Reinserting or Amending Provisions Stricken by Senate Amendment

Sec. 27.10 Where a Senate amendment struck language of a House bill and 
    inserted language in lieu thereof, an amendment offered in the 
    House substantially retaining both the Senate language and the 
    language of the

[[Page 8499]]

    House bill was held to be germane. The Speaker in making his ruling 
    relied in part on the relationship between the House amendment and 
    the language proposed to be stricken from the House bill by the 
    Senate amendment.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill (8) 
comprising Treasury and Post Office appropriations for 1944, the 
following amendment was reported in disagreement: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 1648 (Committee on Appropriations).
 9. 89 Cong. Rec. 5899, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment No. 26: On page 52, line 11, strike out the 
    following:

            Sec. 204. No part of the money appropriated in this title 
        shall be expended for the purpose of collecting, sorting, 
        handling, transporting, or delivering free the mail of any 
        officer in any executive department or administrative agency of 
        government.

        And insert in lieu thereof the following:

            Sec. 204. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the 
        Postmaster General are hereby directed to conduct jointly a 
        study of the use of the mails free of postage by the 
        departments and independent establishments of the executive 
        branch of the Government, and shall report to the Congress not 
        later than 60 days after the passage of this act such actions 
        as may be considered in the best interests of the Government 
        toward reduction in the volume and cost of handling such 
        penalty mail.

    As part of a motion offered by Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, an 
amendment was introduced containing substantially the same provisions 
as the Senate version of the section under consideration, and adding 
the following language:

        . . . Provided further, That after January 1, 1944, no part of 
    the money appropriated in this title shall be expended for the 
    purpose of collecting, sorting, handling, transporting, and 
    delivering free the mail of any officer in any executive department 
    or administrative agency of the Government.

    The following points of order were raised against the amendment:

        Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to the paragraph under 
    discussion. It goes beyond the matters considered in the paragraph.
        Mr. [Louis] Ludlow [of Indiana]: I supplement that with the 
    suggestion, Mr. Speaker, also that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

    Mr. O'Neal further stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 5899, 5900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Senate amendment has only to do with a study of 
    penalty mail, unless the Senate amendment includes the matter 
    stricken from the House bill. The Keefe amendment deals with the 
    use of the money after January 1, 1944, and this seems to go beyond 
    the

[[Page 8500]]

    scope of paragraph 204, the amendment of the Senate, in that among 
    other matters there is a wide degree of prohibition as to all 
    agencies of the Government. . . .

    The Speaker (11) overruled the point of order, stating 
that: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 5900, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The only difference that the Chair can see between the 
    motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin and what was in the House 
    bill and is now in the bill as it comes from the Senate is fixing 
    the dates January 1, 1944, and June 30, 1944. . . .

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker apparently rejected the view 
implicit in Mr. O'Neal's argument, that the Keefe amendment was 
required to be germane to the language inserted by the Senate 
amendment.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 27.14, infra, supporting the view that the test of 
        germaneness under such circumstances is the relationship 
        between the language in the motion and the provision in the 
        House bill proposed to be stricken by, and/or the language 
        inserted by, the Senate amendment. Clearly the language 
        proposed to be stricken is part of the subject under 
        consideration under such circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test of Germaneness as Affected by Whether Amendment to Senate 
    Amendment is--Modification' of Senate Amendment or Entirely New 
    Provision

Sec. 27.11 Clause 5(b) of Rule XXVIII is not applicable to a provision 
    contained in a motion to recede and concur with an amendment which 
    was not contained in any form in the Senate version and which is 
    not therefore a ``modification'' of the Senate provision, the only 
    requirement in such circumstances being that the motion as a whole 
    be germane to the Senate amendment as a whole under clause 7, Rule 
    XVI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For discussion of the requirement of germaneness of Senate 
amendments to House bills and amendments and related procedures under 
Rule XXVIII clause 5, see Sec. 26, supra.
    The proceedings of Oct. 4, 1978, relating to H.R. 7843, the Omnibus 
Judgeship Bill, are discussed in Sec. 27.12, infra.

Diverse Provisions Affecting Organization and Administration of Federal 
    Courts

Sec. 27.12 To a Senate amendment to a House bill con

[[Page 8501]]

    taining diverse provisions relating to the organization and 
    administration of the federal courts, including appointment of 
    additional district and circuit judges, a split of the fifth 
    circuit into two new circuits, assignments, terms and 
    jurisdictional requirements, an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute containing comparable provisions, omitting any split of 
    the fifth circuit but permitting courts of appeals of a certain 
    size to establish administrative units, was held germane to the 
    Senate amendment as a whole.

    On Oct. 4, 1978,(14) during consideration of the 
conference report on the Omnibus Judgeship Bill (15) in the 
House, the Speaker Pro Tempore overruled a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 124 Cong. Rec. 33502-06, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. H.R. 7843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 7843) to provide for the 
    appointment of additional district and circuit judges, and for 
    other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Clerk will read 
    the conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the conference report [in total disagreement].
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the Senate 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
            That (a) the President shall appoint, by and with the 
        advice and consent of the Senate, two additional district 
        judges for the northern district of Alabama, one additional 
        district judge for the middle district of Alabama, three 
        additional district judges for the district of Arizona, two 
        additional district judges for the eastern district of 
        Arkansas, one additional district judge for the northern 
        district of California, three additional district judges for 
        the eastern district of California. . . .
            Sec. 6. On the effective date of this Act the nine active 
        circuit judges of the fifth circuit whose official station is 
        located in the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and 
        Mississippi are assigned as circuit judges of the fifth 
        judicial circuit as redesignated by this Act; and the six 
        active circuit judges whose official station is located in the 
        States of Louisiana or Texas are assigned as circuit judges of 
        the eleventh judicial circuit as constituted by this Act. The 
        seniority in service of each of the judges so assigned shall 
        run from the date of his original appointment to be a judge of 
        the fifth circuit as it existed prior to the effective date of 
        this Act. . . .
            Sec. 10. Section 48 of title 28 of the United States Code 
        is amended to read in part as follows:
        ``Sec. 48. Terms of court

            ``Terms or sessions of courts of appeals shall be held 
        annually at the places listed below, and at such other places 
        within the respective circuits as may be designated by rule

[[Page 8502]]

        of court. Each court of appeals may hold special terms at any 
        place within its circuit.
            [Fifth circuit sessions to be held in Atlanta, Birmingham, 
        Jackson, Jacksonville, Miami, and Montgomery. . . .]
            Sec. 11. Section 46 of title 28, United States Code, is 
        amended to read in part as follows:
        ``Sec. 46. Assignment of judges; panels; hearings; quorum
                               * * * * *

            ``(c) Cases and controversies shall be heard and determined 
        by a court or panel of not more than three judges, unless a 
        hearing or rehearing before the court en banc is ordered by a 
        majority of the circuit judges of the circuit who are in 
        regular active service. A court en banc shall consist of all 
        circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service.''. . .
        Sec.15. (a) Section 1337, of title 28 of the United States 
        Code, is amended to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 1337. Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in 
        controversy, costs

            ``(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction 
        of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of 
        Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce 
        against restraints and monopolies: Provided however, That the 
        district courts shall have original jurisdiction of an action 
        brought under and by virtue of paragraph (11) of section 20, 
        chapter 1, or section 319, chapter 8 of title 49 of the United 
        States Code, only if the matter in controversy for each receipt 
        or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and 
        costs. . . .

        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rodino moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 7843 with an amendment, as 
        follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment, insert the following:
        That (a) the President shall appoint, by and with the advice 
        and consent of the Senate, three additional district judges for 
        the northern district of Alabama, one additional district judge 
        for the middle district of Alabama, three additional district 
        judges for the district of Arizona, two additional district 
        judges for the eastern district of Arkansas, one additional 
        district judge for the northern district of California, three 
        additional district judges for the eastern district of 
        California. . . .

        Sec. 6. Any court of appeals having more than 15 active judges 
    may constitute itself into administrative units complete with such 
    facilities and staff as may be prescribed by the Administrative 
    Office of the United States Courts, and may perform its en banc 
    function by such number of members of its en banc courts as may be 
    prescribed by rule of the court of appeals.  . .
        Sec. 9. (a) Section 1337 of title 28 of the United States Code 
    is amended to read as follows:
        `` Sec. 1337. Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in 
        controversy, costs

            ``(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction 
        of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of 
        Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce 
        against restraints and monopolies: Provided however, That the 
        district court shall have original jurisdiction of an action 
        brought under section 20(11) of part I of the Interstate

[[Page 8503]]

        Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 20 (11)) or section 219 of part II of 
        such Act (49 U.S.C. 319), only if the matter in controversy for 
        each receipt or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, exclusive of 
        interest and costs. . . .

        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that section 6 of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey is not a germane modification of the 
    House bill and the Senate amendment thereto. Section 6 is an 
    entirely new subject introduced under color of amendment contrary 
    to clause 7 of rule XVI. Section 6 is not what is commonly known as 
    a nongermane Senate amendment but rather is a nongermane House 
    amendment.
        Section 6 treats with the subject of ``administrative units.'' 
    Neither the House bill nor the Senate amendment treat with that 
    subject. The Senate amendment did create a new 11th circuit. But 
    the creation of new administrative units are very different 
    subjects, the former being quite fundamental and the latter being--
    in the chairman's view--much less so. Moreover, while the Senate 
    amendment dealt with the creation of one new circuit, the pending 
    amendment deals with all circuits.
        Finally, section 6 sets new law for en banc courts. The House 
    bill did not. The Senate amendment did not. But the pending 
    amendment says that the number of members of an en banc court may 
    be set by rule of court. Current law--which neither body has sought 
    to change--requires en banc courts comprised of all the judges.
        For these reasons, section 6 is not germane.  . .
        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I urge, first of all, that the matter 
    in section 6 is wholly appropriate to the subject matter of the 
    bill, which includes matters pertaining to all 11 circuits, and 
    there is no issue of germaneness, therefore. If it is outside of 
    the scope of the conference, that is not relevant. We are in 
    technical disagreement. . . .
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Speaker, I just point this out, as I did: It 
    is not a question of technical disagreement: it is a question that 
    there was nothing in the Senate bill and nothing in the House bill. 
    The Senate bill did provide for splitting the fifth circuit. I 
    guess that is what they are trying to accomplish here, but what in 
    fact is occurring is that they are trying to develop an 
    administrative procedure which will set up the courts themselves 
    without any law, without any act on the part of this body, to do 
    something.
        In a sense, we are delegating a legislative authority to 
    administrative bodies of the courts to enact legislation. So, it is 
    for all circuits throughout the country. It is something that is 
    entirely new. It is new in the Senate, it is new here, and it is 
    entirely nongermane as far as our House rules are concerned in my 
    opinion, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Miss [Barbara] Jordan [of Texas]: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, on 
    the point of order, the question of germaneness is inappropriate to 
    be raised at this time. This bill has as its total subject matter 
    the creation of new district court judges and the creation of 
    circuit judges, so ``circuits'' is viable, relevant subject matter 
    of this conference.
        The fact that this compromise proposal which is reported in the 
    technical disagreement amendment proposed by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey, the

[[Page 8504]]

    point that we did not talk about administrative units when the bill 
    was before the House, is not applicable to a germaneness question. 
    The question of circuits was a question with us, and we can do 
    anything within the context of that general subject matter of 
    circuits which is desirable to be done.
        This particular administrative unit amendment is apropos and 
    germane to the subject matter of circuits. The gentleman from 
    Illinois is arguing the scope of the conference rather than a point 
    of germaneness. Mr. Speaker, on the issue of germaneness, the 
    gentleman from Illinois must be overruled.
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Speaker, may I just respond to that statement 
    simply in this way: We are not dealing in this bill with the 
    subject of circuits. We are dealing with the subject of additional 
    district court and additional circuit court judges for the Federal 
    courts. The limited effect of the legislation before us was an 
    amendment on that judgeship bill in the Senate with respect to one 
    circuit, not all the circuits; so that this is not legislation 
    dealing with division of the circuits. It is legislation dealing 
    with additional judges.
        May I say further that the subject of en banc courts is 
    something upon which this body had better legislate independently. 
    I do not see how we could possibly be delegating to an 
    administrative body authority to decide legislation with respect to 
    what is and what is not an en banc court, in contradistinction to 
    what the law presently is, which is to the effect that all of the 
    circuit judges represent the en banc court.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair agrees with the gentlewoman from Texas on the essence 
    of her argument. The essential question, since the conferees 
    reported in disagreement, is whether the proposed motion is germane 
    to the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment was much broader than 
    the House version.
        The Chair has a little difficulty in really pinpointing the 
    point that the gentleman from Illinois makes. It may be that he 
    intends his point of order to lie against the motion under rule 
    XXVIII, clause 5. Clause 5(b)(2) of rule XXVIII provides that a 
    point of order may be made upon the offering of a motion to recede 
    and concur with an amendment in an amendment of the Senate reported 
    from conference in disagreement, but only if the Senate amendment 
    or a portion thereof as proposed to be amended by such motion 
    contains matter which would not have been germane if offered to the 
    House bill when it was under consideration.
        The Chair would note, however, that the nongermane Senate 
    matter to which the gentleman refers, the split of the 5th circuit 
    into a 5th and an 11th circuit, is not proposed to be included even 
    in modified form in the motion offered by the gentleman from New 
    Jersey.
        The amendment proposed to the Senate amendment provides, in 
    section 6, for the establishment of administrative units in any 
    court of appeals with more than 15 active judges, but deletes any 
    mention of an adjustment of the fifth circuit.
        Section 6 appears to the Chair to be a new proposition, not a 
    modification of the portion of the Senate amend

[[Page 8505]]

    ment dealing with the fifth circuit. Therefore, a point of order 
    under clause 5 of rule XXVIII does not apply in this instance.
        The only appropriate test is whether the entire amendment 
    proposed by the gentleman from New Jersey in his motion is germane 
    to the Senate amendment as a whole, and it appears to the Chair 
    that it is germane since the Senate amendment dealt with diverse 
    subjects including appointment of additional district and circuit 
    judges, a split of the fifth circuit, assignments and terms of the 
    courts, and jurisdictional requirements.
        For all of these reasons, the Chair will very respectfully 
    overrule the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair mentioned the inapplicability of 
clause 5 of Rule XXVIII, although Mr. McClory did not specifically 
mention that clause, because the point of order was based on the 
argument that section 6 of the Rodino motion, taken alone, was not 
germane to the provision in the Senate amendment for a split of the 
fifth circuit. As the Chair indicated, that was not the proper test of 
germaneness where the provision complained of is an entirely new 
provision in an amendment to a Senate amendment rather than a 
``modification'' of the Senate amendment.

Striking Appropriation for Missile Program--House Amendment Reinserting 
    Funds and Earmarking Other Funds for Unrelated Grants

Sec. 27.13 To a Senate amendment striking an appropriation for a 
    missile program from a general appropriation bill, a House 
    amendment not only reinserting a portion of those funds but also 
    earmarking other funds in the bill for specific grants unrelated to 
    that missile program and waiving provisions of law otherwise 
    restricting such grants was conceded to be nongermane.

    On Nov. 15, 1989,(17) during consideration of the 
Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal 1990 (18) in 
the House, it was demonstrated that an individual proposition is not 
germane to another individual proposition when a point of order was 
conceded and sustained against the amendment described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 135 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 3072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Al Swift (Wash.).

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

[[Page 8506]]

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 94: Page 32, line 17, strike out all 
        after ``diseases'' down to and including ``program'' in line 
        20.

        Mr. [John P.] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Murtha moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 94, and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter stricken by said amendment, insert ``: Provided further, 
        That of the amount herein provided for the Strategic Defense 
        Initiative, $52,000,000 shall be available only for the Arrow 
        missile program: Provided further, That of funds appropriated 
        in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense Agencies 
        in fiscal year 1989, $46,000,000 shall be available only for 
        grants as follows:
            (1) $15,000,000 for the National Center for Industrial 
        Innovation at Lehigh University . . .
            Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated in 
        this appropriations account for fiscal year 1990, $15,200,000 
        shall be available only for grants, as follows:
            (1) $5,200,000 for the proposed Center for Environmental 
        Medicine at the Medical College of Ohio;
            (2) $8,000,000 for the proposed Center for commerce and 
        Industrial Expansion at Loyola University of Chicago; and
            (3) $2,000,000 for the Pilot Program for Combat Casualty 
        Care Management and Research at the Martin Luther King, Jr. 
        General Hospital-Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and 
        Science . . .
        Provided further, That the grants provided for in the preceding 
        provisions shall be made without regard to, and (to the extent 
        necessary) in contravention of, subsection (a) of section 2361 
        of title 10, United States Code (which is hereby superseded to 
        the extent necessary to make such grants), and shall be made 
        without regard to subsection (b)(2) of such section, and shall 
        be made without regard to the requirements of section 2304 of 
        title 10, United States Code. . . .

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order on the amendment.
        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) violates 
    clause 7 of rule XVI in that it is not germane to the subject 
    matter under consideration, and I would seek to speak to my point 
    of order.
        Mr. Murtha: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.

Senate Amendment Striking Prohibition Against Use of Funds To Control 
    Air Pollution by Regulating Parking Facilities--House Amendment To 
    Prohibit Use of Funds for Plans Requiring Review of Indirect 
    Sources of Air Pollution

Sec. 27.14 A specific proposition may not be amended by a proposition 
    more general in scope; thus, to a Senate amendment striking a 
    provision in a general appropria

[[Page 8507]]

    tion bill which precluded the use of funds therein by the 
    Environmental Protection Agency to control air pollution by 
    regulating parking facilities, a motion in the House to recede and 
    concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment which temporarily 
    prohibited the use of such funds to implement any plan requiring 
    the review of any indirect sources of air pollution was held more 
    comprehensive in scope and was held to be not germane.

    On Dec. 12, 1974,(20) during consideration in the House 
of the conference report on H.R. 16901,(1) it was 
demonstrated that where a Senate amendment proposed to strike out 
language in a House bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to 
recede and concur with an amendment was the relationship between the 
language in the motion and the provisions in the House bill proposed to 
be stricken by the Senate amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 39272, 39273, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. Agriculture, Environment and Consumer Appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (2) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 8: Page 52, line 20, strike: ``Sec. 
        510. No part of any funds appropriated under this Act may be 
        used by the Environmental Protection Agency to administer any 
        program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking 
        facilities.''

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 8 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
            ``Sec. 510. No part of any funds appropriated under this 
        Act may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to 
        implement or enforce any provision of a state implementation 
        plan promulgated or approved pursuant to Section 110 of the 
        Clean Air Act that requires the review of indirect sources, as 
        defined in 40 CFR 52.22(b)(1), pending completion of judicial 
        review, pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, of the 
        indirect source regulations set forth in 40 CFR 52.22, or any 
        other such regulation relating to indirect sources.''. . .

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
    of order on the ground of nongermaneness.
        The House provision provided only for parking, and the Senate 
    struck completely the House provision.
        This language is not germane in that it goes far beyond 
    parking. The amendment would cover airports, it would cover 
    highways, it would cover shopping centers, and it would cover 
    sports arenas, regardless of whether any parking facilities are 
    attached or associated.

[[Page 8508]]

        There is no question but what this is not germane. It is far 
    beyond what the House had stated, and I think it is not appropriate 
    to be in an appropriation bill at all. Therefore I ask that it be 
    stricken in accordance with the arguments used against the 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: . . . Mr. Speaker, the legislation to which the 
    gentleman from Florida has referred has had the effect of stopping 
    employment in the cities of this country. It has done this because 
    they have to have a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency 
    for parking. It has prevented new buildings in universities, 
    hospitals, shopping centers--and this at a time of great 
    unemployment in the United States.
        It was felt when the bill passed in the House that in order to 
    prevent that effect upon our economy and upon the growth of our 
    cities, and in order to protect the inner cities so that efforts 
    could be made to live there, that we, in turn, should keep this one 
    item from being used to effect this legislation.
        In the Senate it was felt that since there are lawsuits pending 
    throughout the United States, I think in at least four instances, 
    that this legislation covering parking was the key, that that part 
    which had parking in it should be included in the conference and 
    the conferees felt that in the interest of the Nation that those 
    related matters which are a part and parcel of the provisions to 
    which we were trying to direct our attention, should be accepted, 
    and it was accepted by the conferees.
        So, Mr. Speaker, on that basis I respectfully submit that while 
    we touched on only one part of this provision, that the other parts 
    thereby came before the conference, and on that basis we have gone 
    along with delaying this, not to prohibit, but to restrict EPA from 
    causing such delays or work stoppages in this area until such time 
    as the courts determine the issue. And, as I said, the question is 
    now pending before the Federal courts in at least four cases. Of 
    course neither of these provisions, either the House or the 
    conference provision, affects the rights of the cities, towns or of 
    a State from taking such action as they wish. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        There is only one issue involved here and that is whether the 
    amendment included in the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi 
    is germane. It obviously is far more comprehensive than the House 
    provision, and is not germane thereto. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

Rule Against Offering Amendments Which Change Existing Law to 
    Appropriation Bills as Not Applicable to Motion To Dispose of 
    Senate Amendment

Sec. 27.15 Where a Senate amendment proposing legislation on a general 
    appropriation bill is, pursuant to Rule XX, clause 2, reported back 
    from conference in disagreement, a proposed House amendment to the 
    Senate amendment adding further legislation is in order if germane

[[Page 8509]]

    thereto, as clause 2(c) of Rule XXI proscribing amendments to 
    general appropriation bills which change existing law has been held 
    not to apply to motions to dispose of Senate amendments; thus, to a 
    Senate amendment providing for prepayment of certain loans by Rural 
    Electrification Administration borrowers serving a specified 
    density of population, a proposed House amendment eliminating the 
    population density criterion to broaden the applicability of the 
    Senate amendment to additional borrowers within the same class was 
    held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 1827 (supplemental appropriations, 
fiscal 1987) in the House on June 30, 1987,(3) the Chair 
overruled points of order in the circumstances described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 133 Cong. Rec. 18307, 18308, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:
        Senate amendment No. 223: Page 49, after line 17, insert:

                      Rural Electrification Administration

            Notwithstanding the amount authorized to be prepaid under 
        section 306A(d)(1) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 
        U.S.C. 936a(d)(1)), a borrower of a loan made by the Federal 
        Financing Bank and guaranteed under section 306 of such Act (7 
        U.S.C. 936) that serves 6 or fewer customers per mile may, at 
        the option of the borrower, prepay such loan (or any loan 
        advance thereunder) during fiscal year 1987 or 1988, in 
        accordance with section 306A of such Act.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the motion.
        The text of the motion is as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 223 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter inserted by said amendment, insert the following:

                      Rural Electrification Administration

            Hereafter, notwithstanding section 306A(d) of the Rural 
        Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 936(d)), a borrower of a 
        loan made by the Federal Financing Bank and guaranteed under 
        section 306 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 936) may, at the option of 
        the borrower, prepay such loan (or any loan advance thereunder) 
        in accordance with section 306A of such Act. . . .

        Mr. [Ron] Packard [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order, the following points of order, actually:
        No. 1, that subject to rule 21, clause 2, this amendment is 
    legislating on appropriation bills.

[[Page 8510]]

        No. 2, that this amendment is not germane to the supplemental 
    appropriations bill. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order. This amendment is germane to the amendment of the Senate.
        What the amendment does is quite straightforward. It removes 
    the phrase ``that serves 6 or fewer customers per mile'' from the 
    Senate amendment. This has the direct result of allowing REA's that 
    have population density of up to 12.4 customers per mile to 
    qualify, rather than just 6 customers per mile.
        The amendment does not change the class of borrowers that can 
    prepay; it simply enlarges the same class. It does not add some 
    other type of borrower.
        The Senate amendment allows Rural Electrification 
    Administration borrowers who serve 6 or fewer customers per mile of 
    line to refinance their REA guaranteed debt with the Federal 
    Financing Bank without being assessed a prepayment penalty.
        There are 51 borrowers whose loans bear an interest rate such 
    that they would be worthwhile to refinance at present interest 
    rates.
        At present there are 31 borrowers with loans whose density is 6 
    or fewer per mile.
        There are 20 borrowers with loans whose density is greater than 
    6 customers per mile of line.
        The conference agreement would allow all 51 borrowers to 
    refinance their loans rather than only 31 borrowers.
        This type of amendment is clearly in order and is germane.
        Cannon's procedures states, ``A general subject may be amended 
    by specific proposition of the same class.'' Mr. Speaker, this is 
    exactly what is being done.
        In fact, the amendment is even stricter. In effect, what is 
    involved is a proposition being amended by the same proposition in 
    the same class. Clearly, such an amendment expands the scope, but 
    is germane. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        With respect to the issue of whether this motion constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriations bill, the Chair rules that it is 
    not in violation of clause 2 [of Rule XX], since the amendment was 
    brought back in disagreement for a separate vote, not as part of 
    the conference report. . . .
        With respect to the germaneness issue that the gentleman 
    raises, the motion is germane to the Senate amendment since 
    relating to the same class of borrowers covered by the Senate 
    amendment and the Senate amendment itself is being brought back in 
    disagreement for a separate vote. Therefore, there is no valid 
    germaneness point of order with respect to the motion disposing of 
    the Senate amendment. . . .
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the various points of order.

Amending Senate Amendment Comprising Legislation on Appropriation Bill

Sec. 27.16 Where a Senate amendment on a general appropriation bill 
    proposes an expenditure not authorized by law, it is in order in 
    the House to

[[Page 8511]]

    perfect the Senate amendment by germane amendments.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a deficiency 
appropriation bill,(5) a Senate amendment as described above 
was reported in disagreement.(6) Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, of 
Virginia, made a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an 
amendment, and Mr. Henry Ellenbogen, of Pennsylvania, made the point of 
order that the motion constituted ``legislation on an appropriation 
bill.'' (7) The Speaker pro tempore (8) responded 
that, ``the Senate amendment is legislation, and the amendment to that 
amendment . . . is not out of order because it contains legislation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 3587 (Committee on Appropriations).
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 975, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1937. See 
        Sec. 27.10, supra, for discussion of a similar instance in 
        which a Senate amendment comprising legislation on an 
        appropriation bill was sought to be amended.
 7. Id. at p. 976.
 8. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following exchange then occurred:

        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia is 
    not germane, since it limits the Senate amendment by date.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that it deals 
    with the same subject matter, and the mere limitation of the Senate 
    amendment by date does not destroy its germaneness, and the Chair 
    therefore overrules the point of order.

Amendment to Special Order From Committee on Rules

Sec. 27.17 To a resolution providing that the House disagree to a 
    Senate amendment that directed a joint committee to conduct a study 
    of excess-profits tax legislation and further directed the 
    appropriate committee to report such legislation and agree to a 
    conference, an amendment providing that the House concur in the 
    Senate amendment with an amendment actually enacting excess-profits 
    tax legislation was held to be not germane, as a special order 
    providing for consideration of a certain subject may not be amended 
    by a proposition providing for consideration of another nongermane 
    subject.

    On Sept. 14, 1950, the House had under consideration a resolution 
providing for action on a tax

[[Page 8512]]

bill.(9) The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 96 Cong. Rec. 14832 et seq., 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 
        1950. The bill, to reduce excise taxes and for other purposes, 
        was H.R. 8920 (Committee on Ways and Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Resolution 842 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill (H.R. 8920) to reduce excise taxes, and for 
        other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and the 
        same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate 
        amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to; that the 
        conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of 
        the two Houses on the said bill be, and hereby is, agreed to; 
        and that the Speaker shall immediately appoint conferees 
        without intervening motion.

    Following rejection of the previous question on the resolution, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered which sent all 
other Senate amendments to conference and which amended, in particular, 
a Senate amendment relating to a study of excess-profits tax 
legislation. The Senate amendment stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 96 Cong. Rec. 14054, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            (a) The House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate 
        Committee on Finance are hereby directed to report to the 
        respective Houses of Congress during the first session of the 
        Eighty-second Congress, and as early as practicable during said 
        session, a bill for raising revenue by the levying, collection, 
        and payment of corporate excess-profits taxes with retroactive 
        effect to October 1, or July 1, 1950, said bill to originate as 
        required by article I, section 7, of the Constitution.
            (b) The Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, or 
        any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is hereby authorized 
        and directed to make a full and complete study of the problems 
        involved in the taxation of excess profits accruing to 
        corporations as the result of the national defense program in 
        which the United States is now engaged. The joint committee 
        shall report the results of its study to the House Committee on 
        Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance as soon as 
        practicable.

    Mr. Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, offered the amendment to 
the resolution:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Eberharter: Strike out all after the 
    word ``Resolved'' and insert in lieu thereof the following:

            ``That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, 
        the bill H.R. 8920 with Senate amendments thereto be, and the 
        same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end--
            ``(1) That all Senate amendments other than amendment No. 
        191 be, and the same are hereby, disagreed to and the 
        conference requested thereon by the Senate is agreed to; and
            ``(2) That Senate amendment No. 191 be, and the same is 
        hereby, agreed to with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert the 
        following:

[[Page 8513]]

                       `` `Title VII--Excess-Profits Tax

            `` `Sec. 701. Excess-profits tax applied to taxable years 
        ending after June 30, 1950.
            `` `Notwithstanding section 122(a) of the Revenue Act of 
        1945, the provisions of subchapter E of chapter 2 of the 
        Internal Revenue Code shall apply to taxable years ending after 
        June 30, 1950.
            `` `Sec. 702. Computation of tax in case of taxable year 
        beginning before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950.
            `` `Section 710 (a) (relating to imposition of excess-
        profits tax) is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new paragraph:
            `` ` ``(8) Taxable years beginning before July 1, 1950, and 
        ending after June 30, 1950: In the case of a taxable year 
        beginning before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950, 
        the tax shall be an amount equal to that portion of a tentative 
        tax, computed without regard to this paragraph, which the 
        number of days in such taxable year after June 30, 1950, bears 
        to the total number of days in such taxable year.'' . . .
            `` `Sec. 704. Unused excess-profits credit
            `` `(a) Definition of unused excess-profits credit: Section 
        710 (c) (2) (relating to definition of unused excess-profits 
        credit) is hereby amended to read as follows:
            `` ` ``(2) Definition of unused excess-profits credit: The 
        term `unused excess-profits credit' means the excess, if any, 
        of the excess-profits credit for any taxable year ending after 
        June 30, 1950, over the excess profits net income for such 
        taxable year, computed on the basis of the excess-profits 
        credit applicable to such taxable year. The unused excess-
        profits credit for a taxable year of less than 12 months shall 
        be an amount which is such part of the unused excess-profits 
        credit determined under the preceding sentence as the number of 
        days in the taxable year is of the number of days in the 12 
        months ending with the close of the taxable year. The unused 
        excess-profits credit for a taxable year beginning before July 
        1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950, shall be an amount 
        which is such part of the unused excess-profits credit 
        determined under the preceding provisions of this paragraph as 
        the number of days in such taxable year after June 30, 1950, is 
        of the total number of days in such taxable year.'' . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 14843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that the 
    amendment is neither germane to the resolution sought to be 
    amended, nor to the Senate amendment No. 191. The language of the 
    Senate amendment would direct the Committee on Ways and Means of 
    the House and the Finance Committee of the Senate to conduct a 
    study of excess-profits-tax legislation during the Eighty-second 
    Congress, ostensibly to report back to the House and Senate for 
    passage with a retroactive date of July 1, 1950, or October 1, 
    1950.
        The provision of the bill does not in any way attempt to 
    legislate an excess-profits tax in connection with H.R. 8920. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania proposes an 
    excess-profits tax in connection with H.R. 8920. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 14843, 14844.

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

[[Page 8514]]

        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: In the first 
    place, Mr. Speaker, this amendment seeks to amend the resolution 
    reported out by the Committee on Rules. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules is to waive a rule requiring that matter subject 
    to a point of order in the first place in the House if put in in 
    the Senate shall be considered in the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union. The resolution of the Committee on Rules 
    waives that. It is our contention, Mr. Speaker, that this being so 
    the House has a right by its vote on this substitute resolution to 
    waive the rule pertaining to germaneness, which my substitute 
    amendment attempts to do.

    The Speaker,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 14844, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is a rule long established that a resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill 
    relating to a certain subject may not be amended by a proposition 
    providing for the consideration of another and not germane subject 
    or matter.
        It is true that in Senate amendment No. 191 to the bill, which 
    came from the Senate, there is a caption ``Title VII,'' which 
    states ``Excess Profits Tax.'' But in the amendment which the 
    Senate adopted to the House bill there is no excess-profits tax.
        The Chair is compelled to hold under a long line of rulings 
    that this matter, not being germane if offered to the Senate 
    amendment it is not germane here. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Special Rule Waiving Points of Order Against Nongermane House 
    Amendments Proposed in Joint Statement of Managers

Sec. 27.18 Prior to consideration of a conference report, a special 
    order was reported from the Committee on Rules waiving points of 
    order against nongermane House amendments proposed in the joint 
    statement of managers to be offered to certain numbered Senate 
    amendments reported from conference in disagreement.

    On July 28, 1983,(15) the House agreed to House 
Resolution 284, waiving germaneness points of order against certain 
House amendments to Senate amendments to H.R. 3069 (supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 21478-80, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jonas M.] Frost [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 284 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 8515]]

                                  H. Res. 284

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the amendments 
        reported from conference in disagreement on the bill (H.R. 
        3069) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending September 30, 1983, and for other purposes, all points 
        of order under clause 7 of rule XVI are hereby waived against 
        the proposed House amendments printed on the following pages of 
        the joint statement of managers accompanying the conference 
        report, to the following numbered Senate amendments reported 
        from conference in disagreement: on pages 9 through 10, to 
        number 1; on page 11, to number 8; on page 35, to number 83; on 
        page 45, to number 119; on page 48, to numbers 128 through 132; 
        on page 56, to number 164; on page 57, to number 168; and on 
        page 67, to number 231. . . .

        Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has reported 
    House Resolution 284 to provide for the orderly and expeditious 
    disposition of the conference report on the fiscal year 1983 
    supplemental appropriation and its amendments in disagreement. The 
    rule specifically waives points of order on proposed House 
    amendments to certain amendments in disagreement. The rule waives 
    clause 7 of Rule XVI, the germaneness rule, against 12 specified 
    amendments to the Senate amendments reported from the conference in 
    disagreement.
        This unusual procedure is necessary in order that the House 
    might consider these 12 amendments on their merit, for otherwise, 
    it would be possible for any one Member of the House to raise a 
    point of order against consideration of each of these amendments 
    and would thereby preclude the House the opportunity to come to a 
    decision on these amendments. The waivers granted in the rule in no 
    way change the normal procedure under which conference reports of 
    the Appropriations Committee are considered, and as is customary, 
    the conference report will be considered in the House under the 
    hour rule. Once it has been adopted, the manager of the conference 
    agreement, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations, Mr. Whitten, will then bring up each of the 105 
    amendments in disagreement which will be considered and subject to 
    a vote. In the 12 specific instances where waivers have been 
    granted in the special order reported by the Committee on Rules, 
    the waiver will enable each amendment to be called up, debated and 
    voted on without a point of order being raised and sustained. Each 
    of the amendments in disagreement is allowed 1 hour of debate, 
    equally divided and each is subject to a rollcall vote. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore [Mr. Dennis E. Eckart, of Ohio]: The 
    question is on ordering the previous question. . . .
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the resolution.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Thomas of California) there were--ayes 161, noes 63.
        Mr. [William M.] Thomas of California: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    recorded vote. . . .
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    267, noes

[[Page 8516]]

    138, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 27. . . .
        So the resolution was agreed to.

Senate Prohibition on Use of Funds in Appropriation Bill--House 
    Amendment Adding Nongermane Authorization

Sec. 27.19 While a point of order against a motion to amend a Senate 
    legislative amendment to a general appropriation bill reported from 
    conference in disagreement will not lie merely because the proposed 
    House amendment adds legislation, the amendment must be germane to 
    the Senate amendment; thus, to a Senate amendment prohibiting use 
    of funds in a general appropriation bill for only one basing mode 
    for the MX Missile, a motion in the House to recede and concur with 
    an amendment adding to that prohibition an authorization of 
    appropriations for research and development of another weapons 
    system (PARCS) was ruled out of order as not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 5359 (16) in the House on 
Dec. 12, 1979,(17) the Speaker sustained a point of order in 
the circumstances described above. The amendment in disagreement and 
the point of order thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal 1980.
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 35520, 35521, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (18) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 56: Page 29, line 7, insert: None of 
        the funds appropriated under this paragraph to continue 
        development of the MX Missile may be used in a fashion which 
        would commit the United States to only one basing mode for the 
        MX missile system.

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Addabbo moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 56 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter inserted by said amendment, insert: . . .
            In addition to any other funds authorized to be 
        appropriated under this heading, there is hereby authorized to 
        be appropriated during fiscal year 1980 an additional amount of 
        $5,000,000 only for research and development on the Perimeter 
        Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization System (PARCS). . . .

        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Addab

[[Page 8517]]

    bo) for the reason that this calls for an authorization. The 
    amendment calls for an authorization in an appropriation bill.
        . . . Mr. Speaker, the amendment is not germane, and I would 
    point out for the edification of the Chair that the authorization 
    for the PARCS radar was rejected by both the Committee on Armed 
    Services of the House and the permanent Select Committee on 
    Intelligence of the House, which are the authorizing committees for 
    this particular weapons system. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I hate to find 
    myself at odds with my subcommittee chairman, but I do not believe 
    that I can concede the point of order.
        This is a point of order raised against an amendment brought 
    back in disagreement. It is not a point of order raised to a bill, 
    and my understanding of the rules is that a point of order would 
    not lie to an amendment brought back in disagreement.
        The Speaker: The Chair will rule that the germaneness point of 
    order is well taken. It is very obvious that the motion is not 
    germane as it relates to the Senate amendment 56, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Amendment Affecting Funds in Other Acts

Sec. 27.20 To a Senate amendment prohibiting the use of funds 
    appropriated for a fiscal year for a specified purpose, a proposed 
    House amendment prohibiting the use of funds appropriated by ``this 
    or any prior Act'' for a different unrelated purpose is not 
    germane.

    The proceedings of June 30, 1987, relating to H.R. 1827, 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1987, are discussed in section 
27.4, supra.

Sec. 27.21 To a Senate amendment reducing the amount and restricting 
    the availability of a certain appropriation in the bill, a House 
    amendment proposing (1) to make a portion of the appropriation 
    available for a specified purpose notwithstanding any other 
    provision of law and (2) to prohibit the use of funds appropriated 
    in the bill or in any other act for another specified purpose was 
    held not germane.

    On Sept. 30, 1988,(19) during proceedings relating to 
H.R. 4781, the defense appropriations bill, a motion was made that the 
House recede from its disagreement to a Senate amendment, and concur 
therein with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 134 Cong. Rec. 27147, 27148, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Senate amendment No. 23: Page 9, line 24, strike out 
        ``$21,890,400,000'' and insert ``$21,817,327,000 of which 
        $1,549,883,000 shall not become available for obligation until 
        July 1, 1989, and shall be available only for

[[Page 8518]]

        civilian personnel compensation and benefits''.

        Mr. [William V.] Chappell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Clerk will 
    designate the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. G. V. Montgomery (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the motion is as follows:

            Mr. Chappell moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 23 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert the 
        following: ``$21,721,673,000 of which $1,500,000 shall be 
        available only for repair and maintenance of Decker Field, 
        Utah: Provided That $26,000,000 shall be available only for the 
        operation of the SR-71 Base in the Pacific area and, 
        notwithstanding any other provision of law, these funds shall 
        be available for obligation and expenditure for this purpose: 
        Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
        or any other Act may be obligated or expended for the purpose 
        of disestablishing or reducing the Air Force SR-71 survivable 
        airborne reconnaissance capability for the Far East and Middle 
        East Theatres from the level of such capability available on 
        October 1, 1987''. . . .

        Mr. [Dick] Cheney [of Wyoming]: Mr. Speaker, with respect to 
    the Senate amendment numbered 23, I make the point of order that 
    the amendment to the Senate amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Florida is not germane to the Senate amendment as required by 
    clause 7 of House rule XVI. The amendment waives the application of 
    any other law--including the requirements of the Intelligence 
    Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989, which was signed by the 
    President on September 29, and section 502 of the National Security 
    Act of 1947, as amended. It also seeks to limit the obligation and 
    expenditure of funds in other appropriations acts. For both those 
    reasons, the amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment. . . 
    .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: For the reasons given by the gentleman 
    from Wyoming, the point of order is sustained against the motion.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where an amendment revises an aggregate 
figure in a bill, an amendment to that amendment addressing other 
accounts within that aggregate figure may be germane; similarly, the 
fact that the amendment in the first degree addresses one account 
within the aggregate figure that it proposes to revise does not affect 
the germaneness of an amendment in the second degree addressing other 
accounts within that aggregate figure, because the proposal to revise 
the aggregate figure potentially opens to germane amendment all 
accounts within that figure.

Limitation on Particular Use of Funds--Amendment Limiting Other Funds

Sec. 27.22 To a proposition limiting the use of funds in a bill for a 
    particular purpose, an amendment limiting the use of funds in other 
    Acts

[[Page 8519]]

    and for a purpose more general in scope is not germane; thus, to a 
    Senate amendment to an appropriation bill reported from conference 
    in disagreement, striking out a House provision prohibiting the use 
    of funds in the bill for a designated Outer Continental Shelf lease 
    sale in California, a House amendment prohibiting the use of funds 
    in the bill or in any other Act for that lease sale and other 
    California lease sales was conceded to be nongermane as more 
    general in scope.

    On Oct. 5, 1983,(1) during consideration of the 
Department of the Interior appropriations for fiscal 1984 (H.R. 3363) 
in the House, a point of order was conceded and sustained in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 129 Cong. Rec. 27319, 27320, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 95: Page 38, strike out all after line 
        21 over to and including line 15 on page 40.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 95 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by 
        said amendment, amended to read as follows:
            Sec. 113. (a) No funds in this or any other act may be 
        expended by the Department of the Interior for the lease or 
        sale of lands within the Department of the Interior Southern 
        California Planning area described in (1) through (4) below. No 
        funds may be expended for lease or sale of lands within the 
        area described in (1) through (4) so long as adjacent State 
        Tidelands continue to be designated as State Oil and Gas 
        Leasing Sanctuary pursuant to Sec. 6871.1 et seq. of the 
        California Public Resources Code . . .
            (1) An area of the Department of the Interior Southern 
        California Planning Area off the coastline of the State of 
        California Oil and Gas Leasing Sanctuary as described by Sec. 
        6871.1 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code in 
        effect September 29, 1983. . . .
            (4) An area within the boundaries of the Santa Barbara 
        Channel Ecological Preserve and Buffer Zone, as defined by 
        Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Public 
        Land Order 4587. . . .
            (b) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the 
        Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands in 
        OCS Lease Sale #80 which lie within an area located off the 
        coastline of the State of California Oil and Gas Leasing 
        Sanctuary as defined by Sec. 6871.1 et seq. California Public 
        Resources Code in effect September 29, 1983. . . .
            (c) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the 
        Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands 
        within the Department of the

[[Page 8520]]

        Interior Southern California Planning area, as defined in 
        section 2(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
        U.S.C. 1331(a)), located in the Pacific Ocean off the coastline 
        of Santa Monica Bay, State of California, which lies within a 
        line on the California (Lambert) Plane Coordinate System. . . .
            (f) In OCS Lease Sale 80, lease or sale of lands affecting 
        the responsibilities of the Department of Defense shall be with 
        the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. . . .

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against Senate amendment No. 95, the point of order 
    being that under rule XVI, clause 7, the provisions are not 
    germane.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained. .

Amendment Changing Amount of Appropriation

Sec. 27.23 In amending a Senate amendment which appropriates a specific 
    sum for a given purpose, the House is not confined within the 
    limits of the amount set by the original bill and that set by the 
    Senate amendment; but the amendment to the Senate amendment must be 
    germane.

    In the 76th Congress, following disposition of a conference report 
on an agriculture appropriations bill,(3) the following 
Senate amendment was reported from conference in disagreement: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 8202 (Committee on Appropriations).
 4. 86 Cong. Rec. 6184, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 15, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment No. 110: On page 93, after line 13, insert:

            Loans: For loans in accordance with sections 3, 4, and 5, 
        and the purchase of property in accordance with section 7 of 
        the Rural Electrification Act of May 20, 1936, as amended (7 
        U.S.C. 901-914), $40,000,000, which sum shall be borrowed from 
        the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. . . .

    The following motion was made:

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the House recede from its 
    disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 110 and agree to 
    the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum of 
    $40,000,000 named in said amendment insert ``$100,000,000.''

    A point of order was made as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 6185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
    of order that this amount exceeds the amount carried in the Senate 
    amendment and is not in order at this time.

    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, stated:

        Mr. Speaker, the only requirement is that it be germane, and 
    this is certainly germane to the Senate amendment to which it is 
    offered. . . .

[[Page 8521]]

    The Speaker (6) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair cites section 3189, of Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume 8:

            In amending a Senate amendment the House is not confined 
        within the limits of amount set by the original bill and the 
        Senate amendment.
            The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Appropriation for One Year--Change in Permanent Law

Sec. 27.24 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 the Legislative Branch Appropriations for 
fiscal 1984 (7) in the House on June 29, 1983,(8) 
Speaker Pro Tempore Abraham Kazen, Jr., of Texas, sustained a point of 
order in the circumstances described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 3135.
 8. 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

[[Page 8522]]

        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.

Striking Funds for Fisheries Program--House Amendment Permanently 
    Amending Authorizing Law

Sec. 27.25 To a Senate amendment to an appropriation bill reported from 
    conference in disagreement, striking funds for a certain fisheries 
    program, a House amendment permanently amending the authorizing law 
    to provide authority for funding for a state ineligible under 
    existing law was conceded not to be germane and was ruled out on a 
    point of order.

    An example of the principle that, to a proposition affecting funds 
for a program for one fiscal year, an amendment permanently amending 
the authorizing law relating to eligibility for funding in any fiscal 
year is more general in scope and is not germane, may be found in the 
proceedings of the House on Oct. 5, 1983,(9) during 
consideration of the Department of the Interior appropriations for 
fiscal 1984 (H.R. 3363):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 129 Cong. Rec. 27313, 27314, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 8523]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 16: Page 10, lines 10 and 11, strike 
        out ``; and for expenses necessary to carry out the Anadromous 
        Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-757f)''.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 16 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by 
        said amendment, amended to read as follows: ``; $4,000,000, to 
        remain available until expended, for expenses necessary to 
        carry out the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-
        757f), of which $500,000 shall be made available to the State 
        of Idaho without regard to the limitation as stated in 16 
        U.S.C. 757e and without regard to the Federal cost sharing 
        provisions in 16 U.S.C. 757a-757f: Provided That 16 U.S.C. 757e 
        is amended by adding the following new sentence: `The State of 
        Idaho shall be eligible on an equal standing with other states 
        for Federal funding for purposes authorized by sections 757a to 
        757f of this title.''. . .

        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: . . . My point of order is 
    pursuant to clause 7 of rule XVI, the provisions of which indicate 
    that [the amendment] is not germane.
        Mr. Speaker, I make this point of order for two reasons, if the 
    Speaker would want me to be heard at this time.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.

Raising Ceiling on Number of District of Columbia Employees for Fiscal 
    Year--Amendment Affecting Permanent Law Regarding Hiring 
    Preferences

Sec. 27.26 To a Senate amendment raising a ceiling on the number of 
    employees of the District of Columbia government during the fiscal 
    year funded by the bill, a House amendment proposing also to 
    address in permanent law a hiring preference system for such 
    employees was held not germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 11, 1989, relating to H.R. 3026, District 
of Columbia appropriations for fiscal 1990, are discussed in Sec. 24.5, 
supra.

Condition Unrelated to That Imposed by Senate Amendment

Sec. 27.27 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    prohibiting the availability of funds in any Act for salaries and 
    expenses for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for 
    Enforcement and Operations

[[Page 8524]]

    after a date certain unless Congress enacts authorizing legislation 
    for the Customs Service, a proposed House amendment restricting 
    availability of funds in that bill for the same office unless 
    specific categories of products, determined to have been produced 
    by slave or convict labor in the Soviet Union unless the 
    Commissioner of Customs is provided with evidence to the contrary, 
    are barred from customs entry into the United States was conceded 
    to be not germane as a condition totally unrelated to that 
    contained in the Senate amendment.

    On Nov. 7, 1985,(11) during consideration of H.R. 3036 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against an amendment, thereby holding that to a 
proposition conditioning the availability of funds upon the enactment 
of an authorizing statute for an enforcing agency, a substitute 
proposal conditioning the availability of some of those funds upon a 
prohibition of certain imports into the United States was not germane, 
as establishing a contingency unrelated to that contained in the 
proposition to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 131 Cong. Rec. 30984, 30985, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Department of the Treasury and Postal Service Appropriations, 
        fiscal 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The Clerk will 
    designate the first amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 14, after ``Annex'' 
        insert ``: Provided further, That none of the funds contained 
        in this or any other Act shall be available for the salaries 
        and expenses for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
        Treasury for Enforcement and Operations, after March 1, 1986, 
        unless United States Customs Service authorizing legislation is 
        passed by the Congress.''

        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Roybal moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed said amendment, insert the following: 
        ``Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act 
        shall be available for the salaries and expenses of the Office 
        of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and 
        Operations if any of the following products of the Union of 
        Soviet Socialist Republics are entered, or withdrawn from 
        warehouse, for consumption in the customs territory of the 
        United States after December 31, 1985, unless the Commissioner 
        of Customs is

[[Page 8525]]

        provided with sufficient information pursuant to 19 CFR 12.43 
        attesting to the fact that the products have not been produced, 
        manufactured, or mined (in whole or in part) by forced labor, 
        convict labor, or indentured labor under penal sanctions:
            ``(1) gold ore,
            ``(2) agricultural machinery. . . .
            ``(8) any other product that the Commissioner of Customs 
        determines to have been produced, manufactured, or mined (in 
        whole or in part) by forced labor, convict labor, or indentured 
        labor under penal sanctions: Provided further, That none of the 
        funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to hinder or 
        impede the Commissioner of Customs in making determinations 
        under subsection (8) of the preceding proviso'. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment 
    numbered 3 under clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House.
        Senate amendment numbered 3 provides that no funds shall be 
    available for salaries and expenses for the Office of the Assistant 
    Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and Operations after 
    March 1, 1986, unless Congress passes authorizing legislation for 
    the U.S. Customs Service.
        The proposed substitute amendment, on the other hand, prohibits 
    funding of that office unless seven specific categories of products 
    and other categories determined by the Commissioner of Customs to 
    be produced by slave or convict labor in the Soviet Union are 
    barred entry into the United States after December 31.
        The amendment clearly raises new issues and involves subject 
    matter quite different from the Senate amendment. It also 
    constitutes legislation specifically to prohibit certain imports 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
        Mr. Roybal: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order at this particular point, and I just would like to state that 
    the original Senate amendment provided that none of the funds 
    contained in this or any other act shall be available unless the 
    U.S. Customs Service authorizing legislation is passed by the 
    Congress. . . .
        This provision is more restrictive than the amendment in the 
    Senate bill in that, No. 1, it limits the prohibition of funds to 
    those made available by this act only and it does not apply to any 
    other act.
        No. 2, the language included in the amendment could 
    appropriately be included in the authorizing legislation designated 
    in the Senate amendment. It, therefore, does not address any 
    additional topic, question, issue, or proposition not committed to 
    committee or conference because the Customs authorizing legislation 
    could contain all of the provisions included in the amendment.
        It is the committee's position that the primary purpose of this 
    provision is not to change the scope of existing law. The purpose 
    of this amendment is to compel the U.S. Customs Service to enforce 
    existing laws.
        I would like to put the administration on notice that we expect 
    them to start enforcing the law.
        Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman concedes the point of 
    order,

[[Page 8526]]

    and the point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
    Frenzel] is sustained.

Rescinding Agency's Funds for Research on Seat Belts and Passive 
    Restraints--Amendment Imposing Conditions on Availability of All 
    Funds for Agency

Sec. 27.28 To a proposition rescinding an agency's funds for research 
    and education on the subject of motor vehicle seat belts and 
    passive restraints, an amendment conditioning the availability of 
    all of that agency's funds on certain findings with respect to 
    state compliance with federal standards for mandatory seat belt use 
    was conceded to be not germane, in that it affected regulatory 
    operations and was not confined to research and education funds.

    During consideration of H.R. 2577 (14) in the House on 
July 31, 1985,(15) a point of order against a motion to 
recede and concur with an amendment to the pending proposition was 
conceded and therefore sustained. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 131 Cong. Rec. 21832-34, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Supplemental Appropriations, fiscal 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 262: Page 75, lines 14 and 15, strike 
        out ``$7,500,000 or so much thereof as may be available on May 
        2, 1985'' and insert ``$2,000,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 262 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert the 
        following: ``no funds shall be obligated until the Secretary 
        has made a complete, definitive and binding ruling on the 
        compliance of each state mandatory safety belt use law that has 
        been enacted as of the date of this act with the minimum 
        criteria set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
        208. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order regarding amendment No. 262. The point of order is 
    that that amendment is nongermane to the Senate amendment and so is 
    violative of the rules of the House relative to this point.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi 
    concedes the point of order. The point of order, therefore, is 
    sustained.

[[Page 8527]]

Rescinding Funds for B-1 Bomber--Amendment To Delay Effectiveness of 
    Rescission Pending Ratification of Salt II Treaty

Sec. 27.29 The amendment proposed in a motion to concur in a Senate 
    amendment with an amendment must be germane to the Senate 
    amendment; thus, to a Senate amendment to a general appropriation 
    bill rescinding funds for continued construction and development of 
    the B-1 bomber program, an amendment proposed in a motion to concur 
    therein with an amendment, to delay the effectiveness of the 
    rescission until after either House of Congress so approves and 
    until after ratification by the Senate of a Salt II treaty, was 
    ruled out as a nongermane unrelated contingency, since the 
    condition involved actions by agencies and authorities not charged 
    with administration of the B-1 bomber program, and the Salt II 
    negotiations involved a broad range of arms control issues not 
    necessarily related to the B-1 bomber program.

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 9375 
(supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1978), the Speaker 
sustained a point of order in the circumstances described above. The 
proceedings in the House on Feb. 22, 1978,(17) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 4072-74, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dornan moves to concur in the amendment of the Senate 
        numbered 43 with an amendment as follows:
            ``Provisions of the Senate amendment No. 43 to H.R. 9375 
        shall not take effect unless either House of Congress enacts a 
        resolution to the effect and in any case not before a period of 
        90 days following ratification of a SALT II treaty by the 
        Senate.''. . .

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order that this is legislation not germane to the issue before 
    us.
        I make the point of order that involved in the SALT talks are a 
    wide variety of issues, like the level of forces, the deployment of 
    forces, the types and number of warheads, and so forth. It does not 
    relate to the B-1 mission. The B-1 here is not a part of the SALT 
    talk agreements. . . .
        Mr. Dornan: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is in order. It is a 
    limitation. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
    think the gentleman from Texas has made a proper point of order. 
    The question of

[[Page 8528]]

    legislation on an appropriation bill is not applicable at this 
    point to an amendment adopted by the other body. The question of 
    introducing new material is not in order, either. The amendment of 
    the gentleman from California simply sets a future time when the 
    effectiveness of the amendment of the other body will take place 
    after ratification of the SALT agreement. It is a contingency and a 
    limitation as to a future time, but I think the amendment is in 
    order. . . .

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, with further reference to the point of 
    order, the matter involved is that the proposed amendment is not 
    germane to the issues involved before the House at this time. It is 
    extraneous. It is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the point I was making earlier in 
    support of the amendment being in order is that there are ample 
    precedents in the House to support a limitation as to a future time 
    which is contingent upon action of either House or both Houses of 
    Congress. This amendment simply delays the effect of the amendment 
    of the other body to a time contingent upon the other body's 
    action.
        That has been upheld by the Chair on many occasions to be a 
    proper limitation. I would add that the issue of the continuance of 
    the B-1 bomber is certainly directly related to the outcome of the 
    SALT talks and is, in my view, fully germane.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a further point.
        It is true we can have limitations in an amendment, but not on 
    an extraneous and totally different issue. The SALT issue is not 
    related to the B-1 bomber rescission before the House and pending 
    at this time. It is an unrelated matter and not germane. It is not 
    subject to the limitation issue that has been set forth.
        Mr. Dornan: Mr. Speaker, it will be noted in my amendment that 
    it is only the action of either body, without concurrence of the 
    other, that would implement this amendment No. 43 to H.R. 9375. 
    That way, one House, either the Senate or the House, can make this 
    decision at a time certain after that particular House or both 
    Houses and the American people are assured that we do have a secure 
    defense replacement for this manned bomber.
        The Speaker: (18) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) makes a point of order 
    against the motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dornan) on the grounds that it proposes to concur in the Senate 
    amendment with a nongermane amendment.
        Senate amendment No. 43 would rescind the appropriation for the 
    B-1 bomber program. The motion offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Dornan) would amend the Senate amendment to 
    condition the effectiveness of the rescission on the approval of 
    the SALT II treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. 
    It is well established that is not in order to amend a proposition 
    to delay the effectiveness of the legislation pending an unrelated 
    contingency, such as actions within the responsibility of other 
    agencies or authorities not specifically involved in the 
    administration of the pending proposition.

[[Page 8529]]

        While it is apparent to the Chair that continued development 
    and construction of the B-1 bomber may as a matter of national 
    policy be related to the progress and conclusion of the SALT II 
    negotiations, it does not appear to the Chair that there is a 
    sufficient nexus between the two issues to permit as germane the 
    requirement that the denial of funding for the bomber program hinge 
    upon the actions of the Departments of State, and their 
    negotiators, for the United States as well as another country, and 
    upon the action of the U.S. Senate in ratifying any agreement which 
    may be reached. The Chair would also note that the issues under 
    consideration in the SALT II negotiations go far beyond the issue 
    of the construction of the B-1 bomber, and that the amendment would 
    therefore condition its construction on the conclusion and approval 
    of deliberations on other and unrelated arms control issues.
        The point of order is well taken, and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

Allocation of Funds for Defense Construction--Amendment To Restore 
    Facilities Destroyed by Natural Disasters

Sec. 27.30 To a Senate amendment in disagreement which sought to 
    establish certain priorities in the allocation of funds for 
    construction projects related to defense, an amendment relating to 
    restoration of facilities destroyed by acts of God was held not 
    germane.

    The following proceedings in the 78th Congress took place during 
consideration of the First Defense Appropriations Bill of 
1945,(19) and Senate amendments thereto in 
disagreement:(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 5587 (Committee on Appropriations).
20. See the proceedings at 90 Cong. Rec. 9611, 9612, 78th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Dec. 16, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (1) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment No. 17: Page 13, line 7, insert the following: 
        ``Provided further, That in making allocations out of the funds 
        appropriated in this paragraph for construction projects 
        priority shall be given to emergency projects involving an 
        estimated cost to the Federal Government of less than 
        $250,000.''

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate 
    No. 17 and concur therein.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion to concur with an amendment.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case: On page 13, amendment No. 
        17, lines 7 to 11, Mr. Case moves to concur in the Senate 
        amendment [No. 17] with an amendment striking out the period, 
        inserting a semicolon and

[[Page 8530]]

        the following language: ``Provided further, That the funds 
        appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for 
        restoration of community facilities destroyed by hurricane or 
        other public disaster where the ability of the local community 
        to restore or repair the facilities has been impaired by 
        meeting demands created by the war.'' . . .

        Mr. Cannon: . . . I make a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, this is entirely new matter. The proposition 
    before us is restricted specifically to situations growing out of 
    the war. Here is a proposition which has no relation to the war; it 
    is extraneous matter and is not in order. . . .
        Mr. Case: Mr. Speaker, I would like to observe that the last 
    part of the language which I have offered conditions the action 
    proposed upon the repairing of community facilities where the 
    ability of the community has been impaired by meeting demands 
    created by the war. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair . . . cannot see anything in the 
    amendment . . . except an act of God; therefore the Chair thinks 
    that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of order. 
    . . .
        Mr. Case: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that in ruling upon 
    questions of this sort where they involve securing an agreement 
    between the two bodies of the Congress considerable latitude is 
    allowed for the purpose of reaching an agreement in the interest of 
    comity and that the ordinary rules of germaneness do not apply 
    strictly?
        The Speaker: The Chair would differ with the gentleman on that. 
    The Chair does not think that conferees on the part of the House 
    and the Senate could set aside the rule of germaneness.

General Amendment to Specific Proposition: Senate Amendment Providing 
    for Vessel for One State Maritime Academy--Amendment Regarding 
    Vessels for All State Maritime Academies

Sec. 27.31 To a Senate amendment providing for a training vessel for 
    one state maritime academy, a proposed House amendment relating to 
    training vessels for all state maritime academies was held not 
    germane as more general in scope.

    During consideration of H.R. 1827 (supplemental appropriations for 
fiscal 1987) in the House on June 30, 1987,(2) it was 
demonstrated that a specific proposition may not be amended by a 
proposition more general in scope when a point of order against the 
following motion was conceded and sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 133 Cong. Rec. 18297, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 33: Page 8, after line 21, insert:

                            operations and training

            Funds appropriated under this head in Public Law 98-396 for 
        a

[[Page 8531]]

        training vessel for the State University of New York Maritime 
        College shall be available for acquisition, preconversion and 
        conversion costs of such vessel.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The Clerk will 
    designate the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the motion is as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 33 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert 
        the following:
            Funds appropriated under this head in Public Law 98-396 for 
        a training vessel for the State University of New York Maritime 
        College shall be available for acquisition, preconversion and 
        conversion costs of such vessel: Provided, That prior to the 
        obligation of such funds and prior to the obligation of 
        unobligated funds appropriated under this head for state 
        maritime academies in Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 99-591, 
        except for obligations necessary to complete current shipyard 
        work and voyages in progress, all state maritime academies 
        furnished a training vessel shall agree to such sharing of 
        training vessels as shall be arranged by the Maritime 
        Administration: Provided further, That the Maritime 
        Administration shall submit its final plans for such a ship-
        sharing arrangement to the state maritime academies by October 
        1, 1987. . . .

        Mr. [Gerry E.] Studds [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion on the ground that the amendment 
    that it purports to add to the Senate amendment is not germane to 
    said amendment. The Senate amendment deals solely with the New York 
    State Maritime Academy. The amendment proposed on the part of the 
    House to the Senate amendment deals with the full range of all the 
    state maritime academies and as such is beyond the scope of the 
    Senate amendment and is not germane thereto. . . .
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman concedes the point of 
    order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Restrictions on Funds for Legal Services Corporation--Amendment Making 
    Other Provisions of Law Applicable to Corporation

Sec. 27.32 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    subjecting funds for the Legal Services Corporation to a 
    comprehensive series of restrictions on its activities for that 
    fiscal year and reconstituting its board of directors, a proposed 
    amendment also applying to that corporation ``with respect to the 
    use of funds in the bill'' certain substantive provisions of 
    Federal criminal and civil law not otherwise applicable to it was 
    held not germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 26, 1989, relating to the conference

[[Page 8532]]

report on H.R. 2991, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990, are discussed 
in Sec. 34.37, infra.

Sec. 27.33 To a Senate amendment striking from a general appropriation 
    bill language earmarking the availability of funds therein, a House 
    amendment not only reinserting the appropriation as so earmarked 
    but also authorizing that program was conceded to be not germane.

    On Nov. 15, 1989,(4) during consideration of the 
Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal 1990 (5) in 
the House, a point of order was conceded and sustained against the 
amendment described above, demonstrating that an authorization for a 
program is not germane to an appropriation earmarking for that program. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 135 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 3072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Ted Weiss (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 27: Page 10, line 3, strike out all 
        after ``law'' down to and including ``Mission'' in line 9.

        Mr. [John P.] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Murtha moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 27, and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter stricken by said amendment, insert ``Provided, That 
        notwithstanding Section 502 of the National Security Act of 
        1947, Section 136 of the Department of Defense Authorization 
        Act for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 (H.R. 2461) or any other 
        provision of law heretofore or hereafter enacted, neither the 
        SR-71 nor the classified program referred to in Section 136 of 
        the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 
        1990 and 1991 (H.R. 2461) shall be terminated and that both the 
        SR-71 and the classified system are hereby authorized: Provided 
        further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
        appropriations included in this Act for personnel, operation 
        and maintenance, procurement, or research and development for 
        the SR-71, the classified system referred to in Section 136 of 
        the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 
        1990 and 1991 (H.R. 2461) or any other classified airborne 
        reconnaissance system are hereby authorized: Provided further, 
        That operation of the SR-71 aircraft shall be transferred to 
        the Air National Guard no later than July 1, 1990: Provided 
        further, That of the amount appropriated, $175,000,000 shall be 
        solely for expenses associated with the SR-71 program, of 
        which, $100,000,000 shall be transferred to Operation and 
        Maintenance, Air National Guard: Provided further, That 
        $130,000,000 is hereby authorized in addition to any other 
        authorization for airborne reconnaissance programs and that of 
        the amount appropriated, $130,000,000 shall be transferred to 
        Research, De

[[Page 8533]]

        velopment, Test and Evaluation, Defense Agencies 1990/1991 to 
        be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and 
        for the same time period as the appropriation to which 
        transferred. . . .

        Mr. [Anthony C.] Beilenson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the motion from the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] is not in order because it violates 
    clause 7 of rule XVI because it proposes a nongermane amendment to 
    the proposed amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    want to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Murtha: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.

Philippine War Damage Commission--House Amendment to Enlarge 
    Application of Senate Prohibition on Use of Funds

Sec. 27.34 Where a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    sought, in part, to prohibit the use of specified funds as 
    compensation of certain services of former employees of the 
    Philippine War Damage Commission performed in connection with 
    payment of Philippine war damage claims, a proposed House amendment 
    thereto enlarging the class of persons ineligible for such 
    compensation was held to be not germane.

    On May 14, 1963, during consideration of Senate amendments in 
disagreement on a general appropriation bill, a Senate amendment was 
read which related to Philippine war damage claims and which sought to 
change existing law by designating the Republic of the Philippines as 
payee in lieu of individual claimants, and by requiring the Republic to 
give assurances:

        That no part of [the appropriated sums would] be directly or 
    indirectly paid to any former Commissioner or employee of the 
    Philippine War Damage Commission as compensation for services 
    rendered as attorney or agent in connection with any such 
    claim.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 109 Cong. Rec. 8505, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 14, 1963 
        (proceedings relating to H.R. 5517 [Committee on 
        Appropriations], making supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
        1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A motion to recede and concur was offered with an amendment 
continuing the existing method of payment to individual claimants 
through the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and providing that:

        [N]o part of such appropriation shall be used . . . for payment 
    to any former Commissioner or employee of the Philippine War Damage 
    Commission, or to

[[Page 8534]]

    any corporation, association, firm or other individual or party 
    whatsoever, as compensation for services rendered as attorney or 
    agent in connection with any such claim. . . .
        Provided, That any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
    United States . . . who accepts . . . any . . . compensation . . . 
    for services in furtherance of a claim . . . shall be fined . . . 
    or imprisoned. . . .(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 8506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order was made by Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New York, who 
stated:

        Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the amendment is not germane in that 
    it adds language to the Senate amendment setting forth penalties in 
    violation of the criminal code of the United States. . . .

    Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, in defending the amendment, stated:

        [Y]ou are dealing here with a single subject matter. You have 
    not changed the subject matter. You have merely tightened it up by 
    inserting a penal provision, and I think it is germane.

    The Speaker,(9) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered brings in an additional class other than 
    provided in the Senate amendment. The language reads ``or to any 
    corporation, association, firm or other individual or party 
    whatsoever'' and so forth, and provides criminal penalties.
        The Chair feels that with respect to the additional class for 
    criminal penalties the point of order is well taken, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Travel Allowances: Payments From Senate Contingent Fund--House 
    Contingent Fund

Sec. 27.35 To a Senate amendment providing for payment, from the Senate 
    contingent fund, of certain additional travel expenses incurred by 
    Senate employees, an amendment providing additional travel 
    allowances to Members of the House from the House contingent fund 
    was held not germane.

    The following proceedings took place on Mar. 29, 1961: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 5275, 5277, 5278, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent for the immediate consideration of the conference report on 
    the bill (H.R. 5188) making supplemental appropriations for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes. . . .
        The Speaker: (11) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:
        Senate Amendment No. 66: Page 24, line 12, insert:

                            Administrative Provision

            The contingent fund of the Senate is hereafter made 
        available for the

[[Page 8535]]

        payment of mileage, to be computed at 10 cents per mile [for 
        certain travel undertaken], by employees in each Senator's 
        office in any fiscal year. . . .

        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. Thomas moves that the House recede from its disagreement to 
    the amendment of the Senate numbered 66 and concur therein with an 
    amendment, as follows: In addition to the matter proposed by said 
    amendment, add, at the end thereof, the following:

                            House of Representatives

                                contingent fund

            The contingent fund of the House is hereafter made 
        available for the payment of mileage, to be computed at ten 
        cents per mile [for certain travel by Members] . . . in 
        addition to mileage otherwise provided by law.

        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that the amendment is in 
    violation of rule XVI, clause 7, of the rules of the House. The 
    amendment is not germane because it deals with an entirely 
    different class of people. . . .
        Mr. Thomas: . . . This deals with travel by Members of the two 
    bodies and is directly affected by the same general subject matter.
        The Speaker: Senate amendment No. 66 deals entirely with 
    employees of the Senate. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Texas brings in Members of the House. Therefore the Chair must 
    hold that the point of order is well taken.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Availability of Senate Contingent Funds for Art and Historical Items in 
    Capitol--Availability of House Unexpended Balances for Other 
    Purposes

Sec. 27.36 To a Senate amendment relating to availability of the Senate 
    contingent fund for art and historical items in the Capitol 
    buildings, a proposed House amendment relating also to the 
    availability of House unexpended balances for those or other 
    purposes authorized by law, or required to implement specified 
    House resolutions (such as those relating to ``mass franked 
    mailings'') was conceded to be not germane.

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 4404 
(12) in the House on May 24, 1990,(13) a point of 
order against the amendment described above was conceded and sustained, 
demonstrating that an individual proposition may not be amended by 
another individual proposition more general in scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations.
13. 136 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 8536]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Douglas H. Bosco (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 171: Page 24, after line 9, insert:
            Sec. 317. (a) Effective with the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 1990, and each fiscal year thereafter, any 
        unexpended and unobligated funds in the appropriation account 
        for the ``Secretary of the Senate'' within the contingent fund 
        of the Senate which have not been withdrawn in accordance with 
        the paragraph under the heading ``General Provisions'' of 
        Chapter XI of the Third Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1957 (2 
        U.S.C. 102a), shall be available for expenses incurred, without 
        regard to the fiscal year in which incurred, for the 
        conservation, restoration, and replication or replacement, in 
        whole or in part, of items of art, fine art, and historical 
        items within the Senate wing of the United States Capitol, any 
        Senate Office Building, or within any room, corridor, or other 
        space therein. . . .

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    reserve a point of order on the motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fazio moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        amendment of the Senate numbered 171, with an amendment, as 
        follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 316. (a) Effective with the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 1990, and each fiscal year thereafter, subject to 
        the approval of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, 
        any unexpended and unobligated funds in the appropriation 
        account for the ``Secretary of the Senate'' within the 
        contingent fund of the Senate in the case of the Senate and, 
        subject to the approval of the Committee on Appropriations of 
        the House of Representatives, any unexpended and unobligated 
        funds in any appropriation account disbursed by the Clerk of 
        the House in the case of the House of Representatives, which 
        have not been withdrawn in accordance with the paragraph under 
        the heading ``General Provisions'' of Chapter XI of the Third 
        Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1957 (2 U.S.C. 102a), shall be 
        available for the expenses incurred, without regard to the 
        fiscal year in which incurred, for the conservation, 
        restoration, and replication or replacement, in whole or in 
        part, of items of art, fine art, and historical items within 
        the Senate wing of the United States Capitol, any Senate Office 
        Building, or any room, corridor, or other space therein in the 
        case of the Senate and for the conservation, restoration, and 
        replication or replacement, in whole or in part, of items of 
        art, fine art, and historical items within the House wing of 
        the United States Capitol, any House Office Building, or any 
        room, corridor, or other space therein or for other purposes as 
        authorized by law in the case of the House of Representatives. 
        . . .
            (d) The Committee on House Administration and the Committee 
        on Rules, by July 15, 1990, shall use such unexpended funds as 
        necessary to study and report to the House of Representatives 
        the feasibility of implementing the provisions of H. Res. 386 
        and H. Res. 387. . . .

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, reserving my point of order, I make a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .

[[Page 8537]]

        Is the motion offered by the gentleman the motion that was 
    presented, that was printed, in the joint statement of the 
    managers?
        Mr. Fazio: If the gentleman will yield, no, this has been 
    modified slightly to include some language which would allow for a 
    study and report to the House of Representatives on the feasibility 
    of implementing provisions of House Resolution 386 and House 
    Resolution 387 which are legislation introduced by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel) to consider a new method of handling congressional frank 
    mail. We felt those measures had sufficient validity that we ought 
    to ask the Committee on House Administration as well as the 
    Committee on Rules to review those bills and report back by July 15 
    on the feasibility of implementing them.
        I would urge that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) 
    not insist on his point of order, because I think this is 
    legislation that modifies and enhances the basic motion that I have 
    made.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Conte) insist on his point of order?
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, yes, I do. The motion is not protected 
    against points of order under the rule. The motion contains 
    reference to funds of the House of Representatives. The Senate 
    amendment pertains only to matters of the Senate. Further, the 
    motion makes reference to a study by the Committee on House 
    Administration in two House resolutions, none of which are 
    mentioned in the Senate amendment. These items and the motion are 
    clearly nongermane to the Senate amendment, and the motion is, 
    therefore, subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Fazio) wish to be heard on this point of order?
        Mr. Fazio: Mr. Speaker, I must regretfully concede the point of 
    order. I do so very regretfully, because I think this was an effort 
    to reach out to the minority and meet them halfway on what is 
    obviously a very contentious issue.
        If we are not allowed to do that tonight, I would have to 
    concede.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the statement of the 
    gentleman from California. I am not objecting to the study under 
    the gentleman's new motion. The House fund is not protected, and I 
    object to the fund, the slush fund, and that is what we want to 
    knock out, and it should be knocked out.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.

Legislative Amendment on Appropriation Bill: Senate Office Extension--
    House Amendment Reducing Funding Ceiling for Extension and 
    Containing Related Specifications

Sec. 27.37 A Senate amendment containing legislation reported from 
    conference in disagreement may be amended by a germane amendment

[[Page 8538]]

    even though the proposed amendment is also legislative; thus, to a 
    Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement on the 
    Energy and Water Appropriations bill, appropriating funds for a 
    Senate office building extension, providing a funding ceiling on 
    such extension, and providing for the transfer of personnel and 
    equipment to such extension upon completion, a proposed House 
    amendment making a reduced appropriation for construction of such 
    extension with a reduced funding ceiling, and providing that such 
    extension upon completion meet all personnel needs currently 
    satisfied by the buildings presently used for Senate office space, 
    was held germane.

    On Aug. 1, 1979,(15) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 4388 in the House, the Speaker overruled a 
point of order in the circumstances described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 22002, 22007, 22008, 22010, 22011, 96th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 37: Page 32, line 21, insert:
            Sec. 502. There is appropriated, out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for an additional amount 
        for ``Construction of an Extension to the New Senate Office 
        Building'' $57,480,700, to remain available until expended: 
        Provided, That the amount of $142,627,700 shall constitute a 
        ceiling on the total cost for construction of the Extension to 
        the New Senate Office Building: Provided further, That, it is 
        the will of the Senate that upon completion of the Hart Senate 
        Office Building, the Committee on Rules and Administration 
        shall provide for the expeditious removal of personnel, 
        equipment, and furnishings from the buildings known as the 
        Carroll Arms, the Senate Courts, the Plaza Hotel, and the 
        Capitol Hill Apartments and that said buildings shall remain 
        unoccupied by the Senate until demolished: Provided further, 
        That the Architect of the Capitol shall, within six months of 
        the vacating of the buildings known as the Carroll Arms, the 
        Senate Courts, the Plaza Hotel, and the Capitol Hill 
        Apartments, submit to the Senate Committee on Appropriations 
        estimates of the cost of razing and demolishing said buildings 
        together with recommendations for future use, renovation, or 
        demolition of the building known as the Immigration Building.

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bevill moves to recede in the amendment of the Senate 
        No. 37 and concur therein with an amendment as follows in lieu 
        of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert:
            Sec. 502. There is appropriated, out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for an additional amount 
        for ``Construction of an Extension to the New Senate

[[Page 8539]]

        Office Building'' $52,583,400 toward finishing such building 
        and to remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
        amount of $137,730,400 shall constitute a ceiling on the total 
        cost for construction of the Extension to the New Senate Office 
        Building.

            It is further provided, That such building and office space 
        therein upon completion shall meet all needs for personnel 
        presently supplied by the Carroll Arms, the Senate Courts, the 
        Plaza Hotel, the Capitol Hill Apartments and such building 
        shall be vacated.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, this amendment offered at this time would not have 
    been in order had it been offered to the bill as originally before 
    the House. The bill is an appropriation bill and this constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Bevill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out this is merely a 
    change of the report language that is in the appropriation bill and 
    it is germane and it is a part of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule. The Chair would like to state that the only requirement of 
    the amendment in the motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama 
    is that it be germane to the Senate amendment. The language is 
    quite clearly germane to the Senate amendment No. 37 and, 
    therefore, the motion is in order and the point of order is 
    overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Census of Agriculture by Director of Census--House Amendment To 
    Prohibit Other Agencies From Collecting Agricultural Information

Sec. 27.38 To a Senate amendment in disagreement providing for a census 
    of agriculture by the Director of Census, a motion to concur in the 
    amendment with an amendment proposing that no other bureau or 
    agency make such census or collect agricultural information, was 
    held not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the State, Justice 
and Commerce Appropriation Bill, 1945,(17) a Senate 
amendment in disagreement was reported as follows: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 4204 (Committee on Appropriations).
18. 90 Cong. Rec. 6049, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: Amendment No. 10: On page 59 of the 
    bill after line 3 insert:

            Census of agriculture: For all expenses necessary for 
        preparing for, taking, compiling, and publishing the 
        quinquennial Census of Agriculture of the United States, 
        including the employment by the Director, at rates to be fixed 
        by him, of personnel at the seat of government and elsewhere 
        without regard to the civil-service and classification laws; 
        books of reference, newspapers, and

[[Page 8540]]

        periodicals; construction of tabulating machines; purchase, 
        maintenance, repair, and operation of motor-propelled 
        passenger-carrying vehicles; travel expenses, including 
        expenses of attendance at meetings concerned with the 
        collection of statistics, when incurred on the written 
        authority of the Secretary; printing and binding; $7,250,000, 
        to be available until December 31, 1946, and to be consolidated 
        with the appropriation ``Census of Agriculture'' contained in 
        the First Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act, 
        1944.

        Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the House recede and concur.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Kerr moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate No. 10 and agree to the same.

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a 
    division of the question.
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman may have that. The 
    question is divisible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion that the House recede from its 
    disagreement to the Senate amendment.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Jones moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate No. 10 and agree to the same 
        with an amendment as follows: At the end of the Senate 
        amendment insert ``Provided, That no other bureau . . . of the 
        Federal Government shall collect agricultural information . . . 
        for a period of 2 years from the date of this act without a 
        specific appropriation. . . .''

    Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, made the point of order that the 
Jones amendment was not germane to the provisions of the Senate 
amendment. Mr. Jones stated in reply: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 6050, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment is a limitation upon this 
    provision in the Senate amendment and a limitation upon an 
    appropriation bill. It limits the scope of what it may be used for 
    and limits who may use the information.

    The following argument was also made in support of the Jones 
amendment:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me 
    that the amendment is clearly germane in that in providing for a 
    census of agriculture it is clearly in order to provide by 
    amendment that no other census of agriculture or the gathering of 
    information of that same type shall be permitted in any other 
    place. . . .

    The Speaker, in ruling on the point of order, stated:

        The Senate amendment provides for a specific amount of money 
    for a specific purpose. The motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Jones) is clearly not a limitation on the expenditure of 
    money or on the action of the Department in taking a census; 
    therefore, the Chair sustains the point of

[[Page 8541]]

    order in that the motion is not germane.

Feasibility Study of Land Transfer in State--House Amendment Waiving 
    Law Affecting Environmental Liabilities in Another State

Sec. 27.39 To a Senate amendment proposing a feasibility study of a 
    certain land transfer in one State, a House amendment waiving 
    existing law concerning certain environmental liabilities in 
    another State was conceded to be nongermane

    During consideration of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
for fiscal 1990 (1) in the House on Nov. 15, 
1989,(2) a point of order was conceded and sustained against 
an amendment as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. H.R. 3072.
2. 135 Cong. Rec. p.--, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 243: Page 79, after line 4, insert:
            Sec. 9114. Feasibility Study of Land Transfer for Use as a 
        Correctional Facility.--(a)(1) The Secretary of Defense, in 
        consultation with the United States Attorney General, shall 
        conduct a study of the feasibility of selling or otherwise 
        transferring to the Commonwealth of Virginia, subdivisions 
        thereof, or any combination of subdivisions thereof, a parcel 
        of land approximately 100 acres not more than 100 miles from 
        the southern boundary of Arlington County, from the military 
        installations within Virginia which encompass land that may be 
        suitable for use by the Commonwealth of Virginia, subdivisions 
        thereof, or any combination of subdivisions thereof, as a site 
        for medium security correctional facility for persons sentenced 
        in the courts of Virginia or in the United States District 
        Court in Virginia. . . .

        Mr. [John P.] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Mr. Murtha moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 243, and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter inserted by said amendment, insert:
            Sec. 9121. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1301 
        and 1341 of title 31 of the United States Code, or section 3732 
        of the Revised Statutes, or Section 119 of the Super Fund 
        Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, the Secretary of 
        the Army may have the authority to hold harmless and indemnify 
        the Coolbaugh Township and/or its duly created and authorized 
        authority or authorities or other properly designated body or 
        bodies, located in Monroe County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter 
        ``Township'') for certain liabilities to third persons not 
        compensated by insurance or otherwise for loss of or damage to 
        property, death, or bodily injury, including the expenses of 
        litigation or settlement arising out of the Township's 
        performance of remedial activities for

[[Page 8542]]

        the Army: Provided, That--(1) such liabilities were caused 
        solely by hazardous substances, as that term is defined at 
        section 9601(14) of title 42 of the United States Code, that 
        were released by the Army, or its authorized agents and 
        employees. . . .

        Mr. [Richard] Ray [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the manager's motion, pursuant to clause 7 of rule 
    16. That clause requires that in the consideration of Senate 
    amendments to a House bill, an amendment must be germane to the 
    particular amendment to which it is offered.
        In this case, Mr. Speaker, the proposed House amendment to 
    Senate amendment 243 is not germane because it relates to a 
    different subject than the Senate amendment and indirectly amends 
    existing law by waiving the application of certain statutes to the 
    authority of the Secretary of the Army in a particular case. On 
    these bases, Mr. Speaker, the House amendment is not germane.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Murtha: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and 
    sustained.

Senate Amendment Restricting Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Arizona 
    Lands--House Amendment Restricting Creation of Historic Sites

Sec. 27.40 To a Senate amendment reported in disagreement, which 
    provided that jurisdiction over Arizona lands should not be 
    transferred to the Secretary of Interior except by act of Congress, 
    an amendment providing that no national monument or historic site 
    be created except by act of Congress was held not germane.

    On June 19, 1941, in proceedings relating to an Interior Department 
appropriation bill,(4) several Senate amendments to the bill 
were reported in disagreement. Mr. Jed Johnson, of Oklahoma, offered an 
amendment to one such Senate amendment, as described above. A point of 
order was then raised, as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. H.R. 4590 (Committee on Appropriations).
5. 87 Cong. Rec. 5374, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Fitzpatrick [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment; first, it is not germane to 
    Senate amendment No. 152 . . . .

    Mr. Johnson having conceded the point of order, the Speaker 
(6) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 8543]]

Senate Amendment Striking Language Prohibiting Payments to Named 
    Individuals--House Amendment To Prohibit Payment From Government 
    Funds to Class of Persons

Sec. 27.41 To a Senate amendment which struck from an appropriation 
    bill language prohibiting the payment of compensation to three 
    named individuals, an amendment providing that it shall be unlawful 
    to pay, from government funds, individuals who have engaged in 
    subversive activities, was held not germane.

    On June 8, 1943, the House was considering Senate amendments to an 
appropriation bill.(7) During consideration of one such 
amendment, Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, moved that the House recede and 
concur in the amendment, with an amendment as described 
above.(8) Responding to a point of order made by Mr. 
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, Mr. Hobbs stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 2714, Urgent Deficiency Appropriations, 1943 (Committee on 
        Appropriations).
 8. See the motion reported at 89 Cong. Rec. 5511, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The amendment] is germane because it deals with the same 
    identical subject matter which is covered by the Kerr 
    amendment.(9) The Kerr amendment deals, it is true, with 
    only three named persons, but this sets up the same standard, only 
    more rigorous, which was sought to be set up in the Kerr amendment. 
    . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Kerr amendment was that stricken by the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Kerr amendment differs from this substitute, insofar 
    as germaneness is concerned, only in this: It named three men as 
    the objects of its legislative wrath, whereas my substitute sets up 
    a standard by which the eligibility of all in an indicated class 
    must be judged. . . .

    The Speaker,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The provision of the Senate amendment that the gentleman seeks 
    to amend by his motion very definitely applies to three individuals 
    and no more. The motion of the gentleman from Alabama would cover 
    numberless people if numberless people came under the provisions of 
    his motion. The language of the bill is specific. The language of 
    the motion of the gentleman from Alabama is general. The Chair 
    must, therefore, hold that the motion is not germane, and sustain 
    the point of order.




                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                       C. HOUSE-SENATE RELATIONS
 
Sec. 28. Requirement That Amendments to Motions To Instruct Conferees 
    Be Germane

    The rule that amendments must be germane applies to the instruc

[[Page 8544]]

tions in a motion to instruct conferees,(11) and the test of 
an amendment to a motion to instruct conferees is the relationship of 
the amendment to the subject matter of the House or Senate version of 
the bill (12) and not necessarily to the original motion to 
instruct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3230, 3235.
12. See 28.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to Motion Where Previous Question Not 
    Ordered                          -------------------

Sec. 28.1 One motion only is in order to instruct conferees prior to 
    the Speaker's appointment of conferees, but is subject to an 
    amendment to the motion, an amendment to the amendment, a 
    substitute for the original amendment, and an amendment to the 
    substitute, if such amendments are germane and the previous 
    question is not ordered.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 28.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test of Germaneness

Sec. 28.2 An amendment to a motion to instruct conferees must be 
    germane to the subject matter of either the House or Senate bill 
    and not necessarily to the original motion to instruct.

    On Oct. 31, 1939,(14) the following parliamentary 
inquiry and response thereto were made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 85 Cong. Rec. 1105, 76th Cong. 2d Sess. (special session). Under 
        consideration was H.J. Res. 306 (Committee on Foreign Affairs), 
        the Neutrality Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr. of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        For the information of the House, is it correct that an 
    amendment to the motion to instruct conferees offered by the 
    gentleman from Connecticut is in order at any time until the 
    previous question is ordered?
        The Speaker: (15) If a Member gets recognition to 
    offer an amendment and it is germane to the subject matter of 
    either the House or Senate bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks it important in construing the rules, for the 
    information of all Members of the House, to state that it must 
    always be remembered that an amendment must be germane to the 
    subject matter under consideration. In this instance it means the 
    amendment must be germane to some provision in the Senate amendment 
    to the House joint resolution or in the House joint resolution 
    itself.
        The Chair may state, in order fully to clarify this matter so 
    there may be no misunderstanding or confusion about the rights of 
    Members--and there is no legitimate ground for confusion on this 
    question--that now that a

[[Page 8545]]

    motion has been offered by the gentleman from Connecticut to 
    instruct the conferees, an amendment to that motion will be in 
    order if germane, and to that amendment an amendment may be offered 
    if germane. To the original amendment to the motion a substitute 
    may be offered and an amendment to the substitute may be offered . 
    . . and all five of those propositions may be pending at the same 
    time.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
         D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
 
Sec. 29. In General; Amendments Providing for Exceptions or Exemptions


                                     
    Restrictions, qualifications, and limitations sought to be added by 
way of amendment must be germane to the provisions of the bill.
    Thus, to a bill authorizing the funding of a variety of programs 
which satisfy several stated requirements, in order to accomplish a 
general purpose, an amendment conditioning the availability of those 
funds upon implementation by their recipients of another program 
related to that general purpose is germane; (16) and 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.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 30.30, infra.
17. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3029 and Sec. 31.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But it is not in order to amend a bill to delay the effectiveness 
of the legislation pending an unrelated contingency,(18) 
such as the enactment of state legislation.(19) Thus an 
amendment delaying the bill's effectiveness or availability of 
authorizations pending unrelated determinations involving agencies and 
committee jurisdictions not within the purview of the bill is not 
germane.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3035, 3037 and Sec. 30, infra.
19. See Sec. 31.5, infra.
20. See Sec. Sec. 31.26 and 31.27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment conditioning the availability of funds to certain 
recipients based upon their compliance with Federal law not otherwise 
applicable to them and within the jurisdiction of other House 
committees may be ruled out as not germane.(1)) An amendment 
delaying the availability of an appropriation pending the enactment of 
certain revenue legislation into law is an unrelated contingency and is 
not germane.(2) However, an amendment to an authorization 
bill which conditions the expenditure of funds covered

[[Page 8546]]

by the bill by restricting their availability during months in which 
there is an increase in the public debt may be germane as long as the 
amendment does not directly affect other provisions of law or impose 
contingencies predicated upon other unrelated actions of 
Congress,(3) and an amendment proposing a conditional 
restriction on the availability of funds to carry out an activity, 
which merely requires observation of similar activities of another 
country, which similar conduct already constitutes the policy basis for 
the funding of that governmental activity, may be germane as a related 
contingency.(4) Likewise, an amendment which conditions the 
obligation or expenditure of funds authorized in the bill by adopting 
as a measure of their availability the expenditure during the fiscal 
year of a comparable percentage of funds authorized by other acts or a 
level in a congressional budget resolution is germane as long as the 
amendment does not directly affect the use of other 
funds.(5) Generally, where an amendment seeks to adopt as a 
measure of the availability of certain authorizations contained in the 
bill a condition that is logically relevant and objectively 
discernible, the amendment does not present an unrelated contingency 
and is germane.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 30.23, infra.
 2. See Sec. 31.8, infra.
 3. See Sec. 34.1, infra.
 4. See Sec. Sec. 31.15 and 31.16, infra.
 5. See Sec. Sec. 34.2 and 34.3, infra.
 6. See Sec. 31.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While it may be in order on a general appropriation bill to delay 
the availability of certain funds therein if the contingency does not 
impose new duties on executive officials, the contingency must be 
related to the funds being withheld and cannot affect other funds in 
the bill not related to that factual situation.
    Where a proposition confers broad discretionary power on an 
executive official, an amendment is germane which directs that official 
to take certain actions in the exercise of the authority.
    Where a provision delegates certain authority, an amendment 
proposing to limit such authority is germane.(7) To a 
proposition authorizing a program to be undertaken, a substitute 
providing for a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking the 
same type of program may be germane as a more limited approach 
involving the same agency.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3022.
 8. See Sec. 30.37, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment seeking to restrict the use of funds must be limited 
to the subject matter and

[[Page 8547]]

scope of the provisions sought to be amended. To a proposition 
restricting the availability of funds to a certain category of 
recipients, an amendment further restricting the availability of funds 
to a subcategory of the same recipients is germane,(9) and 
to a bill authorizing appropriations for an agency, an amendment to 
prohibit the use of such funds for any purpose to which the funds may 
otherwise be applied is germane.(10) To a provision 
authorizing funds for a fiscal year, an amendment restricting the 
availability of funds appropriated pursuant thereto for a specified 
purpose until enactment of a subsequent law authorizing that purpose is 
germane.(11) To an amendment precluding the availability of 
an authorization for part of a fiscal year and then permitting 
availability for the remainder of the year based upon a contingency, an 
amendment constituting a prohibition on the availability of the same 
funds for the entire fiscal year is a germane 
alternative.(12) A legislative amendment to an appropriation 
bill must not only retrench expenditures under Rule XXI, clause 2, but 
must also be germane to the provisions to which offered. A limitation 
must apply solely to the money of the appropriation under 
consideration,(13) and may not be made applicable to a trust 
fund provided (14) or to money appropriated in other 
acts.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 34.4, infra.
10. See Sec. 34.31, infra.
11. See Sec. 31.6, infra.
12. See Sec. 34.8, infra.
13. 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1596, 1600.
14. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4017.
15. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3927 and 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 1495, 1597-
        1599.

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



Sec. 29. In General; Amendments Providing for Exceptions or Exemptions

Allocation of Funds for Pest Control

Sec. 29.1 To a general appropriation bill providing funds for the 
    Department of Agriculture and including a specific allocation of 
    funds for animal disease and pest control, an amendment was held to 
    be germane which provided that no appropriation in the act be used 
    for the application of chemical pesticides, where state law would 
    prohibit such act by citizens or agencies of local government.

[[Page 8548]]

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (16) was under 
consideration comprising Department of Agriculture appropriations for 
fiscal 1970. The bill included an allocation of funds for plant and 
animal disease and pest control.(17) The following amendment 
was offered by Mr. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 11612 (Committee on Appropriations).
17. See 115 Cong. Rec. 13752, 13753, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., May 26, 
        1969.
18. Id. at p. 13753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Ottinger: On page 5, line 5, change 
    the semicolon to a colon and add the following: ``Provided, That no 
    appropriation contained in this act shall be used for the purchase 
    or application of chemical pesticides, except for small quantities 
    for testing purposes, within or substantially affecting States in 
    circumstances in which the purchase or application of such 
    pesticides would be prohibited by State law or regulation, for any 
    citizen or instrumentality of State or local government.''

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

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, upon 
    reading the amendment, I notice it goes further than I thought it 
    did. In the first place, I do not know of any provision in this 
    bill for the purchase of chemical pesticides.
        May I say further, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment before us 
    goes to the State law, exempting or including pesticides based on 
    those States which have passed State laws.
        The Chairman,(19) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is a well-established rule that an amendment to an 
    appropriation bill is germane wherein it denies the use of funds 
    for a specific purpose.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Ottinger] appears to fall within that rule. It is a limitation upon 
    the use of funds appropriated in the bill. It is a denial of the 
    use of those funds for a specific purpose. Therefore, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Use of Mexican Farm Labor

Sec. 29.2 To a proposition that the use of Mexican farm labor during 
    1964 be limited to those farms that had employed such labor during 
    1963, an amendment adding a proviso that none of the workers ``may 
    be used to produce crops that are in surplus supply'' was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 88th Congress, during proceedings relating to a bill 
(20) extending the Mexican farm labor program, the following 
amendment in the nature of a substitute was under consideration: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 8195 (Committee on Agriculture).
 1. See 109 Cong. Rec. 20721, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 31, 1963.

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

[[Page 8549]]

        Amendment offered by Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]:
        Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
    thereof the following: That section 510 of the Agricultural Act of 
    1949 is amended to read as follows:

            Sec. 510. No worker will be made available under this title 
        for employment after December 31, 1963, except that during the 
        calendar year 1964, workers may be made available under this 
        title for employment on farms where such workers were employed 
        during the preceding year, but only if and to the extent that 
        the Secretary determines that every reasonable effort has been 
        made to obtain suitable domestic labor and that such labor is 
        unavailable for such employment.

    To such amendment, an amendment was offered (2) as 
described above. Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, raised the 
point of order that the amendment was not germane. The Chairman 
(3) ruled, without elaboration, that the amendment was 
germane.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 20723.
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 20723, 20724, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 31, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits for Disabled Longshoremen--Bill Inapplicable in District of 
    Columbia

Sec. 29.3 To a bill providing for increased benefits for disabled 
    longshoremen and harbor workers, an amendment making provisions of 
    the bill inapplicable, with certain exceptions, in the District of 
    Columbia was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (5) 
to amend the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the 
following amendment was offered: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 10765 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 6. 102 Cong. Rec. 12707, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 13, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: On page 
    6, after line 16, add the following new section as follows:

            Sec. 10. The amendments made by the first section and 
        sections 2, 4, and 5 of this act shall not be applicable with 
        respect to injuries or death of an employee of an employer 
        carrying on any employment in the District of Columbia, other 
        than disability or death resulting from an injury occurring 
        upon the navigable waters of the United States (including any 
        dry dock), notwithstanding the provisions of the act of May 17, 
        1928, as amended (45 Stat. 600, ch. 612, secs. 1 and 2).

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

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    desire to make a point of order, that the amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] is not germane to this bill. . 
    . .
        . . . The original bill in 1927 came out of the Committee on 
    Labor. It

[[Page 8550]]

    makes no mention of the District of Columbia. In 1928, the Congress 
    by a separate bill out of the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia, not out of the Committee on Labor, covered the employees 
    of the District of Columbia under the terms of the Longshoremen's 
    Act. Congress did not amend the Longshoremen's Act, they just 
    passed a separate piece of legislation.
        . . . [N]owhere in the Longshoremen's Act in the initial bill 
    or in any amendment to it, do they mention the District of 
    Columbia. . . .

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair . . . invites attention to this paragraph on 
    page 2 of the committee report accompanying the pending bill, where 
    it states:

            It covers, with few exceptions, (1) all privately employed 
        workers in the District of Columbia--

        And so on. The report itself shows clearly that the pending 
    bill covers the workers of the District of Columbia, and the 
    amendment . . . seeks to narrow or restrict the application of the 
    pending bill.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is germane and 
    overrules the point of order.

Eligibility for Social Security Benefits

Sec. 29.4 To that section of a bill containing miscellaneous provisions 
    and describing several requirements for receiving benefits under 
    the Social Security Act, an amendment adding another requirement 
    was held germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (8) under consideration 
proposed to amend the Social Security Act. To that section of the bill 
described above, an amendment was offered which stated in part: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 6635 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 6969, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 10, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: 
    Page 104, line 3, insert a new section, as follows:

            Sec. 904. Beginning with January 1, 1941, no provisions of 
        the Social Security Act shall be operative or effective for 
        foreign-born aliens who have not taken out their full American 
        citizenship papers by that date or who do not become American 
        citizens within 6 years after their entrance into this country. 
        . . .

    A point of order was raised by Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, on 
the ground that the amendment was not germane to the bill. The 
Chairman,(10) however, ruled that the amendment was in 
order; he stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Lindsay C. Warren (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . This amendment is offered to title IX, which is the 
    miscellaneous section. The Chair thinks it is clearly in order and 
    therefore overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8551]]

Exception Regarding Interest Payment Added to Joint Resolution 
    Approving Loan Agreement

Sec. 29.5 To a joint resolution approving the action of the Secretary 
    of the Treasury in signing an agreement amending the Anglo-American 
    Financial Agreement of December 6, 1945, an amendment to provide 
    that the interest for 1956 due on the loan be paid into the 
    Treasury of the United States was held to be germane as an 
    exception to the loan agreement being approved.

    In the 85th Congress, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the Anglo-American Financial Agreement.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. S.J. Res. 72 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 5473, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 10, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, etc., That section 1 of the act of July 15, 1946 
        (60 Stat. 535; 22 U.S.C. 286l), is hereby amended by changing 
        the period at the end thereof to a comma and adding the 
        following ``and the action of the Secretary of the Treasury in 
        signing the agreement dated March 6, 1957, amending said 
        agreement is hereby approved.''

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Sheehan: On page 1, line 8, after the 
    period insert a comma and add the following: ``with the exception 
    that the 1956 interest payment due and held in a special account 
    pending resolution of the waiver provisions, that this interest for 
    1956 must be paid into the United States Treasury.''

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

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: The amendment is not germane to 
    the bill. As I heard the amendment read, the amendment would 
    attempt substantially to amend the provisions of the agreement, and 
    neither under the law which is being amended nor under the present 
    bill can the Congress act on the terms of the agreement. So that it 
    is not germane.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Timothy P. Sheehan, 
of Illinois, stated:

        . . . The language on line 6 reads: ``and the action of the 
    Secretary of the Treasury in signing the agreement dated March 6, 
    1957, amending said agreement is hereby approved.''
        No agreement is approved up to this point until the Congress of 
    the United States agrees to it. So, therefore, we can make any 
    amendments or extensions or reductions in the agreement until such 
    time as the Congress approves it.

    The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he Chair rules that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman

[[Page 8552]]

    from Illinois is germane, that it deals with the subject that is 
    before us.

Bill To Adjust Postal Rates--Amendment Relating to Postal Deficit

Sec. 29.6 To a bill to adjust postal rates, an amendment providing that 
    ``the postal deficit shall not be covered by taxes on incomes, 
    imports, corporations, fur coats, railroad tickets,'' and the like, 
    was held not germane.

    The above ruling was made on Feb. 8, 1950, by Chairman Chet 
Holifield, of California, in response to a point of order raised by Mr. 
Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee. The point of order had been conceded by 
the proponent of the amendment, Mr. Gordon Canfield, of New 
Jersey.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See the proceedings at 96 Cong. Rec. 1690, 1691, 81st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Feb. 8, 1950. Under consideration was H.R. 2945 
        (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agencies Exempted From Government Reorganization

Sec. 29.7 To an amendment providing that no government reorganization 
    plan shall affect any provision of the Railroad Retirement Acts, 
    the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, the Railway Labor Act, or 
    specified portions of the Internal Revenue Code, or any agencies 
    functioning pursuant to any of such acts, a substitute amendment 
    providing that no reorganization plan shall affect the Civil 
    Service Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the 
    Federal Power Commission, the Railroad Retirement Board, and other 
    boards and commissions, was held germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(15) to reorganize agencies of the government, Mr. Robert 
Crosser, of Ohio, offered an amendment to which Mr. Charles A. Halleck, 
of Indiana, offered a substitute amendment, as described above. Mr. 
William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, raised the point of order that 
the substitute amendment was not germane to the Crosser amendment. The 
Chairman,(16) without elaboration, overruled the point of 
order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 4129 (Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments).
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
17. See the proceedings at 91 Cong. Rec. 9427, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Oct. 4, 1945.

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

[[Page 8553]]

Amount of Gross Receipts Tax Paid Added to Ceiling Price

Sec. 29.8 To a bill extending and amending an act which authorized the 
    President to establish ceiling prices and which contained 
    conditions and exceptions, an amendment permitting a seller who is 
    liable for a gross receipts tax to receive the amount of such tax 
    in addition to the ceiling price was held to be germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Defense Production 
Act Amendments of 1951,(18) the following amendment was 
offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 3871 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 8387, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: On 
    page 18, line 4, insert the following new subsection:

            (f) Section 402 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        subsection:
            ``(j) Where the sale or delivery of a material or service 
        makes the person selling or delivering it liable for a State or 
        local gross receipts tax or gross income tax, he may receive 
        for the material or service involved, in addition to the 
        ceiling price;''
            ``(1) an amount equal to the amount of all such State and 
        local taxes for which the transaction makes him liable; or
            ``(2) one cent, whichever is greater. . . .''

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

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    bill or to the section to which it refers. It has reference to a 
    gross sales tax which is in lieu of an income tax, as I understand 
    it.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated:

        Mr. Chairman, it very definitely has to do with the pricing 
    features of this bill. The whole purport of the measure before us 
    is an attempt to fix ceiling prices and to control prices. There 
    are many provisions in the bill that have to do with exceptions 
    that may be granted, or other conditions that may be made, and they 
    are in this title in respect to the determination of what is a fair 
    price.

    The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment is germane to 
    the subject matter of the bill, for the amendment proposes certain 
    standards with respect to the fixing of ceiling prices, which is 
    the subject matter of the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Limitation on Appropriations in Bill To Make Certain Payments

Sec. 29.9 To a paragraph of an appropriation bill, an amend

[[Page 8554]]

    ment providing that no part of any appropriation contained in the 
    act shall be paid as compensation to certain named individuals was 
    held to be germane.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
comprising Treasury and Post Office appropriations for 1944, and 
providing in part: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 1648 (Committee on Appropriations).
 2. See 89 Cong. Rec. 645, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 5, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Expenses of loans: The indefinite appropriation ``Expenses of 
    loans, act of September 24, 1917, as amended and extended'' (31 
    U.S.C. 760, 761), shall not be used during the fiscal year 1944 to 
    supplement the appropriations otherwise provided for the current 
    work of the Bureau of the Public Debt, and the amount obligated 
    under such indefinite appropriation during such fiscal year shall 
    not exceed $57,000,000 to be expended as the Secretary of the 
    Treasury may direct . . .

    An amendment was offered:

        Mr. [Joseph E.] Hendricks [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    the following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hendricks: Page 12, line 22, after 
        the word ``Treasury'', strike out the period and insert a colon 
        and the following: ``Provided further, That no part of any 
        appropriation contained in this act shall be used to pay the 
        compensation of William Pickens, Frederick L. Schuman, Goodwin 
        B. Watson, William E. Dodd, Jr., . . . George Slaff, A. C. 
        Shire, and Edward Scheunemann.''

    The following point of order was raised:

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment provides for the refusal of 
    payment of salaries to individuals whose salaries are not provided 
    for in this appropriation bill and, therefore, that the amendment 
    is not germane. Further, I make the point of order that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.

    The Chairman,(3) overruling the point of order, stated: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wirt Courtney (Tenn.).
 4. 89 Cong. Rec. 646, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 5, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        With respect to the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Marcantonio), amendments of this character have been 
    inserted in appropriation bills heretofore. The amendment simply 
    limits the appropriation. . . .

Federal Government Exempted From Daylight Saving Time

Sec. 29.10 To a bill authorizing the Board of Commissioners of the 
    District of Columbia to put daylight saving time into effect, an 
    amendment providing that such action shall not apply to offices or 
    agencies of the federal govern

[[Page 8555]]

    ment was held to be germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
relating to daylight saving time in the District of Columbia. A point 
of order against the amendment described above was raised by Mr. Oren 
Harris, of Arkansas, who stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  S. 2667 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
 6. 98 Cong. Rec. 2064, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 10, 1952. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As I understood the amendment, it would amend the general 
    statute with reference to standard time throughout the United 
    States. This bill applies only to the District of Columbia.

    Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 2065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I do not think the gentleman from Arkansas 
    understood the amendment. We are not trying to affect the general 
    statute at all. This amendment only seeks to prevent time within 
    the District of Columbia interfering with the operation of the 
    Government's business in the District of Columbia. . .

    The following exchange ensued:

        The Speaker: (8) . . . Does the gentleman from 
    Missouri intend for his amendment to apply only to Federal offices 
    in the District of Columbia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.  Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: . . . The amendment reads, ``except it . 
    . . shall have no effect upon the operation of any offices or 
    agencies of the Federal Government which shall continue to operate 
    on standard time.''
        The Speaker: Does that mean in the District of Columbia?
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: In the District of Columbia, yes.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to hold the gentleman's 
    amendment germane and in order.

Denial of Education Benefits--Exceptions

Sec. 29.11 To a proposition denying benefits to recipients failing to 
    meet a certain qualification, a substitute denying the same 
    benefits to some recipients but excepting others is germane; 
    accordingly, where an amendment denied eligibility for certain 
    higher education assistance benefits to persons refusing to 
    register for military service, a substitute denying benefits under 
    the same provisions of law except to persons refusing to register 
    for religious or moral reasons was held germane.

    On July 28, 1982,(9) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of H.R. 6030 (military procurement authorization 
for fiscal 1983), it was demonstrated that

[[Page 8556]]

the test of germaneness is the relationship between a substitute and 
the amendment for which offered, and not between the substitute and the 
original bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 128 Cong. Rec. 18355-58, 18361, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment which is printed in the Record.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 26, after line 22, 
        add the following new section:

                 enforcement of military selective service act

            Sec. 1010. (a) Section 12 of the Military Selective Service 
        Act (50 U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding after subsection 
        (e) the following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) The Director of the Selective Service System shall 
        submit to the Secretary of Education, with respect to each 
        individual receiving, or applying for, any grant, assisted 
        loan, benefit, or other assistance, under title IV of the 
        Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), or 
        participating in any program established, or assisted, under 
        such title, verification of whether such individual has 
        violated section 3 by not presenting and submitting to 
        registration pursuant to section 3. . . .
            ``(3) If the Secretary of Education preliminarily 
        determines that any individual described in paragraph (1) has 
        violated section 3, the Secretary of Education shall notify 
        such individual of the preliminary determination.
            ``(4) Any individual notified pursuant to paragraph (3) may 
        submit to the Secretary of Education within a period of time of 
        not less than 30 days after receiving such notification any 
        information with respect to the compliance or violation of 
        section 3 by such individual.
            ``(5) After the period of time specified in paragraph (4) 
        and taking into consideration any information submitted by the 
        individual, the Secretary of Education shall make a final 
        determination on whether each individual notified pursuant to 
        paragraph (3) has complied with or violated section 3.
            ``(6)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
        individual finally determined by the Secretary of Education 
        pursuant to paragraph (5) to have violated section 3 is not 
        eligible for, and may not receive, any grant, assisted loan, 
        benefit, or other assistance, under title IV of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), and may not 
        participate in any program established, or assisted, under such 
        title. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Simon as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: At the end of the bill add 
        the following new section:
            Sec. 1010. (a) Section 12 of the Military Selective Service 
        Act (50 U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding after subsection 
        (e) the following new subsection:
            ``(f)(1) In order to receive any grant, loan, or work 
        assistance under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
        (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), a person who is required under 
        section 3 to present himself for and submit to registration 
        under such section shall--
            ``A) submit to the institution of higher education which 
        the person intends to attend, or is attending,

[[Page 8557]]

        proof that such person has submitted to such registration;
            ``(B) complete and submit the necessary forms for such 
        registration at the time of filing application for such grant, 
        loan, or work assistance; or
            ``(C) submit a statement that such person refuses to submit 
        to such registration for religious or moral reasons.
            ``(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the Director, 
        after consultation with the Secretary of Education, is 
        authorized to prescribe methods for providing to, and 
        collecting from, institutions of higher education the forms 
        necessary for registration under section 3, and for collecting 
        statements described in paragraph (1)(C) from such 
        institutions.''.
            (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) of this section 
        shall apply to loans, grants, or work assistance under title IV 
        of the Higher Education Act for periods of instruction 
        beginning on or after July 1, 1983. . . .

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order . . . [T]he 
    amendment which I offered and was printed in the Record was a 
    nongermane amendment which had points of order raised against it.
        Subsequently, I appeared before the Rules Committee and asked 
    for those points of order to be waived, which they granted in the 
    rule.
        Now in the amendment that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Simon) is offering in section (c) he says to submit a statement 
    that such person refuses to submit to such registration for 
    religious and moral reasons. That is additional law which had 
    nothing to do with the amendment and the waiver of points of order 
    that were granted by the Rules Committee. I say that the 
    gentleman's amendment is out of order because of that. . . .
        Mr. Simon: . . . Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is how 
    we can have something that is workable. My aim is the same as that 
    of the gentleman from New York, but I think the gentleman from New 
    York, with all due respect, has not dealt with this whole very 
    complex problem of student loans and grants.
        I think the amendment that I have is the only workable one. I 
    think it is totally within the province of the amendment that the 
    gentleman has.
        I think the substitute amendment that I have offered is in 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Les AuCoin (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair finds that both the amendment and the substitute 
    amendment prescribe limitations on eligibility under title IV of 
    the Higher Education Act of 1965, both in similar ways.
        The question of the waiver granted to the Solomon amendment by 
    the rule is not relevant to the point of order since the test of 
    germaneness is whether the substitute amendment is germane to the 
    amendment, not to the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that the amendment is in order and 
    the gentleman is recognized.

Incidental Conditions or Exceptions Related to Fundamental Purpose of 
    Bill

Sec. 29.12 For a bill proposing to accomplish a result by methods 
    comprehensive in scope, a committee amendment in

[[Page 8558]]

    the nature of a substitute which was more detailed in its 
    provisions but which sought to achieve the same result was held 
    germane, where the additional provisions not contained in the 
    original bill were construed to be merely incidental conditions or 
    exceptions that were related to the fundamental purpose of the 
    bill.

    The proceedings of Aug. 2, 1973, which related to H.R. 9130 (the 
trans-Alaska pipeline authorization) are discussed in Sec. 30.36, 
infra.

Exception From Limitation on Powers Conferred in Bill

Sec. 29.13 To an amendment limiting discretionary powers conferred in a 
    bill, an amendment providing an exception from that limitation is 
    germane; thus, to an amendment prohibiting the Administrator from 
    setting ceiling prices for domestic crude oil above a certain level 
    while performing the functions transferred to him in a bill 
    creating a new Federal Energy Administration, an amendment 
    exempting from the imposition of that ceiling price new crude 
    petroleum sold by producers of less than 30,000 barrels per day was 
    held a germane exception.

    During consideration of the Federal Energy Administration Act [H.R. 
11793] in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 6, 1974,(11) 
the Chair held the following amendment to be germane to the pending 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 5449, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Dingell: Amend the amendment by adding at the end 
        thereof the following: ``; Provided however, That no limitation 
        on mandate contained herein shall apply to or affect any 
        producer of new crude petroleum who, together with all persons 
        who control, or are controlled by or under common control with 
        such producer, produces net to his working interests not more 
        than 30,000 barrels of crude oil per day, so as to prevent such 
        producer from selling that new crude petroleum without respect 
        to the ceiling price. However, if the amount of crude petroleum 
        produced and sold in any month subsequent to the effective date 
        of this section is less than the base production control level 
        for that property for that month, any new crude petroleum 
        produced from that property during any subsequent month may not 
        be sold pursuant to this paragraph until an amount of the new 
        crude petroleum equal to the difference between the amount of 
        crude petroleum actually produced from that

[[Page 8559]]

        property during the earlier month and the base production 
        control level for that property for the earlier month has been 
        sold at or below its ceiling price. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment for the same reasons that I stated 
    before. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) is nongermane to the bill under rule XVI, clause 7. It 
    deals with subject matter which is not in the bill and with policy 
    also which is not the purpose of this section. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment does precisely the same thing as 
    the amendment just briefly offered. It seeks to accomplish the same 
    thing. I would go further and state that it goes far beyond the 
    sweep of the amendment. It issues new categories and classes of 
    producers. It imposes whole new judgments upon the administrator 
    far beyond those which are included in the limitations previously 
    imposed, and it imposes these additional judgments and 
    responsibilities on him in terms of dividing the different kinds of 
    producers into classes and categories.
        Essentially it requires acts going beyond action of the 
    original sweep of the amendment and also beyond the legislation 
    before us. For that reason it is no longer a limitation on the 
    authority proposed but rather, on the contrary, is making whole new 
    law. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite different 
    from the original amendment. As a matter of fact, the original 
    amendment would, I think, have been greatly preferable, but in 
    deference to the Chair's ruling, this amendment does nothing 
    whatsoever to the Dingell limitation on the authority of the 
    administrator, which limitation prohibits the administrator from 
    cutting back the price of oil any less, I think, than $7.09, which 
    sounds like a strange, negative limitation. But at least that is 
    what it does.
        This further limits the administrator in such action not to 
    affect those producing 30,000 barrels or less.
        The Dingell amendment has the effect of telling the 
    administrator: You have got to, or you cannot do anything else but, 
    provide a limitation on price that will not exceed the total of 
    $7.09.
        What this says is that when we do so, we may not put any 
    limitation on new oil produced by producers of 30,000 barrels or 
    less; so this is an additional limitation in addition to what has 
    been called the Dingell limitation.
        I submit that this is entirely in accord with the ruling or 
    holding of the Dingell amendment valid as an amendment on this 
    bill.
        I might add, too, that this does not deal with other oil than 
    domestic crude.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule. 
    The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) has offered an amendment to 
    the amendment previously offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    amendment to the amendment on the grounds that the amendment to the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill or to the amendment to which 
    it is offered.

[[Page 8560]]

        The Chair has carefully examined the language of the amendment 
    to the amendment and the Chair rules that since the amendment to 
    the amendment is simply for the purpose of exempting certain 
    specified producers from the limitation of authority established by 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, it is within 
    the scope of and covers the same subject matter as the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Michigan. The amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas is, therefore, germane as an amendment to 
    the amendment and the Chair overrules the point of order.

--Effect of Definition of Terms

Sec. 29.14 To a section containing ``definitions'' of two terms 
    referred to in a bill, an amendment adding a further definition of 
    other terms contained in the bill (and whose effect was to provide 
    an exemption from a limitation on authority contained in another 
    section of the bill) was held to be germane.

    On Mar. 7, 1974,(13) during consideration of the Federal 
Energy Administration Act (H.R. 11793) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman John J. Flynt, Jr., of Georgia, held the following amendment 
to be germane to the section to which it was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 5640, 5641, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Louisiana: Page 30, line 
        15, strike out the period and insert, in lieu thereof, the 
        following: ``; and (3) any reference to ``domestic crude oil'', 
        ``crude oil'', ``energy prices'', or ``profits'' shall not be 
        deemed to refer to royalty oil or the shares of oil production 
        owned by a State, State entity or political subdivision of a 
        State or to the prices of or revenues from such royalty oil or 
        shares.''. . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this matter is 
    not the subject matter within section 11. Section 11 is a 
    definition section. I realize that the gentleman is attempting to 
    define certain words, but it seems to me that the language he uses 
    is to add new authority or subtract authority from existing law. I 
    certainly understand the gentleman's concern, but these words 
    included are probably included in statutes. It seems to me what he 
    is doing is expanding or changing laws which are now in existence.
        Also, we do not know the effect of the amendment on the rules 
    of the House.
        Mr. Chairman, I feel it is inappropriate to this section and 
    nongermane and for that reason ask that it be ruled out of order.
        Mr. Long of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of order that what I am 
    attempting to do by this amendment is to define a term, which is 
    what I am attempting to do by this amendment. And it appears to me 
    to be completely within the purposes of this particular section to 
    do so, and it seems to me that it is a perfectly valid place and a 
    correct and

[[Page 8561]]

    specific place for an amendment of this type to be introduced.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Long) has offered an 
    amendment to add a new subsection to section 11 of the bill, which 
    is the definitions section.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has made a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it refers to matters 
    not contained in the language of the section as written.
        The Chair has carefully examined both the section as it appears 
    in the bill, and also the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Long).
        The Chair will state that subsection (1) of section 11 reads as 
    follows:

            Any reference to ``function'' or ``functions'' shall be 
        deemed to include--
    and so forth.

        The amendment sought to be offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Long) starts as follows:

            Any reference to ``domestic crude oil'', ``crude oil'', 
        ``energy prices'', or ``profits'' shall not be deemed to refer 
        to--

        and so forth.
        The Chair is constrained to feel that if the language of one 
    subsection of the bill states clearly that certain references shall 
    be deemed to include references, and there are two sections already 
    appearing in the bill, the Chair is constrained to rule that the 
    adding of the third section falls clearly within the reasonable 
    interpretations of the word ``Definitions,'' and therefore holds 
    the amendment is germane and overrules the point of order.

Railroad Freight Rates--Waiver of Antitrust Laws

Sec. 29.15 To a proposition amending existing laws in several respects 
    but limited in scope to the issue of federal funding of railroads, 
    an amendment to one of those laws to require any railroad to 
    maintain certain freight rate practices and waiving provisions of 
    antitrust laws to permit enforcement of those rate practices was 
    held not germane as addressing regulatory authorities in law and 
    not confined to the issue of federal financial assistance.

    The proceedings of Oct. 14, 1978, relating to H.R. 12161, the 
ConRail Authorization Act, are discussed in Sec. 35.80, infra.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
         D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
 
Sec. 30. Amendments Providing for Conditions or Qualifications

    For introductory discussion of amendments that seek to impose 
conditions, qualifications, or restrictions, generally, see the 
introduction to Division D, supra.

[[Page 8562]]

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


 Armed Services: Condition on Contract Authority

Sec. 30.1 To a bill to provide for the common defense by increasing the 
    strength of the armed forces, an amendment was held to be germane 
    which required every contract for the supplying of goods or 
    services for the use of persons inducted under the Act, to specify 
    that the company with whom the contract is made shall not 
    discriminate in employment of any person because of race, religion, 
    or the like.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948,(14) the following amendment was offered: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 8705, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. Douglas: On page 44, line 11, after 
    the period add a new subsection to read as follows:

            Sec. --. (a) Every contract entered into by the United 
        States for the supplying of goods or services to be used by, 
        for, or in connection with any person inducted into, or 
        enlisted in, the armed forces of the United States under the 
        provisions of this act shall specify, as a condition thereof, 
        that the company or individual with whom the contract is made 
        shall not discriminate in the employment of any person, or in 
        the terms and conditions of employment of any person, because 
        of his race, color, national origin, ancestry, language, or 
        religion, and shall specify that a breach of such condition 
        shall result in the termination of such contract. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 8706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment goes far beyond the realm of this 
    legislation. . . . This amendment goes so far from the purposes of 
    this legislation that I cannot understand why anybody would offer 
    it. . . .

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

        Mrs. [Helen Gahagan] Douglas [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    think the amendment is germane. Section 17(a) deals with 
    procurement and purchase of materials. The amendment simply 
    specifies what kind of contracts must be entered into in the 
    procurement of materials.

    The Chairman,(17) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment and is inclined to believe 
    that under the broad purposes of the bill the amendment is in 
    order. It seeks to effectuate portions of the declaration of

[[Page 8563]]

    policy and relates to persons and duties within the scope of the 
    bill. The Chair accordingly overrules the point of order.

Prohibition on Military Procurement at Named Facility

Sec. 30.2 To a bill authorizing the procurement of military weapons for 
    the fiscal year, an amendment prohibiting procurement at a 
    particular facility pending the submission of a report by the 
    Comptroller General relating to the feasibility of deactivating 
    that facility was held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(18) comprising the military procurement authorization for 
fiscal 1971, the following amendment was offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 17123 (Committee on Armed Services).
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 14481, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 6, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]:
        On page 6, after line 8, insert the following:

            Sec. 403. The Comptroller General of the United States is 
        authorized and directed to report to Congress as soon as 
        practicable with respect to the economic feasibility of the 
        deactivation of the facilities of the Forest Park Naval 
        Ordnance Station, Illinois; and until such time as such report 
        is made and the Congress takes action thereon, none of the 
        funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act may be used 
        for the procurement of those weapons or related goods or 
        services which, but for a decision by the Secretary of Defense 
        to deactivate the Forest Park Naval Ordnance Station, would 
        have been procured at such Station during the fiscal year 1971.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 14482.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is subject to a point of order. While it would be in 
    order on a military construction bill, it has nothing to do with 
    the bill now under consideration.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair feels that the amendment deals with procurement 
    of weapons, that the amendment is germane to the legislation, and 
    therefore overrules the point of order.

Restriction on Assignment of Selective Service Inductees

Sec. 30.3 During consideration of a bill amending the Selective Service 
    Act of 1948, it was held that, to that paragraph prohibiting 
    assignment of inductees, until completion of four months' service, 
    to any areas outside the United

[[Page 8564]]

    States, and prohibiting assignment of inductees, for a period of 
    six months after induction, to any combat areas outside the United 
    States, an amendment was held germane which provided that ``no 
    person inducted under the authority of this act shall be assigned 
    to any theater of operation'' in which the commander is denied 
    authority to bomb enemy targets as specified.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
comprising amendments to the Universal Military Training and Service 
Act, an amendment was offered (3) as described above. Mr. 
Carl Vinson, of Georgia, raised the point of order that the amendment 
was not germane. The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of 
order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. S. 1-1951 (Committee on Armed Services).
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 3883, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1951.
 4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment with some degree of care 
    and while it does present a very close question in the opinion of 
    the Chair, yet it does appear to impose a limitation on the use of 
    troops sought to be provided by the pending bill. In view of the 
    fact that it does appear to be such a limitation, the Chair is 
    constrained to overrule the point of order.

Muster-Out Pay Bill

Sec. 30.4 To a bill providing muster-out pay for members of the armed 
    services, an amendment providing that no wounded or diseased member 
    be discharged until adequate provisions be made for him under the 
    laws and regulations administered by the Veterans' Administration, 
    was held not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the Muster-Out Pay 
Bill of 1944 (5) the following amendment was offered: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S. 1543 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 425, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 19, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Hinshaw, as a new section to follow 
    section 8:

            Sec. --. No officer or enlisted man or woman shall be . . . 
        released from active duty until his or her . . . final pay, or 
        a substantial portion thereof, including mustering-out pay, 
        [is] ready for delivery to him or her . . . and no wounded, 
        diseased, or handicapped member of the active armed forces 
        shall be released from active service until and unless adequate 
        provisions are made for him or her under the laws and 
        regulations administered by the Veterans' Administration.

    Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, reserved a point of order against 
the amendment, and Mr. Carl Hinshaw, of California, sub

[[Page 8565]]

sequently conceded the point of order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 426. The Chairman was Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver of Jurisdiction Over American Troops

Sec. 30.5 To a bill authorizing the sale or loan of vessels to friendly 
    foreign nations, an amendment providing that no vessel be made 
    available under the act unless the recipient country agree to waive 
    criminal jurisdiction over American troops stationed therein, was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
which authorized the transfer of naval vessels to friendly foreign 
countries. The amendment described above was offered by Mr. Frank T. 
Bow, of Ohio,(9) and a point of order was raised by Mr. L. 
Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, on grounds that the amendment was not 
germane. Mr. Bow, in discussing the bill and defending the proposed 
amendment, stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 6952 (Committee on Armed Services).
 9. 103 Cong. Rec. 7271, 7272, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., May 20, 1957.
10. Id. at p. 7272.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Section 4 provides that no vessel may be made available 
    under this act unless the Secretary of Defense, after consultation 
    with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, determines that its transfer is in 
    the best interests of the United States. . . . I think it is 
    germane for the Congress to decide whether it is in the best 
    interest of American servicemen as to whether or not criminal 
    jurisdiction shall be waived before we turn these vessels over to 
    these countries. . . . This other provision would give these rights 
    and limitations, so the amendment is germane. . . .

    Mr. Rivers stated:

        . . . [T]his bill deals only with the transfer of ships by the 
    Department of the Navy. We cannot transgress on the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the realm of treaties and such 
    matters. . . .

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Lee Metcalf (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from South Carolina 
    makes a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] on the ground that the amendment is 
    not germane. The Chair holds that the amendment consists of an 
    unrelated contingency which is under the jurisdiction, as has been 
    pointed out by the gentleman from South Carolina, of another 
    committee of the House, namely, the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
    Therefore, the amendment is not germane and the point of order 
    against it is sustained.

Statement of Congressional Policy Regarding Geneva Accords

Sec. 30.6 To a bill authorizing military procurement, re

[[Page 8566]]

    search, development and construction, an amendment comprising a 
    statement of congressional policy with respect to foreign policy 
    affecting Vietnam was held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (12) was under 
consideration comprising supplemental military authorizations for 
fiscal 1967 and stating in part: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 4515 (Committee on Armed Services).
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 5139, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                              Title I--Procurement

        Sec. 101. In addition to the funds authorized to be 
    appropriated under Public Law 89-501, there is hereby authorized to 
    be appropriated during the fiscal year 1967 for the use of the 
    Armed Forces of the United States for procurement of aircraft, 
    missiles, and tracked combat vehicles in amounts as follows:

                                    aircraft

        For aircraft: for the Army, $533,100,000. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Reuss: On page 4, line 10, after 
    ``$624,500,000'', insert:

                  Title IV--Statement of Congressional Policy

            Sec. 401. None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be 
        used except in accordance with the following declaration by 
        Congress of-- . . .
            (3) its support of the Geneva accords of 1954 and 1962 and 
        urges the convening of that Conference or any other meeting of 
        nations similarly involved and interested as soon as possible 
        for the purpose of formulating plans for bringing the conflict 
        to an honorable conclusion in accordance with the principles of 
        those accords.

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

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    rise to a point of order on the ground that the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill. The bill before the House is a supplemental 
    authorization bill. The amendment contains no limitation. It 
    declares a matter of policy which obviously is under the 
    jurisdiction of another committee, since it deals with foreign 
    affairs and commitments.

    Mr. Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin, stated in response: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 5140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he amendment I offer is germane because it is a 
    limitation on the legislative authorization for military 
    procurement, research, and construction contained in the first 
    three titles of H.R. 4515. By stating the circumstances under which 
    the authorization may be pursued, it is well within the precedents 
    of this body, and the mere fact that a portion of the lan

[[Page 8567]]

    guage relates to the foreign policy specialty of the House 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs is entirely irrelevant. . . .
        . . . On May 20, 1959, a House bill from my committee, the 
    House Committee on Banking and Currency, was before this House. The 
    gentleman from New York, Mr. Powell, offered an amendment providing 
    that none of the funds authorized by the housing bill should be 
    used except under a policy that such housing should be available 
    without discrimination. . . . The chairman . . . Mr. Walter, of 
    Pennsylvania . . . held the amendment germane upon the ground, 
    ``that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is 
    restricted to any title of this act and is specific in the opinion 
    of the Chair.''

    The Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 5141, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the subject matter of the 
    amendment comes within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs, and not the Committee on Armed Services which reported the 
    bill now before the Committee.
        The Chair refers the Committee to a decision by Chairman 
    Metcalf, of Montana, in the 85th Congress. The bill then under 
    consideration authorized the sale or loan of certain vessels to 
    friendly foreign nations. It had been reported by the Committee on 
    Armed Services. The amendment on which the Chair was called upon to 
    rule provided that no vessels could be made available under the act 
    unless the recipient country agreed to waive criminal jurisdiction 
    over troops of the United States stationed therein--an amendment 
    which clearly called for diplomatic negotiations with the foreign 
    nations involved.
        In holding the amendment not germane, the Chair stated that it 
    consisted of an unrelated matter under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs--Congressional Record, volume 103, 
    part 6, page 7272. . . .
        The Chair, applying one of the accepted tests for germaneness, 
    is of the opinion that the amendment is essentially on a ``subject 
    other than that under consideration'' and is not germane to the 
    bill under consideration.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Foreign Assistance--Restrictions Affecting Grain Used to Produce 
    Distilled Spirits

Sec. 30.7 To a bill authorizing an appropriation for foreign relief, an 
    amendment providing that no part of the funds to be appropriated or 
    advanced shall be used to furnish grain to the peoples of certain 
    countries ``as long as grain is used in such countries for the 
    production of distilled spirits for beverage purposes'' was held to 
    be germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(17) pro

[[Page 8568]]

viding for aid to foreign countries, an amendment was offered 
(18) as described above. Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, raised 
the point of order that the amendment was not germane to the section or 
to the bill. The Chairman (19) overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 4604 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 11272, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1947.
19. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Organization--Proposed Audit

Sec. 30.8 To a bill to enable the United States to participate in the 
    work of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Organization, 
    and authorizing an appropriation for such purpose, an amendment was 
    held to be not germane which proposed that the Appropriations 
    Committee of the House employ an auditor to examine the books and 
    files pertaining to expenditures made by the organization from 
    funds appropriated in accordance with the authorization, and report 
    thereon to such committee.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(20) to enable the United States to participate in the 
United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Organization, an amendment was 
offered (1) as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.J. Res. 192 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 1. 90 Cong. Rec. 683, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 25, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Benton F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 15, after line 3, insert the following:
            ``The Appropriations Committee of the House of 
        Representatives shall employ an experienced auditor and other 
        necessary--personnel whose duty it shall be to examine the 
        books, files, papers, and accounts of U. N. R. R. A. and all 
        official documents pertaining to expenditures made by U. N. R. 
        R. A. from funds appropriated in accordance with this 
        authorization. Said auditor shall make a comprehensive report 
        of same to the full Committee of Appropriations quarterly, or 
        at such other times as said committee may direct.''

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

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the 
    joint resolution.
        The resolution . . . authorizes the expenditure of money for 
    the United Nations relief and rehabilitation organization to be 
    handled . . . by the State Department. This amendment seeks to give 
    a legislative committee of this House the power to employ an 
    experienced auditor and other necessary personnel to examine the 
    books, files, papers, and so forth, of U.N.R.R.A. As I understand 
    the resolution, it requires

[[Page 8569]]

    a report to the Congress. The Committee on Appropriations has 
    control over the appropriations. This is simply an authorization. 
    If it is desired to place any limitations upon the appropriations, 
    they should be on that bill, not this resolution.

    The Chairman (2) sustained the point of 
order.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
 3. 90 Cong. Rec. 684, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 25, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emergency Relief Bill--Prohibition on Discrimination Based on Union 
    Membership

Sec. 30.9 To that part of an emergency relief bill stating certain 
    criteria affecting eligibility of applicants for relief or for 
    employment on government projects, an amendment prohibiting, in the 
    distribution of funds authorized by the act, any discrimination on 
    account of union membership or nonmembership was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, the Emergency Relief and Public Buildings 
Bill (4) was under consideration, which stated in part: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.J. Res. 679 (Committee on Appropriations).
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. 6808, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., May 12, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 10. In the employment of persons on projects under the 
        appropriations in this title, applicants in actual need whose 
        names have not heretofore been placed on relief rolls shall be 
        given the same eligibility for employment as applicants whose 
        names have heretofore appeared on such rolls: Provided, That . 
        . . no relief worker shall be eligible for employment on any 
        project of the Works Progress Administration who has refused to 
        accept employment on any other Federal or non-Federal project 
        at a wage rate comparable with or higher than the wage rate 
        established for similar work on projects of the Works Progress 
        Administration. . . .

    An amendment was offered which sought to add a provision stating: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 6812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Provided further, That in the . . . distribution of the funds 
    appropriated or authorized by this act, no discrimination shall be 
    made because of membership or nonmembership in any union or 
    organization.

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

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that that is not germane to this section. 
    Section 19 deals with that subject matter.

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Section 10 relates to the employment of persons on 
    projects under appropriations in this title and . . . covers in a 
    broad way the applicants who are eligible for employment by W.P.A. 
    The gentleman from Virginia

[[Page 8570]]

    [Mr. Woodrum] has called to the attention of the Chair the 
    provisions of section 19, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Taber] has called to the attention of the Chair that section 19 is 
    of a penalty nature. . . . The amendment of the gentleman from 
    Michigan has no relation as the Chair sees it to the penalty 
    provisions of section 19, and, if germane, would have to have some 
    relationship to the employment of persons on projects under the 
    appropriations in this title as contained in section 10. . . .
        In the opinion of the Chair [the amendment] is a direction to 
    the Works Progress Administrator in relation to the appointment of 
    persons on projects under the appropriations in this title. The 
    Chair feels that the amendment is germane. . . .

Discrimination in Sale of Housing--Basis for Withholding Funds

Sec. 30.10 To a substitute for a committee amendment to a housing bill, 
    an amendment was held germane which sought to give the Federal 
    Housing Administrator authority to withhold financial aid under any 
    title of the substitute unless written assurances were received 
    from the recipients of such aid that the property on account of 
    which the aid was to be given would be available for sale or 
    occupancy without discrimination.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of the Housing Act of 
1959,(8) the following amendment was offered to a substitute 
(9) for a committee amendment: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. S. 57 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 9. The substitute to the committee amendment was language of H.R. 
        7117.
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 8654, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 20, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York] to 
    the amendment offered by Mr. [Albert S.] Herlong [Jr., of Florida]: 
    Add a new title as follows:

                         Title VIII--Nondiscrimination

            Sec. 1007. No . . . assistance authorized under any title 
        of this Act shall be given or made . . . unless the recipient 
        and beneficiary of such . . . assistance gives assurance in 
        writing that the property for which the . . . commitment is to 
        be given or made shall be available for sale, lease or 
        occupancy without regard to the race, creed, or color of the 
        purchaser, lessee or occupant. . . .

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

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane because it is 
    too general in its nature, it is not specific in applying to any 
    particular provision.

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).

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

[[Page 8571]]

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Powell] is restricted to any title of this act and is specific, in 
    the opinion of the Chair.
        Therefore the point of order is overruled.

Scholarships to Medical Schools--Requirements for Eligibility

Sec. 30.11 To a bill providing for scholarships, an amendment relating 
    to requirements for eligibility for such scholarships was held to 
    be germane.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 22475, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 1, 1965. See 
        Sec. 30.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.12 To a bill making grants to medical schools to be used for 
    student scholarships, an amendment establishing a National 
    Commission on Medical, Dental, and Optometric Scholarships to 
    prepare and evaluate national examinations for purposes of testing 
    qualifications of scholarship applicants was held to be germane.

    In the 89th Congress, during consideration of the Health 
Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1965,(13) an 
amendment was offered (14) as described above. The amendment 
prohibited the award of scholarships to those not deemed qualified, and 
further required as a condition of receiving a scholarship that the 
recipient serve for one year in designated geographic areas. A point of 
order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 3141 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 22475, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 1, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: . . . The gentleman's 
    amendment sets up an entirely different program, apart from any 
    program that we have, an entirely new national program which is not 
    contemplated and is not a part of this bill. So it goes beyond the 
    purview of this program and of this proposed legislation and 
    imposes additional duties upon the Surgeon General to provide 
    information that would determine the matter of scholarships, which 
    is not a part of this program at all.

    The Chairman,(15) observing that the bill related to 
scholarships and that the amendment related to a method of establishing 
scholarships, overruled the point of order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Martha W. Griffiths (Mich.).
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 22476, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 1, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conditions on Payment of Agricultural Subsidies--Compliance With 
    Specified Provisions of Law

Sec. 30.13 To that title in an omnibus agriculture bill estab

[[Page 8572]]

    lishing an annual ceiling on subsidy payments to producers of 
    cotton, wheat, and feed grains, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which sought to make such payments conditional upon 
    compliance with the minimum wage provisions of another act and with 
    applicable health and safety laws.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Agricultural Act 
of 1970.(17) The following amendment was offered: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 18546 (Committee on Agriculture).
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 27471, 27472, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 5, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: On 
    page 2, after line 24, added the following new section:

            Sec. 102. No person shall be entitled to receive any 
        payments (as defined in section 101) which exceed in the 
        aggregate $5,000 under the programs established by titles III, 
        IV, V, and VI of this Act, unless--
            (1) he pays each person employed by him . . . at a rate not 
        less than that prescribed by section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 
        Standards Act of 1938, as amended, and
            (2) he is in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, 
        and local laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to the 
        health and safety of his employees, and
            (3) the Secretary of Labor certifies in writing that the 
        recipient is in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 
        (1) and (2) of this section.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 27472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: . . . [The amendment] is not 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of this legislation, which is to 
    adjust agricultural production to national consumption.
        It proposes to amend a statute--section 6(a)(1) of the Fair 
    Labor Standards Act of 1938--which is not in this bill, or for that 
    matter is not even under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Agriculture.

    Mr. Mikva stated in response:

        Mr. Chairman, I would say in support of the amendment that this 
    is a limitation on the subsidy payment that can be made. Title I 
    itself is a payment limitation title and this is another limitation 
    on those payments.
        The amendment does not amend the Fair Labor Standards Act in 
    any way. No one is required to pay $1.60 an hour. The only 
    requirement is that if he desires to obtain more than $5,000 in 
    subsidies then he must comply with the payment of $1.60 and with 
    all health and safety regulations.

    The Chairman pro tempore,(20) in sustaining the point of 
order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Mikva], has offered an 
    amendment as a new section of title I of the bill. The committee 
    amendment just adopted established an annual ceiling on payments to 
    producers of upland cotton, wheat, and feed grains. . . .

[[Page 8573]]

        The Chairman has had an opportunity to examine the gentleman's 
    amendment and would call attention to a decision by Chairman Cox on 
    June 18, 1935--Record, page 9579. In that instance, to a bill 
    providing assistance to farmers through the contractual benefits 
    conferred upon them by the Agricultural Adjustment Act, an 
    amendment prohibiting agreements under provisions of that act 
    unless such contracts established certain minimum wage rates and 
    maximum hours for farm laborers was held not germane.

        The Chair feels that this precedent is controlling [and] that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois is not 
    germane. . . .(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 30.14, infra, for discussion of a similar amendment which 
        omitted the reference to the minimum wage requirements of the 
        Fair Labor Standards Act. The amendment was held to be germane 
        (where ``compliance'' with ``applicable'' laws was the only 
        stated condition, and where compliance with a law arguably not 
        ``applicable'' was no longer a condition. See also Sec. 30.23, 
        infra.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Compliance With ``Applicable'' Laws

Sec. 30.14 To that title of an omnibus agricultural bill establishing 
    an annual ceiling on subsidy payments to producers of cotton, 
    wheat, and feed grains, an amendment prohibiting any price support 
    payments under the bill unless such producers are certified by the 
    Secretary of Labor to be in compliance with applicable health and 
    safety laws was held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of the Agricultural Act 
of 1970,(2) the following amendment was offered: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 18546 (Committee on Agriculture).
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 27472, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 5, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Abner J.] Mikva [of Illinois]: On 
    page 2, after line 24, add the following new section:

            Sec. 102. No person shall be entitled to receive any 
        payments (as defined in sec. 101) under the programs 
        established by titles III, IV, V, and VI of this Act, unless--
            (1) he is in compliance with all applicable Federal, State 
        and local laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to the 
        health and safety of his employees, and
            (2) the Secretary of Labor certifies in writing that the 
        recipient is in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 
        (1) of this section.

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

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. It does not go to 
    the purpose of the act and that on the contrary it seeks to impose 
    regulations of another statute without amending the other

[[Page 8574]]

    statute, that it comes clearly within the same ruling of Chairman 
    Cox.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See the ruling cited in Sec. Sec. 30.13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Mikva, stated:
        This does not increase the jurisdiction of any agency in terms 
    of present existing laws. It simply says that no one is entitled to 
    receive Federal funds unless they are complying with existing laws.

    The Chairman pro tempore,(5) in ruling on the point of 
order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Committee already has before it the committee amendment 
    which imposes an overall payment limitation. The pending amendment 
    would add a complete prohibition on payments if certain conditions 
    are not met.
        The Chair feels that in view of the concept already introduced 
    into the bill by the committee amendment, the further amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is germane. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 30.13, supra, for discussion of an amendment, ruled out as 
        not germane, which contained similar provisions and a further 
        provision relating to compliance with minimum wage requirements 
        of the Fair Labor Standards Act (where the latter statute was 
        not cited as being ``applicable'' to the producers receiving 
        payments, and where a precedent directly in point suggested 
        that result. See also Sec. 30.18, infra, relying upon this 
        ruling).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soil Bank Act--Reporting Requirement

Sec. 30.15 To a proposal to permit payments in advance under contracts 
    to participate in the acreage reserve program, an amendment to 
    require that all such payments be reported to the Clerk of the 
    House in the same manner as political expenditures was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during proceedings relating to the Soil Bank 
Act of 1956,(7) the following amendment was under 
consideration: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 10875 (Committee on Agriculture).
 8. See 102 Cong. Rec. 7434, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., May 3, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: . . . 
    Line 8, after end of section, insert a new subsection as follows:

            (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and in 
        order to assist the producer in financing his farming 
        operations, and caring for and improving his farm property, the 
        Secretary may make an advance payment to the producer of not to 
        exceed 50 percent of the compensation which would become due 
        the producer under his contract to participate in the acreage-
        reserve program; and may in any year make an advance payment to 
        the producer of not to exceed 50 percent of the annual payment 
        for such year which would become due the producer under his 
        contract to participate in the conservation-reserve program.

[[Page 8575]]

    To such amendment, an amendment was offered (9) to 
require reports of such payments in the manner described above. Mr. 
Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill or to the pending amendment. The 
Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 7435.
10. J. Percy Priest (Tenn.).
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 7435, 7436, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., May 3, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It occurs to the Chair that the amendment simply provides that 
    any payments made shall be reported to the Clerk of the House. The 
    amendment to which the amendment is proposed is an amendment 
    providing for and authorizing payments to be made. On the question 
    of germaneness it seems to the Chair that the amendment would be 
    germane and the point of order is overruled.

Issuance of Bonds by Tennessee Valley Authority--Restrictions on Use of 
    Funds

Sec. 30.16 To a bill permitting the Tennessee Valley Authority to raise 
    capital by issuance of bonds, an amendment placing restrictions on 
    the use of such funds for the purchase of foreign-made equipment 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(12) to amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, an 
amendment was offered (13) as described above. A point of 
order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 3460 (Committee on Public Works).
13. 105 Cong. Rec. 7720, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 7, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank E.] Smith [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment imposes a duty not consistent 
    with the provisions of the bill.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Ross Bass (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
    germane to the bill because it deals with the proceeds of the 
    Corporation and the use of the funds. The Chair holds that the 
    amendment is in order.

Conditions Affecting Status of Grain Inspectors as Federal Employees

Sec. 30.17 To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Agriculture authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to employ 
    official grain inspectors without regard to civil service 
    appointment statutes upon his finding of their good moral character

[[Page 8576]]

    and professional competence, an amendment permitting those 
    employees to credit their prior private service as grain inspectors 
    to their Civil Service retirement was held germane as merely 
    stating a further condition upon their status as federal employees.

    On Apr. 2, 1976,(15) during consideration of H.R. 12572 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Phil M. 
Landrum, of Georgia, overruled a point of order against an amendment 
holding that the amendment was germane to the section of the bill to 
which it was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 9240, 9241, 9253, 9254, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. The Grain Standards Act of 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            (c) By amending subsection (d) and adding new subsections 
        (e) and (f) to read as follows:
            ``(d) Persons employed by an official inspection agency 
        (including persons employed by a State agency under a 
        delegation of authority pursuant to section 7(e), persons 
        performing official inspection functions under contract with 
        the Department of Agriculture, and persons employed by a State 
        or local agency or other person conducting functions relating 
        to weighing under section 7A shall not, unless otherwise 
        employed by the Federal Government, be determined to be 
        employees of the Federal Government of the United States: 
        Provided, however, That such persons shall be considered in the 
        performance of any official inspection functions or any 
        functions relating to weighing as prescribed by this Act or by 
        the rules and regulations of the Secretary, as persons acting 
        for or on behalf of the United States, for the purpose of 
        determining the application of section 201 of title 18, United 
        States Code, to such persons. . . .
            ``(e) The Secretary of Agriculture may hire (without regard 
        to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
        appointments in the competitive service) as official inspection 
        personnel any individual who is licensed (on the date of 
        enactment of this Act) to perform functions of official 
        inspection under the United States Grain Standards Act and as 
        personnel to perform supervisory weighing or weighing functions 
        any individual who, on the date of enactment of this Act, was 
        performing similar functions: Provided, That the Secretary of 
        Agriculture determines that such individuals are of good moral 
        character and are technically and professionally qualified for 
        the duties to which they will be assigned.''.

        Mrs. [Lindy] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Boggs: Page 19, line 11, insert 
        the following immediately after the first period: ``Any 
        individual who is hired by the Secretary pursuant to this 
        subsection shall, for purposes of the annuity computed under 
        section 8339 of title 5, United States Code, be credited 
        (subject to the provisions of sections 8334(c) and 8339(i) of 
        such title) with any service performed by such individual 
        before the date of enactment of this subsection in connection 
        with this Act.''. . .

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) 
    insist upon his point of order?

[[Page 8577]]

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I do so because, in my opinion, the 
    amendment is not germane to this bill, which amends the U.S. Grain 
    Standards Act, and says, on page 18:

            The Secretary of Agriculture may hire (without regard to 
        the provisions of title V, United States Code, governing 
        appointments in the competitive service) . . . any individual 
        who is licensed to perform functions on the date of enactment.

        Then it is provided further that the individuals be of good 
    moral character and that they be professionally qualified, et 
    cetera.

        The amendment of the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Mrs. Boggs), 
    however, seeks to amend title 5, section 8339, 8334(c), and 
    8339(i).
        Mr. Chairman, an amendment to another statute does not make it 
    germane to this bill, and I would cite as my authority on that, the 
    Record of August 17, 1972, page 28913, as follows:

            Under rule 16, to a bill reported from the Committee on 
        Agriculture providing price support programs for various 
        agricultural commodities, an amendment repealing price-control 
        authority for all commodities under an Act reported from the 
        Committee on Banking and Currency is not germane. July 19, 
        1973, etc.

        If the amendment of the gentlewoman from Louisiana were in the 
    form of a bill, it would undoubtedly be referred to the Committee 
    on Post Office and Civil Service, because it has to do with the 
    retirement benefits of employees that would be selected by the 
    section. . . .
        Mrs. Boggs: . . . The language of section 6(e), I feel, is 
    sufficiently broad and certainly the committee report language is 
    sufficiently broad to insist that the workers who are of good moral 
    character, as the bill says, could be employed without regard to 
    various Civil Service regulations in order to quickly be able to 
    put into effect a service that will be highly necessary for the 
    Government if we indeed are going to take over the work of the 
    private agencies and the State agencies.
        Mr. Chairman, the language is sufficiently broad where it goes 
    on to suggest that positions of at least comparable responsibility 
    and rank to those enjoyed in the private and State systems be given 
    to them and that in setting their pay within the appropriate grade, 
    to the extent possible, cognizance should be taken in order to take 
    into consideration these rank and longevity benefits, so that the 
    employees had, under the system where employed, the benefits that 
    they had under longevity. The benefit system under which they were 
    employed certainly included an annuity provision, and I think that 
    this language that this amendment extends to the bill simply points 
    that out.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has read the language on the page of the committee 
    report and section 6(e) of the bill already deals with the status 
    of the Civil Service requirements with respect to appointments of 
    Federal inspectors. The amendment does not directly amend title 5 
    U.S. Code, and it would further

[[Page 8578]]

    affect the status of those Federal employees under the Civil 
    Service law by permitting them to credit the prior private service 
    to their Civil Service retirement if they become Federal employees. 
    The amendment imposes a further condition upon their hiring.
        Therefore, the Chair rules that as far as germaneness is 
    concerned, the amendment is germane to section 6(e) of the bill, 
    and overrules the point of order.

Eligibility for Agricultural Price Support Programs Conditional on 
    Compliance With Requirements for Protection of Labor

Sec. 30.18 To an omnibus agricultural bill authorizing a variety of 
    commodity price support and payment programs within the 
    jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee, but amended to include 
    provisions on subjects within the jurisdiction of other committees, 
    such as ethanol (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce) and cargo preference (the Committees on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries and Foreign Affairs), an amendment 
    conditioning eligibility in such price support and payment programs 
    upon the furnishing by agricultural employers of specified labor 
    protection (normally within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor) was held germane, as the bill had been amended 
    to include matter beyond the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Agriculture.

    On Oct. 8, 1985,(17) during consideration of H.R. 2100 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair, in overruling 
points of order against an amendment, reiterated the principle that 
committee jurisdiction is not the exclusive test of germaneness where 
the proposition being amended contains provisions so comprehensive as 
to overlap several committee's jurisdictions. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 131 Cong. Rec. 26548-51, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The Food Security Act of 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: At the end of 
    the bill add a new Title XXI.

        limitation on participation in certain commodity price support 
                              and payment programs

            Sec. 21. (a) Any person who violates subsection (b), (c), 
        or (d) shall be ineligible, as to any commodity produced by 
        that person during the crop year which follows the crop year in 
        which such violation occurs, for any type of price support, 
        payment or any other program or activity described in any of 
        paragraphs 1 through 5 of section 1202(a).
            (b) Any agricultural employer shall provide the following 
        to agricultural

[[Page 8579]]

        employees engaged in hand-labor operations in the field, 
        without cost to such employees:
            (1) Potable drinking water. . . .
            (2) With respect to toilets and handwashing facilities--
            (A) one toilet and one handwashing facility provided for 
        each group of 20 employees, or any fraction thereof;
            (B) toilet facilities with doors which can be closed and 
        latched from the inside and constructed to ensure privacy; . . 
        .

        Mr. [Arlen] Stangeland [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the Miller amendment is not germane to H.R. 
    2100. . . .
        One underlying rationale for the rule of germaneness is to 
    preclude the consideration of subjects that were not considered by 
    the appropriate committee when the bill was being considered by the 
    Agricultural Committee; this is H.R. 2100. No such hearings were 
    held by the Committee on Agriculture.
        The primary jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Miller 
    amendment is with the Committee on Education and Labor. A bill 
    similar to the Miller amendment, H.R. 3295, was cosponsored by my 
    colleague from California on September 12, 1985, and was only 
    referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
        This amendment is an attempt to circumvent the rules of the 
    House in the consideration of legislation by a major committee and 
    to introduce a new subject, labor standards, into the agricultural 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. [George] Miller of California: . . . Clearly, the amendment 
    is germane, because the amendment provides the conditions upon 
    which the benefits under this program shall be derived by farm 
    owners throughout this country. It is the conditions upon which the 
    agricultural benefits that are put together, the billions of 
    dollars in this program, shall be distributed.
        It is also germane because it does not expand the jurisdiction 
    of American labor law, it does not expand any existing law, it is 
    clearly stated and it is a well-ordered point of law that the OSHA 
    Act, under which the Secretary of Labor has the ability to extend 
    the protection for health and safety benefits, is well settled that 
    it already applies to the agricultural field.
        There are a number of provisions of OSHA which are already 
    settled in the law as provided to them, and this is one of them. 
    This is one of them. So clearly we have the ability to take already 
    existing law, with no extension of authority, and condition the 
    distribution of agricultural benefits and participations in this 
    program on that already-existing law. . . .
        This amendment simply says that those standards, which have 
    already been promulgated, which have already been settled, which 
    have already been published, shall be one of the conditioning of 
    the reasons for which there will be distribution of the benefits of 
    this program. . . .
        Mr. [Richard] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's 
    amendment imposes field sanitation regulations on certain 
    agricultural employers; mandates that the head of the Federal 
    Department, Secretary of Agriculture, delegate the making of 
    further rules and the investigation of violations to the head of 
    another Federal Department, the Secretary of Labor,

[[Page 8580]]

    and renders violations of the regulations ineligible for the 
    commodity price support.
        First, the amendment does not meet the fundamental purpose of 
    germaneness. The general rule is that the fundamental purpose of an 
    amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill.
        The basic purpose of this bill is to reauthorize the commodity 
    and Farm Credit Programs and the Food Stamp Programs. Regarding the 
    commodity price supports, the bill's objective is to bring crop 
    price supports closer to market prices in order to make U.S. crops 
    more competitive in the world market and additionally, as a result, 
    to continue to protect farm income in certain ways.
        There is no logical connection between the fundamental purpose 
    of this bill and the basic purpose behind the gentleman's 
    amendment. . . .
        In effect, his amendment's real purpose is to establish a new, 
    special occupational health and safety statute applicable to a 
    limited class of agricultural workplaces. His amendment does not 
    seek to further the legislative end of the matter sought to be 
    amended but, rather, he is using the vehicle of the Commodity Price 
    Support Program to simply enact his new agricultural field 
    sanitation law and to create a penalty device to enforce it. . . .
        Mr. Miller of California: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order 
    raised, let us talk about whether or not this amendment is 
    fundamental to this legislation that was raised by the gentleman 
    from Texas. The fact of the matter is, this is absolutely 
    fundamental to this legislation. The purposes of this legislation 
    are to determine the conditions and the basis on which the benefits 
    under this program, whether it is an allotment program that we just 
    determined here or whether it is the Commodity Program, whether it 
    is support crisis, crop insurance, loans that are made to the 
    agricultural community, the terms and conditions upon which these 
    benefits will be made. . . .
        This bill is riddled with conditions upon which those benefits 
    will be addressed or which those benefits will be distributed. So 
    this adds nothing new in terms of new law. It simply provides an 
    additional benefit. If you read through this legislation, 
    throughout the legislation, there are conditions placed upon the 
    size of the farm, the wealth of the farmers, the kind of land they 
    till, the kind of land they set aside, whether or not they 
    participate, whether or not they ship their crops overseas on 
    American bottoms or not. All of those are conditions because we do 
    not allow billions and billions of dollars to be distributed 
    without some say so. So I suggest to you that is absolutely 
    germane, Mr. Chairman, to have this condition be made a part of 
    this legislation and a condition under the existing programs on 
    which the benefits are distributed. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the points of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlemen from Minnesota and Texas make a point of order 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Miller] is not germane to the bill. Since the amendment is in the 
    form of a new title to be in

[[Page 8581]]

    serted at the end of the bill, the Chair must consider the 
    relationship of the amendment to the bill as a whole and as 
    modified by the Committee of the Whole. The amendment would 
    condition the availability of price support and payment programs 
    authorized by the bill upon the furnishing by certain agricultural 
    employers of specified labor protections. While it is true that 
    jurisdiction over labor standards for agricultural employees is a 
    matter within the purview of the Committee on Education and Labor 
    and while the bill contains subject matter primarily within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, the bill, as amended, 
    also includes provisions within the jurisdiction of other 
    committees including the Committee on Energy and Commerce, on 
    ethanol, the amendment of Mr. Leach, the Committee on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries which had the question of cargo preference and 
    also the Committees on Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs. As 
    indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 4.1, 
    committee jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment is not the 
    exclusive test of germaneness where the proposition being amended 
    contains provisions so comprehensive as to overlap several 
    committees' jurisdictions.
        The Chair is also aware that regulations have been ordered to 
    be promulgated by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to existing law 
    to accomplish the purpose of the amendment. This situation is 
    similar to the precedent cited in Deschler's chapter 28, section 
    23.6 [see Sec. 30.14, supra], where, to an omnibus agricultural 
    bill, an amendment prohibiting any price support payments under the 
    bill unless such producers are certified by the Secretary of Labor 
    to be in compliance with applicable health and safety laws was held 
    to be germane. For these reasons the question that was raised by 
    the gentlemen from Minnesota and Texas on germaneness will not be 
    sustained.

Expenditures for Missile System Made Contingent on Findings by 
    Secretary of Defense as to Impact of Grain Sales

Sec. 30.19 To a title of a bill authorizing the procurement, research 
    and development of certain military missile systems for one fiscal 
    year, broadened by amendment to restrict deployment beyond that 
    fiscal year of one system pending tests and requiring reports to 
    Congress, an amendment permanently making expenditure of any funds 
    for that missile system contingent upon findings by the Secretary 
    of Defense with respect to the impact of United States grain sales 
    on Soviet military preparedness was held to be not germane, since 
    it was an unrelated contingency involving agricultural exports.

    During consideration of H.R. 2969 in the Committee of the

[[Page 8582]]

Whole on July 21, 1983,(20) the Chair, in sustaining a point 
of order against the amendment described above, reaffirmed that it is 
not germane to make the authorization of funds in a bill contingent 
upon unrelated events or policy determinations. The pending title of 
the bill (1) and the ensuing proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 20184, 20187, 20189, 20190, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. Id. at p. 20050, July 20, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        TITLE III--LAND-BASED STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE MODERNIZATION 
                                    PROGRAM

                           procurement of mx missile

            Sec. 301. In addition to the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 103 for procurement of missiles for the 
        Air Force, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Air Force for fiscal year 1984 for procurement of missiles the 
        sum of $2,557,800,000 to be available only for the MX missile 
        program. . . .
            Sec. 302. (a) In addition to the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 201 for research, development, test, 
        and evaluation for the Air Force, there is hereby authorized to 
        be appropriated to the Air Force for fiscal year 1984 for 
        research, development, test, and evaluation for the land-based 
        strategic ballistic missile modernization program--
            (1) $1,980,389,000 to be available only for research, 
        development, test, and evaluation for the MX missile program; 
        and. . . .
    The Chairman Pro Tempore: (2) Are there amendments to 
title III?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Price: Page 16, after line 18, 
        insert the following new section:

                       limitation on expenditure of funds

            Sec. 303. (a) None of the funds authorized by clause (2)) 
        of section 302(a) may be obligated or expended for research, 
        development, test, or evaluation for an intercontinental-range 
        mobile ballistic missile that would weigh more than 33,000 
        pounds or that would carry more than a single warhead.
            (b) The Secretary of Defense may not deploy more than 10 MX 
        missiles until--
            (1) demonstration of subsystems and testing of components 
        of the small mobile intercontinental ballistic missile system 
        (including missile guidance and propulsion subsystems) have 
        occurred. . . .
            (d)(1) Not later than January 15 of each year from 1984 
        through 1988, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
        Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
        Representatives a report--
            (A) on the progress being made with respect to the 
        development and deployment of the MX missile system.

    The amendment was agreed to.

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: At the end of title III, 
        add the following new section:

                            limitation on mx program

            Sec. 303. No funds may be expended for the MX missile 
        program during any fiscal year during which United States grain 
        suppliers make sales of grain to the Soviet Union, except that 
        the preceding limitation

[[Page 8583]]

        shall not apply during any fiscal year if the Secretary of 
        Defense certifies to Congress that the sale of grain to the 
        Soviet Union by United States grain suppliers during that year 
        will not assist the Soviet Union in preparing, maintaining, or 
        providing for its armed forces. . . .

    Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: . . . I make a point of order 
that the amendment is not germane to title III. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is not germane to title III. 
    Although title III was originally a 1-year authorization, it has 
    been amended by the Price amendment to go beyond fiscal year 1984.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver) would 
    be a permanent change in the law making the MX program conditional 
    upon an unrelated contingency involving agricultural exports. Under 
    the precedents the amendment is not germane and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price). .

Members' Salary Adjustments Based on Changes in Public Debt

Sec. 30.20 To a federal employees pay bill providing, in part, a salary 
    increase for Members of Congress, an amendment relating the 
    Members' salary to a certification of the level of the national 
    public debt and requiring a yearly adjustment of such salary to 
    reflect any increase or decrease in the debt, was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
relating to salary increases for federal employees. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 8986 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 5126, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 12, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Brock: On page 41, line 11, amend 
    section 204 by adding a new subsection, Subsection (B) to read as 
    follows: . . .

            (A) Such rate of compensation shall be increased at the 
        rate of 1 per centum per annum for each $1,000,000,000 by which 
        the public debt was decreased, as certified by the Secretary of 
        the Treasury.
            (B) Such rate of compensation shall be decreased at the 
        rate of 1 per centum per annum for each $1,000,000,000 by which 
        the public debt was increased, as certified by the Secretary of 
        the Treasury.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 5127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to this title or to this bill. The subject matter of the 
    amendment is obviously one within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Ways and Means.

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

[[Page 8584]]

        Mr. [William E.] Brock [3d, of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, we 
    have in section 204 on page 41 offered an amendment to the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act, United States Code 31. This 
    amendment applies to that particular act and is an addition to that 
    section. It would simply add an additional subsection; therefore, I 
    think it is germane.

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

        The amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee clearly sets 
    forth additional tests and duties which are not contemplated in the 
    original act. Therefore, the Chair is constrained to sustain the 
    point of order.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Compact--Submission of Certain 
    Proposals to Committees on Judiciary Required

Sec. 30.21 To a bill granting the consent of Congress for Virginia, 
    Maryland, and the District of Columbia to amend the Washington 
    Metropolitan Area Transit Compact to establish a transit authority 
    for the region, a committee amendment requiring the submission of 
    certain proposals to and approval by the House and Senate 
    Committees on the Judiciary (but not constituting a rules change), 
    thereby adding another condition to those contained in the bill 
    with respect to the establishment of a transit authority, was held 
    germane and in order.

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
to grant the consent of Congress for the States of Virginia and 
Maryland and the District of Columbia to amend the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact to establish an 
organization empowered to provide transit facilities in the National 
Capital Region. The bill provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.J. Res. 1163 (Committee on the Judiciary); see 112 Cong. Rec. 
        25668-77, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 7, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               H.J. Res. 1163

        Joint resolution to grant the consent of Congress for the 
    States of Virginia and Maryland and the District of Columbia to 
    amend the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact 
    to establish an organization empowered to provide transit 
    facilities in the National Capital Region and for other purposes 
    and to enact said amendments for the District of Columbia
        Whereas Congress heretofore has declared in the National 
    Capital Transportation Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-669, 74 Stat. 
    537) and in the National Capital Transportation Act of 1965 (Public 
    Law 89-173, 79 Stat. 663) that a coordinated system of rail rapid 
    tran

[[Page 8585]]

    sit, bus transportation service, and highways is essential in the 
    National Capital Region for the satisfactory movement of people and 
    goods . . . the comfort and convenience of the residents and 
    visitors to the Region, and the preservation of the beauty and 
    dignity of the Nation's Capital and that such a system should be 
    developed cooperatively by the Federal, State, and local 
    governments of the National Capital Region, with the costs of the 
    necessary facilities financed, as far as possible, by persons using 
    or benefiting from such facilities and the remaining costs shared 
    equitably among the Federal, State, and local governments. . . .
        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress 
    hereby consents to, adopts and enacts for the District of Columbia 
    an amendment to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation 
    Compact, for which Congress heretofore has granted its consent 
    (Public Law 86-794, 74 Stat. 1031, as amended by Public Law 87-767, 
    76 Stat. 764) by adding thereto title III, known as the Washington 
    Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact (herein referred to as 
    title III), substantially as follows:

                                ``Title III

                                 Article I

                               ``Definitions

        ``1. As used in this Title, the following words and terms shall 
    have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires a 
    different meaning:
        ``(a) `Board' means the Board of Directors of the Washington 
    Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. . . .

                      ``Adoption of mass transit plan

        ``15. (a) Before a mass transit plan is adopted, altered, 
    revised or amended, the Board shall transmit such proposed plan, 
    alteration, revision or amendment for comment to the following and 
    to such other agencies as the Board shall determine:
        ``(1) the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, the 
    Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, and the Washington 
    Suburban Transit Commission;
        ``(2) the governing bodies of the Counties and Cities embraced 
    within the Zone;
        ``(3) the highway agencies of the Signatories . . .
        ``(9) the Northern Virginia Regional Planning and Economic 
    Development Commission;
        ``(10) the Maryland State Planning Department; and
        ``(11) the private transit companies operating in the Zone and 
    the Labor Unions representing the employees of such companies and 
    employees of contractors providing service under operating 
    contracts. . . .

                        ``Effective date; execution

        ``86. This Title shall be adopted by the signatories in the 
    manner provided by law therefor and shall be signed and sealed in 
    four duplicate original copies. One such copy shall be filed with 
    the Secretary of State of each of the signatory parties or in 
    accordance with laws of the State in which the filing is made, and 
    one copy shall be filed and retained in the archives of the 
    Authority upon its organization. This Title shall become effective 
    ninety days after the enactment of concurring leg

[[Page 8586]]

    islation by or on behalf of the District of Columbia, Maryland and 
    Virginia and consent thereto by the Congress and all other acts or 
    actions have been taken, including the signing and execution of the 
    title by the Governors of Maryland and Virginia and the 
    Commissioners of the District of Columbia. . . .
        ``Section 6. (a) The right to alter, amend or repeal this Act 
    is hereby expressly reserved.
        ``(b) The Authority shall submit to Congress and the President 
    copies of all annual and special reports made to the Governors, the 
    Commissioners of the District of Columbia and/or the legislatures 
    of the compacting States.
        ``(c) The President and the Congress or any committee thereof 
    shall have the right to require the disclosure and furnishing of 
    such information by the Authority as they may deem appropriate. 
    Further, the President and Congress or any of its committees shall 
    have access to all books, records and papers of the Authority as 
    well as the right of inspection of any facility used, owned, 
    leased, regulated or under the control of said Authority.''

    An amendment was offered to the bill which sought to transfer 
duties and functions to the specified new transit authority 'whenever 
the Authority demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Committees on the 
Judiciary of the United States Senate and House of Representatives a 
readiness to set into operation a workable financial plan, a physical 
plan for a regional transit system, and a program for taking over the 
functions and duties of the Agency.'' (8) A point of order 
was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 25677.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane in that the 
    amendment proposes duties on a committee of Congress that are 
    legislative, and should be resolved by the Congress itself, and not 
    left to the future for some committee to make decisions that would 
    change vital functions.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair holds that the amendment is germane because it 
    provides a different condition in the matter of agreement to the 
    compact.
        As to the question of constitutionality, the Chair holds that 
    the Chair does not pass upon a constitutional question. . . .

Congressional Intent Regarding Award of Construction Contracts

Sec. 30.22 To that section of a bill stating the congressional intent 
    of proposed legislation, an amendment to insert a further statement 
    of intent was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration com

[[Page 8587]]

prising the Federal Highway and Highway Revenue Acts of 1956. The bill 
contained the following declaration of intent: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 10660 (Committee on Public Works).
11. See 102 Cong. Rec. 7178, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 27, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (c) Declaration of intent: Recognizing it to be in the national 
    interest to foster and accelerate the construction of a safe and 
    efficient system of Federal-aid highways in each State, it is 
    hereby declared to be the intent of Congress progressively to 
    increase the annual sums herein authorized . . . by amounts which 
    in each succeeding year shall provide an increase over the total 
    amounts authorized for each immediately preceding year of not less 
    than $25 million. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 7211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Multer: Page 4, line 14, insert: 'It 
    being in the national interest to preserve and expand full and free 
    competition, it is further declared to be the intent of Congress to 
    realize this goal that the actual and potential capacity of small 
    business be encouraged and developed by permitting this segment of 
    our economy to aid in the construction of such a safe and efficient 
    system of Federal highways and that in order to carry out these 
    policies and the intent of Congress the Government should aid, 
    counsel, assist, and protect, insofar as possible, the interest of 
    small business concerns in order to preserve free competitive 
    enterprise, to assure that a fair proportion of the contracts 
    awarded in the construction of a safe and efficient system of 
    Federal-aid highways, and that a fair proportion of the total 
    contracts and purchases for supplies and services for such Federal-
    aid highways be placed with small business enterprises to maintain 
    and strengthen the overall economy of the Nation.'

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

        Mr. [George H.] Fallon [of Maryland]: . . . (M)y point of order 
    is that these contracts are not let by the Federal Government; they 
    are let by State governments and here we are directing the State 
    governments on how they should award contracts. . . .
        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: . . . The bill before 
    the House already has a similar provision affecting what will be 
    done with these highways after they are constructed. . . . In the 
    report under ``Free Competition'' you will find recognition of the 
    principle in part. This is merely an extension of that same 
    principle, and a further declaration that we should aid small 
    business.
        The Chairman: (13) In the opinion of the Chair this 
    is not a direction. It is merely an indication of the intention of 
    the Congress. It is not binding on anybody and for that reason the 
    point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds for Procurement Contracts--Availability Conditional on Compliance 
    With Laws Regarding Discrimination .

Sec. 30.23 An amendment conditioning the availability to

[[Page 8588]]

    certain recipients of funds in an authorization bill upon their 
    compliance with federal law not otherwise applicable to those 
    recipients and within the jurisdiction of other House committees 
    may be ruled out as not germane; thus, an amendment to the Defense 
    Department authorization bill, prohibiting the use of funds for 
    certain procurement contracts with contractors, including foreign 
    contractors, who do not comply with all domestic United States laws 
    regarding discrimination, was held not germane since requiring 
    compliance with laws which were not otherwise applicable to the 
    recipients of those funds, which were within the jurisdiction of 
    other committees, and which were not related to the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 2969 in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 16, 1983,(14) the Chair sustained a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 16059, 16060, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Page 7, after line 14, 
        insert the following new subsection:
            (e) No funds authorized under this title may be used in 
        connection with the European Distribution System Aircraft 
        unless, after preliminary selection of a contractor for 
        production of such Aircraft but before final selection and 
        announcement of the contractor selected, the Inspector General 
        of the Department of Defense certifies to the Secretary of the 
        Air Force that--
            (1) the employment practices of the contractor selected 
        meet all applicable United States laws regarding discrimination 
        on the basis of religion or race; and
            (2) the selection of that contractor was not determined by 
        prior foreign sales of United States-produced defense 
        equipment. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the subject 
    matter of the bill.
        The amendment deals with the employment practices of foreign 
    contractors not under the jurisdiction of U.S. law and as such the 
    amendment deals with matters not within the jurisdiction of the 
    House Armed Services Committee.
        The amendment, Mr. Chairman, also requires a determination as 
    to whether the selection of a foreign contractor was determined by 
    prior foreign sales of U.S.-produced defense equipment.
        Foreign military sales issues are also not within the 
    jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. . . .
        Mr. Vento: . . . Mr. Chairman, the precedents of the House 
    indicate that this amendment is germane and should be ruled in 
    order as a legiti

[[Page 8589]]

    mate limitation on the authority of the Secretary of the Air Force 
    to procure certain aircraft.
        The amendment would require the Department to make certain 
    certifications before selecting a final contractor for an aircraft 
    specifically authorized by this legislation. The amendment on its 
    face does not attempt to expand the applicability of law regarding 
    nondiscrimination in employment to new areas, instead it conditions 
    the use of the authorized funds upon a certification of the 
    employment practices of the selected contractor. Precedence is 
    found for this in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 23.6 
    ruling of the Chair, August 5, 1970. In that instance, the Chair 
    ruled that, to a bill providing for an annual ceiling on subsidies 
    for crop producers, an amendment prohibiting those payments unless 
    the Secretary of Labor certified such producers to be in compliance 
    with applicable health and safety laws was germane.
        In addition, this amendment limits the authority granted under 
    this legislation. General direction on this can be found in 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 25.1. A ruling of the 
    Chair on July 17, 1978, Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    26.1 relates more specifically to the pending amendment.

            . . . an amendment limiting the exercise of a discretionary 
        power conferred in a bill may be germane even though it 
        incorporates as a term of measurement a qualification or 
        condition applicable to entities beyond the scope of the bill.

        Finally, the restriction contained in the amendment relates 
    solely to funds authorizing in this bill and does not apply to 
    another category of funds, or funds authorized in other bills or in 
    previous years. Generally, this is stated in Deschler's Procedure, 
    chapter 28, section 27.1. A ruling of the Chair on July 26, 1979, 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 27.8 more specifically 
    parallels this situation.
        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that this 
    amendment is germane and places a legitimate condition and 
    restriction on the use of funds authorized in this bill. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The Chair would 
    suggest to the gentleman from Minnesota, the precedents that he 
    read apply to domestic recipients who are already covered by 
    applicable U.S. law rather than foreign recipients to whom U.S. 
    laws are not applicable. The Chair would under the precedents be 
    constrained to sustain the point of order by the gentleman from New 
    York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidation of Assets of Federal Credit Agencies--Amendment Providing 
    Government Guarantees on Obligations

Sec. 30.24 To a bill enabling certain federal credit agencies to enter 
    into trust agreements with the Federal National Mortgage 
    Association and permitting that Association to sell participation 
    certificates based on a pool of the credit agencies' loans, an 
    amendment providing that such participation certifi

[[Page 8590]]

    cates be obligations guaranteed as to principal and interest by the 
    United States was held to be germane.

    On May 18, 1966, the Committee of the Whole was considering the 
Participation Sales Act of 1966,(16) which was a bill to 
promote private financing of credit needs and to provide for an 
efficient method of liquidating financial assets held by federal credit 
agencies. An amendment was offered (17) as described above. 
A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 14544 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 10908, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., May 18, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the gentleman from New Jersey is trying to change the 
    national debt limit. . . .

        Mr. Chairman, the law is very plain, I believe, as to what 
    shall be included in the public debt. . . .
        . . . [T]his is an attempt to change the law relating to the 
    public debt in a bill that does not contain the subject matter now 
    pending before the House.

    The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the language of the pending 
    amendment would be germane to the pending bill and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Conditions Attached to Loan Guarantees for Chrysler Corporation

Sec. 30.25 Where a proposal authorized loan guarantees to the Chrysler 
    Corporation, for purposes of enabling the corporation to remain 
    economically viable and to continue to furnish goods and services, 
    thereby avoiding adverse effects on the economy and domestic 
    employment, but set a variety of conditions on such loan guarantees 
    (such as a prohibition against paying dividends during the term of 
    the loan guarantee), an amendment providing that during that term 
    the corporation shall not purchase or develop manufacturing 
    facilities outside the United States was held germane as a further 
    condition related to the stated purposes of the bill as a whole.

    During consideration of H.R. 5860 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Dec. 18, 1979,(19) the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the amendment described

[[Page 8591]]

above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 36791-93, 36818, 36819, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 authority for commitments for loan guarantees

            Sec. 4. (a) The Board, on such terms as it deems 
        appropriate, may make commitments to guarantee either the 
        principal amount of loans to a borrower or the principal amount 
        of, and interest on, loans to a borrower. A commitment may be 
        made only if, at the time the commitment is issued, the Board 
        determines that--
            (1) there exists an energy-savings plan which--
            (A) is satisfactory to the Board;
            (B) is developed in consultation with other appropriate 
        Federal agencies;
            (C) focuses on the national need to lessen United States 
        dependence on petroleum; and
            (D) can be carried out by the borrowers;
            (2) the commitment is needed to enable the Corporation to 
        continue to furnish goods or services, and failure to meet such 
        need would adversely and seriously affect the economy of, or 
        employment in, the United States or any region thereof . . .
            (4) the Corporation has submitted to the Board a 
        satisfactory financing plan which meets the financing needs of 
        the Corporation as reflected in the operating plan for the 
        period covered by such operating plan, and which includes, in 
        accordance with the provisions of subsection (c), an aggregate 
        amount of nonfederally guaranteed assistance of at least 
        $1,830,000,000--
            (A) from financial commitments or concessions from persons 
        with an existing economic stake in the health of the 
        Corporation in excess of their outstanding commitments or 
        concessions as of October 17, 1979, or from other persons;
            (B) from capital to be obtained through merger, sale or 
        securities, or otherwise after October 17, 1979 . . .
            (6) the Board has received assurances from existing 
        creditors that they will continue to waive their rights to 
        recover under any prior credit commitment which may be in 
        default unless the Board determines that the exercise of those 
        rights would not adversely affect the operating plan submitted 
        under paragraph (3) or the financing plan submitted under 
        paragraph (4). . . .

                    terms and conditions of loan guarantees

            Sec. 8. (a) Loans guaranteed under this Act shall be 
        payable in full not later than December 31, 1990, and the terms 
        and conditions of such loans shall provide that they cannot be 
        amended, or any provision waived, without the Board's prior 
        consent. . . .
            (4) The Corporation may not pay any dividends on its common 
        or preferred stock during the period beginning on the date of 
        the enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which loan 
        guarantees issued under this Act are no longer outstanding . . 
        .

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stark to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: 
        At the end of section 4 of the matter proposed to be inserted, 
        insert the following new subsection:
            ``(o) During the period in which any loan guarantee is 
        outstanding

[[Page 8592]]

        under this Act, the Corporation shall not spend any funds to 
        purchase or expand manufacturing facilities which are not 
        located in the United States.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        [T]he rules of the House require that the amendment be germane 
    to both the bill and the amendment to which it is offered, as well 
    as to the particular portion of the amendment to which the proposal 
    is offered. This amendment, I think, fails to meet all three of 
    these requirements.
        The particular section of the amendment to which this amendment 
    is offered reads as follows: ``Authority for Commitments for Loan 
    Guarantees.'' This section deals with two things: No. 1, that the 
    builder of the automobile to receive the loan guarantee shall have 
    an energy savings plan. That is the first one. It shall have such a 
    plan as a part of both its operating and its financial plan.
        The section subsequently goes on and lays down what goes into a 
    satisfactory financing plan. If the Chair will follow this, he will 
    find that the particular section deals with the financing plan 
    clear through the section and deals with the actions of the 
    corporation which will be taken to satisfy a satisfactory financing 
    plan and a plan which will assure the protection of the United 
    States and the interest of the taxpayers in the loan.
        The proposal that is offered by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Stark) dictates what shall be done by Chrysler, not what will 
    respond to the requirements of this particular section which deal 
    with the financial capability and financial ability of the 
    corporation to repay and as to what constitutes a satisfactory 
    financing plan by the corporation. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I point out that the amendment is not germane 
    because it does not fall in the category of conditions that are met 
    in . . . the bill, the amendment to the bill or the particular 
    section to which it is made.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will bear with me, my 
    amendment, I believe, is to section 40. The gentleman from Michigan 
    is quite correct that that is the authority for commitments under 
    loan guarantees. On page 4 of the committee print of the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute, on line 14, under the sections which 
    the gentleman from Michigan stated:

            . . . the commitment is needed to enable the Corporation to 
        continue to furnish goods or services, and failure to meet such 
        need would adversely and seriously affect the economy of, or 
        employment in, the United States or any region thereof.

        Going along further, under the financial plan, which the 
    gentleman said should be submitted, on page 6, paragraph (8):

            . . . the financing plan submitted under paragraph (4) 
        provides that expenditures under such financing plan will 
        contribute to the domestic economic viability of the 
        corporation.

        I certainly presume that domestic economic viability of the 
    corporation relates to expenditures in the United States and not 
    overseas.
        So I would submit that my amendment deals directly with 
    assuring that the intent of section (4) will be carried

[[Page 8593]]

    out by the Board and, therefore, is of the most germane nature and 
    very important to the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (20) . . . [T]he Chair is ready to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the argument made by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Stark) is to the point, that both the provisions 
    mentioned are pertinent, and that the amendment is pertinent to the 
    general purposes of the Moorhead amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as indicated by related provisions in the section in 
    question and especially by the substitute as a whole.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Credit Terms for Assistance to India--Amendment Providing That Interest 
    Paid Be Available for Certain State Department Expenditures

Sec. 30.26 To a bill authorizing assistance to India on specified 
    credit terms, an amendment providing that interest payable by India 
    on any debt incurred under the program be deposited in a special 
    account in the Treasury and be made available for certain types of 
    expenditure by the Department of State was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
relating to emergency food relief assistance to India. An amendment was 
offered to the bill by Mr. William G. Bray, of Indiana: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 3791 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 2. 97 Cong. Rec. 5837, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., May 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 4(a) Any sums payable by the Government of India, under 
    the interest terms agreed to between the Government of the United 
    States and the Government of India . . . shall, when paid, be 
    placed in a special deposit account in the Treasury of the United 
    States, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, to remain 
    available until expended. This account shall be available to the 
    Department of State for the following uses:
        (1) Allocation, for designated educational, agricultural, 
    experimental, scientific, medical, or philanthropic activities, to 
    American institutions engaged in such activities in India. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 5838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: . . . I submit the gentleman's 
    amendment goes far beyond the scope of the legislation. It 
    introduces a great deal of new matter and provides for an 
    appropriation in a legislative act, and is therefore not in order. 
    . . .

    Mr. Jacob K. Javits, of New York, who was among those speaking in 
defense of the amendment, stated:

        . . . We are providing for a loan in the bill . . . and it 
    appears to me the

[[Page 8594]]

    Chair could consistently sustain this amendment on the ground that 
    it is a direction to the negotiators as to what they should write 
    into the terms and conditions of that loan in making their 
    agreement.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Indiana offers an amendment, which the Clerk 
    has reported, providing certain conditions relating to the 
    assistance proposed to be granted under the pending bill; in 
    addition it proposes the creation of a fund and makes available 
    those funds for certain specific purposes.
        The gentleman from Ohio makes a point of order against the 
    amendment on two grounds: One, that it is not germane; two, that it 
    seeks to make an appropriation.
        The Chair would call attention to page 88 of Cannon's 
    Precedents where the following statement is made:

            The mere fact that an amendment proposes to attain the same 
        end sought to be attained by the bill to which offered--
    Which is the contention of the gentleman from Indiana--

            does not render it germane. . . .

        The Chair . . . sustains the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Ohio in both respects (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For discussion of the prohibition against appropriations in 
        legislative bills, see Ch. 25 Sec. 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Humanitarian Assistance to Vietnam War Victims--Amendment Prohibiting 
    Specified Uses of Assistance in High Unemployment Areas in United 
    States

Sec. 30.27 To a substitute dealing with humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance to war victims of South Vietnam, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of such assistance to relocate or to create 
    employment opportunities for evacuees in high unemployment areas in 
    the United States was held to raise issues beyond the scope of the 
    bill and was ruled out as not germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(6) during consideration of H.R. 
6096,(7) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment was 
offered to which a point of order was made and sustained. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 11512, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance and Evacuation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Clay to the amendment offered by 
        Mr.

[[Page 8595]]

        Eckhardt, as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Add a new section to the end 
        of the bill which reads:
            ``No funds authorized under this act shall be used directly 
        or indirectly to transport Vietnamese refugees to any 
        congressional district or create employment opportunities in 
        any congressional district where the unemployment rate exceeds 
        the national unemployment rate as defined by the Bureau of 
        Labor statistics of the United States Department of Labor.''.   
        . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. It goes greatly beyond the 
    scope of the bill and the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
    Nothing in the bill or in the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute deals with the national unemployment rate. . . .
        Mr. Clay: . . . .The amendment simply imposes a condition that 
    none of the money may be used, or a limitation on the way the money 
    will be spent. I do not know how it goes beyond the scope of this 
    bill or the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. For 
    the reasons stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) 
    and for the fact that the contingency set forth in the gentleman's 
    amendment is not related to the purposes of the bill, the point of 
    order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Establishment of Petroleum Reserves--President Given Authority Pursuant 
    to Any Program ``Subsequently Authorized'' by Congress

Sec. 30.28 To a proposition reported from the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to 
    establish national petroleum reserves on certain public lands, 
    including naval petroleum reserves, an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute containing similar provisions and authorizing the 
    President to place petroleum reserves in strategic storage 
    facilities ``pursuant to any program subsequently authorized by 
    Congress'' was held germane, since it did not itself establish a 
    strategic storage facility (a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Armed Services) but merely conditioned the President's 
    authority upon separate enactment of such program.

    On July 8, 1975,(9) during consideration of H.R. 49, 
Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, overruled a

[[Page 8596]]

point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 21631-33, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Melcher: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
            That in order to develop petroleum reserves of the United 
        States which need to be regulated in a manner to meet the total 
        energy needs of the Nation, including but not limited to 
        national defense, the Secretary of the Interior, with the 
        approval of the President, is authorized to establish national 
        petroleum reserves on any reserved or unreserved public lands 
        of the United States. . . .
            Sec. 2. No national petroleum reserve that includes all or 
        part of an existing naval petroleum reserve shall be 
        established without prior consultation with the Secretary of 
        Defense, and when so established, the portion of such naval 
        reserve included shall be deemed to be excluded from the naval 
        petroleum reserve. . . .
            (d) Pursuant to any program hereafter authorized by the 
        Congress, the President may, in his discretion, direct that not 
        more than 25 percentum of the oil produced from such national 
        petroleum reserves shall be placed in strategic storage 
        facilities or exchanged for oil and gas products of equal value 
        which shall be placed in such strategic storage facilities. . . 
        .
            (f) The Secretary of the Interior with the approval of the 
        President, is hereby authorized and directed to explore for oil 
        and gas on the area designated as Naval Petroleum Reserve 
        Numbered 4 if it is included in a National Petroleum Reserve 
        and he shall report annually to Congress on his plan for 
        exploration of such reserve, Provided, That no development 
        leading to production shall be undertaken unless authorized by 
        Congress. He is authorized and directed to undertake a study of 
        the feasibility of delivery systems with respect to oil and gas 
        which may be produced from such reserve. . . .

        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order against the amendment on the basis that the 
    amendment offered includes a sentence relating to strategic 
    defense. The original bill, H.R. 49, has no such reference.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman specify the language he refers 
    to?
        Mr. Hebert: The language which I read, from section (d):

            Pursuant to any program hereafter authorized by the 
        Congress, the President may, in his discretion, direct that no 
        more than 25 percentum of the oil produced from such national 
        petroleum reserves shall be placed in strategic storage 
        facilities or exchanged for oil and gas products of equal value 
        which shall be placed in such strategic storage facilities.

        I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the original bill, as presented 
    to the Committee on Rules, did not contain any such reference at 
    all. Therefore, it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Melcher: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the section that the 
    gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Hebert) has referred to is indeed 
    germane to the bill. It involves the discretionary right of the 
    President to designate a portion of the Elk Hills production for 
    strategic storage reserves. It deals with production of Elk Hills 
    oil, and all through the bill we were determining what we could do 
    in the best interest of the Nation. . . .

[[Page 8597]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on this point of 
    order.
        The Chair would note that the language of the Melcher amendment 
    referred to states ``pursuant to any program hereafter authorized 
    by the Congress.''
        The Melcher amendment does not set up a program nor authorize a 
    program for strategic storage of petroleum; it merely refers to a 
    program which may hereafter be authorized. If it did attempt to 
    authorize a program not related to the committee amendment, then 
    the decision on the point of order would be different.
        However, since it does not, the point of order is overruled.

Assistance to Community Health Centers--Denial to Health Centers 
    Located in States Which Permit Public Bath Houses

Sec. 30.29 It is not germane to condition assistance to a particular 
    class of recipient covered by a bill upon an unrelated contingency, 
    such as action or inaction by another class of recipient or agent 
    not covered by the bill; thus, to a bill only relating to federal 
    funding and programs for community and migrant health centers not 
    operated by state governments, an amendment denying assistance 
    under the bill to any health center located in any state which 
    permitted the operation of public bath houses was ruled out as 
    imposing a nongermane contingency to bar the use of funds, since 
    state governments were not recipients of funds in, or otherwise 
    affected by, the provisions of the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 2418 (Health Services Amendments of 
1985) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 5, 1986,(10) the 
Chair sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 132 Cong. Rec. 3613, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 5, after line 23 
        insert the following:

        Sec. 7. Grant Condition.

            Effective 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
        Act, no grant may be made under section 329 of the Public 
        Health Service Act for a migrant health center or under section 
        330 of such Act for a community health center if such center is 
        located in a State which permits the operation of any public 
        bath which is determined by the State or a local health 
        authority to be hazardous to the public health or used for 
        sexual relations between males. . . .

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I assert 
    my point of order.

[[Page 8598]]

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by our colleague, the 
    gentleman from California, is not germane to this bill. This bill 
    provides for the operation of community health centers and migrant 
    health centers. To our knowledge, no community or migrant health 
    centers are operated by State governments. This amendment would 
    delay the operation of the legislation until a contingency not 
    related to the purposes of this bill is carried out by States. This 
    amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . Mr. Chairman, the point of order that is 
    being asserted by my friend from Los Angeles may have some merit if 
    the proscription of the amendment had general applicability to all 
    health care funds. It does not.
        It is limited exclusively to any funding that may be available 
    under the two programs. Community Health Centers and Migrant Health 
    Centers. With that limitation, I think it is most appropriate to 
    say in this authorization bill that none of the funds can be used 
    unless, within 6 months, States of the Union who seek to apply for 
    these funds have shut down bathhouses in their jurisdictions. In 
    that narrow area, I believe it should pass muster as having 
    germaneness and applicability.
        Mr. Waxman: Mr. Chairman, if I might be heard further on this 
    amendment. An amendment delaying the operation of proposed 
    legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not germane. The 
    funds granted under this program are to private entities, not to 
    State governments.
        To permit that those funds be cut off to private entities 
    because of the inaction by State government is not germane because 
    it is a contingency that cannot be met by the organization to which 
    the funds would be granted. Chapter 28, section 24, provides that 
    an amendment making the implementation of Federal legislation 
    contingent upon the enactment of unrelated State legislation is not 
    germane.
        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: . . . There is reference 
    in this amendment that would close down these programs if something 
    was ``used for sexual relations between males.'' There is nothing 
    in this bill dealing with that. It introduces an entire new subject 
    and would require the ascertainment of a fact that has nothing to 
    do with the subject matter of this bill and would delay the 
    enactment of the program on that basis. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This bill, H.R. 2418, is a categorical grant program. The money 
    that is authorized under the bill, if appropriated, goes to 
    community and migrant health centers and not to the States. The 
    bill was narrowed earlier in these proceedings to remove from the 
    bill the only paragraph that referred to the States.
        This amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr. 
    Dannemeyer, seeks to impose a condition upon a State which must be 
    met by the State government before community health centers that 
    may be in that State or partly in that State can receive the funds. 
    States are not recipients of the funds provided in the bill or 
    otherwise within the purview of the bill.
        An earlier ruling of September 25, 1975, which appears in 
    Deschler's Pro

[[Page 8599]]

    cedures of the House at page 596, states, ``That an amendment is 
    not germane if it makes the effectiveness of a bill contingent upon 
    an unrelated event or determination.''
        Therefore, the amendment is not germane and the point of order 
    is sustained.

Grants for Improvement of Law Enforcement--Amendment To Require 
    Establishment of Officers' Grievance System as Prerequisite

Sec. 30.30 To a bill authorizing the funding of a variety of programs 
    which satisfy several stated requirements, in order to accomplish a 
    general purpose, an amendment conditioning the availability of 
    those funds upon implementation by their recipients of another 
    program related to that general purpose is germane; thus, to a bill 
    providing a comprehensive grant program for improvement of state 
    and local law enforcement and criminal justice systems, including 
    within its scope the subject of welfare of law enforcement 
    officers, an amendment requiring states to enact a law enforcement 
    officers' grievance system as a prerequisite to receiving grants 
    under the bill was held to come within the general subject of law 
    enforcement improvement covered by the bill and was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 8152 (12) in the Committee 
of the Whole on June 18, 1973,(13) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Law Enforcement Assistance authorization.
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 20099-101, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Biaggi: Page 15, line 8, strike 
        out ``and''.
            Page 15, immediately after line 8, insert the following:
            ``(13) provide a system for the receipt, investigation, and 
        determination of complaints and grievances submitted by law 
        enforcement officers of the State, units of general local 
        government and public agencies. . . .

         ``Part J--Law Enforcement Officers' Grievance System and Bill 
                                   of Rights

            ``Sec. 701. Beginning one year after the date of enactment 
        of this section, no grant under part B or part C of this title 
        shall be made to any State, unit of general local government or 
        public agency unless such State, unit of general local 
        government, or public agency has established and put into 
        operation a system for the receipt, investigation, and 
        determination of complaints and grievances submitted by law 
        enforcement officers of the State, units of general local 
        government, and public agencies operating within the State and 
        has enacted into law a `law enforce

[[Page 8600]]

        ment officers' bill of rights, which includes in its coverage 
        all law enforcement officers of the State, units of general 
        local government and public agencies operating within the 
        State.

                                ``Bill of Rights

            ``The law enforcement officers' bill of rights shall 
        provide law enforcement officers of such State, units of 
        general local government, and public agencies statutory 
        protection for certain rights enjoyed by other citizens. The 
        bill of rights shall provide, but shall not be limited to, the 
        following:
            ``(a) Political Activity by Law Enforcement Officers.--
        Except when on duty or when acting in his official capacity, no 
        law enforcement officer shall be prohibited from engaging in 
        political activity or be denied the right to refrain from 
        engaging in political activity. . . .
            ``(i) In addition to any procedures available to law 
        enforcement officers regarding the filing of complaints and 
        grievances as established in this section, any law enforcement 
        officer may institute an action in a civil court to obtain 
        redress of such grievances.''. . .

        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is based on the nongermaneness of the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York. . . .
        On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, on germaneness, this 
    embarks on an entirely new direction. It establishes rights and 
    duties for law enforcement officers and personnel which are not a 
    part of the thrust of the LEAA law. . . .
        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: . . . The fact of the matter 
    is that this is consistent with the proposal being made today, as 
    to establishing guidelines. Guidelines have been established in the 
    past. . . .
        This is just an extension. What we are trying to do is to 
    include among all of the people of our country a particular segment 
    that has been eliminated or disregarded.
        This is a question of civil rights as much as any other 
    question is, as it relates to anybody else.
        So far as germaneness is concerned, I obviously have to 
    disagree with the gentleman. We have many guidelines already 
    established. This will establish another guideline. There is no 
    imposition here on any State or political subdivision. It is a 
    prerogative they can exercise.
        If they seek Federal funds they must comply. Right now the same 
    obligation is imposed upon them. If they seek Federal funds they 
    must comply with the civil rights law and all the prohibitions we 
    have imposed upon them. All we are doing is including the law-
    enforcement officers. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As indicated on page 4 of the committee report, a fundamental 
    purpose of H.R. 8152 is to authorize Federal funding of approved 
    State plans for law enforcement and criminal justice improvement 
    programs. The bill attempts to address ``all aspects of the 
    criminal justice and law enforcement system--not merely police, and 
    not merely the purchase of police hardware'' and requires State 
    plans to develop ``a total and integrated analysis of the problems 
    regarding the law enforcement and criminal justice system within 
    the State.''

[[Page 8601]]

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would 
    require that State plans submitted for LEAA approval contain, in 
    addition to the 13 requirements spelled out in the committee bill 
    as amended, provisions for a system of receipt, investigation, and 
    determination of grievances submitted by State and local law 
    enforcement officers. The second amendment would insert on page 52 
    a provision spelling out a ``law enforcement officers' bill of 
    rights'' which must be enacted into law by any State seeking LEAA 
    grants under that act in order to be eligible for such grants.
        The committee bill seeks to establish a comprehensive approach 
    to the financing of programs aimed at improving State and local law 
    enforcement systems. Included in this comprehensive approach is the 
    subject of the welfare of law enforcement officers as it relates to 
    their official duties, including their salaries, equipment, et 
    cetera. The issue of a grievance system for law enforcement 
    officers is within the general subject of the improvement of State 
    and local law enforcement systems, and the amendments are, 
    therefore, germane to the pending bill.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Indemnification of Operators of Nuclear Energy Facilities--Benefits 
    Conditional Upon Agreement Concerning Safety Regulations

Sec. 30.31 While a bill providing procedures for determining benefits 
    based upon liability and indemnification does not ordinarily admit 
    as germane amendments which address the issue of regulation of an 
    activity, an amendment which makes receipt of a benefit conditional 
    upon an agreement to be governed by certain safety regulations may 
    be germane, if related to the activity giving rise to the 
    liability.

    During consideration of H.R. 1414 (15) in the Committee 
of the Whole on July 29, 1987,(16) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Price-Anderson Act Amendments of 1987.
16. 133 Cong. Rec. 21445-48, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ron] Wyden [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wyden: Page 33, insert after line 
        7 the following new sections (and redesignate the succeeding 
        sections accordingly):

                     sec. 16. financial accountability.

            Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
        2210), as amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at 
        the end the following new subsection:
            ``u. Financial Accountability.--(1)(A) The Attorney General 
        may bring an action in the appropriate United States district 
        court to recover from a contractor of the Secretary (or 
        subcontractor or supplier of such contractor) amounts paid by

[[Page 8602]]

        the Federal Government under an agreement of indemnification 
        under subsection d. for public liability resulting, in whole or 
        part, from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of any 
        corporate officer, manager, or superintendent of such 
        contractor (or subcontractor or supplier of such contractor). . 
        . .
            Chapter 18 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
        2271-2284) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
        section:
            ``Sec. 237. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of 
        Department of Energy Regulations.--
            ``a. In general.--(1) Any person subject to an agreement of 
        indemnification under section 170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act 
        of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210(d)), shall, as a condition of such 
        indemnification be subject to the nuclear safety and civil 
        penalties provisions of this section.
            ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission may impose a civil penalty of an 
        amount not to exceed $100,000, per violation, upon any person 
        who has entered into an agreement of indemnification under 
        section 170 d. who violates--
            ``(i) any rule, regulation, or order of the Department of 
        Energy relating to nuclear safety; or
            ``(ii) any term, condition, or limitation relating to 
        nuclear safety of any contract that is the subject of any such 
        agreement. . . .

        Mr. [Butler] Derrick [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order that the Wyden amendment is nongermane to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute that is pending before the 
    Committee of the Whole. It is nongermane because the fundamental 
    purpose of the amendment is different from the fundamental purposes 
    of either the substitute or the underlying Price-Anderson law.

        The fundamental purposes of both the pending substitute and the 
    underlying law are:
        First, to ensure adequate and prompt compensation of any victim 
    of a serious nuclear accident; and
        Second, to indemnify both the operators of commercial nuclear 
    reactors and contractors which operate Department of Energy nuclear 
    facilities against damages which might arise from a nuclear 
    accident. This is intended to encourage participation in nuclear 
    activities.
        The fundamental purpose of the Wyden amendment, however, is 
    regulatory in nature. According to the proponents of the amendment, 
    it is intended to ensure the safe operation of contractor-operated 
    DOE nuclear facilities. To achieve this regulatory end, the Wyden 
    amendment would authorize the Attorney General to sue DOE 
    contractors to recover damages paid by the Government as a result 
    of an accident caused by the ``gross negligence or willful 
    misconduct'' of the contractor and would authorize the Secretary of 
    Energy to assess civil penalties against contractors for violation 
    of DOE safety regulations.
        Allowing the Attorney General to sue to recover damages from a 
    contractor would neither affect the payment of compensation to 
    victims nor further the purpose of indemnifying contractors in 
    order to encourage participation in nuclear activities.
        Providing for civil penalties for safety violations clearly 
    does not relate to either of the purposes of the substitute and 
    Price-Anderson. The civil penalties are purely regulatory, intended 
    to enforce safe operation of DOE nuclear fa

[[Page 8603]]

    cilities. Neither the substitute nor Price-Anderson deals with the 
    issue of safety in nuclear facilities. They deal only with what 
    happens after a nuclear accident occurs. Amendments intended to 
    promote safety at nuclear facilities should be considered in 
    connection with legislation which deals with the operations of such 
    facilities. Allowing the Wyden amendment to be offered to this 
    legislation would be like allowing an amendment to provide 
    penalties for driving faster than 55 miles per hour to legislation 
    establishing a no-fault automobile insurance system.
        While both issues concern automobiles, there is a fundamentally 
    different purpose in each case.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Wyden amendment is nongermane 
    to this substitute because its fundamental purpose is different 
    from the fundamental purpose of the substitute and the underlying 
    Price-Anderson Act and that my point of order should be sustained. 
    . . .
        Mr. Wyden: Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is germane to 
    the bill. The bill before us deals with procedures for liability 
    and indemnification for nuclear accidents.
        Price-Anderson provides for mechanisms under which commercial 
    nuclear powerplants and Government nuclear contractors may be 
    indemnified for liability resulting from a nuclear accident. In 
    providing a scheme for nuclear insurance, it is natural to impose 
    certain conditions upon the granting of indemnification.
        For example, private insurers of a building may require as a 
    condition of an insurance policy that the owners of the building 
    have it inspected by appropriate authorities. These conditions are 
    directly related to the insurance policy. By requiring the insured 
    party to conduct himself in a safe manner, the exposure of the 
    insurer is reduced.
        In this case, the amendment imposes conditions and limitations 
    upon the contractor covered by indemnification agreements. In the 
    first section of the amendment the contractor would be held 
    financially liable for damages resulting from the contractor's 
    gross negligence or willful misconduct. In the second section, the 
    contractor's indemnification is subject to the qualification that 
    should he break safety rules of DOE or other contract conditions, 
    he will be subject to a civil penalty. These civil penalties, and 
    the threat of civil penalties will raise the safety consciousness 
    of the contractor, thereby reducing the potential Government 
    liability under an indemnity agreement.
        I refer the Chairman to chapter 28, section 23 of Deschler/
    Brown's Precedents. The precedents cited stand for the proposition 
    that amendments providing conditions or qualifications for the 
    grant of various authorities are germane. For example, to a bill 
    making grants to medical schools to be used for student 
    scholarships, an amendment establishing a national commission to 
    prepare and evaluate examinations for purposes of testing 
    qualifications of scholarship applications was held to be germane--
    section 23.5. Similarly, an amendment to a bill relating to subsidy 
    payments for agricultural goods, an amendment prohibiting support 
    payments unless the producers were in compliance with health and 
    safety laws was held to be germane--section 23.6.

[[Page 8604]]

        In summary, Mr. Chairman, indemnification of contractors under 
    the bill is a benefit to contractors that can properly be 
    conditioned upon compliance with various regulations. The concept 
    is not novel. Indeed, NRC contractors are subject to civil 
    penalties under other provisions of the act we are amending today. 
    Similarly, we place conditions on utilities indemnified under the 
    act. For example, section 2 of the bill requires licensees to 
    maintain the maximum amount of liability insurance available from 
    private sources. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (17) The Chair will rule 
    on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Dan Mica (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] makes the point 
    of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
    (Mr. Wyden) is not germane to the pending amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute. It is agreed that the fundamental purpose of the 
    pending text involves procedures for liability and indemnification 
    for nuclear accidents, and does not go to the regulation of the 
    domestic nuclear industry as a measure to prevent the occurrence of 
    nuclear accidents.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the question of subrogation is 
    related to the concept of indemnification by the U.S. Government. 
    The question of the party ultimately liable for the payment of 
    damage costs is germane to the pending bill. The Wyden amendment 
    does not seek to separately impose a civil penalty upon nuclear 
    contractors as a regulatory scheme, but rather seeks to condition 
    the indemnification provided by the bill for such contractors upon 
    their agreement to be subject to certain nuclear safety and civil 
    penalties. The fact that the bill requires licensees to maintain 
    the maximum amount of liability insurance available from private 
    sources as a condition on indemnification is an indication that 
    other conditions on indemnification are already contained in the 
    bill. The precedents cited by the gentleman from Oregon are 
    supportive of the concept that a grant of authority can be made 
    contingent upon agreement to comply with certain related 
    conditions. The Chair holds that the amendment is germane to the 
    pending text and overrules the point of order.

Government Indemnification for Liabilities--Amendment Requiring 
    Subrogation of Rights

Sec. 30.32 To a proposition providing for government indemnification of 
    liabilities, an amendment requiring subrogation of corresponding 
    rights is germane as relating to the question of ultimate liability 
    for payment of damages.

    The proceedings of July 29, 1987, relating to H.R. 1414, the Price-
Anderson Act Amendments of 1987, are discussed in Sec. 30.31, supra.

[[Page 8605]]

Registration of Foreign Agents--Modification of Definition of Terms

Sec. 30.33 To a bill relating to registration of foreign agents, an 
    amendment was held to be germane which qualified the definitions of 
    terms in the bill by adding the names of specific groups to be 
    included within the definition of one of such terms.

    In the 77th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration relating to registration of foreign agents. The bill 
stated in part: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 6269 (Committee on the Judiciary).
19. See 87 Cong. Rec. 10058, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Definitions

        Section 1. As used in and for the purposes of this act--
        (a) The term ``person'' includes an individual, partnership, 
    association, corporation, organization, or any other combination of 
    individuals;
        (b) The term ``foreign principal'' includes--
        (1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political 
    party. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 10061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Martin] Dies [Jr., of Texas]: Page 2, 
    line 17, after the word ``individuals'', strike out the semicolon, 
    insert a comma and the following: ``including but not limited to 
    the Communist Party of the United States, the German-American Bund, 
    and the Kyffhauser-bund.''

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

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane. I submit that the section of the bill dealing with 
    definitions is limited to persons who are to constitute the foreign 
    principals.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Orville Zimmerman (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The section deals with definitions. This being so, it would be 
    appropriate and in order to add another definition.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act--Modification of 
    Definition of Terms

Sec. 30.34 To a bill containing definitions of several of the terms 
    used therein, an amendment modifying one of the definitions and 
    adding another may be germane; thus, to a bill authorizing funds 
    for the control and prevention of juvenile delinquency, an 
    amendment to

[[Page 8606]]

    that portion of the bill containing definitions, which modified one 
    of the definitions and added another was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and 
Control Act of 1967,(2) was under consideration, which 
stated in one portion as follows: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 12120 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 3. See 113 Cong. Rec. 26878, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 26, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Definitions

        Sec. 404. For purposes of this Act--
        (1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health, 
    Education, and Welfare. . . .
        (4) The term ``private nonprofit agency'' means any accredited 
    institution of higher education, and any other agency or 
    institution which is owned and operated by one or more nonprofit 
    corporations or organizations. . . .

    The following proceedings related to amendments offered by Mr. Joe 
D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana:

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask 
    unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. . . .
        Amendments offered by Mr. Waggonner: After the words ``under 
    this Act'' on line 21 of page 15 add the following:

            The term ``private nonprofit agency'' shall not be 
        construed to include the Office of Economic Opportunity or any 
        . . . agency . . . created by . . . or in any part funded by or 
        contracted with the Office of Economic Opportunity in 
        accomplishing the purposes of this act. . . .

        After line 6 on page 16 add a new subsection numbered (7):

            (7) The term ``public agency'' means a duly elected 
        political body of a subdivision thereof and shall not be 
        construed to include the Office of Economic Opportunity or any 
        . . . other agency or program created by . . . or in any part 
        funded by or contracted with the Office of Economic 
        Opportunity.

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, these two amendments----
        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman's point of order comes too late.
        The gentleman from Louisiana had started his discussion of the 
    amendment, and there was no previous point of order made prior to 
    the discussion.
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet seeking recognition 
    at the time the gentleman commenced to address the Chair.
        The Chairman: (4) Was the gentleman from Kentucky on 
    his feet seeking recognition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Perkins: I was, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair then overrules the point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Michigan, and the Chair will hear the 
    gentleman from Kentucky on his point of order. . . .

[[Page 8607]]

        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane because the gentleman, by his amendment, 
    is seeking to exclude some other agency created by the Economic 
    Opportunities Act from participation. . . .
        Mr. Waggonner: . . . The point of order is totally without 
    merit. Section 404 of this proposal, H.R. 12120, is entitled 
    ``Definitions.'' The first amendment is a further extension of the 
    definition of what a private nonprofit agency actually is. . . .
        Reference is continually made to private nonprofit agencies and 
    public agencies on page after page of this bill. If we are to say 
    that an amendment is not germane which defines a public agency, 
    when a definition does not exist . . . if we are to preclude the 
    possibility of clarifying a definition of a private nonprofit 
    agency, then what is germane? . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The Chair will state that this section of 
    the bill relates to definitions of these various terms--public 
    agency and private nonprofit agencies or groups--and goes into a 
    particularization of each; therefore, the Chair thinks the 
    amendments are germane and overrules the point of order.

Definition of Terms as Providing Exception to Limitation on Authority

Sec. 30.35 To a section containing ``definitions'' of two terms 
    referred to in a bill, an amendment adding a further definition of 
    other terms contained in the bill was held germane, although its 
    effect was to provide an exemption from a limitation on authority 
    contained in another section of the bill.

    On Mar. 7, 1974,(5) during consideration of H.R. 11793 
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 5640, 5641, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. The Federal Energy Administration Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Louisiana: Page 30, line 
        15, strike out the period and insert, in lieu thereof, the 
        following: ``; and (3) any reference to ``domestic crude oil'', 
        ``crude oil'', ``energy prices'', or ``profits'' shall not be 
        deemed to refer to royalty oil or the shares of oil production 
        owned by a State, State entity or political subdivision of a 
        State or to the prices of or revenues from such royalty oil or 
        shares.''

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I should like 
    to make a point of order against this amendment. . . .
        [T]his matter is not the subject matter within section 11. 
    Section 11 is a definition section. I realize that the gentleman is 
    attempting to define certain words, but it seems to me that the 
    language he uses is to add new authority or subtract authority from 
    existing law. I certainly understand the gentle

[[Page 8608]]

    man's concern, but these words included are probably included in 
    statutes. It seems to me what he is doing is expanding or changing 
    laws which are now in existence.
        Also, we do not know the effect of the amendment on the rules 
    of the House.
        Mr. Chairman, I feel it is inappropriate to this section and 
    nongermane and for that reason ask that it be ruled out of order.
        Mr. Long of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of order that what I am 
    attempting to do by this amendment is to define a term, which is 
    what I am attempting to do by this amendment. And it appears to me 
    to be completely within the purposes of this particular section to 
    do so, and it seems to me that it is a perfectly valid place and a 
    correct and specific place for an amendment of this type to be 
    introduced.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Long) has offered an 
    amendment to add a new subsection to section 11 of the bill, which 
    is the definitions section.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has made a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it refers to matters 
    not contained in the language of the section as written.
        The Chair has carefully examined both the section as it appears 
    in the bill, and also the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Long).
        The Chair will state that subsection (1) of section 11 reads as 
    follows:
        Any reference to ``function'' or ``functions'' shall be deemed 
    to include--
        and so forth.

        The amendment sought to be offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Long) starts as follows:
        Any reference to ``domestic crude oil'', ``crude oil'', 
    ``energy prices'', or ``profits'' shall not be deemed to refer to--
        And so forth.
        The Chair is constrained to feel that if the language of one 
    subsection of the bill states clearly that certain references shall 
    be deemed to include references, and there are two sections already 
    appearing in the bill, the Chair is constrained to rule that the 
    adding of the third section falls clearly within the reasonable 
    interpretations of the word ``Definitions,'' and therefore holds 
    the amendment is germane and overrules the point of order.

Incidental Conditions or Exceptions Related to Fundamental Purpose of 
    Bill

Sec. 30.36 For a bill proposing to accomplish a result by methods 
    comprehensive in scope, a committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute which was more detailed in its provisions but which 
    sought to achieve the same result was held germane, where the 
    additional provisions not contained in the original bill were 
    construed

[[Page 8609]]

    to be merely incidental conditions or exceptions that were related 
    to the fundamental purpose of the bill.

    On Aug. 2, 1973,(8) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 9130, a bill authorizing the construction of a 
trans-Alaska oil and gas pipeline under the authority of the Secretary 
of the Interior, and pursuant to procedural safeguards promulgated by 
the Secretary. The bill included a prohibition against judicial review 
on environmental impact grounds of any right-of-way or permit which 
might be granted. A committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was reported as an original bill for purposes of amendment. The 
committee amendment contained procedures and safeguards similar to 
those in the bill, and included an exception from the prohibition 
against judicial review, to provide a mechanism for expediting other 
types of actions challenging pipeline permits. The amendment also 
included the condition that all persons participating in construction 
or use of the pipeline be assured rights against discrimination as set 
forth in the Civil Rights Act. Points of order were raised against the 
amendment on the grounds that its provisions were not germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 27673-5, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk 
    will now read by title the substitute committee amendment printed 
    in the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I wish 
    to reserve a point of order to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

                                    TITLE I

            Section 1. Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 
        (41 Stat. 449), as amended (30 U.S.C. 185), is further amended 
        by striking out the following: ``, to the extent of the ground 
        occupied by the said pipeline and twenty-five feet on each side 
        of the same under such regulations and conditions as to survey, 
        location, application, and use as may be prescribed by the 
        Secretary of the Interior and upon,' and by inserting in lieu 
        thereof the following ``: Provided, That--
            ``(a) the width of a right-of-way shall not exceed fifty 
        feet plus the ground occupied by the pipeline (that is, the 
        pipe and its related facilities) unless the Secretary finds, 
        and records the reasons for his finding, that in limited areas 
        a wider right-of-way is necessary for operation and maintenance 
        after construction, or to protect the environment or public 
        safety. . . .
            Sec. 4. (a) Pipelines on public lands subject to this Act 
        are subject to the provisions of the Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 
        1968. . . .
            (c) The Secretary of the Interior shall report annually to 
        the President, the Congress, the Secretary of Transportation 
        and the Interstate

[[Page 8610]]

        Commerce Commission any potential dangers of or actual 
        explosions or potential or actual spillage on public lands and 
        shall include in such report a statement of corrective action 
        taken to prevent such explosion or spillage.

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order 
    against the committee amendment just read.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman on his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I note first that the rule did not 
    waive points of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I cite now rule XVI, clause 7, and I note 
    particularly section 794 relating to germaneness which reads as 
    follows:

            And no motion or proposition on a subject different from 
        that under consideration shall be admitted under color of 
        amendment.

        I note as follows, Mr. Chairman, that the committee amendment 
    provides for the establishment of a three-judge court and 
    establishes certain conditions with regard to review which are not 
    found in the original bill.
        I note for the assistance of the Chair, that that language is 
    not only not found in the bill, but that language, in my view, at 
    least under the Rules of the House of Representatives, had it been 
    introduced as a separate piece of legislation, would have been 
    referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        I note further, Mr. Chairman, that the committee amendment as 
    presented to us today provides also language relating to conditions 
    of employment and civil rights of persons, and the duty of the 
    pipeline company to hire without discrimination as to race or creed 
    or color.
        I note, Mr. Chairman, that legislation relating to that matter, 
    were it introduced as separate legislation, would have properly 
    under the Rules of the House of Representatives have been referred 
    to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        I make the further comment with regard to the point of order 
    just raised, Mr. Chairman, citing now Cannon's Precedents, page 203 
    2(b), and I quote:
        A specific subject may not be amended by a general provision 
    even when of the same class.
        Section 203 of the bill addresses itself to the relationship of 
    NEPA to the bill and judicial review of the Secretary of the 
    Interior's actions for compliance with NEPA. Specifically 203(d) of 
    the bill limits judicial review on the basis of NEPA noncompliance.
        Section 203(f) which was added by amendment, referred to 
    earlier, is far broader in scope than section 203 as contained in 
    the original bill.
        Section 203(f) sets forth a unique procedure for judicial 
    review of non-NEPA-related challenges.
        Keeping in mind the fact that section 203(d) is itself part of 
    an amendment and section 203(f) is a new provision as part of the 
    same amendment it becomes clear that judicial review dealt with by 
    section 203 of the original bill was limited to judicial review on 
    the basis of NEPA.
        The amendment, by incorporating the provisions found in section 
    203(f), deals with all forms of judicial review. Thus NEPA-related 
    review is handled by the specific provision of section 203(d) and 
    all other judicial review by section 203(f).
        Therefore, the amendment is a general provision; that is, it 
    deals with all

[[Page 8611]]

    forms of judicial review and is not germane to the specific 
    provision found in the original bill which deals solely with 
    judicial review on the basis of the National Environmental Policy 
    Act.
        I cite again Cannon's Precedents at page 203. I cite further 
    with regard to the germaneness, now referring to page 202 in 
    Cannon's Precedents that--

            One individual proposition may not be amended by another 
        individual proposition even though the two may belong to the 
        same class.

        The individual proposition in the original bill was that the 
    Secretary of the Interior's actions were exempted from judicial 
    review under NEPA.
        The individual proposition contained in the amendment goes on 
    to add that any other challenge to the right-of-way to which the 
    United States is a party must be brought, according to subsection 
    (f), to a three-judge district court referred to in the amendment.
        These propositions are of the same class because both relate to 
    judicial review.
        The first proposition may be viewed as a negative proposition 
    in that it exempts certain action from judicial review on the basis 
    of NEPA.
        The second is a positive proposition; it establishes a special 
    tribunal and special procedures for non-NEPA-based court 
    challenges.
        I again refer the Chair to Cannon's Precedents on page 202.
        I cite further, Mr. Chairman--

            If a portion of an amendment is out of order because not 
        germane, then all must be ruled out.

        I would cite Cannon's Precedents at page 201. I would point out 
    that--

            The burden of proof as to the germaneness of a proposition 
        has been held to rest upon its proponents. . . .

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: . . . The gentleman from 
    Michigan is raising a point of order on the basis of the 
    germaneness of . . . the entire committee amendment, but he refers 
    to specific sections and his point of order should be limited to 
    his reference to those sections. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) makes the point of 
    order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs printed in the bill 
    is not germane to the original bill on several grounds, one of 
    which is that 203(f) of the committee amendment provides a 
    procedure for expediting litigation of right-of-way, permit, or 
    other authorization disputes in Federal courts which is not 
    contained in the original bill.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the original bill 
    and the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and 
    notes that the original bill and the committee amendment both 
    provide comprehensive schemes for the construction of the Alaska 
    pipeline under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. Both 
    the bill and the committee amendment provide a series of safeguards 
    to be followed by the Secretary in the issuance of permits and 
    grants of rights-of-way. Included in the original bill--in section 
    203, is the prohibition against judicial review of any 
    authorization granted by any Federal agency with respect to rights-
    of-way, construction, public land

[[Page 8612]]

    use, or highway or airfield construction on the basis of the 
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
        This restriction against judicial review on the basis of 
    environmental impact is also contained in section 203(d) of the 
    committee amendment in a more limited form. Section 203(f) of the 
    committee amendment then provides, in litigation not barred by 
    section 203(d), a mechanism for expediting other actions 
    challenging pipeline permits or authorizations.
        On March 8, 1932, Chairman O'Connor ruled that to a bill 
    restricting Federal court jurisdiction in certain cases, an 
    amendment providing an exception from that prohibition was 
    germane--Cannon's volume VIII, section 3024.
        The Chair has also examined the decision of the present 
    occupant of the Chair on October 20, 1971 (Congressional Record, 
    page H37079) on the Alaska Native land claims bill, where, to a 
    committee amendment seeking to accomplish a broad purpose by a 
    method less detailed in its provisions, an amendment more 
    definitive but relating to the same purpose implicit in the 
    committee's approach was held germane.
        For these reasons, and because committee jurisdiction is not 
    the exclusive or absolute test of germaneness, the Chair is of the 
    opinion that the provision in the committee amendment relating to 
    the expediting of litigation involving the pipeline permits or 
    authorizations is merely incidental to the purpose of the original 
    bill and is indeed directly related to the concept of judicial 
    review contained in the bill. With respect to the other provisions 
    of the committee amendment to which the gentleman from Michigan has 
    made reference, the Chair is of the opinion that they, too, are 
    incidental to the overall purpose of the bill. The Chair holds that 
    the committee amendment is germane and overrules the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a further point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, citing again the language used by 
    myself with regard to the earlier point of order, I would point now 
    to the specific language of the committee amendment at page 15, 
    line 23(e), and all that follows through page 16, line 11, at the 
    conclusion of the words ``the Civil Rights Act of 1964.''
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out again the same arguments are 
    available to me with regard to the first jurisdiction of 
    committees. Second, with regard to the other matters cited by me 
    earlier under the rules of germaneness as embodied in the rules and 
    the precedents of this body, I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that 
    where the language referred to in the amendment is part of a 
    separate piece of legislation, it would have been referred again to 
    the Judiciary Committee and not to the Committee on Interior.
        I would point out further, Mr. Chairman, that this language is 
    not found in the original bill, although it is found in the 
    amendment. I would point out that again the failure of the 
    committee to have that language in both the original bill and in 
    the committee amendment renders the committee amendment subject to 
    a point of order.
        I would call particular attention of the Chair to the fact that 
    the rule of

[[Page 8613]]

    germaneness was established by the wise men of this body throughout 
    the years, that all Members of this body might have full notice of 
    matters coming to the floor of the House and would not be surprised 
    by matters which might be irrelevant to the jurisdiction of the 
    committee which authored the legislation.
        The rule of germaneness applies, Mr. Chairman, with equal 
    validity to proceedings on the floor as well as to proceedings 
    within the committee.
        I again reiterate my point of order on the basis not only of 
    matters cited by me now but cited by me in connection with the 
    earlier point of order made by me. . . .
        Mr. Melcher: . . . The title and section of the committee's 
    amendment which the gentleman from Michigan refers to deals with 
    construction of the Alaskan pipeline. Employment of people for that 
    purpose is, indeed, part and parcel of the construction of the 
    pipeline. The incidental feature of our committee handling and 
    including such language in our amendment is only incidental to the 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has just ruled that the committee amendment is 
    germane, and the ruling that was given by the Chair is broad enough 
    to now cover the point of order just made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.
        Therefore, the Chair for the reasons previously stated 
    overrules the point of order.

Authorization for Program--Amendment Proposing, as Alternative, Study 
    of Feasibility of Program

Sec. 30.37 To an amendment authorizing a program to be undertaken, a 
    substitute providing for a study to determine the feasibility of 
    undertaking the same type of program may be germane; thus, to an 
    amendment authorizing Department of Defense personnel to assist 
    federal law enforcement officials including the Coast Guard under 
    existing law, in drug interdiction operations outside the 
    continental United States, a substitute amendment directing the 
    Secretary of Defense to study the effectiveness of assigning 
    military personnel to assist those federal law enforcement 
    officials was held germane as a more limited approach involving the 
    same officials.

    On June 26, 1985,(10) during proceedings relating to the 
defense authorization for fiscal 1986,(11) the Committee of 
the Whole had under consideration the following amendment and 
substitute therefor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 131 Cong. Rec. 17453, 17458, 17460, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 1872.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bennett. At the end of the bill, 
        add the following new section:

[[Page 8614]]

        sec. --drug/interdiction assistance to civilian law enforcement 
        officials.

            (a) In General--Section 374 of title 10, United States 
        Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        subsection:
            ``(d) The Secretary of Defense, upon request from the head 
        of a Federal agency with jurisdiction to enforce the Controlled 
        Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or the Controlled 
        Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), may 
        assign members of the armed forces under the Secretary's 
        jurisdiction to assist drug enforcement officials of such 
        agency in drug searches, seizures, or arrests outside the land 
        area of the United States (or of any territory or possession of 
        the United States) if--
            ``(1) that assistance will not adversely affect the 
        military preparedness of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [Glenn Lee] English [Jr., of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. English as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Bennett: Page 200, after line 4, 
        insert the following new section:
        sec. 1050. study on drug-interdiction assistance to civilian 
        law enforcement personnel.

            (a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study 
        comparing--
            (1) the potential effectiveness of assigning members of the 
        armed forces under the Secretary's jurisdiction, with
            (2) the potential effectiveness of increasing the number of 
        tactical law enforcement teams on naval vessels,
        for the purpose of determining ways to assist civilian law 
        enforcement personnel in the interdiction of the illegal 
        importation of narcotics into the United States. The Secretary 
        shall submit the results of the study to the Congress not more 
        than sixty days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

    Mr. Bennett having reserved a point of order against the substitute 
amendment, the following proceedings took place:

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) Does the gentleman 
    from Florida [Mr. Bennett] insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bennett: I do. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say why I 
    believe that it is not germane and it is not proper.
        The thrust of the amendment, particularly as explained by the 
    gentleman on the floor, is a Coast Guard amendment. This bill does 
    not deal with the Coast Guard. He wants the Secretary to come with 
    increasing the number of tactical law enforcement teams from the 
    Coast Guard.
        If I thought that was a possibility of being achieved by 
    anything he is doing, I would be glad to do it. But he has already 
    said they are cutting the Coast Guard personnel; they are not 
    raising the Coast Guard personnel, they are cutting.
        These people are not in existence.
        So my point of order against it is the fact that it is really a 
    Coast Guard amendment; it is not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. English: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would point out that 
    the amendment does not have the words ``Coast

[[Page 8615]]

    Guard'' in it. I think we all recognize and understand what is 
    meant by the amendment, but the words ``Coast Guard'' are not here. 
    It directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct the study, and no 
    one else.
        The second point is that this was a recommendation by the 
    administration that these people be cut.
        As the gentleman aptly pointed out, the Congress has control 
    over whether or not those cuts are going to take place; the 
    Congress has the decision as to what those people will be used for, 
    and the Congress can certainly designate 500 of these people to be 
    used in tactical positions on Navy ships. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . The Chair is ready to rule.
        In reviewing both the Bennett amendment and the substitute by 
    Mr. English to the Bennett amendment, the Chair finds that the 
    original amendment is a comprehensive authority, using Department 
    of Defense personnel to assist Coast Guard and other law 
    enforcement personnel for the purposes stated.
        The English substitute however, does narrow the scope of the 
    Bennett amendment by only calling for a study on the same subject 
    matter.
        On page 2 of the Bennett amendment the language on lines 1 and 
    2 does refer to Federal drug enforcement officials, maintaining 
    ultimate control, which does include the role not only of DEA but 
    also the Coast Guard.
        Therefore, the point of order is overruled. The substitute 
    amendment by Mr. English is germane.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The above ruling effectively overrules that 
found at 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2989, wherein the Chair held that, 
to a river and harbor authorization, a substitute providing for a 
commission to consider and report on that subject was not germane. 
Under current practice, where it is proposed to undertake a given 
program, an alternative proposal to study the feasibility of 
undertaking that program should be held to be germane.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
         D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
 
Sec. 31.--Amendment Postponing Effectiveness of Legislation Pending 
    Contingency

    The precedents indicate that an authorization may be made 
contingent on a future event; but the event must be related to the 
subject matter before the House.(13) Therefore, it is 
frequently stated that an amendment that delays the effectiveness of 
proposed legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not germane. 
As an example, it has been held that, to a bill authorizing an 
appropriation of funds, an amendment holding the authorization in 
abeyance pending an unrelated contingency is not 
germane.(14) And an amendment making the implementation

[[Page 8616]]

of federal legislation contingent upon the enactment of state 
legislation is not germane.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See, for example, Sec. 31.32, infra.
14. See Sec. 35.8, infra.
15. See Sec. 31.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where an amendment seeks to adopt as a measure of the availability 
of certain authorizations contained in the bill a condition that is 
logically relevant and objectively discernible, the amendment does not 
present an unrelated contingency and is germane.(16) 
Accordingly, an amendment that conditions the obligation or expenditure 
of funds authorized in the bill by adopting as a measure of their 
availability the expenditure during the fiscal year of a comparable 
percentage of funds authorized by other acts is germane as long as the 
amendment does not directly affect the use of other 
funds.(17) And an amendment to an authorization bill that 
conditions the expenditure of funds covered by the bill by restricting 
their availability during months in which there is an increase in the 
public debt may be germane as long as the amendment does not directly 
affect other provisions of law or impose contingencies predicated upon 
other unrelated actions of Congress.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 31.16, infra.
17. See Sec. 31.17, infra. See also, generally, Sec. 34 (restrictions 
        on use or availability of funds), infra.
18. See Sec. 34.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment imposing on the availability of funds to carry out a 
certain activity a conditional restriction that merely requires 
observation of similar activities of another country, which similar 
conduct already constitutes the policy basis for the pending funding of 
that activity, may be germane as a related contingency.(19) 
But it is not germane to make the effectiveness of an authorization 
contingent upon an unrelated determination involving issues within the 
jurisdiction of agencies and committees outside the purview of the 
pending bill.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 31.15, infra.
20. See Sec. 31.27, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Licensing of Nuclear Waste Storage Facility

Sec. 31.1 An amendment making the effectiveness of a bill contingent 
    upon actions of agencies not involved in the administration of the 
    affected program, and expanding the scope of the bill to include 
    grants of authority beyond those contained therein, is not germane; 
    thus, to a bill granting authority to the Administrator of the 
    Bonneville Power Administration relating to the use and con

[[Page 8617]]

    servation of electric power, including the acquisition of power, an 
    amendment prohibiting the Administrator from acquiring any resource 
    derived from a new nuclear generating facility until the Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission has licensed the operation of a permanent 
    nuclear waste storage facility was held not germane, because it 
    imposed an unrelated contingency involving nuclear licensing 
    authority for all government and privately owned storage facilities 
    on a national basis, and was not solely related to the purchase and 
    transmission of power in the Northwest region.

    On Nov. 14, 1980,(1) during consideration of the Pacific 
Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (2) in 
the Committee of the Whole, a point of order was sustained against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 29615-17, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. S. 885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. AuCoin: On page 69, after line 17, 
        insert:
            (n)(1)) The Administrator may not acquire any resource 
        derived from a new nuclear generating facility until such time 
        as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has licensed the operation 
        of a permanent storage facility for high level nuclear waste 
        and spent fuel from commercial nuclear generating facilities.
            (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``new nuclear 
        generating facility'' shall not include any nuclear generating 
        facility for which a construction permit was issued by the 
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the date of enactment of 
        this Act. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the bill 
    before us establishes a planning council. It provides for a 
    planning council. It provides for a program for conservation and 
    for a fish and wildlife program. It provides for the sale of power. 
    It provides for the establishing of rates, and it provides for the 
    acquisition of resources to produce power.
        Nowhere in the bill does the bill deal with atomic energy as 
    such or with the storage of either spent nuclear fuels or nuclear 
    wastes. The amendment would add a condition to the bill prohibiting 
    the BPA from acquiring any resource derived from nuclear generation 
    until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses operation of a 
    permanent storage facility for nuclear wastes and spent fuel.
        That I believe would be the addition of a national program for 
    dealing with spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste to be added to a 
    regional program to be administered by the BPA. This would impose 
    burdens on an agency entirely different from those which are either 
    set up in the bill, which be your State and regional planning 
    councils, or the

[[Page 8618]]

    Bonneville Power Authority. In other words, the agency which would 
    do this, under law, would be the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
    which is an agency not anywhere mentioned in the bill.
        Essentially, the proposal is an attempt, indirectly, to amend 
    the Atomic Energy Act and to deal with the question of spent fuel 
    and nuclear waste on a nation-wide basis as opposed to simply 
    dealing with the question of power management as is provided in the 
    bill; and I call to the attention of the Chair that the bill is 
    regional in character; the amendment is national in character; the 
    bill deals with power management. The amendment deals with nuclear 
    waste, its storage and the establishment of a nationwide program 
    for the storage and so forth of nuclear waste.
        I would point out the language of the amendment says:

            The Administrator may not acquire any resource derived from 
        a new nuclear fuel generating facility--

        This is not a nuclear fuel generating facility which would be 
    present within the Bonneville Power Authority service area, but it 
    is sufficiently general to cover any nuclear generating facility in 
    the United States.
        Then it goes on and it says:

            Until such time as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--

        Which is not mentioned in the legislation--
        has licensed the operation of a permanent storage facility for 
        high-level nuclear waste and spent fuel from commercial nuclear 
        generating facilities.

        These nuclear generating facilities are not within the 
    Bonneville Power market area but are anywhere in the United States. 
    And it could include those in the Northeast, the Southeast, the 
    Southwest, in Alaska, or in Hawaii--none of them within the area 
    served. The amendment is much more broad than the bill and deals 
    with quite different matters.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair controls the time. Does the 
    gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on the point of order? . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to speak on 
    the point of order, to reinforce the position of the gentleman from 
    Michigan.
        There is an electrical power generation in-tie between the 
    Southwestern part of the United States, that is, California, Utah, 
    and Arizona, and that area, and the Northwestern part of the United 
    States. This bill has an impact on the Northwest. Some of the power 
    generated in that Southwestern in-tie is of a nuclear sort, and so 
    the impact of this attempted amendment would be to impact, as the 
    gentleman from Michigan points to, the generation of power in other 
    parts of the United States and, therefore, I think is inappropriate 
    from the standpoint of its germaneness, for that reason. . . .
        Mr. AuCoin: . . . [N]o one can rationally argue that the whole 
    cycle of activities that is involved in nuclear power operation and 
    construction can be separated out and considered alone. The storage 
    of radioactive waste from the nuclear plants is just as much a 
    part, an intrinsic part, of the whole process as the construction 
    of the

[[Page 8619]]

    plant. It is a part of the same procedure, the whole life cycle of 
    the plants, and, therefore, cannot be excluded and separated out, 
    and it cannot be held that, somehow, that is not germane to the 
    construction of plants, because the construction produces the 
    result, that result, being waste. That waste has to be dealt with. 
    . . .
        . . . [T]he amendment poses no contingency upon the House 
    because existing law gives the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
    licensing and regulatory authority pursuant to chapters 6, 7, 8, 
    and 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Among those powers are the 
    licensing and regulatory authorities to operate facilities used 
    primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive 
    waste resulting from activities licensed under the Atomic Energy 
    Act of 1954.
        So no additional act of Congress is necessary, nor does this 
    amendment require any additional act of Congress, because of the 
    authorities already granted to the NRC. And my amendment simply 
    says that, until that authority is used, either on the agency's own 
    part or by further direction from the Congress, no additional 
    nuclear powerplants will be constructed in the Pacific Northwest. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    support of the point of order and to say that, under the terms of 
    the amendment, there is additional responsibility placed on the NRC 
    and the agencies within the province of this bill. By his own 
    words, the author of the amendment has said that NRC has that 
    authority, but under his amendment they will cease to have the 
    authority to license and regulate. They will be told, ``You cannot 
    license any nuclear powerplant unless you have got a permanent 
    storage for the waste.'' And, therefore, I submit that it does 
    provide for additional duties and, therefore, would be nongermane 
    to the bill. . . .
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my friend from Texas, the 
    subcommittee chairman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, 
    has, I think, confused, momentarily, the difference between an 
    amendment that would force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
    take an action as opposed to imposing on the Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission a new responsibility.
        There is no new responsibility being imposed on the agency by 
    this amendment. It does require action by the agency under the 
    authority already granted to it by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
        I would state to the Chair and to my friend, the gentleman from 
    Texas, that the authority already existing exists under Public Law 
    93-438, title II. And for that reason I do not believe his argument 
    stands.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oregon would impose a contingency which is not 
    solely related to the issue of purchase and transmission of power 
    in the Northwest region and which addresses potentially new NRC 
    licensing authority for all Government and privately owned storage 
    facilities on a national basis.
        The Chair would cite, specifically, chapter 28 of Deschler's 
    Procedure, section 24.15:

[[Page 8620]]

            An amendment delaying the effectiveness of a bill pending 
        the enactment of other legislation and requiring actions by 
        committees and agencies not involved in the administration of 
        the program affected by the bill was ruled out as not germane.

        On that basis, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Restitution by President Nixon to United States Government

Sec. 31.2 While it may be in order on a general appropriation bill to 
    delay the availability of certain funds therein until a nonfederal 
    recipient meets certain qualifications so long as the contingency 
    does not impose new duties on federal officials or directly change 
    existing law, the contingency must be related to the funds being 
    withheld and cannot affect other funds in the bill which are not 
    related to that factual situation; thus, to a general appropriation 
    bill containing funds not only for certain allowances for former 
    President Nixon, but also for other departments and agencies, an 
    amendment delaying the availability of all funds in the bill until 
    Nixon has made restitution of a designated amount to the United 
    States government was held to be not germane where that contingency 
    was not related to the availability of other funds in the bill.

    In the proceedings of Oct. 2, 1974,(4) relating to 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1975,(5) the points 
of order made against the amendment in question were largely based on 
the contention that the amendment constituted legislation on an 
appropriation bill. Most points of order against amendments delaying 
the availability of funds pending an unrelated contingency are based on 
the issue of germaneness, and in the Chair's ruling it appeared that 
the defect in the amendment was that its scope was so broad as to 
affect funds in the bill other than those to which the limitation was 
directly related--in other words, that the amendment was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 33620, 33621, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. H.R. 16900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. James V. Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. James V. Stanton: On page 14, line 
        5 after the period insert:
            ``Sec. 203. No funds shall be available for expenditure 
        under this act until such time as Richard M. Nixon has made 
        restitution to the United States Government in the amount of 
        $92,298.03 as previously determined

[[Page 8621]]

        by the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation on page 201 
        of its report dated April 3, 1974.''. . .

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        This amendment would impose some duty upon an agency of 
    Government in this bill. The Internal Revenue Service is the only 
    agency that can collect taxes. This obviously would require duties 
    not now required by law. It is obviously legislation in an 
    appropriation bill, and therefore it is subject to a point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment. . . . It merely delays 
    the availability of certain funds here appropriated until a certain 
    state of facts exist.
        It does not impose any duty upon a Federal official, in the 
    opinion of the Chair. The only duty it imposes by its terms, would 
    be upon President Nixon, who is no longer a Federal official. . . .
        Under the precedents and under the rules that the Chair has 
    been able to examine, the Chair is of the opinion that this 
    amendment might be in order.
        If the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) wants to be heard on 
    the point of order, the Chair will withhold his final ruling. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . The Chair is undoubtedly 
    correct, that this does not impose additional duties under the 
    standards set out in various cases. However, the objection of the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), as I understand it, is that this 
    does not impose additional duties but creates substantive law. It 
    establishes a liability in effect on the President of the United 
    States, which liability does not exist by any judicial 
    determination unless this action is taken by this body.
        Mr. Chairman, what we are in effect doing is passing a special 
    bill with respect to liability of the President of the United 
    States for an amount of money that has only been determined by a 
    committee of this House and not by a court. If we pass this, we are 
    in effect saying that until he pays a certain amount of money, 
    which we say he owes by virtue of passing a law today, he will not 
    receive money that he would otherwise receive.
        I find this a very, very extensive legislative determination, 
    one which I would have doubts about on constitutional grounds, even 
    if it were brought up as a separate piece of legislation.
        I understand that the question of constitutionality is not 
    before the Chair with respect to a point of order, but I merely 
    point that out in emphasizing the great substantive effect of this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Charles S.] Gubser [of California]: . . . [T]he word 
    ``restitution,'' if I understand the English language correctly . . 
    . would imply that the funds were held by Richard Nixon illegally. 
    Therefore if we . . . allow this amendment to stand, we are clearly 
    creating what should be a judicial decision, and we are giving it 
    legislative sanction, and it is therefore legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. Therefore I think the point of order should be 
    sustained. . . .

[[Page 8622]]

        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, this amendment says ``no funds in this 
    act'', and that means if this amendment is adopted unless former 
    President Nixon paid this amount of money the whole bill is dead. 
    If that does not constitute legislation on an appropriation bill I 
    do not know what does.
        The Chairman: The Chair must observe that the Chair is not in a 
    position to rule as suggested by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) on a question of constitutionality. The gentleman's point 
    may quite well be valid, but the Chair is not in a position to rule 
    on constitutionality, nor is the Chair in a position to rule upon 
    the validity of the commentary offered as to whether or not the 
    Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation may or may not have 
    established this precise figure as being owed. . . .
        The Chair is . . . impressed by the most recent comment made by 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) wherein the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma points out that by the terms of the amendment itself funds 
    under the entire act and not just funds for the former President, 
    would be inhibited. Let the Chair read the amendment.

            No funds shall be available for expenditure under this act 
        until such time as Richard M. Nixon has made restitution.

        The Chair is persuaded that the availability of some of the 
    funds in the act for other purposes will be based upon an unrelated 
    contingency, and the Chair is prepared to state on the basis of the 
    additional argument made since his preliminary determination that 
    he has changed his opinion regarding the scope and effect of the 
    amendment and sustains the point of order.

Approval of Foreign Assistance in National Referendum

Sec. 31.3 To a bill amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
    providing new authorizations and policy declarations, an amendment 
    to prohibit use of any funds available until further assistance 
    under the act had been approved in a national referendum was held 
    to be not germane.

    The proceedings of Aug. 22, 1963,(7) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 109 Cong. Rec. 15608, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. (ruling by Chairman 
        Wilbur D. Mills [Ark.] as to amendment offered by Mr. Dole to 
        H.R. 7885 [Committee on Foreign Affairs], the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dole: Page 19, after line 16, 
        insert the following:
            ``Sec. 310. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, is amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
            `` `Sec. 648. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        or any other Act, none of the funds available to carry out the 
        provisions of this Act, shall be expended until the following 
        question be submitted to qualified electors in a National 
        Referendum.

[[Page 8623]]

            `` `Shall the United States continue the Foreign Assistance 
        Act of 1961, or any amendments thereto, subsequent to June 30, 
        1964?
            `` `A majority of eligible voters voting affirmatively 
        shall be necessary before the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
        and any amendments thereto, shall be operative. The cost of 
        said referendum shall be paid by proceeds from the sale of 
        surplus property under control of the Agency for International 
        Development.' ''

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the foreign aid 
    bill.
        Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kansas will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that all points of order 
    have been waived on this bill?
        The Chairman: Under the rule, all points of order are waived as 
    to the text of the bill, as reported by the committee. Points of 
    order are not waived as to amendments that might be offered to the 
    bill. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Dole] offers an amendment to the 
    bill which the Chair has had an opportunity to read and analyze. 
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan] makes the point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to 
    the bill before the Committee. The Chair is of the opinion that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Approval of Construction of Naval Vessels in National Referendum

Sec. 31.4 To a bill authorizing the construction of certain naval 
    vessels, an amendment providing that the act not become effective 
    until confirmed in a nationwide referendum conducted according to 
    rules prescribed by the Secretary of State was held not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during proceedings related to a naval 
authorization bill,(8) an amendment as described above was 
offered by Mr. Harry Sauthoff, of Wisconsin.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
 9. See 83 Cong. Rec. 3704, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, made a point of order against the 
amendment as not being germane to the bill under consideration. The 
Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Wisconsin offers an amendment at the end of 
    the bill providing that before this measure

[[Page 8624]]

    shall become effective a Nation-wide referendum shall be held, and 
    then the amendment proceeds to set forth how such referendum shall 
    be held and states that it shall be subject to such rules and 
    regulations as the Secretary of State shall prescribe as necessary 
    or appropriate in providing for such referendum.
        In the first place, such a proposal may not be within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Naval Affairs. Nowhere in the bill 
    is the Secretary of State or the Department of State referred to in 
    any way, nor does any provision of the bill relate to that 
    Department or its head.
        A mere postponement of the effective date of an act for one 
    reason or another might be germane, if nothing further was required 
    to be done affirmatively. See Hinds Precedents, section 3030. But 
    particularly because of the part of this amendment which refers to 
    the Secretary of State, the Chair rules that the amendment is not 
    germane and therefore sustains the point of order.

Enactment of State or Federal Legislation

Sec. 31.5 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 held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(11) authorizing appropriations for the Atomic Energy 
Commission, the following amendment was offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 10918 (Committee on Atomic Energy).
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 17921, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: On page 4, after line 18, add a 
    new subsection (d), as follows:

            (d) The Commission is authorized to start the projects set 
        forth in subsection 101(b) contingent upon the enactment of 
        Federal or State fair housing measures which insure that 
        employees of said facilities not be denied equal housing on 
        grounds of religion or race.

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

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: [The amendment] is not 
    germane. It attempts to legislate restrictions on an authorization 
    bill not provided by the rules of the House. It has already been 
    voted upon.

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

        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is similar in nature to the limitation set forth in 
    section 102 of the bill. There it is provided that--

            The Commission is authorized to start any project set forth 
        in subsections 101(b) (1), (2), (3), and (4) only if the 
        currently estimated cost

[[Page 8625]]

        of that project does not exceed by more than 25 per centum the 
        estimated cost set forth for that project. . . .

        . . . [The amendment] parallels the limitations the bill itself 
    sets forth on other aspects of the project.

    The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James A. Burke (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment goes beyond the 
    legislation, which is Federal legislation, and would require State 
    legislation. Therefore, the point of order is well taken.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Subsequent Specific Authorization for Testing of Antisatellite Weapon

Sec. 31.6 To a provision authorizing funds for one fiscal year, an 
    amendment restricting the availability of funds appropriated 
    pursuant thereto contingent upon enactment of subsequent specific 
    authorization is germane; thus, to a bill authorizing funds for Air 
    Force research and development, an amendment prohibiting use of 
    those funds for certain tests until subsequent law authorizing such 
    tests is enacted was held to be a germane condition.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for 
fiscal 1984 (14) in the Committee of the Whole on July 21, 
1983,(15) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 2969.
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 20198, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (16) The Clerk will report 
    the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Seiberling: Page 14, after line 
        10, insert the following new subsection:
            (c) None of the amount appropriated pursuant to the 
        authorization in section 201 for the Air Force may be used for 
        flight testing of an antisatellite weapon until such testing is 
        specifically authorized by law enacted after the date of 
        enactment of this Act.

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order on the amendment as being nongermane, as I 
    understand it.
        This amendment refers to a prior-year authorization on the 
    matter under consideration in terms of the title II authorization 
    for fiscal year 1984. At least I have been so instructed. . . .
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment only deals with the authorization in section 201. It does 
    not deal with authorizations in prior years.
        Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this is not the amendment 
    the gentleman had coming up the last time just prior to the recess. 
    Is that correct? . . .

[[Page 8626]]

        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I had originally put in an 
    amendment on June 8 which did what the gentleman says, but this one 
    was corrected so as to avoid that problem. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . The amendment . . . does apply 
    to this year only and to the authorization in the bill, and the 
    point of order does not lie.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Seiberling amendment had originally 
included restrictions on funds authorized in prior years but was 
redrafted to apply only to the funds in the bill, so that it was 
germane.

Enactment of Legislation; Action by Committees and Agencies Other Than 
    Those Involved in Administration of Program Affected by Bill

Sec. 31.7 An amendment delaying the effectiveness of a bill pending the 
    enactment of other legislation and requiring actions by committees 
    and agencies not involved in the administration of the program 
    affected by the bill was ruled out as not germane.

    On Feb. 7, 1973,(17) a bill (18) was under 
consideration which had been reported from the Committee on Agriculture 
directing the Secretary of Agriculture to expend all sums appropriated 
for the Rural Environmental Assistance Program. An amendment was 
offered seeking to delay the effectiveness of the bill until (1) 
Congress enacts legislation increasing the statutory ceiling on the 
public debt limit or legislation raising revenue by the amount of 
spending in the bill; or (2) the Comptroller General reports that such 
expenditures, together with all other outlays during that fiscal year, 
will not exceed revenue and debt limit totals. The amendment was held 
to be not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See 119 Cong. Rec. 3708, 3709, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., discussed in 
        Sec. 31.14, infra.
18.  H.R. 2107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enactment of Oil Windfall Profit Tax

Sec. 31.8 An amendment delaying the availability of an appropriation 
    pending an unrelated contingency is not germane to an appropriation 
    bill; thus, to a joint resolution appropriating funds to the 
    Community Services Administration for emergency fuel assistance, an 
    amendment prohibiting any of such funds from being obligated before 
    the date of enactment of any law imposing an oil windfall profit 
    tax was held to be not germane.

[[Page 8627]]

    On Oct. 25, 1979,(19) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 430 in the House, the Speaker Pro Tempore 
(20) sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 29639, 29640, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Giaimo: Page 3, after line 3, 
        insert the following new sentence: ``None of the funds 
        appropriated by this Act may be obligated before the date of 
        the enactment of any Federal law imposing a windfall profit tax 
        on producers of domestic crude oil.''. . .

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    amendment before us violates the rules of the House, inasmuch as it 
    is not germane under clause 7, rule XVI.
        The amendment clearly goes beyond the bill and, in fact, 
    addresses an entirely separate piece of legislation that is not 
    referred to in any manner in House Joint Resolution 430.
        I urge the point of order be sustained.
        We have ample precedents, Mr. Speaker, of similar situations 
    which clearly show that an amendment delaying the operation of 
    proposed legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not 
    germane. I cite Deschler's Procedure 28.4, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. Giaimo: . . . The amendment which I am offering here 
    addresses itself to this legislation. It is simply a limitation and 
    says none of the funds appropriated can be obligated before the 
    date of enactment of any Federal law imposing a windfall profit 
    tax.
        That is a simple limitation, which I think is not subject to a 
    point of order. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined several precedents and would like to 
    point to chapter 28, section 4.11 of Deschler's [Procedure]:

            To a bill extending and amending laws relating to housing 
        and the renewal of urban communities, an amendment providing 
        that no funds could be appropriated or withdrawn from the 
        Treasury for the purposes of the bill until enactment of 
        legislation raising additional revenue, was held not to be 
        germane.

        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Kentucky (Mr. Natcher).

Passage of Tax Measures

Sec. 31.9 To a bill to provide for a National Security Training Corps, 
    an amendment was held to be not germane which provided that, ``This 
    act shall be effective on the same day that a tax bill becomes 
    effective'' imposing a specified tax on corporations engaged in 
    manufacturing war materials.

[[Page 8628]]

    The Chairman,(1) in making the above ruling, summarized 
the parliamentary situation as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 2. 98 Cong. Rec. 1839, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 4, 1952. The 
        proceedings related to the National Security Training Corps 
        Act, H.R. 5904 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Montana (3) has offered an 
    amendment which has been reported. The gentleman from Georgia 
    (4) makes a point of order against the amendment on the 
    ground it is not germane to the pending amendment or the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Mr. Mike Mansfield.
 4. Mr. Carl Vinson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment with some degree of care 
    and invites attention to the fact that it provides:

            This act shall be effective on the same day that a tax bill 
        becomes effective, which will tax all corporations 100 percent 
        of all profits and earnings of such corporations engaged in the 
        manufacture of war materials or any other service connected 
        with the defense effort and/or the National Security Training 
        Corps Act of 1952.

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that this amendment 
    provides for the effective date of the pending bill to be 
    contingent upon an entirely unrelated subject, a subject which 
    would not be under the jurisdiction of the committee that reported 
    the pending bill, but would be under the jurisdiction of another 
    standing committee of the House.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is clearly not 
    germane to the pending amendment or the bill and, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

Enactment of Legislation Raising Revenue

Sec. 31.10 To that section of a joint resolution subjecting all Reserve 
    and retired personnel who are ordered into active military service 
    to those laws and regulations applicable to personnel ordered into 
    service generally, an amendment providing that provisions of the 
    joint resolution shall remain inoperative, ``until Congress shall 
    have provided revenue by taxation and shall have authorized and 
    made appropriations therefor,'' was held not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a joint resolution (5) was under 
consideration which authorized the President to order Reserve and 
retired personnel of the Army into active military service and which 
stated in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S.J. Res. 286 (Committee on Military Affairs).
 6. See 86 Cong. Rec. 10436, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 15, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. All National Guard, Reserve, and retired personnel 
    ordered into the active military service of the United States under 
    the foregoing special au

[[Page 8629]]

    thority, shall . . . be subject to the respective laws and 
    regulations relating to enlistments, reenlistments . . . rights . . 
    . and discharge of such personnel in such service to the same 
    extent in all particulars as if they had been ordered into such 
    service under existing general statutory authorizations.

    The following amendment was offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 10437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frederick C.] Smith [of Ohio]: On 
    page 2, line 16, after ``authorization'', strike out the period, 
    insert a comma, and the following: ``Provided, That unless and 
    until Congress shall have provided revenue by taxation and shall 
    have authorized and made appropriations therefor the provisions of 
    this section and of this joint resolution shall remain 
    inoperative.''

    Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, having made a point of order 
against the amendment, the Chairman (8) ruled as follows: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 10438, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 15, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he amendment undertakes to bring in unrelated matters 
    and makes the effectiveness of the joint resolution determine upon 
    the happening of unrelated contingencies. The amendment would 
    therefore be subject to the point of order, and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Sec. 31.11 To a bill extending and amending laws relating to the 
    improvement of housing and urban communities, an amendment 
    providing that no funds could be appropriated or withdrawn from the 
    Treasury for the purposes of the bill until the enactment of 
    legislation raising additional revenue, was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Housing Act of 1959,(10) the 
following amendment was offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. S. 57 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 8840, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 21, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ellis Y.] Berry [of South Dakota]: On 
    page 175, following line 21, add a new section 515 as follows:

            No amounts may be appropriated, or withdrawn from the 
        Treasury of the United States, pursuant to the authority 
        contained in this Act, or any of the amendments made by it, 
        until legislation has been enacted providing sufficient revenue 
        to equal, or exceed, the amounts by which the total of such 
        appropriations, and the amounts authorized to be withdrawn from 
        the Treasury, exceed the amounts requested for such purposes in 
        the budget submitted to the Congress by the President on 
        January 19, 1959.

    The following exchange (12) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 8841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, in connection 
    with the

[[Page 8630]]

    point of order which I raised to this amendment, I point out that 
    the amendment is not germane to the bill because it seeks to make 
    the bill a revenue raising bill rather than a strictly housing 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (13) . . . The Chair is constrained to 
    feel that this amendment is not germane because it requires the 
    enactment of other legislation in order to make the action taken 
    here effective. This requires action not only by another committee 
    of the Congress but also by the executive branch of the Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Certification by President or Congress as to Enactment of Tax 
    Legislation

Sec. 31.12 Where the effectiveness of a pending amendment, relating to 
    the decontrol of oil prices, was made contingent upon a 
    presidential certification that certain tax legislation had been 
    enacted, an amendment to such amendment which substituted 
    congressional certification (by concurrent resolution not 
    constituting a change in the rules) for presidential certification 
    as to enactment of the tax legislation, was held to be germane.

    On July 18, 1975,(14) during consideration of the Energy 
Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (15) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Robert Krueger, of Texas, offered an 
amendment as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 23525, 23526, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 Decem

[[Page 8631]]

        ber 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, 1975,(16) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 23995-97, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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: (17) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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 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

[[Page 8632]]

    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. . . .
        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 com

[[Page 8633]]

    bine 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 finding 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.

Tax on Corporations Engaged in Manufacturing War Materials

Sec. 31.13 To an amendment providing that no person shall be inducted 
    prior to 90 days after the date of enactment of the Selective 
    Service Act, an amendment proposing that the act be effective on 
    the same day that a certain tax on corporations engaged in 
    manufacturing war materials becomes effective was held not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service 
Act of 1948,(18) the following amendment was offered: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 8503, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Mansfield to the amendment offered by 
    Mr.

[[Page 8634]]

    Andrews of New York: Strike out all of section 23 and insert: 
    ``This act shall be effective on the same day that a tax bill 
    becomes effective which will tax all corporations 100 percent of 
    all profits and earnings in excess of the average annual profits 
    and earnings of such corporations engaged in the manufacture of war 
    materials or any other service connected with the war effort and/or 
    the Selective Service Act of 1948.''

    Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, having raised the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane to the bill, Mr. Mike 
Mansfield, of Montana, responded:

        Mr. Chairman, I submit that this amendment is germane to this 
    particular proposal because like the Andrews amendment it sets a 
    beginning date as to the time when this law should go into 
    operation.

    The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair calls attention to the fact that the amendment as 
    presented would strike out all of section 23. This section is not 
    now under consideration and for that reason a motion to strike it 
    out would not be in order at this time.
        The Chair may also say, however, as to the point raised by the 
    gentleman from New York that the amendment proposes to make the 
    effectiveness of this act contingent upon an unrelated matter and 
    therefore would not be germane to the pending amendment.

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Enactment of Legislation Increasing Debt Limit or Raising Revenue

Sec. 31.14 To a bill reported from the Committee on Agriculture 
    directing the Secretary of Agriculture to expend all sums 
    appropriated for the Rural Environmental Assistance Program, an 
    amendment delaying the effectiveness of the bill until (1) Congress 
    enacts legislation increasing the statutory ceiling on the public 
    debt limit or legislation raising revenue by the amount of spending 
    in the bill; or (2) the Comptroller General reports that such 
    expenditures, together with all other outlays during that fiscal 
    year, will not exceed revenue and debt limit totals was held not 
    germane.

    In the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 7, 1973,(1) during 
consideration of a bill (2) as described above, the 
following amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 3708, 3709, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 2107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: After line 11, add the 
        following:

[[Page 8635]]

            ``Sec. 2. This Act shall not take effect until such time as 
        one of the following events occur: (1) the enactment of 
        legislation increasing the statutory ceiling on the public debt 
        by an amount at least equal to the amount of outlay mandated 
        herein; (2) the enactment of legislation which will produce a 
        first-year increase in revenue at least equal to the amount of 
        spending; or (3) the Comptroller General of the United States 
        makes a determination and so reports to the Speaker of the 
        House and the President of the Senate, that the expenditure of 
        funds provided herein, together with all other outlays expected 
        to occur during fiscal 1973, will not exceed the total of 
        revenue and authorized public debt for fiscal 1973.''

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order on the amendment. . . . [I]t is not germane to H.R. 2107.
        H.R. 2107 amends Section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and 
    Domestic Allotment Act, and the amendment in no manner deals with 
    the fundamental purpose of this legislation which simply requires 
    the expenditure of funds lawfully appropriated by the Congress. In 
    addition, Mr. Chairman, the amendment would require action by a 
    number of other agencies of the U.S. Government which are not 
    considered and not included in the bill before us, and, therefore, 
    it is not germane to the bill before us. . . .
        Mr. Findley: . . . As I understood the argument of the chairman 
    of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Poage), it was that this involved unrelated actions. I think 
    in substance that was his argument in support of his point that the 
    amendment is not germane. I would like to argue to the contrary, 
    that the bill before us is so far-reaching in its scope that the 
    items which are in my amendment are indeed closely related. They 
    can hardly be considered as isolated and separate propositions.
        First of all, the bill does not involve just the REAP program. 
    It involves the U.S. Treasury. It mandates spending. Therefore the 
    Treasury balance of money is vitally important and closely related 
    to this question.
        It involves the appropriation of money. It would seek to 
    mandate the spending of money which had been authorized by an act 
    of appropriation of the Congress. In that connection it may well be 
    that some of the Members of this body have not examined the wording 
    which is in an appropriation bill preamble, and I would like to 
    read that at this point. I cite this typical language from the 
    Appropriation Act of the 92d Congress:

            That the following sums are appropriated out of any money 
        in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated . . .

        That is any money in the Treasury. Well, what does money in the 
    Treasury consist of? It consists of revenue from taxes. It consists 
    of revenue from borrowings. Therefore revenue as well as the public 
    debt ceiling have to be considered an integral part of the 
    legislation we are considering this afternoon. . . .
        This is not the first time that the Chair has ruled favorably 
    on an amendment of the same nature that is now before the Chair. On 
    January 8, 1964, I offered an amendment to an authorization bill--
    and I point out that

[[Page 8636]]

    it was an authorization bill. This language appears in the 
    Congressional Record, volume 110, part 1, page 144, 88th Congress, 
    second session.(3) The language of the amendment that I 
    offered at that time read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 31.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The authorization for an appropriation contained in this 
        Act shall not be effective until such time as the receipts of 
        the Government for the preceding fiscal year have exceeded the 
        expenditures of the Government for such year, as determined by 
        the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.

        So, if there is an unrelated section or item involved in the 
    issue before the Chair at this time, there certainly was on that 
    occasion also.
        On that occasion, when I offered the amendment and the Clerk 
    had finished his reading, Mr. Jones of Alabama stated:

            Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
        amendment, because it would restrict the appropriation to be 
        made available under the terms of Section 8, starting on line 
        22, page 3.

        The Chairman responded:

            In the interest of being expeditious, the Chair rules that 
        the point of order is not well taken, because the amendment 
        involves a limitation on an appropriation.

        That bill, like the bill before us, was an authorization bill, 
    not an appropriation bill, when the Chair saw fit to rule in favor 
    of my amendment, citing that it did amount to a limitation of 
    appropriation. In effect, the amendment now before the Chair is a 
    limitation on appropriations.
        Based on that ruling, as well as the general argument I made on 
    the constitutional basis, I do ask the Chair to overrule the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes his presentation 
    upon the assumption that his amendment somehow is a limitation on 
    an appropriation. The bill before us has nothing to do with an 
    appropriation. It does not involve an appropriation. It simply says 
    what the Secretary is to do with the money that has already been 
    appropriated and how he shall carry out the program. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair has had occasion to 
    study this problem, and is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Findley) is 
    not germane to the bill H.R. 2107. The amendment would delay the 
    effectiveness of the bill until Congress enacts legislation 
    increasing the statutory ceiling on the public debt limit--or 
    legislation raising revenue by the amount of spending in the bill--
    or until the Comptroller General determines and reports to the 
    Congress that the expenditure of funds in the bill, together with 
    all other outlays during fiscal 1973, will not exceed the total of 
    revenue and authorized public debt for fiscal 1973.
        To a bill authorizing an expenditure of certain funds, an 
    amendment postponing the effectiveness of that authorization 
    pending the enactment of legislation raising revenue has been held 
    not germane.
        The statement made by the Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole on

[[Page 8637]]

    the occasion of that earlier ruling is applicable here. Chairman 
    Walter of Pennsylvania then said:

            This amendment is not germane because it requires the 
        enactment of other legislation in order to make the action 
        taken here effective. This requires action not only by another 
        committee of the Congress but also by the executive branch of 
        government.

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois would 
    certainly require the ascertainment of facts and the exercise of 
    duties by government officials and committees and agencies not 
    included within the present bill.
        The Chair has also examined several precedents in Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, including those found 
    in sections 3035 and 3037 of volume VIII. In both of those 
    decisions, amendments delaying the operation of proposed 
    legislation pending the completion of other legislative action was 
    ruled out as not germane.
        The Chair further distinguishes this from the situation that 
    the gentleman from Illinois referred to in the earlier case 
    involving House Joint Resolution 871 and the ruling by Chairman 
    Rains, of Alabama, in the 88th Congress. There the amendment did 
    involve a limitation but required nothing further to be done by 
    another committee of this body.
        The Chair holds that the pending amendment is not germane to 
    the bill and sustains the point of order.

Determination as to Soviet Union's Limitation of Weapons Systems

Sec. 31.15 While an amendment may not be germane which conditions the 
    availability of an authorization upon an unrelated contingency 
    involving issues and agencies beyond the jurisdiction of the 
    reporting committee, a contingency may be related if merely 
    requiring observation of the conduct of another country, where such 
    conduct is already contemplated as a factor affecting the policy 
    basis for the authorization; thus, to an amendment to a military 
    procurement authorization bill reducing a line-item amount for Air 
    Force missiles and prohibiting use of funds in that title for the 
    MX missile program, an amendment reducing instead the same line-
    item authorization by a different amount and also stating a policy 
    with respect to the use of those funds for the unilateral 
    cancellation of the MX system, authorizing the funds at a 
    subsequent time during the fiscal year if the President determines 
    that the Soviet Union is not controlling and limiting similar 
    weapons systems, was held germane as an alternative limitation 
    imposing a conditional restriction which was

[[Page 8638]]

    not based upon an unrelated contingency.

    On May 16, 1984,(5) during consideration of H.R. 5167 
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 130 Cong. Rec. 12504-06, 12509-11, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. The Military Procurement Authorization for fiscal 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 authorization of appropriations, air force

        Sec. 103. (a)(1) Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated 
    for fiscal year 1985 for procurement for the Air Force as follows: 
    . . .

            For missiles, $8,664,600,000. . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bennett: Page 10, line 19, strike 
        out ``$8,664,600,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$5,942,700,000''.

        At the end of title I (page 15, after line 5), add the 
    following new section:

                             mx missile procurement

            Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to 
        authorizations of appropriations in this title may be used for 
        the MX missile program. . . .

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Price to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Bennett: Strike out the amount proposed by the amendment to 
        be inserted on page 10, line 19, and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$7,756,600,000''.
            Strike out the section proposed by the amendment to be 
        inserted at the end of title I and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:

            policy concerning acquisition of additional mx missiles

            Sec.   . (a) It is the policy of Congress not to take any 
        action that would reward the Soviet Union through the 
        unilateral cancellation by the United States of the MX 
        strategic nuclear missile weapon system for which funds are 
        authorized in this title while the Soviet Union continues to 
        act in a manner indicating that it is unwilling to take actions 
        to further the control and limitation of similar types of 
        strategic nuclear missile weapon systems.
            (b)(1) Subject to paragraph (3), funds appropriated 
        pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 
        103(a) for procurement of missiles for the Air Force may be 
        used to acquire not more than 15 additional MX missiles, but no 
        funds may be obligated for the acquisition of such missiles 
        until April 1, 1985.
            (2) Immediately after April 1, 1985, the President shall 
        determine whether the Soviet Union is acting, as of April 1, 
        1985, in a manner indicating that it is willing to take actions 
        to further the control and limitation of types of strategic 
        nuclear missile weapon systems similar to the MX strategic 
        missile weapons system authorized for the Air Force by this 
        title and shall immediately transmit written notification of 
        that determination to Congress.
            (3)(A) If the President's determination under paragraph (2) 
        is that the Soviet Union is not acting in such a

[[Page 8639]]

        manner, the amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization 
        of appropriations in section 103(a) for the acquisition of 15 
        additional MX missiles may be obligated, but only if the 
        President also determines, and includes in the written 
        notification to Congress under paragraph (2), that--
            (i) the obligation of such funds is in the national 
        interest; and
            (ii) as of April 1, 1985, the United States is willing to 
        act to further the control and limitation on the MX strategic 
        nuclear missile weapon system authorized for the Air Force by 
        this title.
            (B) If the President's determination under paragraph (2) is 
        that the Soviet Union is acting in such a manner, none of the 
        amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization of 
        appropriations in section 103(a) for the acquisition of 15 
        additional MX missiles may be obligated. . . .

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the Price amendment on the grounds that its scope is 
    broader than that of the primary amendment, title 1, and therefore 
    is not germane to the primary amendment.
        The Price amendment would condition MX missile procurement 
    authorization on a Presidential determination. The exact nature and 
    notification of this action is not specified in the amendment; it 
    is open to various interpretations. A number of those 
    interpretations have been brought out on the floor in the colloquy 
    which just preceded my point of order stated by the gentleman from 
    Washington State.
        That interpretation is that the MX procurement authorization 
    would be contingent upon a Presidential report or certification 
    regarding arms control negotiations. This, is in fact the 
    interpretation, as I have indicated it, Members who support the 
    amendment have built into the legislative history just set forth.
        Since arms control negotiations involve agencies not charged 
    with procurement of the MX missile, nor with procurement of any 
    weapons, the Price amendment is not germane to the primary 
    amendment according to Deschler's Precedents, chapter 28, section 
    24, point 23, based on a ruling made February 22, 1978.
        The amendment is also inconsistent with rulings made in similar 
    cases on July 8, 1981, and July 9, 1981. . . .
        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, the language of 
    the amendment says that the President shall determine whether the 
    Soviet Union is acting, as of April 1, 1985, in a manner indicating 
    that it is willing to take actions to further the control and 
    limitation of types of strategic nuclear missile weapons systems. 
    It does not mention negotiations. The amendment itself is in line 
    with other types of amendments that we have had, and it is a 
    general finding by the President, and I believe it is within the 
    rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: Mr. Chairman, in the colloquy I 
    just had with the gentleman from the State of Washington, he 
    answered the question that this amendment is contingent upon arms 
    control negotiations. I ask that specifically because on July 8, 
    1981, I presented an amendment to the floor on Pershing II's that 
    was ruled out of order as stated and that amendment on Pershing 
    II's held the dollars for the expenditure for the de

[[Page 8640]]

    ployment until the President has certified that Congress of the 
    United States has forwarded to the Soviet Union initial proposals 
    for arms control negotiations. Essentially the same thing.
        That amendment was ruled out of order, the amendment made by 
    this gentleman, was ruled out of order, and part of the reason that 
    it was ruled out of order as stated was the Chair would further 
    point out that the arms control negotiations fall within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and not within 
    the jurisdiction of the committee reporting this bill, and thereby 
    out of order. . . .
        Mr. Aspin: The difference is of course that the gentleman from 
    Washington's amendment that he referred to, did mention arms 
    control negotiations in his amendment. The amendment which the 
    chairman of the committee, Mr. Price, has put forward does not 
    mention arms control negotiations in his amendment. . . .
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, I am looking at page 2, and on page 
    2, lines 5 and 6, it states, lines 4, 5, and 6, it states, ``. . . 
    acting in a manner indicating that it is willing to take actions to 
    further the control and limitations of types of strategic missile 
    weapons systems similar to the MX.''
        Mr. Chairman, my point is this: One cannot define a missile 
    system that is similar to the MX. The amendment does not define it. 
    As this debate has already brought out, it is subject to a great 
    difference of opinion on the floor of the House. I make the point, 
    Mr. Chairman, my point of order is, therefore, that the amendment 
    is broader in scope than that of the MX because it necessarily 
    brings into play questions of missile systems beyond the MX. It is 
    only the MX that is in dispute and subject to debate at this point. 
    So I renew my point of order. . . .
        Mr. [William B.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is clearly germane and does not exceed the scope of the 
    original bill. It does not introduce a new and different subject 
    than that in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Bennett). Both amendments deal with the procurement of MX 
    missiles. The amendment differs only in degree. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price), does place 
    additional conditions on the release of funds for the procurement 
    of MX missiles, but does not introduce any new or additional 
    subject, and is therefore clearly germane.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida contains a 
    provision providing, ``None of the funds in this title'' may be 
    used for the MX missile program.
        It should be noted that there are other provisions in title I 
    of this bill regarding international treaty obligations. Section 
    105, for instance, deals with our international obligations with 
    NATO countries. Section 107 of this bill also contains provisions 
    extending certain authorities to the President under the Arms 
    Export Control Act.
        So I think neither in enlarging the scope nor on the question 
    of germaneness would a point of order lie. . . .
        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: . . . Obviously the 
    intention of this is that the President would assess the Soviet 
    behavior in negotiations. As a matter of fact, although the magic

[[Page 8641]]

    word ``negotiations'' is not mentioned, that really makes it an 
    issue on all fours with the point of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    and the gentleman from Washington.
        Simply not mentioning negotiations when you describe a process 
    that can only be assessed through negotiations clearly seems to 
    make it the case. If the gentleman is really saying that the 
    President should assess this important decision without regard to 
    negotiations from the Soviet Union, then the amendment makes even 
    less sense than I thought it did. . . .
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels the arguments made, to sustain the point of 
    order, are much broader than the Chair would interpret the 
    amendment. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    reduces the line-item authorization for Air Force missiles and also 
    adds a section at the end of title I prohibiting the use of any 
    funds authorized in title I for fiscal year 1985 for the 
    procurement of the MX missile.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, in lieu 
    of a prohibition on the use of the authorized funds in fiscal year 
    1985 for the procurement of any MX missiles, would instead reduce 
    the same line-item authorizations for Air Force missiles by a 
    lesser amount and would add a different section at the end of title 
    I stating a policy with respect to the use of fiscal year 1985 
    authorized funds in title I for the unilateral cancellation of the 
    MX system, while the Soviet Union continues to be unwilling to take 
    actions to control and limit similar strategic missile weapons 
    systems.

        In effect, the amendment would authorize fiscal year 1985 funds 
    for the procurement of not more than 15 MX missiles after April 1, 
    1985, if the President determines that the Soviet Union is not 
    acting in a manner to control similar systems.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the issue of the availability of 
    any funds in fiscal year 1985 for MX procurement presented by the 
    original amendment permits as an alternative approach a conditional 
    restriction on the availability of those same funds dependent upon 
    Presidential determination of procurement of similar systems by the 
    Soviet Union.
        It is certainly a related issue to condition of the 
    availability of the funds in the bill upon observed conduct on the 
    part of the Soviet Union with respect to a similar weapons system, 
    and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Government Receipts in Excess of Expenditures

Sec. 31.16 Where an amendment seeks to adopt as a measure of the 
    availability of certain authorizations contained in the bill a 
    condition that is logically relevant and objectively discernible, 
    the amendment does not present an unrelated contingency and is 
    germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a proposition was under consideration 
(8)

[[Page 8642]]

 to rename the National Cultural Center as the John F. Kennedy Center 
for the Performing Arts and to authorize an appropriation for such 
center. An amendment providing that the authorization not be effective 
until the receipts of the government exceed its expenditures was held 
to be germane: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See H.J. Res. 871 (Committee on Public Works).
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 144, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 8, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Page 4, 
    line 4, add a new paragraph to read as follows: ``The authorization 
    for an appropriation contained in this Act shall not be effective 
    until such time as the receipts of the Government for the preceding 
    fiscal year have exceeded the expenditures of the Government for 
    such year, as determined by the Director of the Bureau of the 
    Budget.''

    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, because it would restrict the 
    appropriation to be made available under the terms of section 8, 
    starting on line 22, page 3.
        The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Albert Rains (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the interest of being expeditious, the Chair rules that the 
    point of order is not well taken, because the amendment involves a 
    limitation on an appropriation.

Determination as to Expenditures Under Other Acts

Sec. 31.17 An amendment to an authorization bill which conditions the 
    obligation or expenditure of funds therein by adopting as a measure 
    of their availability the expenditure during that fiscal year of a 
    comparable percentage of funds authorized by other Acts is germane 
    so long as the amendment does not directly affect the use of other 
    funds; thus, to a bill authorizing foreign economic and military 
    assistance, an amendment providing that the percentage of funds 
    obligated or expended pursuant to that Act at any time during 
    fiscal 1974 shall not be more than 10% greater than percentages 
    expended under certain other programs authorized by Congress was 
    held to impose a germane limitation on the availability of funds 
    authorized in the bill which did not directly affect the operation 
    of other government programs.

    During consideration of the Mutual Development and Cooperation Act 
of 1973 (11) in the Committee of the Whole on July 26,

[[Page 8643]]

1973,(12) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.  H.R. 9360.
12.  119 Cong. Rec. 26210, 26211, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Danielson: On page 53, after line 
        23, insert the following new section:

                         equitable expenditure of funds

            Sec. 30. (a) Unless the Congress shall provide otherwise in 
        language expressly made applicable to this section, at any time 
        during the fiscal year 1974, the amount obligated or expended 
        pursuant to this Act for any program or activity authorized by 
        this Act, expressed as a percentage of the amount appropriated 
        by law for purposes of such program or activity, shall not be 
        more than 10 percentage points greater than the amount 
        obligated or expended at that time for any other program or 
        activity authorized by Act of Congress, expressed as a 
        percentage of the amount appropriated by law for purposes of 
        such other program or activity for the fiscal year 1974.
            (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``other program 
        or activity'' shall include any program or activity 
        administered by or under the direction of the Department of 
        Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of 
        Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
        Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of 
        Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
        Veterans' Administration. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    insist on a point of order. . . .
        (T)his bill deals solely with authorizations for appropriations 
    for foreign aid. The amendment of the gentleman covers many 
    programs of agencies: The Department of Agriculture, the Department 
    of Commerce, the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and 
    Urban Development, the Department of Health, Education, and 
    Welfare, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Veteran's 
    Administration. It goes far afield from the present legislation, 
    and therefore I insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment, and observes that the 
    amendment does not directly affect the obligation or expenditure of 
    funds under other Government programs. Rather, the percentages 
    obligated or expended under other programs merely serve as a 
    measure or limit of percentages which can be obligated or expended 
    under programs in the pending bill. For this reason, the Chair 
    feels that the amendment is a germane restriction on the 
    availability of funds authorized in the pending bill, and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Determination as to Balance of Trade in Automotive Products

Sec. 31.18 An amendment delaying operation of a proposed enactment 
    pending an ascer

[[Page 8644]]

    tainment of a fact is germane when the fact to be ascertained 
    relates solely to the subject matter of the bill; thus, to a bill 
    requiring that a certain percentage of automobiles sold in the 
    United States be manufactured domestically, and imposing an import 
    restriction for automobiles on any person violating that 
    requirement, an amendment waiving the requirement for the products 
    of one country if the balance of trade with such country in 
    automotive products bears a certain relationship with the overall 
    trade deficit with that country, was held germane, as a contingency 
    relating to the same subject matter as the bill.

    During consideration of the Fair Practices in Automotive Products 
Act (14) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled 
a point of order in the circumstances described above. he proceedings 
of Dec. 15, 1982,(15) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.  H.R. 5133.
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 30958-60, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Schumer: Page 11, line 5, strike 
        out ``It'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``Except as provided in 
        paragraph (5), it''.

            Page 13, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
            (5) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any 
        vehicle manufacturer of Japan with respect to any model year if 
        the United States deficit in the balance of trade in automotive 
        products with Japan for the four calendar quarters most closely 
        corresponding to model year 1982 is not greater as a percentage 
        of the deficit in goods and services with Japan (as calculated 
        on the basis of the Balance of Goods and Services published by 
        the Department of Commerce) for the four calendar quarters most 
        closely corresponding to such model year than [certain 
        specified percentages].

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) on the ground that it goes 
    beyond the purposes of H.R. 5133 and is thus not germane.
        The gentleman's amendment attempts to address trade matters 
    that are not addressed by the bill before us. The bill that is 
    before us seeks to address domestic car content requirements.
        Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would 
    make the enforcement provisions of the bill contingent upon a 
    determination of the balance of trade in automotive products versus 
    the relative balance of payments of other goods and services, and 
    when we bring in the other goods and services, I maintain that that 
    goes far beyond the scope of the legislation.
        It also places additional responsibilities on the Secretary of 
    Transportation on trade issues which are not within his authority.
        In previous rulings, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on

[[Page 8645]]

    the State of the Union has . . . ruled that an amendment changing 
    the statement of policy contained in a bill is not in order if its 
    effect is to fundamentally change the purpose of the bill. That is 
    found in Deschler's Precedents, chapter 28, section 4.16.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order that the 
    amendment goes beyond the purposes of H.R. 5133, that it is not 
    germane and, therefore, is out of order. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I support the 
    point of order that has been claimed by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Broyhill).
        It is quite clear that the amendment has been redrawn in an 
    attempt to fit our rule XVI, clause 7. That is the rule of 
    germaneness. It is also quite clear, as demonstrated by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina, that it does not succeed.
        The bill that is before us, H.R. 5133, is a bill that refers 
    only to domestic manufacture within the United States. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) 
    seeks to impose a regimen against exports based on a measure of 
    automotive imports which is beyond all normal competence of the 
    Secretary of Commerce, who is the only individual noted in H.R. 
    5133.
        In addition, there would have to be a determination of the 
    total scope of our balance of trade with the country of Japan. The 
    denominator of the gentleman's fraction is the total balance of 
    trade between our country and Japan. . . . [The amendment] goes far 
    beyond the intent of the original bill, which deals with domestic 
    manufacture, and gets into the whole field of trade, which is 
    beyond the jurisdiction of the committee that is bringing us this 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. [Charles E.] Schumer [of New York]: If I might respond to 
    the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the amendment was drawn to relate 
    to the narrow area of automobiles and automobile content as well as 
    automobile trade. The bill before us deals with automobile trade.
        Just to look at one point, page 4 deals with vehicles 
    manufactured by a vehicle manufacturer in the United States and 
    exported from the United States. That is clause 1.
        Clause 2 also deals with vehicles manufactured in the United 
    States and exported from the United States.
        Furthermore, what we were told in terms of germaneness was that 
    what we had to deal with was automobiles and the fraction that we 
    used deals with automobiles making it clearly germane.
        The gentleman form North Carolina, the gentleman from 
    Minnesota, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania might have an 
    argument if, if this bill dealt with or this amendment specifically 
    related to general trade. But it does not. It relates to automobile 
    trade.
        Furthermore, I might say the gentlemen in objection to this 
    have said this amendment has an effect on trade. So does the bill.
        What is the debate we have been listening to for the last 2 
    hours? Authority for the issue of germaneness is not the effect 
    that the amendment would have but specifically are the words of the 
    amendment germane to the bill.

[[Page 8646]]

        The bill deals with automobiles and automobile manufacturing. 
    The amendment deals with automobiles and automobile manufacturing, 
    but here in this country and for export and, therefore, I would 
    argue that the amendment is indeed germane. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    germaneness rule is the purpose and the basis of the point of 
    order.
        First of all, the amendment must be germane to the bill. I 
    would observe that there are a number of tests.
        The first which has been referred to is the question of 
    committee jurisdiction. Here we have an amendment which relates to 
    trade, balance of trade, figures relative to trade, and a question 
    relative to suspension of imports.
        Clearly that kind of an amendment would have compelled this 
    legislation to have been referred to the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
        The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
    because it deals with Interstate Commerce.
        The amendment must also be germane to the committee substitute. 
    It fails again on the basis of this test.
        The question then is: Does the amendment meet any of the other 
    tests and I submit to the Chair that it does not.
        The amendment does not relate as required under section 3 of 
    title XXVIII of Deschler's, does not relate to the subject under 
    consideration.
        The subject under consideration relates to interstate commerce.
        The amendment relates to international commerce. Clearly the 
    subject matter is different and the amendment again fails.
        There is yet another test and that is the fundamental purpose 
    of the amendment test under section 5. Obviously again the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment must relate to the fundamental 
    purpose of the proposition to which it is offered.
        The fundamental purpose of the committee substitute is to 
    establish standards for the trade in interstate commerce of 
    automobiles and automobile parts. Here it is clear that the 
    amendment again relates to international trade and it requires a 
    series of findings which are nowhere found wherein a series of 
    calculations dependent on international trade and deficits, none of 
    which are mentioned anywhere in the legislation.
        Last of all, the amendment fails the requirements of section 6 
    of Deschler's wherein the test is does it accomplish the result of 
    the basic legislation by the same or similar means. Here it is very 
    clear that under the bill the evil to be dealt with is the 
    difficulty with regard to jobs and it is dealt with through the 
    interstate commerce powers of the Constitution and of the Congress.
        The amendment would deal with the problem of international 
    trade by relating automobile sales to international trade deficits 
    of the United States, two very distinct and different matters. . . 
    .
        Mr. Schumer: . . . [A]s I understand it . . . it is the words 
    of the bill, not its effect or anything else that relates to 
    germaneness.
        Let me keep reading words of the bill to show that the bill 
    deals not just

[[Page 8647]]

    with interstate commerce but with international commerce. . . .
        Throughout the bill . . . are arguments, words, discussions 
    that relate not just to automobiles domestically within the United 
    States but automobiles exported.
        Furthermore, the bill is explicit. It sets different 
    classifications for automobile parts that are manufactured within 
    the United States as opposed to automobile parts that are 
    manufactured outside of the United States.
        To say that the bill only deals with what happens within the 
    United States is incorrect. The bill deals with what happens within 
    and without. Albeit related to automobiles, the amendment deals 
    with what happens within and without but related to autos as well. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the general rule of germaneness, the test of an amendment 
    is whether there is a relationship to the subject matter of the 
    bill.
        This bill requires a certain percentage of domestic content in 
    the automobiles that are sold in this country.
        The amendment provides that that requirement is not applicable 
    during periods when the balance of trade in automotive products 
    bears a certain relationship to overall trade; therefore, the 
    amendment is confined to the subject of trade in automotive 
    products and is not an unrelated contingency involving the overall 
    balance of trade.
        In Cannon (VIII, 3029) an amendment delaying operation of a 
    proposed enactment pending an ascertainment of a fact is germane 
    when that fact to be ascertained relates solely to the subject 
    matter of the bill.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment conditions the 
    implementation of the domestic content requirement upon a certain 
    test, a certain factual situation.
        It relates to the general subject matter of the bill, imposes a 
    germane condition, and, therefore, the point of order is overruled.

Determination and Report by President on Ownership of Gold in Vietnam

Sec. 31.19 An amendment delaying the operation of proposed legislation 
    pending an unrelated contingency is not germane; thus, an amendment 
    to a substitute postponing the effective date of the granting of 
    humanitarian and evacuation assistance to South Vietnam refugees 
    until the President determines and reports to Congress on the 
    ownership of gold sought to be removed from Cambodia and South 
    Vietnam was held to be not germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(17) during consideration of H.R. 6096 
(the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman

[[Page 8648]]

Otis G. Pike, of New York, sustained a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 11511, 11512, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John L.] Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: At the end add 
        a new section:
            ``This Act shall become effective when the President 
        determines and reports to Congress whether the 16 tons of gold 
        that Lon Nol and former President Thieu tried to send to 
        Switzerland was American property or their own personal 
        gold.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        Mr. John L. Burton: . . . It is an amendment that sets an 
    active triggering date for the legislation. It is no more different 
    than saying that it shall take effect on a certain date. We are 
    just saying in this amendment that we are setting this date for the 
    determination whether or not that 16 tons of gold with American 
    money is just a limitation on the executive power of the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. A similar situation 
    arose in the 93d Congress on a bill authorizing military assistance 
    to Israel and funds to be used in an emergency force when an 
    amendment was offered postponing the availability of those funds 
    until the President certified the existence of a designated level 
    of energy supplies. (Deschler's, chapter 28, section 24.18).
        The amendment in question is not germane to the purposes of the 
    substitute and the point of order is sustained.

Certification That Bill Will Have Positive Effect on Employment Levels

Sec. 31.20 To a bill requiring that a certain percentage of automobiles 
    sold in the United States be manufactured domestically, imposing an 
    import restriction on any person violating that requirement, and 
    separately requiring a study of the impact of implementation of the 
    bill on the automobile industry and on the exportation of other 
    goods and services from the United States, an amendment delaying 
    the effectiveness of the entire bill contingent upon a 
    certification that the bill will have a net positive effect on the 
    total domestic employment levels was held to be nongermane as a 
    condition referring to the entire range of employment in the 
    economy and therefore encompassing factors beyond the scope of the 
    bill.

    During consideration of the Fair Practices and Procedures in Auto

[[Page 8649]]

motive Products Act of 1983 (18) in the Committee of the 
Whole on Nov. 2 and 3, 1983,(19) the Chair sustained a point 
of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 1234.
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 30527, 30775-77, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        sec. 8. general effectiveness and impact study.

            (a) Continuing Study.--Beginning not later than one year 
        after enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Federal 
        Trade Commission, in consultation with the heads of other 
        interested Federal agencies and with the Advisory Council, 
        shall conduct a continuing study of the adequacy of the actions 
        taken to implement and enforce the provisions of sections 5, 6, 
        and 7, and the extent to which such provisions and their 
        implementation and enforcement--
            (1) are achieving, or will achieve, the purpose of this 
        Act; and
            (2) are affecting in any way--
            (A) retail prices to consumers in the United States of new 
        motor vehicles sold and distributed in interstate commerce. . . 
        .
            (D) the United States balance of trade in automotive 
        products.
            (E) employment at ports in the United States where 
        automotive products are regularly entered into the United 
        States for sale and distribution in interstate commerce . . . 
        and
            (G) the exportation of agricultural commodities and 
        products from the United States, and the exportation of goods, 
        industrial and other products, and services from the United 
        States.

        In order to ensure that the continuing study required by this 
    section is balanced and comprehensive, the Secretary and the 
    Federal Trade Commission shall identify and consider all other 
    factors that are relevant to an understanding of, or have an effect 
    on, the matters required to be studied under this subsection, 
    including, but not limited to, governmental policies and practices 
    affecting such matters. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: At the end of the bill add 
        the following new section:
            Sec. 11. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, 
        none of the provisions of this Act shall take effect until the 
        Department of Labor, in consultation with the Department of 
        Commerce and other appropriate federal agencies, prepares an 
        affirmative employment impact statement and certifies that the 
        net effect of implementation of this Act will have a positive 
        impact on total domestic employment levels.
            (b) Such statement shall include an analysis of:
            (1) The immediate impact on levels of total private 
        employment
            (2) The long term economic effects of enactment of the 
        bill; and
            (3) The extent and nature of any new employment 
        opportunities created by the implementation of this Act. . . .

        Mr. [Dennis E.] Eckart [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1234, as 
    introduced and reported, relates to the sales in interstate 
    commerce of vehicles and parts and the distribution in commerce of 
    those parts. Its purpose is to encourage production of automotive 
    products and parts in the United States for sale, and regulates and 
    deals with the

[[Page 8650]]

    movement within interstate commerce in the United States of those 
    parts.
        In order for an amendment to this bill to be in order it must 
    meet the fundamental purposes test and thus meet the germaneness 
    test. It must not only have the same end as the matter that is 
    sought to be amended, but it must also contemplate a method of 
    achieving that end that is closely related and allied to the method 
    encompassed in the bill or the substitute.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not 
    consistent with the fundamental purpose test and I would cite for 
    the purposes of the record that an amendment to accomplish a 
    similar purpose by an unrelated method not contemplated by the bill 
    is not germane.
        I would reference the Chair to the 113th Congressional Record, 
    page 21849 of the 90th Congress, 1st session; 116th Congressional 
    Record, page 28165 of the 91st Congress, 2d session; 121st 
    Congressional Record, page 18695 of the 94th Congress, 1st session.
        The first purpose of this amendment, I would point out to the 
    Chair, is not intended to limit the content of the autos sold in 
    interstate commerce in the United States. That is the fundamental 
    purpose of this legislation.
        The amendment proffered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    deviates dramatically from the fundamental purpose; therefore, 
    fails the precedents under the precedents and history of the House. 
    Therefore, the amendment is not germane and should be ruled out of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, the bill we have before us has in 
    section 8 a ``general effectiveness and impact study.''
        In section 8 of that bill it is a macroeconomic study which is 
    mandated by the legislation itself. It is a macroeconomic study 
    that not only goes to the automobile industry but as section (G) 
    under part (2) of that section says, it related to ``the 
    exportation of agricultural commodities and products from the 
    United States, and the exportation of goods, industrial and other 
    products, and services from the United States.''
        In other words, the bill in mandating that study mandates a 
    macroeconomic study.
        In the case of my amendment, my amendment is also a study. It 
    asks for a study preimplementation. It is a study which also is a 
    macroeconomic study not unlike that which would be an ongoing part 
    of the legislation.
        So, therefore, my amendment is entirely germane to the sections 
    of the bill and to the general nature of the bill in question.
        In addition, I would say that this is a bill, which the purpose 
    of the act is to prevent or remedy serious injury to domestic 
    manufacturers and workers. My amendment is simply a study to assure 
    that that kind of a mandate would be met by the legislation in 
    question. So therefore, since the reservation against my amendment 
    has been raised on the point of germaneness, I would submit that 
    the amendment that I have offered is entirely germane, given the 
    language contained already in the bill in section 8. . . .
        Mr. Eckart: . . . I would point out to the Chair that in 
    reading the gentleman's amendment it prohibits the legislation from 
    going into effect under

[[Page 8651]]

    the gentleman's amendment. The section that he references in the 
    legislation is of an advisory, consultory nature only and therefore 
    the fundamental purpose of section 8 which he quotes is to provide 
    advice to the Congress and to the administration, is not related to 
    the fundamental purpose of this amendment which seeks to abrogate 
    the legislation and in which it states clearly, shall not take 
    effect until and after these conditions precedent have taken place.
        It fails the fundamental purpose and therefore is not germane. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    want to emphasize a point that my friend from Ohio (Mr. Eckart) 
    made that there is a contingency in this amendment, the whole act 
    does not take effect until a nongermane condition is met and, 
    therefore, the amendment is not germane and the point of order 
    should be sustained.

        The Chairman: (20) Are there further arguments on 
    the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The basic subject matter of the bill before the House, as 
    stated in the findings of the bill on page 14, relates to domestic 
    workers producing automotive products, referring to automobile 
    products, and therefore limits it to that category of domestic 
    employment.
        The amendment in question refers to the entire range of 
    employment in the U.S. economy and therefore conditions the bill in 
    a manner far beyond the basic subject matter of the bill.
        The amendment would make it conditional, that the bill would 
    not be implemented until there was a study relating to the overall 
    impact within the entire economy.
        Were it limited simply to a study, that the Chair feels would 
    be germane. But having expanded it beyond that, making it a 
    condition precedent as well as relating to a study of the 
    employment in the entire U.S. economy, it is the Chair's view that 
    it is not germane as an unrelated contingency and, therefore, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Proclamation Concerning Foreign Nation's Trade Policy

Sec. 31.21 To a bill requiring that a certain percentage of automobiles 
    sold in the United States be manufactured domestically, and 
    imposing an import restriction for automobiles on any person 
    violating that requirement, an amendment waiving the applicability 
    of domestic content ratios with respect to a foreign nation where 
    the President has issued a proclamation stating that that nation is 
    not imposing unfair restrictions against the entry of any United 
    States product into its domestic market was held nongermane as an 
    unrelated contingency affecting trade issues beyond those issues 
    addressed in the bill.

    During consideration of the Fair Practices and Procedures in Auto

[[Page 8652]]

mobile Products Act of 1983 (1) in the Committee of the 
Whole on Nov. 2, 1983, (2) the Chair sustained a point of 
order against the amendment described above, demonstrating that an 
amendment making the effectiveness of a bill contingent on an unrelated 
event or determination is not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 1234.
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. 30525-27, 30541, 30542, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the remainder of the bill, H.R. 1234, is as 
    follows:
        sec. 2. congressional findings, purpose, and disclaimers.

            (a) Findings.--The Congress hereby finds that automotive 
        products are being imported into the United States for sale and 
        distribution in interstate commerce in such increased 
        quantities and under such conditions as to cause, or threaten 
        to cause, serious injury to the domestic manufacturers of like 
        or directly competitive automotive products sold and 
        distributed in interstate commerce, and to the domestic workers 
        producing such products.
            (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to prevent or 
        remedy the serious injury described in subsection (a) to such 
        domestic manufacturers and workers for such time, as determined 
        by subsequent Act of Congress, as may be necessary by 
        encouraging the production in the United States of automotive 
        products which are sold and distributed in interstate commerce.
            (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 (1) 
        to confer jurisdiction upon any court of the Unied 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. 5. domestic content ratios for model year 1985 and 
        thereafter.

            (a) Ratios.--In order to carry out the purpose of this Act, 
        for each model year beginning after January 1, 1984, the 
        minimum domestic content ratio for a vehicle manufacturer shall 
        not be less than the higher of--
            (1) the domestic content ratio achieved by the vehicle 
        manufacturer in model year 1984 reduce by 10 per centum; or
            (2) the applicable minimum content ratio specified in the 
        following table: . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman: On page 27, after line 
        10, insert the following new subsection:
            ``(c) Inapplicability of Ratios in the Case of Presidential 
        Proclamation.--Ratios determined under this section shall have 
        no effect with regard to a nation in the event that the 
        President issues a proclamation not less than ninety days 
        before the first day of the model year stating that that nation 
        is not imposing unfair restrictions against the entry of

[[Page 8653]]

        United States products into its domestic market.''. . .

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment makes ineffective the content provisions of H.R. 1234 
    with regard to a nation if the President issues a proclamation that 
    such nation is not imposing unfair restrictions of any kind against 
    entry of U.S. products, not just automobiles, into the domestic 
    market. The amendment to be in order must be germane to the 
    committee substitute. The substitute relates to an injury suffered 
    by the domestic auto industry and its workers due to auto imports 
    sold in interstate commerce in the United States and establishes a 
    content level for the sale of autos in such commerce.
        It is not a general trade bill. It does not relate to other 
    U.S. products, such as beef, citrus, baseball bats, high technology 
    products--which in fact Japan does exclude.
        The purpose of the substitute is to remedy the injury with 
    respect to automobiles.
        The amendment's purpose is to halt the content level on a 
    nation by nation basis, contingent on the President finding that 
    each nation is not imposing unfair restrictions on any kind of 
    other product, be it citrus, beef, or whatever.
        To be germane, the amendment must meet the fundamental purpose 
    test. This amendment does not.
        Also, it must not contain an unrelated contingency, as noted by 
    the chairman on December 15, 1982, at page H 9879, concerning H.R. 
    5133. This amendment does contain such a contingency.
        The amendment is not confined to trade in autos. It covers a 
    broad range of products. It does not relate to the general subject 
    matter of the substitute.
        And, therefore, I urge the point of order be sustained.
        Mr. Glickman: Mr. Chairman, I will do my best to try to argue 
    with that extraordinarily good defense of the gentleman's point of 
    order.
        Mr. Chairman, I think, one, the bill might make reference to 
    things in a generic concept outside of automobiles, but the 
    ramification of this bill would definitely affect other sectors of 
    the economy. And, therefore, I think that the amendment is germane 
    on that ground.
        The bill was referred to the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee 
    because of trade implications. Hence, changes to address those 
    issues should be allowed on the floor as well.
        The amendment would not alter any other statutes and it merely 
    adds flexibility in implementing quotas. I would add that under the 
    committee bill the President has significant responsibilities in 
    that bill. And this amendment merely adds some additional 
    responsibilities to the President. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, while it is true that on its face the purpose of 
    this bill is to remedy automobile ratios and quotas, I think that 
    the intent of the bill, judging from all of its proponents, is to 
    slap some of our trading partners with respect to all products that 
    are involved in trade and, therefore, I think that the intent of 
    the amendment is germane.
        The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).

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

[[Page 8654]]

        The bill that is before the Committee deals with domestic 
    content with regard to automobiles. It does not deal with broader 
    trade issues that affect all other products.
        The amendment that the gentleman from Kansas has introduced in 
    its language provides:

            Ratios determined under this section shall have no effect 
        with regard to a nation in the event that the President issues 
        a proclamation not less than 90 days before the first day of 
        the model year stating that that nation is not imposing unfair 
        restrictions against the entry of U.S. products into its 
        domestic market.

        It is the position of the Chair that that opens it up to all 
    products and, therefore, extends it beyond the subject matter that 
    is contained within the bill.
        In addition to that, the Chair would cite the precedent of the 
    House that an amendment is not germane if it makes the 
    effectiveness of a bill contingent upon an unrelated event or 
    determination.
        It is for those reasons that the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Assistance to Israel--Presidential Certification as to Availability of 
    Energy Supplies

Sec. 31.22 An amendment making the effectiveness of a bill contingent 
    upon an unrelated event or determination is not germane; thus, to a 
    bill authorizing military assistance to Israel and funds for the 
    United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, an amendment 
    postponing the availability of funds to Israel until the President 
    certifies the existence of a designated level of energy supplies 
    for the United States is not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 11088 (4) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Dec. 11, 1973,(5) a point of order was 
raised and sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. A bill providing for emergency military assistance to Israel and 
        Cambodia.
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 40837, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: Page 4, after line 10, add 
        the following:
            ``Sec. 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
        none of the funds authorized to be appropriated under section 2 
        of this Act shall be available for use as provided in this Act 
        until the President determines and certifies to the Congress, 
        in writing, that current energy supplies available for use to 
        meet current energy needs of the United States have been 
        restored to the level of such supplies so available on October 
        5, 1973.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: .  .  . Mr. Chairman, 
    I make a point of order against the amendment in that it deals with 
    a subject

[[Page 8655]]

    that is not germane to the bill. As a matter of fact, it deals with 
    an energy crisis in an emergency situation. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order because the amendment would make the authority contained in 
    the bill dependent on an unrelated contingency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination as to Lifting by Soviet Union of Restrictions on 
    Emigration

Sec. 31.23 An amendment delaying the operation of proposed legislation 
    pending an unrelated contingency is not germane; accordingly, to a 
    bill amending the United Nations Participation Act by making 
    inapplicable thereto the provisions of a section of the Strategic 
    and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, thereby reimposing the 
    United Nations embargo on the importation of Rhodesian chrome, an 
    amendment permitting the continued importation of such chrome so 
    long as chrome is imported from the Soviet Union unless the 
    President determines that the Soviet Union has lifted the 
    restrictions against the emigration of its citizens, thus delaying 
    the operation of the proposed legislation pending an unrelated 
    contingency, was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 1287 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Sept. 25, 1975,(7) the Chair sustained a point of order in 
the circumstances described above. The pending language of the bill and 
the amendment offered thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 30226, 30227, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 5(a) of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 
        (22 U.S.C. 287c(a)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new sentence: ``section 10 of the Strategic and 
        Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (60 Stat. 596; 50 U.S.C. 
        98-98h) shall not apply to prohibitions or regulations 
        established under the authority of this section.''. . . .

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski: Page 2, line 2, 
        immediately after ``section'' and before the first period 
        insert the following: ``; except that this section shall not 
        apply with respect to the importation into the United States of 
        chromium of Southern Rhodesian origin so long as chromium is 
        imported into the United States from the Union of Soviet 
        Socialist Republics, unless the President determines that the 
        gov

[[Page 8656]]

        ernment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--
            ``(1) grants its citizens the right or opportunity to 
        emigrate;
            ``(2) does not impose more than a nominal tax on emigration 
        or on the visas or other documents required for emigration, for 
        any purpose or cause whatsoever; and
            ``(3) does not impose more than a nominal tax, levy, fine, 
        or other charge on any citizen as a consequence of the desire 
        of such citizen to emigrate to the country of his choice.''

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment as offere Illinois, in my 
    judgment, is not germane under rule XVI, clause 7. It is 
    introducing a subject which is different from the one dealt with in 
    the bill and would change the scope of the bill considerably.
        The bill itself simply allows the President to promulgate 
    prohibition and regulations under United Nations Participation Act 
    to give effect to its decisions. This introduces wholly extraneous 
    matter that has nothing to do with the United Nations Participation 
    Act or acts of the United Nations Security Council or the subject 
    of the bill. . . .
        Mr. Derwinski: . . . May I point out to the Chairman that 
    section 2 of the bill was added in the subcommittee, and that in 
    and of itself, section 2 addresses itself to subject matter 
    considerably beyond the scope of the original bill.
        It in effect introduces substantial technical requirements that 
    go far beyond the issue of the United Nations Participation Act.
        Mr. Chairman, there are numerous precedents in the House, 
    whereby once an amendment has been accepted that substantially 
    enlarges the scope of the bill, further amendments so doing are in 
    order.
        Section 2, obviously, has been ruled germane, has been judged 
    germane. It substantially expands the scope of the measure before 
    us, goes far beyond the mere amendments to the United Nations 
    Participation Act and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, logically, I 
    believe, my amendment would be in order. . . .
        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    further point out in support of the argument of the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) that this is in effect an amendment to 
    section 10 of the Stockpile Act.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Derwinski) only goes to that basis, so undoubtedly his amendment 
    would be in order. . . .
        Mr. Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the 
    argument of the gentleman from Illinois.
        Section 2 deals with the United Nations Participation Act and 
    so does section 1. Neither are in any sense related to the subject 
    matter which the gentleman has sought to introduce in his 
    amendment. The gentleman is introducing a whole new subject which 
    has no relevance or germaneness to the basic thrust of the bill.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chairman is prepared to rule 
    on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        With regard to the argument made by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr.

[[Page 8657]]

    Fraser) when he last stood, the Chair would also point out that 
    while it was necessary to obtain from the Committee on Rules a rule 
    waiving points of order on that particular committee amendment 
    which would indicate that it might not be germane in the first 
    instance, and in any event, the committee amendment has not been 
    adopted and is not part of the bill.
        The Chair would also point out that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) has this effect: The 
    effectiveness of the bill itself, the working of the bill itself, 
    is contingent upon certain things happening. And in the case of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski), 
    those contingencies in the amendment are wholly unrelated to the 
    substance of the bill.
        As authority, the Chair would point to Deschler's Procedure in 
    the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 28, section 24, on page 
    395, the section being entitled ``Amendment Postponing 
    Effectiveness of Legislation Pending Contingency.''
        In section 24.10, in the instance of an amendment ``To a bill 
    authorizing appropriations for the Arms Control and Disarmament 
    Agency, an amendment delaying the effectiveness of the 
    authorization until the Soviet Union `ceases to supply military 
    articles to our enemy in Vietnam,' was ruled out as not germane.''
        Also, in section 24.11, an amendment ``To a bill authorizing 
    funds for foreign assistance, an amendment making such aid to any 
    nation in Latin America contingent upon the enactment of tax reform 
    measures by that nation was ruled out as not germane.''
        In view of this, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Certification as to Impact of Grain Sales on Soviet Preparedness

Sec. 31.24 To a title of a bill authorizing the procurement, research 
    and development of certain military missile systems for one fiscl 
    year, broadened by amendment to restrict deployment beyond that 
    fiscal year of one system pending tests and reports to Congress, an 
    amendment permanently making expenditure of any funds for that 
    missile system contingent upon certification made by the Secretary 
    of Defense with respect to the impact of United States grain sales 
    on Soviet military preparedness was held to be not germane being an 
    unrelated contingency involving agricultural exports.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for 
fiscal 1984 (9) in the Committee of the Whole on July 21, 
1983,(10) the Chair, in sustaining a point of order against 
the amendment described above, reiterated

[[Page 8658]]

the principle that it is not germane to make the authorization of funds 
in a bill contingent upon unrelated events or policy determinations. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 2969.
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 20050, 20184, 20189, 20190, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 301. In addition to the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 103 for procurement of missiles for the 
        Air Force, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Air Force for fiscal year 1984 for procurement of missiles the 
        sum of $2,557,800,000 to be available only for the MX missile 
        program.

        research, development, test, and evaluation for mx missile and 
                          small mobile missile systems

            Sec. 302 (a) In addition to the amount authorized to be 
        appropriated in section 201 for research, development, test, 
        and evaluation for the Air Force, there is hereby authorized to 
        be appropriated to the Air Force for fiscal year 1984 for 
        research, development, test, and evaluation for the land-based 
        strategic ballistic missile modernization program--
            (1) $1,980,389,000 to be available only for research, 
        development, test, and evaluation for the MX missile program . 
        . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) Are there amendments 
    to title III?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Price: Page 16, after line 18, insert 
    the following new section:

                       limitation on expenditure of funds

            Sec. 303. (a) None of the funds authorized by clause (2) of 
        section 302(a) may be obligated or expended for research, 
        development, test, or evaluation for an intercontinental-range 
        mobile ballistic missile that would weigh more than 33,000 
        pounds or that would carry more than a single warhead.
            (b) The Secretary of Defense may not deploy more than 10 MX 
        missiles until--
            (1) demonstration of subsystems and testing of components 
        of the small mobile intercontinental ballistic missile system 
        (including missile guidance and propulsion subsystems) have 
        occurred . . .
            (c) The Secretary of Defense may not deploy more than 40 MX 
        missiles until--

            (1) the major elements (including the guidance and control 
        subsystems) of a mobile missile weighing less than 33,000 
        pounds as a part of an intercontinental ballistic missile 
        system have been flight tested. . . .
            (d)(1) Not later than January 15 of each year from 1984 
        through 1988, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
        Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
        Representatives a report--
            (A) on the progress being made with respect to the 
        development and deployment of the MX missile system.

    The amendment offered by Mr. Price was agreed to.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 20187, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: At the end of title III, 
        add the following new section:

[[Page 8659]]

                            limitation on mx program

            Sec. 303. No funds may be expended for the MX missile 
        program during any fiscal year during which United States grain 
        suppliers make sales of grain to the Soviet Union, except that 
        the preceding limitation shall not apply during any fiscal year 
        if the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the sale 
        of grain to the Soviet Union by United States grain suppliers 
        during that year will not assist the Soviet Union in preparing, 
        maintaining, or providing for its armed forces. . . .

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: . . . I make a point of order 
    that the amendment is not germane to title III . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is not germane to--title 
    III. Although title III was originally a 1-year authorization, it 
    has been amended by the Price amendment to go beyond fiscal year 
    1984.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver) would 
    be a permanent change in the law making the MX program conditional 
    upon an unrelated contingency involving agricultural exports. Under 
    the precedents the amendment is not germane and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price).

Report to Congress on Costs of Program

Sec. 31.25 To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    International Relations authorizing appropriations for humanitarian 
    and evacuation assistance to war refugees in South Vietnam, an 
    amendment making that authorization contingent upon a report to 
    Congress on the costs of a portion of the evacuation program, but 
    not requiring the implementation of any new program within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee was held germane as a related 
    contingency.

    During consideration of H.R. 6096 in the Committee of the Whole, a 
point of order was raised against an amendment offered by Mr. Glenn M. 
Anderson, of California. The proceedings of Apr. 23, 
1975,(13) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 11529, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of California: On page 1, 
    line 5, after ``Sec. 2.'' insert the following:

            Upon the conclusion of a report prepared by the Secretary 
        of State, after consultation with the Secretary of Health, 
        Education, and Welfare and the Attorney General, and submitted 
        to Congress within forty-eight hours of enactment of this Act, 
        estimating the costs for the relocation, housing, feeding and 
        medical care of those persons eligible for evacuation under 
        Sec. 4(d) of this Act over a five-year period . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]his bill before us is for evacuation only. It does not deal 
    with relocation of

[[Page 8660]]

    any people to be evacuated. The amendment goes far beyond the 
    limits of the bill, and is certainly not germane. . . .
        Mr. Anderson of California: . . . Mr. Chairman, my amendment 
    does not deal with relocation either. It is merely an extension of 
    the present bill. It has nothing new except for some facts which we 
    ought to have before voting on this bill. It says that upon 
    conclusion of the report prepared by the Secretary of State within 
    48 hours estimating the cost, this act will be acted upon.
        It does nothing new. It just says that within 48 hours the 
    Congress and the people of the United States should know how much 
    it is going to cost them; how many of these people are going to be 
    brought in. It adds no additional responsibilities.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, in 
    the purpose of the bill it says that it is to authorize funds for 
    humanitarian assistance and evacuation programs. The reason the 
    gentleman from California is concerned is because the County of Los 
    Angeles has been notified that they must receive these people 
    coming from Vietnam. They are not just American citizens, but South 
    Vietnamese people.
        They do not have the funds to take care of the medical care, 
    the feeding and all the rest. Of course, this is part of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the Chair that this bill is for the 
    evacuation programs of Vietnam, and it will be a problem for 
    Hawaii, California and all parts on the west coast.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from California does not 
    create any new program. It does not establish any unrelated 
    contingency, nor does it disrupt any program called for in the 
    basic bill. It simply is a request for a report on the costs of a 
    part of the evacuation program in the opinion of the Chair, and is 
    germane to the pending section.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Treaty Initiatives Toward Arms Control

Sec. 31.26 It is not germane to make the effectiveness of an 
    authorization contingent upon an unrelated determination involving 
    agencies and the jurisdiction of committees not within the purview 
    of the authorization bill; thus, to a title of a bill authorizing 
    appropriations for procurement of military weapons, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of those funds for procurement of a certain 
    weapon until the President certifies to Congress that he has taken 
    certain treaty initiatives toward arms control was held to be not 
    germane.

    On July 8, 1981,(15) during consideration of the 
Department of

[[Page 8661]]

Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1982 (16) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against 
the amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 127 Cong. Rec. 15008, 15010, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 3519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        authorization of appropriations

            Sec. 101. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated 
        for fiscal year 1982 for the use of the Armed Forces of the 
        United States for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval 
        vessels, tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons 
        in amounts as follows: . . .

                                    missiles

            For missiles: for the Army, $2,745,800,000; for the Navy 
        $2,484,800,000; for the Marine Corps, $223,024,000; for the Air 
        Force, $4,593,246,000. . . .

        Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lowry of Washington: At the end of 
        title I (page 5, after line 23), add the following new section:

         limitation on procurement of pershing ii missiles and ground-
                            launched cruise missiles

            Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to the 
        authorization of appropriations in section 101 for missiles for 
        the Army may be obligated or expended for procurement of 
        Pershing II missiles, and none of the funds appropriated 
        pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in such section 
        for missiles for the Air Force may be obligated or expended for 
        procurement of ground-launched cruise missiles, until the 
        President has certified to the Congress that the United States 
        has forwarded to the Soviet Union initial proposals for 
        limitations on theater nuclear force (TNF) weapons in Europe 
        within the framework of strategic arms limitation talks (SALT).

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment as being a violation of rule 
    16 regarding germaneness. That rule requires that instructions, 
    qualifications, and limitations must be germane to the provisions 
    of the bill.
        It is my contention that the condition here stated in the 
    pending amendment is totally unrelated to the provisions of the 
    bill and in fact lies within the jurisdiction of another committee, 
    namely, whether the United States has or has not forwarded to the 
    Soviet Union initial proposals for limitation on theater nuclear 
    force weapons in Europe within the framework of the strategic arms 
    limitation talks. That has no bearing whatsoever on the authority 
    or the responsibility of the Armed Services Committee or this 
    pending legislation. . . .
        Mr. Lowry of Washington: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe this 
    amendment is in order. To say that there is not a process on this 
    House floor in which we can hold contingent this Nation's 
    commitments to arms limitations, contingent upon expenditure that 
    we are making for armament allows us no place on which to make the 
    statement that is very necessary in this world as to our position 
    commitment to arms limitations talks contingent as a dual process 
    as agreed in 1979 with NATO for the modernization of our nuclear 
    forces there.

[[Page 8662]]

        So I would ask that this amendment be held in order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington on the grounds 
    it is not germane to title I of the bill.
        The amendment would condition the use of funds authorized in 
    section 101 for the Pershing missile on a certification by the 
    President that certain U.S. proposals have been made in the SALT 
    negotiations relative to weapons in Europe.
        It is not germane to make the effectiveness of a bill or 
    authorization contingent upon an unrelated event or determination. 
    As stated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 24.25, to a 
    provision rescinding funds for the B-1 bomber, an amendment to 
    delay the effectiveness of the rescission until ratification of a 
    SALT II Treaty was held not germane on February 22, 1978. Since the 
    condition involved actions by agencies and authorities not charged 
    with administration of the B-1 bomber program, and since the SALT 
    II negotiations involved a broad range of arms control issues not 
    necessarily related to the B-1 program.
        The Chair would further point out that arms control 
    negotiations fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs, and not within the jurisdiction of the committee 
    reporting this bill, and that nothing in title I addresses such 
    negotiations.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 31.27 It is not germane to make the effectiveness of an 
    authorization contingent upon an unrelated determination involving 
    issues within the jurisdiction of agencies and committees outside 
    the purview of the pending bill; thus, to a title of a bill 
    authorizing appropriations for research on and development of 
    military weapons, an amendment prohibiting the use of those funds 
    for development of a certain weapon until the President resumes 
    treaty initiatives toward arms control was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for 
fiscal year 1982 (18) in the Committee of the Whole on July 
9, 1981,(19) the Chair sustained a point of order against 
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 3519.
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 15218, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bedell: After section 203 insert the 
    following new section:

                       limitation on funds for mx missile
            Sec. 204. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
        by section 201 may be obligated or expended for the full-scale 
        development

[[Page 8663]]

        of an operational basing mode for the MX missile until the 
        President--

            (1) has completed his review of previous strategic arms 
        limitation (SALT) negotiations;
            (2) is prepared to resume strategic arms limitation 
        negotiations with the Soviet Union, one of the principal aims 
        of such negotiations being to establish a limit on the number 
        of intercontinental ballistic missile launchers and deployable 
        warheads available to both sides; and
            (3) formally transmitted to the Soviet Union his desire to 
        resume such negotiations.

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Madam Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        It is a violation of House rule 16 regarding germaneness. That 
    rule requires instructions, qualifications, and limitations to be 
    germane to the provisions of the bill.
        It is my contention that the condition here is totally 
    unrelated to the provisions of the bill and in fact lies within the 
    jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
        Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: . . . Madam Chairman, I am not 
    a specialist on rules, but it would appear to me very clearly that 
    for us to say that we are not going to spend money on a system 
    which would not be of value unless something else happens is 
    perfectly germane and perfectly proper for us to do.
        We do it in our small business disaster loans when we say small 
    business disaster loans will not be made unless the Governor of the 
    State declares there has been a disaster therein.
        We do the same thing in regard to disaster payments for 
    agriculture when we say that the people will not be eligible unless 
    Federal crop insurance is there.
        It appears to me that we have clearly pointed out in the debate 
    that we have had that without SALT II it is at least questionable 
    as to whether MX makes any sense at all, and if we do have rules in 
    the House which say that we cannot have amendments which say that 
    we will not spend money on something that is going to be valueless 
    unless something occurs, if we have amendments that say that we 
    cannot make the spending contingent upon that action which would be 
    necessary to make the expenditure of any value, then I submit that 
    we had better look at the rules of the House. . . .

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) . . . [T]he Chair is 
    prepared to rule on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment makes use of funds for the MX missile dependent 
    upon certain actions by the President relative to the SALT 
    negotiations. Since arms control issues are within the jurisdiction 
    of the Foreign Affairs Committee and not the Armed Services 
    Committee, and for same reasons stated by the Chair yesterday, in 
    sustaining a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Washington, the Chair sustains the point of order of 
    the gentleman from Illinois.

Ratification of Salt II Treaty

Sec. 31.28 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    rescinding funds for

[[Page 8664]]

    continued construction and development of the B-1 bomber program, 
    an amendment proposed in a motion to concur therein with an 
    amendment, to delay the effectiveness of the rescission until after 
    either House of Congress so approves and until after ratification 
    by the Senate of a Salt II treaty, was ruled out as an unrelated 
    contingency, since it was not germane in that the condition 
    involved actions by agencies and authorities not charged with 
    administration of the B-1 bomber program, and the Salt II 
    negotiations involved a broad range of arms control issues not 
    necessarily related to the B-1 bomber program.

    The proceedings of Feb. 22, 1978, relating to consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 9375 (supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
year 1978) are discussed in Sec. 27.29, supra.

Compliance With Treaties

Sec. 31.29 To a bill providing for foreign economic assistance and 
    relating in a general way to agreements between this nation and 
    other nations, an amendment intended to enforce compliance with 
    provisions of treaties was held germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill (1) 
to provide foreign economic assistance, the following amendment was 
offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 7797 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 4427, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 30, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Page 
    11 . . . after line 18 insert the following:

            (k)(1) Treaties between the United States and nations 
        assisted hereunder . . . shall remain in full force unless 
        renegotiated. . . .
            (2) None of the local currencies required by section 
        115(b)(6) of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as amended, 
        to be deposited in local currency accounts, shall be made 
        available for expenditure by any recipient country so long as 
        any dependent area of such a country fails to comply with any 
        treaty between the United States and the said dependent area.
            (3) After July 1950, no assistance herein contemplated 
        shall be used to promote recovery in the French protectorate of 
        Morocco except during such time as the Secretary of State shall 
        certify to the Administrator that the protectorate is complying 
        with its treaties with the United States. . . .

        A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
        Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: . . . (The amendment) deals 
    with matters entirely foreign to this bill and is not germane 
    either to the bill before us or the title to which it is offered.

[[Page 8665]]

        The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill itself is very broad, relating to bilateral and 
    multilateral agreements between this Nation and other nations. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, therefore, 
    dealing with a subject matter thereunder is, in the opinion of the 
    Chair, germane to the bill.

Settlement of Hostilities in Vietnam

Sec. 31.30 To a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an 
    amendment holding in abeyance, ``until 90 days after the final 
    settlement of hostilities . . . in Vietnam,'' all foreign 
    assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act, was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1967 
(4) was under consideration which stated in part: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 12048 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 24002, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 24, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Part V--Eligibility of Certain Participants in Future Foreign Aid 
                                  Programs

        Sec. 502. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever 
    any individual, firm, or entity . . . participating in any aid 
    transaction financed with funds made available under the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, has been found by the Inspector 
    General, Foreign Assistance, to have . . . engaged in bribery or 
    other illegal or fraudulent payments or credits in connection with 
    such transaction, such individual, firm, or entity shall not be 
    permitted to participate in any program or operation financed under 
    such Act.

    The following proceedings related to an amendment offered by Mr. 
Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Waggonner:

        On page 46, line 5, add a new section numbered 503 to read:

            ``Sec. 503. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all 
        funds except for those countries in this hemisphere, and those 
        who render us assistance in Vietnam, authorized or appropriated 
        under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, shall be 
        held in abeyance until 90 days after the final settlement of 
        hostilities and the fighting in Vietnam.''

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: The chairman of the full committee having 
    reserved a point of order, it leaves to me the right to speak to 
    the merits of this amend

[[Page 8666]]

    ment and later to speak to the point of order, does it not?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. Waggonner: . . . I do not believe that the Chair can justly 
    say that this is not germane because, Mr. Chairman, this bill 
    already restricts the eligibility requirements for certain 
    participants and this amendment makes exception of those who are in 
    this hemisphere and those who are going to help us in Vietnam. . . 
    . This Congress can place any limitation on assistance they choose. 
    We have done it already on several occasions tonight.
        The Chairman: . . . The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana would delay the operation of this proposed legislation 
    for an unrelated contingency.
        The Chair would like to refer to section 3037 of Cannon's 
    Precedents of the House of Representatives, volume 8, to the 
    effect:

            An amendment delaying operation of proposed legislation 
        pending an unrelated contingency was held not to be germane. . 
        . .

        The Chair . . . sustains the point of order.

Consent of Congress Required for Evacuation of Persons to Any State

Sec. 31.31 To a bill dealing with the evacuation of certain 
    individuals, an amendment prohibiting their evacuation to any of 
    the states of the United States without the consent of Congress, 
    was held to relate to the evacuation process, not to immigration 
    policy, and was therefore germane.

    During consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation 
Assistance Act (7) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 23, 
1975,(8) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 6096.
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 11546, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Casey: Page 3, after line 3, 
        insert (e) none of the ``other foreign nationals'' referred to 
        in paragraph (d) shall be evacuated to any of the States of the 
        United States, without the express consent of Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment in that the amendment is not 
    germane. It deals with the immigration policy, and would change the 
    standards on immigration. . . .
        Mr. Casey: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment would change no 
    standards on immigration except that the classified people under 
    paragraph (d) of section 4 which says that--

            . . . none of the other foreign nationals referred to in 
        paragraph (d) shall be evacuated to any of the States of the 
        United States without the express consent of the Congress.

        It is certainly germane, because it has to do with the 
    evacuation of these people under section (d) of section 4.

[[Page 8667]]

        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the amendment does not limit the operation of 
    the bill. It pertains strictly to the evacuation process. It does 
    not mention immigration policy. It simply says that persons in a 
    certain category of evacuees contained in the bill cannot be 
    evacuated to any of the States of the United States without the 
    consent of the Congress. Therefore the amendment is germane, and 
    the point of order is not sustained.

Cessation of Soviet Aid to Vietnam

Sec. 31.32 To a bill authorizing appropriations for the Arms Control 
    and Disarmament Agency, an amendment delaying the effectiveness of 
    the authorization until the Soviet Union ``ceases to supply 
    military articles to our enemy in Vietnam,'' was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(10) amending the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Act,(11) the following amendment was offered: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 14940 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
11. See 114 Cong. Rec. 5414, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1968.
12. Id. at p. 5426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On the first page, line 7, 
    strike out the period and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
    ``and at the end of such second sentence strike out the period and 
    insert in lieu thereof the following: 
    `: Provided, That the authorization for appropriations contained in 
    this Act shall not be effective until such time as the Soviet 
    Union, which is the United States' co-sponsor of the draft treaty 
    on non-proliferation (negotiated for the United States by the Arms 
    Control and Disarmament Agency), ceases to supply military articles 
    to our enemy in Vietnam, as determined by the President of the 
    United States.' ''

    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 is not germane and 
    contains matter not covered by the present act under discussion.

    Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, stated in response:

        I call the attention of the Chair to the Congressional Record, 
    volume 110, part 1, page 144. On that date the House was 
    considering an authorization bill. In connection with that 
    authorization I offered an amendment which read as follows:

            The authorization for an appropriation contained in this 
        Act shall not be effective until such time as the receipts of 
        the Government for the preceding fiscal year have exceeded the 
        expenditures of the Government for such year, as determined by 
        the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.

        On that occasion the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Jones) made a 
    point of

[[Page 8668]]

    order against the amendment, and the Chair ruled that the point of 
    order was not well taken.
        The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard H. Fulton (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The purpose of this legislation today is it authorizes an 
    appropriation of $33 million to finance the operation of the Arms 
    Control and Disarmament Agency for a 3-year period. The purpose of 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois would delay 
    the use of any appropriated funds pending an unrelated contingency. 
    Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    The following exchange ensued:

        Mr. Findley: Will the Chair hear me further on that point?
        The Chairman: The Chair has already ruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The precedent cited by Mr. Findley, 
discussed at Sec. 31.16, supra, supported the view that where an 
amendment seeks to adopt as a measure of the availability of certain 
authorizations contained in the bill a condition that is logically 
relevant and objectively discernible, the amendment does not present an 
unrelated contingency and is germane. Thus, for example, although it is 
not germane to make the effectiveness of an authorization contingent 
upon an unrelated determination involving issues within the 
jurisdiction of agencies and committees outside the purview of the 
pending bill,(14) it has been held that an amendment 
imposing on the availability of funds to carry out a certain activity a 
conditional restriction that merely requires observation of similar 
activities of another country, which similar conduct already 
constitutes the policy basis for the pending funding of that activity, 
may be germane as a related contingency.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 31.27, supra.
15. See Sec. 31.15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Security Assistance to South Korea--Testimony by Korean Ambassador as 
    to Gifts to House Members

Sec. 31.33 To a foreign aid security assistance bill authorizing the 
    transfer of defense articles to South Korea, and amended to impose 
    foreign policy conditions on the furnishing of security assistance 
    to other designated nations, an amendment prohibiting the use of 
    authorities in the bill to furnish defense articles to South Korea 
    until its former ambassador testifies before a House committee 
    investigating whether Members or employees have been influenced in 
    their legislative duties by receiving gifts

[[Page 8669]]

    from that nation, was held germane as a contingency that was 
    related to authorities and other contingencies contained in the 
    bill.

    On Aug. 2, 1978,(16) during consideration of H.R. 12514 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 23932, 23933, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jacobs: Page 19, immediately after 
        line 22, insert the following new section:

                            testimony of kim dong jo

            Sec. 24. Until such time as the Committee on Standards of 
        Official Conduct of the House of Representatives announces that 
        Kim Dong Jo, the former Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to 
        the United States, has given testimony to that Committee in the 
        investigation it is conducting pursuant to H. Res. 252 of the 
        Ninety-fifth Congress--
            (1) no funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may 
        be used to provide assistance for the Republic of Korea; and
            (2) the authority granted by section 19 of this Act may not 
        be exercised. . . .

        Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    say the amendment is out of order under clause 7, rule XVI, as 
    being nongermane to the bill and outside of the scope of the bill. 
    It is outside the scope of the bill, because the bill relates to 
    military assistance.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote clause 28, section 
    24.9 from Deschler's Procedure:

            To a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an 
        amendment holding in abeyance, ``until 90 days after the final 
        settlement of hostilities . . . in Vietnam,'' all foreign 
        assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act, was ruled out as 
        not germane.

        Further, in that same clause, section 24.11:

            To a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an 
        amendment making such aid to any nation in Latin America 
        contingent upon the enactment of tax reform measures by that 
        nation was ruled out as not germane.

        I submit, Mr. Chairman, that to time the sanctions of this 
    amendment to such a time as Kim Dong Jo testifies is similar to and 
    right on all fours with the sections I have just read. . . .
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, the language of the amendment deals 
    with nothing more by its own terms than the contents of the instant 
    legislation, No. 1 and No. 2, the amendment clearly is a related 
    contingency with respect to and on all four corners with the funds 
    authorized by this legislation.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California (Mr. Lagomarsino) makes a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Indiana (Mr. Jacobs) on the point that it is beyond the scope of 
    the committee bill. The Chair would

[[Page 8670]]

    like to point out that the committee bill does relate to military 
    assistance, which this amendment directs itself to. Had the 
    amendment been offered earlier in the reading, before the funds for 
    South Korea were before the committee and prior to the adoption of 
    the various amendments in the Committee of the Whole, including the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) which 
    placed a condition upon funds being authorized under this act, then 
    the point of order might have been viewed differently. However, the 
    contingency expressed in the amendment does relate to the 
    relationship between this country and the South Korean Government 
    and specifically to the point of information relating to future 
    furnishing of U.S. military assistance to that nation, so that the 
    Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order.

Measures by Foreign Governments To Control Drug Traffic

Sec. 31.34 To that section in a military procurement bill limiting 
    funds available to United States Armed Forces for the support of 
    Vietnamese forces and local forces in Laos and Thailand, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which prohibited the use of 
    funds ``if the President determines that [the respective 
    governments have] failed to take appropriate steps to prevent 
    narcotic drugs'' produced in those countries from entering the 
    United States, and which authorized the President to utilize 
    federal agencies and facilities to assist those governments in such 
    efforts.

    In the 92d Congress, during consideration of a bill (18) 
comprising a military procurement authorization for fiscal 1972, an 
amendment was offered (19) as described above. A point of 
order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 8687 (Committee on Armed Services).
19. 117 Cong. Rec. 20589, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proposed language as not germane to the 
    bill. It refers to a subject not included in the bill, the matter 
    of narcotic drugs, which is under the jurisdiction of another 
    committee.

    The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 20590, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The subject of narcotic drugs is not elsewhere introduced in 
    the pending bill, and the Chair notes that the amendment would 
    bring into contemplation agencies and departments of the Government 
    other than those in

[[Page 8671]]

    volved in the normal administration of the funds authorized by this 
    bill. It would give the President authority and responsibilities 
    which he does not have under existing law.
        The Chair has examined a precedent of the 90th Congress, 
    rendered when an amendment was offered to the foreign assistance 
    authorization bill for fiscal 1967. That amendment provided that 
    assistance to certain nations should be curtailed until the 
    President determined and reported to the Congress that those 
    countries have established tax reform measures.
        The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole on that occasion, 
    Mr. Price of Illinois, ruled that the amendment was not germane. 
    Record, page 23977, August 24, 1967.
        The Chair holds that the amendment introduces agencies and 
    concepts not appearing otherwise in the pending bill, rendering the 
    amendment not germane.

Use of Inactive Gold Fund

Sec. 31.35 To a bill extending certain excise taxes levied under two 
    specific statutes, an amendment providing that the bill shall be 
    inoperative ``until the inactive gold fund of the United States 
    Treasury is used to defray expenditures'' was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
providing for extension of certain excise taxes. An amendment was 
offered (3) by Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas, who 
stated,(4) by way of explaining the amendment and responding 
to a point of order: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.J. Res. 375 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 3. 81 Cong. Rec. 5620, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1937.
 4. Id. at p. 5621.
 5. The point of order that the amendment was not germane to the bill 
        had been raised by Mr. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, the proposed act seeks to extend the tax 
    provisions for a period of 2 years. All this proposed amendment 
    seeks to do is say that the act shall not be operative until 
    certain conditions occur. The amendment does not seek to force the 
    Treasury to utilize gold but is simply the exercise of an undoubted 
    prerogative on the part of Congress to say that until certain 
    conditions happen the act shall not be operative. . . .

    The Chairman,(6) sustaining the point of order, cited 
the principle that, ``An amendment delaying operation of proposed 
legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not germane,'' and, 
further, that, ``A different subject from that under consideration may 
not be proposed under the guise of a limitation.'' The following 
amendment was then offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Page 1, 
    line 12, after the period, insert ``Provided how

[[Page 8672]]

    ever, That the taxes herein imposed shall not be levied or 
    collected until the Secretary of the Treasury has utilized for 
    currency purposes all the inactive, unpledged, and unallocated gold 
    owned and held by the United States Treasury.''

    Mr. Cooper having again raised a point of order against the 
amendment, the Chairman ruled as follows:

        In addition to the authorities cited by the Chair in the former 
    ruling, the Chair calls attention to sections 3033 and 3034 of 
    volume 8 of Cannon's Precedents, the first holding that an 
    amendment is not necessarily germane because presented in the form 
    of a limitation, and the second holding that it is not in order to 
    propose by way of limitation propositions on subjects different 
    from that under consideration.
        The pending resolution has to do with providing revenue, 
    whereas the amendment has to do with the use of gold for currency 
    purposes.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Contributions to International Monetary Fund Contingent on Change in 
    Monetary Policy

Sec. 31.36 To a bill authorizing federal financial contributions to 
    international lending institutions, an amendment making that 
    contribution contingent upon enactment of a change in federal 
    monetary policy having domestic implications and involving agencies 
    beyond the scope of the bill is not germane; thus, to a bill 
    authorizing United States contributions to international financial 
    institutions and dealing with United States monetary policy as it 
    relates to international lending, amendments directing the 
    Secretary of the Treasury to establish a par value for the dollar 
    in gold, and making United States contributions to the 
    International Monetary Fund contingent upon that change in monetary 
    policy was held to be not germane, because affecting domestic 
    monetary policy issues beyond the scope of the bill.

    During consideration of the International Recovery and Financial 
Stability Act (7) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 3, 
1983,(8) the Chair sustained points of order in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 2957.
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 22663, 22664, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.

[[Page 8673]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 19, line 16, 
        insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 40.''
            Page 19, after line 20, insert the following:
            ``(b)(1) Not later than eighteen months after the date of 
        the enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall establish a par value for the dollar in gold and 
        thereafter shall redeem in gold at such price all Federal 
        Reserve notes which are presented to the Secretary for 
        redemption.
            ``(2) Subsection (a) shall not take effect until the date 
        on which the Secretary of the Treasury transmits a notice to 
        both Houses of the Congress specifying that the Secretary has 
        complied with the provisions of paragraph (1).''. . . .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    raise a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    affects matters beyond the scope of the legislation and is 
    therefore not germane.
        The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to take certain 
    actions regarding the IMF international lending institutions, and 
    affects lending by U.S. banks.
        The amendment requires the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem 
    gold for Federal Reserve notes. This, in return, would require the 
    Federal Reserve to manage the money supply with an eye toward 
    keeping the market and dollar-convertible gold prices equal. Such a 
    policy would be an abrupt shift from managing the money supply to 
    maximize U.S. employment and price stability, as is now required by 
    the Federal Reserve Act. Neither of these topics--the Secretary's 
    responsibilities with respect to the value of gold, nor the 
    monetary policy duties of the Federal Reserve--are covered by the 
    legislation.
        Thus, the amendment would require the Secretary of the Treasury 
    and the Federal Reserve to take actions beyond the scope of the 
    bill and far different in character than those required in the 
    bill. I ask the Chair to rule the amendment out of order.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Dannemeyer) seek to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dannemeyer: Yes; I do, Mr. Chairman.

            1. Deschler's Procedure, Chapter 28 Sec. 14.4: ``The rule 
        on germaneness does not require that an amendment offered as a 
        separate section be germane to the preceding section of the 
        bill, but it is sufficient that it is germane to the subject 
        matter of the bill as a whole.''

            2. Chapter 28 Sec. 14.14: (Parliamentarian's Note) ``The 
        general rule that an amendment must be germane to the portion 
        of the bill to which offered is limited by the proposition that 
        an amendment in the form of a new section or paragraph need not 
        necessarily be germane to the section or paragraph immediately 
        preceding it.'' (8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2932, 2935).
            3. Chapter 28 Sec. 14.10: ``An amendment in the form of a 
        new section need not necessarily be germane to the preceding 
        section of the bill, it being sufficient, where the bill 
        contains diverse subjects, that the amendment relate to the 
        bill as a whole.''

        And the final point:

            4. Deschler's Procedure, Chapter 27 Sec. 27.14: ``To a bill 
        continuing au

[[Page 8674]]

        thority under existing law to make contributions to an 
        international financial organization and authorizing 
        appropriations for those contributions, an amendment adding a 
        further restriction on the use of U.S. contributions to those 
        already contained in that law is germane.''

        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the point 
    of order is not well taken.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair agrees with the gentleman from Rhode Island that the 
    matter covered by this amendment goes well beyond the scope of this 
    bill and deals with the responsibilities of the Secretary of the 
    Treasury in managing monetary policy of this country and also goes 
    to the question of the powers of the Federal Reserve Board.
        For that reason, the point of order is sustained. The amendment 
    is not in order.

    Mr. Dannemeyer then offered another amendment, as follows:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 19, line 16, 
        insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 40.''
            Page 19, after line 20, insert the following:
            ``(b)(1) Not later than eighteen months after the date of 
        the enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall establish a par value for the dollar in gold.
            ``(2) Subsection (a) shall not take effect until the date 
        on which the Secretary of the Treasury transmits a notice to 
        both Houses of the Congress specifying that the Secretary has 
        complied with the provisions of paragraph (1).''. . .

        Mr. St Germain: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against 
    the amendment on the ground that it affects matters beyond the 
    scope of the legislation and is therefore not germane.
        The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to take certain 
    actions regarding the IMF, international lending institutions and 
    affects lending by U.S. banks.
        The amendment requires the Secretary of the Treasury to 
    establish a par value for the dollar in gold. In order to do this 
    the Secretary would have to take some action in the gold market to 
    defend this action, such as agreeing to sell gold at its par value. 
    This, in turn, would require the Federal Reserve to manage the 
    money supply with an eye toward keeping the market and dollar-
    convertible gold prices equal. Such a policy would be an abrupt 
    shift from managing the money supply to maximize U.S. employment 
    and price stability, as is now required by the Federal Reserve Act. 
    Neither of these topics--the Secretary's responsibilities with 
    respect to the value of gold, nor the monetary policy duties of the 
    Federal Reserve--are covered by the legislation.
        Thus, the amendment would require the Secretary of the Treasury 
    and the Federal Reserve to take actions beyond the scope of the 
    bill and far different in character than those required in the 
    bill. I ask the Chair to rule the amendment out of order. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . The distinction between this amendment 
    and the one that this Member from California previously offered is 
    very simple. I have deleted from the amendment that is now pending 
    before the committee the paragraph or the clause that says:

[[Page 8675]]

    ``and thereafter shall redeem in gold at such price all Federal 
    Reserve notes which are presented to the Secretary for 
    redemption.''
        That clause is gone.
        It is the opinion of this Member from California that the 
    deletion of that clause will eliminate the impediment which caused 
    the Chair to previously rule that the point of order to the 
    previous amendment should be and was sustained.
        And the points of authority I would like to cite on behalf of 
    that position are consistent with the points and authorities that I 
    cited with respect to the previous point of order on that 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would rule that the distinctions between this 
    amendment and the one previously offered are minor distinctions and 
    that the reasoning advanced by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
    St Germain) on the point of order against the previous amendment 
    also holds true for this amendment.
        The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in 
    order.

Tax Reform in Foreign Nation

Sec. 31.37 To a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an 
    amendment making such aid to any nation in Latin America contingent 
    upon the enactment of tax reform measures by that nation was held 
    to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1967,(10) the following amendment was 
offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 12048 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 23977, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 24, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Ellis Y.] Berry [of South Dakota]: On 
    page 37, after line 24, insert the following:

            (5) At the end of section 620 add the following new 
        subsection:
            ``(s) After December 31, 1967, no further assistance shall 
        be furnished under this Act to any country in Latin America 
        until the President determines and reports to the Congress that 
        the recipient country has established and implemented an 
        equitable and effective system of tax collection with respect 
        to taxes on real and personal property.''

    Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane. Contending that the point of order 
was not well taken, Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, stated: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 23978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, title I, chapter 2, section 208, is entitled 
    ``Self-Help Criteria.'' It says:

            In determining whether and to what extent the United States 
        should furnish development assistance to a country under this 
        chapter the President shall take into account--
            (a) the extent to which the country is taking such measures 
        as may be appropriate to its needs and capabilities to increase 
        food production. . . .

[[Page 8676]]

        . . . Section 208 describes in great detail the self-
    determination criteria which are required of these countries before 
    they will receive foreign assistance, so it is beyond comprehension 
    to me that when we require in one part of this bill very specific 
    self-help criteria on the part of those who receive assistance that 
    we would be willing to ignore it in every other area. . . .
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe the point of order is out of 
    order. This is simply an additional requirement to become eligible 
    for aid.

    The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he amendment would delay the operation of the proposed 
    legislation pending an unrelated contingency. Under a previous 
    precedent of the House to be found in Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    VIII, section 3037, a similar amendment was held not to be germane. 
    The present occupant of the chair, following that precedent, 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill Authorizing Radio Broadcasting to Cuba--Enactment of Law 
    Authorizing Broadcasts to South Africa

Sec. 31.38 To a bill authorizing funds for one purpose, an amendment 
    delaying the effectiveness of that authorization contingent upon 
    Congressional action on an unrelated subject is not germane; thus, 
    to a bill authorizing appropriations for radio broadcasting to 
    Cuba, an amendment prohibiting use of those funds until the 
    President proposes and Congress enacts a separate law authorizing 
    radio broadcasts to South Africa for purposes of imparting 
    information concerning conditions in that country was held to be 
    not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 5427 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Aug. 10, 1987,(14) Chairman William R. Ratchford, of 
Connecticut, sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 20256, 20257, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Leland: Page 6, after line 17, 
        insert the following:
            ``(2) The funds authorized in paragraph (1) shall not be 
        appropriated by the Congress unless the President proposes and 
        the Congress enacts legislation, subsequent to the enactment of 
        the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, which authorizes the Board 
        to provide accurate information to the people of South Africa 
        (through the use of radio broadcasting) regarding the existence 
        of apartheid and oppression in South Africa.''. . . .

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I do insist 
    on the point

[[Page 8677]]

    of order as being in violation under clause 7, rule XVI, as 
    nongermane and has nothing to do with the subject matter of the 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. Leland: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment is germane for 
    two reasons which I will explain.
        H.R. 5427 contains two basic proposals, neither of which are 
    specifically related to Cuba.
        First, that the foreign policy of the United States seeks to 
    guarantee the human rights of all persons as defined by the 
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in particular article 19 
    of that declaration. Article 19 says that it is the right of all 
    persons to ``seek, receive, and impart information and ideas 
    through any media and regardless of frontiers.'' That this is the 
    purpose of the bill is clearly stated in section 2 of H.R. 5427.
        Second, that the Board for International Broadcasting (BIB), to 
    carry out that purpose of our foreign policy, is authorized to 
    ``provide for the open communication of information and ideas 
    through the use of radio broadcasting.'' This is clearly stated in 
    section 3 of H.R. 5427, which is the operative clause of the bill. 
    It is the BIB which is being instructed to carry out this part of 
    our foreign policy.
        My amendment is perfectly consistent with the operative clause 
    of the bill (section 3), and with the broader foreign policy goals 
    of the bill. Surely it is not the intention of the President and of 
    the gentleman from Florida that article 19 of the Universal 
    Declaration of Human Rights applies only to Cuba. . . .
        Mr. Fascell: . . . The main purpose of this bill makes an 
    amendment to the Board for International Broadcasting nothing else 
    primarily, and the limitation on the policy findings are that it is 
    to the people of Cuba and radio broadcasting to Cuba, and nothing 
    else.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The point of order raised is on the issue of germaneness and 
    the Chair is persuaded that in spite of the strong arguments from 
    the gentleman from Florida, the amendment, as offered, is not 
    germane.
        Let the Chair cite from precedents specifically to a bill 
    authorizing appropriation of funds, an amendment holding the 
    authorization in abeyance pending an unrelated contingency is not 
    germane.
        This particular germaneness precedent in the 96th Congress 
    related to the issue of whether or not there could be a condition 
    on fuel assistance, that condition being awaiting the action of the 
    passage of a windfall profit tax. In effect, tonight what the 
    gentleman is attempting to do is condition funding of broadcasting 
    to Cuba, on an unrelated contingency, which is broadcasting to 
    South Africa and, therefore, the Chair is prepared to sustain the 
    point of order as raised by the gentleman from Florida.

--Congressional Consideration of Balanced Budget Amendment to 
    Constitution

Sec. 31.39 It is not germane as an amendment to render a measure 
    contingent upon an unrelated Congressional action; thus, to a bill 
    author

[[Page 8678]]

    izing appropriations for radio broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment 
    prohibiting use of those funds until Congress has considered a 
    constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget was held to be 
    nongermane, imposing an unrelated contingency requiring separate 
    Congressional action on another subject.

    On Aug. 10, 1982,(15) during consideration of H.R. 5427 
in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman William R. Ratchford, of 
Connecticut, sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 20250, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 8, after line 12, 
        insert the following new section:
            Sec. 13. No funds appropriated or authorized under this act 
        shall be expended in violation of section 7 of Public Law 95-
        435 or until both Houses of the United States Congress have 
        considered an amendment to the United States Constitution 
        mandating a balanced federal budget.

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . . (T)he amendment is 
    clearly not germane. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is entirely 
    germane. All it is, is a limitation of funding under the bill. It 
    simply says that the program could go ahead and be authorized but 
    that the funding must be limited under the provisions of Public Law 
    94-435. So I think that this is an entirely appropriate limitation 
    of funding. It does not in any way become nongermane to the bill. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment. The amendment clearly 
    imposes a contingency, the contingency being further action by the 
    Congress of the United States on another subject and, therefore, in 
    violation of House precedents.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is not in order.

Completion of Committee Investigations

Sec. 31.40 To a bill providing in part for marketing quotas for feed 
    grains, an amendment proposing that provisions of the bill remain 
    inoperative pending completion of certain committee investigations 
    of alleged mismanagement of agricultural programs was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of the Food and 
Agricultural Bill of 1962,(16) the fol

[[Page 8679]]

lowing amendment was offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 11222 (Committee on Agriculture).
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 11373, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Page 15, 
    line 17, immediately preceding the word ``subtitle B'' insert the 
    following:

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all the 
        provisions of this title IV shall remain inoperative until the 
        completion of the investigation of the Billie Sol Estes case by 
        the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the House 
        Committee on Government Operations and the Permanent 
        Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on 
        Government Operations and both such committees have filed the 
        reports and recommendations on such investigation with the 
        House of Representatives and the Senate respectively.

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

        Mr. [Ross] Bass [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. It is not germane to the bill and 
    deals with the activities of other departments and does not come 
    within the purview of this bill.
        The Chairman (18) summarily overruled the point of 
    order without explanation and without rebuttal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This ruling was improperly decided since 
nothing in the pending title of the bill involved congressional 
investigations or conditions, and since the contingency in the 
amendment required reports by committees not involved with the pending 
bill.

Removal of Secretary of State

Sec. 31.41 To the Selective Training and Service Act, an amendment 
    providing that not more than one person may be inducted into the 
    Armed Services under the provisions of the act so long as the 
    President ``retains Dean Acheson as Secretary of State'' was held 
    to be not germane.

    The above ruling by Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, was made 
with respect to an amendment offered (19) by Mr. Ben F. 
Jensen, of Iowa, to a bill (20) comprising amendments to the 
Universal Military Training and Service Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 97 Cong. Rec. 3904, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1951.
20. S. 1-1951 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Removal of Commissioner of Education

Sec. 31.42 To a bill authorizing funds for elementary and secondary 
    education, an amendment providing that no funds shall be expended

[[Page 8680]]

    thereunder ``so long as the present . . . Commissioner of Education 
    occupies that office'' was held to be germane.

    In the 89th Congress, during consideration of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1966,(1) an amendment was offered 
(2) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 13161 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 25583, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 6, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: . . . The amendment is not 
    germane, because we are undertaking to invade the authority of the 
    executive branch of this Government. The executive branch of this 
    Government has the appointive power, not the legislative branch. 
    Therefore, this amendment or proposal contravenes the law and 
    Constitution, and it is not germane.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Albert W. Watson, of 
South Carolina, stated:

        Certainly it is not uncommon . . . for the Congress to restrict 
    the executive in the administration or implementation of pieces of 
    legislation. . . . We are not attempting to remove the 
    [Commissioner]. It would be up to the President to determine 
    whether to do so or not.

    The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is germane to 
    the bill, and overrules the point of order.

Restoration of Postal Service

Sec. 31.43 To a bill proposing to readjust postal rates, an amendment 
    which would postpone the effective date of the provisions of the 
    act until the restoration of postal service curtailed by previous 
    orders of the Postmaster General was held not germane.

    On Sept. 19, 1951, during consideration of a bill (4) to 
readjust postal rates, an amendment was offered as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 2982 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 5. 97 Cong. Rec. 11681, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Javits to the committee amendment: On 
    page 26, line 8, strike out the period and insert a semicolon and 
    the following: ``Provided however, That the rates provided for in 
    this act shall not take effect until the restoration of delivery 
    and other essential postal services curtailed by the order of the 
    Postmaster General, dated April 18, 1950.''

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

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point

[[Page 8681]]

    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to the bill. The bill says nothing about deliveries. It only 
    applies to postal rates. It is not germane, because in 8 Cannon's 
    Precedents, section 3037, an amendment delaying operation of the 
    proposed legislation pending an unrelated contingency was held not 
    to be germane, and this relates to a very similar situation.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 11682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment which I have proposed, if adopted, becomes a part of 
    section 14 of the act against which all points of order have been 
    waived by the rule which the House adopted.
        This section already contains specific contingencies deferring 
    the time of the effective date of the rate specified hereunder. One 
    of those contingencies relates to all rates in the act, making them 
    effective three calendar months following the calendar month in 
    which enacted. The other relates to a special provision with 
    relation to second-class-mail rates. I am attempting to defer the 
    time when all rates specified under the act shall become effective 
    until certain restoration of delivery and other essential services 
    under the act. It seems to me that is another limitation upon the 
    date specified when the rates shall take effect, and is therefore 
    entirely in order.

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Committee has before it a bill to adjust postal 
    rates. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits] offers an amendment 
    which would postpone the effective date of the provisions of the 
    bill until the restoration of delivery or other essential postal 
    services curtailed by previous orders of the Postmaster General. 
    The bill affects rates only. The amendment seeks to affect the 
    effective date of the provisions of the act by the happening of a 
    future event.
        First, the Chair desires to state with reference to the 
    question of the rule under which the bill is being considered 
    waiving points of order, that those points of order waived apply to 
    the provisions in the bill alone and not to amendments offered from 
    the floor.
        The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray] has referred to the 
    precedent in volume 8, Cannon's Precedents, section 3037, the 
    syllabus of which reads:

            An amendment delaying operation of the proposed legislation 
        pending an unrelated contingency was held not to be germane.

        The Chair is of the opinion that the pending amendment is not 
    germane, and sustains the point of order.

Opportunity To Use Milwaukee Port Facilities

Sec. 31.44 To a bill authorizing the Administrator of General Services 
    to convey a certain parcel of land to the city of Milwaukee, an 
    amendment proposing that such conveyance not be executed until 
    Milwaukee declares it will

[[Page 8682]]

    provide opportunity for water transportation from other ports to 
    enter to discharge and take on cargo at its port was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
to authorize the Administrator of the General Services Administration 
to convey certain land to the city of Milwaukee. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, 
of Michigan, offered an amendment as described above.(9) The 
following proceedings then took place: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 6857 (Committee on Government Operations).
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1955.
10. Id. at pp. 12408, 12409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman from Michigan is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: It certainly is.
        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
    of order that the gentleman from Michigan was recognized before the 
    point of order was raised.
        The Speaker: The gentleman had not begun his remarks. . . .
        Mr. Reuss: Mr. Speaker, I renew the point of order on the 
    ground that the amendment is not germane.
        The Speaker: The amendment does apply to a different subject 
    matter altogether and, therefore, the point of order is sustained.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
         D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
 
Sec. 32. Amendments Providing for Restrictions or Limitations

Prohibition on Military Operations in North Vietnam

Sec. 32.1 To a bill authorizing supplemental appropriations for 
    military procurement, research, and construction, an amendment 
    declaring it to be the sense of Congress that none of the funds 
    therein authorized shall be used to carry out military operations 
    in North Vietnam was held to be a restriction on the authorizations 
    contained in the bill and therefore germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of supplemental military 
authorizations for fiscal 1967,(12) an amendment was offered 
(13) as stated above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 4515 (Committee on Armed Services).
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 5143, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a

[[Page 8683]]

    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California on the ground that the amendment is not germane. It is 
    in the realm of policy.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair thinks the present amendment simply places a restriction 
on authorizations contained in this bill and relates only to the funds 
in this bill.
    The Chair holds that the amendment is germane.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 4.32, supra, for discussion of another amendment, in the 
        form of a statement of congressional policy, which was offered 
        to the same bill and ruled out as not being within the 
        jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prohibition on Use of Funds to Relocate Vietnam War Evacuees in High 
    Unemployment Areas

Sec. 32.2 To a substitute dealing with humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance to war victims of South Vietnam, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of such assistance to relocate or to create 
    employment opportunities for evacuees in high unemployment areas in 
    the United States was held to raise issues beyond the scope of the 
    bill and was held to be not germane.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(16) during consideration of H.R. 6096, 
(17) in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment was offered 
to which a point of order was made and sustained. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 11512, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. The Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance and Evacuation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Clay to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Eckhardt, as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Add a new section to the 
        end of the bill which reads:
            ``No funds authorized under this act shall be used directly 
        or indirectly to transport Vietnamese refugees to any 
        congressional district or create employment opportunities in 
        any congressional district where the unemployment rate exceeds 
        the national unemployment rate as defined by the Bureau of 
        Labor statistics of the United States Department of Labor.''. . 
        .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. It goes greatly beyond the 
    scope of the bill and the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
    Nothing in the bill or

[[Page 8684]]

    in the amendment in the nature of a substitute deals with the 
    national unemployment rate. . . .
        Mr. Clay: . . . The amendment simply imposes a condition that 
    none of the money may be used, or a limitation on the way the money 
    will be spent. I do not know how it goes beyond the scope of this 
    bill or the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is ready to rule. For 
    the reasons stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) 
    and for the fact that the contingency set forth in the gentleman's 
    amendment is not related to the purposes of the bill, the point of 
    order is sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Construction of Naval Ships To Be Postponed Pending Arms Limitation 
    Conference

Sec. 32.3 To that paragraph of a naval authorization bill increasing 
    the authorized tonnage of the Navy with respect to certain 
    categories of vessels, an amendment providing that the construction 
    of capital ships shall be postponed pending the call of a naval 
    limitation of armament conference, and that such construction shall 
    be governed by the results of the conference, was held germane.

    In the 75th Congress, the Naval Authorization Bill of 1938 
(19) was under consideration, which provided in part: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
20. See 83 Cong. Rec. 3593, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 17, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That in addition to the tonnages of the 
    United States Navy as agreed upon and established by the treaties 
    signed at Washington, February 6, 1922, and at London, April 22, 
    1930, and as authorized by the act of March 27, 1934 (48 Stat. 
    503), as amended by the act of June 25, 1936 (49 Stat. 1926), the 
    authorized composition of the United States Navy in under-age 
    vessels is hereby increased by the following tonnages:

            (a) Capital ships, 105,000 tons, making a total authorized 
        under-age tonnage of 630,000 tons;
            (b) Aircraft carriers, 30,000 tons, making a total 
        authorized under-age tonnage of 165,000 tons. . . .

    An amendment was offered (1) as described above. Mr. 
Carl Vinson, of Georgia, raising the point of order that the amendment 
``is not germane at this part of the bill,'' stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 3610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . This is a section dealing with categories of ships, 
    whereas the amendment deals with a restriction with respect to when 
    the ships shall be built.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        While it is true that in the committee amendment appearing at 
    the top of page 7 there are provisions re

[[Page 8685]]

    ferring to some sort of a conference, at the same time the 
    amendment . . . is a limitation. The place of its insertion in the 
    bill does not go to its germaneness at this particular point, even 
    though the amendment has some reference to another provision of the 
    bill.
        The amendment is therefore in order at this point as a 
    limitation, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Restrictions on Use of Margarine by Navy

Sec. 32.4 To a bill to amend the Navy Ration Statute to permit 
    oleomargarine to be served to naval personnel, an amendment 
    providing that no oleomargarine be acquired for use by the Navy 
    when surplus butter stocks are available to the Navy through the 
    Commodity Credit Corporation was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
amending the Navy Ration Statute as indicated above. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 912 (Committee on Armed Services).
 4. 104 Cong. Rec. 6931, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 22, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Add 
    the following new section:

            Sec. 2. During any period when surplus butter stocks are 
        available to the Navy through the Commodity Credit Corporation 
        no oleomargarine or margarine shall be acquired for use by the 
        Navy, or any branch or department thereof. . . .

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

        Mr. [Paul J.] Kilday [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's 
    amendment imposes additional duties upon the officers and expands 
    on the purpose of the bill, which is of the single purpose to amend 
    the Navy ration statute so as to permit the use of oleo or 
    margarine, whereas the amendment offered imposes additional duties 
    upon the officials of the Department in connection with the 
    procurement of supplies.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. James W. Trimble (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under this amendment it is purely a limitation placed upon the 
    Navy. Therefore, the point of order is overruled.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 8.30, supra, discussing a contrary ruling with respect to 
        a similar but more broadly worded amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restrictions on Contributions to International Financial Organization

Sec. 32.5 To a bill continuing authority under existing law to make 
    contributions to an international financial organization and 
    authorizing ap

[[Page 8686]]

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

    On July 2, 1974,(7) during consideration of a bill 
continuing United States participation under the International 
Development Association Act, an amendment prohibiting the use of United 
States contributions as loans for the purchase of nuclear weapons or 
materials was held germane as a restriction on the use of loans by 
recipient nations which added to several restrictions already contained 
in the Act:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 22026, 22028, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        The Chairman: (8) Are there any amendments to this 
    section? There being no amendments the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane. It 
    purports to amend subsections 3 (b) and (c) of Public Law 93-110 
    (87 Stat. 352). Public

[[Page 8687]]

    Law 93-110 is the Par Value Act which affected the gold value of 
    the dollar. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Biaggi) attempts to amend the International Development 
    Association Act, this has to do with nuclear materials, it is, 
    therefore, entirely nongermane to the act which it seeks to amend. 
    . . .
        Mr. Biaggi: . . . Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply seeks to 
    add a new section to this bill, section 15. This section would 
    condition any of the moneys to be spent in the event IDA is 
    successful this afternoon, or any of the moneys to be loaned, and I 
    use that as a euphemism because, in fact, it is an outright grant 
    in its nature, and we have recognized it as such, and I do not 
    think anyone thinks that we will ever have the money returned, but 
    it represents a condition under which the money can be loaned.
        The fact of the matter is, the money, if it is to be loaned, 
    cannot be used to provide nuclear technology or nuclear material in 
    any of the proposed countries, and it is my judgment that the 
    appropriate manner in which to do that is to add an additional 
    section, and we do that in my amendment by creating section 15.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Reuss).
        The bill is drafted as a continuation of the U.S. Governor's 
    authority to agree to make U.S. money available to IDA under terms 
    of the International Development Association Act. That statute 
    already contains several restrictions on the Governor's authority 
    to cast dissenting votes for loans to nations lacking certain 
    qualifications. Therefore an amendment to further restrict the use 
    of funds for loans under IDA, part of which are authorized by the 
    bill, would be germane, and the point of order is 
    overruled.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. In response to a further point of order, the Chair ruled that the 
        Biaggi amendment came too late, because section 2 of the bill 
        had already been read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ratification of International Monetary Fund Articles--Prohibition 
    Against Alienation of Gold to IMF Trust Fund and Other Parties

Sec. 32.6 While an amendment may be germane which limits for certain 
    purposes the authorities granted in a bill, the amendment must be 
    confined to the agencies, authority and funds addressed by the bill 
    and may not be more comprehensive in scope; thus, to a bill 
    amending the Bretton Woods Agreement Act to ratify proposed 
    amendments to the International Monetary Fund Articles of 
    Agreement, to approve an increase in the United States quota in the 
    Fund and to authorize dealing in gold in connection with the Fund, 
    an amendment prohibiting the alienation of gold to any IMF

[[Page 8688]]

    trust fund, to any other international organization or its agents, 
    or to any person or organization acting as purchaser for any 
    central bank or governmental institution was held not germane, 
    being more general in scope.

    On July 27, 1976,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 13955 (amending the Bretton Woods Agreement 
Act), when a point of order against the amendment described above was 
sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 24040, 24041, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendments: page 2, line 23, strike out ``Sec. 3'' 
    and insert ``Sec. 5''.
        Page 3, line 11, strike out ``Sec. 4'' and insert ``Sec. 6''.
        Page 3, after line 12, insert the following:
        Sec. 7. Section 10(a) of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 
    U.S.C. 822a(a)) is amended to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 10. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval 
    of the President, directly or through such agencies as he may 
    designate, is authorized, for the account of the fund established 
    in this section, to deal in gold and foreign exchange and such 
    other instruments of credit and securities as he may deem necessary 
    to and consistent with the United States obligations in the 
    International Monetary Fund. The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
    annually make a report on the operations of the fund to the 
    President and to the Congress.''. . .
        Mr. [Ronald E.] Paul [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Paul: On page 5, add the following 
        new section:
            ``Unless Congress by law authorizes such action, neither 
        the President nor any person or agency shall on behalf of the 
        United States alienate any gold to any trust fund established 
        by the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund, 
        or to any other international organization or its agents, or to 
        any person or organization acting as a purchaser on behalf of 
        any central bank or governmental institution.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Rees [of California]: . . . The legislation 
    before us is to provide for amendment of the Bretton Woods 
    Agreements Act and only the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, and only 
    those things in the U.S. statute that are directly thereto attached 
    to the purpose of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. This amendment 
    is not limited to the International Monetary Fund because there is 
    the language at about page 5 of the amendment, ``or to any other 
    international organization or its agents, or to any person or 
    organization acting as a purchaser on behalf of any central bank or 
    governmental institution.''
        It goes about 5 miles beyond the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. 
    Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, on 
    page 18, Article 5, Section 12, of the Jamaican Agreements, which 
    is something which we are partially ratifying with this leg

[[Page 8689]]

    islation, it does refer to this special trust fund.
        On page 18 of the communication sent to us from the Secretary 
    of State it refers to this special trust fund and the conditions 
    under which our governor and others will be expected to abide, and 
    it is very much a part of what we are ratifying.
        So I believe that it can be shown, because we are ratifying the 
    Jamaica Agreements with this legislation, that in fact we are 
    speaking and the gentleman from Texas is speaking to this issue and 
    he wishes to put conditions on our Governor in this International 
    Monetary Fund. . . .
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles H. Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is not 
    germane to the bill H.R. 13955.
        The bill has as its major purpose the ratification of proposed 
    amendments to the International Monetary Fund Articles of 
    Agreement, and to consent to an increase in the quota of the United 
    States in the International Monetary Fund.
        The amendment would prohibit the President or the Secretary of 
    the Treasury from alienating or selling any gold to any trust fund 
    established by the IMF or to any other international organization 
    or its agents, or to any person or organization acting as a 
    purchaser on behalf of any central bank or governmental 
    institution, unless Congress authorizes such action by law.
        While the Chair is not completely aware of the impact which the 
    gentleman's amendment would have on international organizations 
    other than the International Monetary Fund, it is apparent from the 
    text of the amendment that it is far more comprehensive in scope 
    than the bill to which offered. Since the amendment is not limited 
    by its terms as a restriction upon U.S. authority to alienate gold 
    to the IMF, the Chair holds that the amendment is not germane to 
    H.R. 13955 and sustains the point of order.

Medical Facilities for Agency Employees--Prohibition on Performance of 
    Abortions

Sec. 32.7 To a bill establishing a new Department of Education and 
    authorizing the furnishing of medical services, supplies and 
    facilities for employees of said department, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of such services to perform certain abortions 
    was held germane as a restriction on use of authorized facilities.

    During consideration of H.R. 2444 (12) in the Committee 
of the Whole on July 11, 1979,(13) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Department of Education Organization Act.
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 18022, 18051, 18052, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 428. (a) The Secretary is authorized to provide, 
        construct, or

[[Page 8690]]

        maintain, as necessary and when not otherwise available, the 
        following for employees and their dependents stationed at 
        remote locations:
            (1) emergency medical services and supplies;
            (2) food and other subsistence supplies. . . .
            (b) The furnishing of medical treatment under paragraph (1) 
        of subsection (a) and the furnishing of services and supplies 
        under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a) shall be 
        at prices reflecting reasonable value as determined by the 
        Secretary. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 84, in line 6, 
        strike out the semicolon and insert in its place: ``, provided 
        that such services and supplies shall not include any services 
        or supplies for the performance of abortions, except where the 
        life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
        carried to term;''. . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .
        This amendment is in the guise of a limitation on the 
    authorization contained in section 436. It is, in effect, an 
    amendment to repeal a statute not within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Government Operations. It would prevent the payment of 
    salaries, prevent the execution of laws transferred by the bill to 
    the new department. If you extend this concept, Mr. Chairman, it 
    would certainly not be germane to this reorganization. It is 
    expressly devoted to the preservation and reorganization of the 
    educational institutions of this country.
        Mr. Chairman, I think to allow this amendment would circumvent 
    the authorities of other committees and would be certainly not 
    germane in any shape, form or fashion to this legislation on 
    reorganization. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . A clear reading of section 428 clearly 
    indicates that the Secretary is authorized to provide services. 
    Subparagraphs 1 through 7 clearly delineate these services. 
    Emergency medical services and supplies, food and subsistence 
    supplies, dining facilities, living and working quarters and 
    facilities.
        A reading of section 428 would seem to negate the entire 
    argument of the able gentleman from Texas.
        This section creates authority in a reorganization bill, 
    authority for the Secretary to construct, maintain as necessary the 
    following for employees and their dependents.
        My amendment simply offers a limitation on one of these 
    services that is established in section 428, and for that reason I 
    would suggest it is clearly germane.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined section 428 and agrees that the section 
    does provide for the furnishing of certain services.
        Paragraph 1 does provide for the furnishing of emergency 
    medical services and supplies to departmental employees.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Ohio is limited to 
    restricting such services and supplies for certain medical purposes 
    and is germane to that section.

[[Page 8691]]

        Accordingly, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Provisions Permitting Use of Facilities of Department of Education--
    Restriction on Use by Certain Educational Institutions

Sec. 32.8 To a bill establishing a new Department of Education and 
    authorizing the department to allow the use by public and private 
    agencies of facilities maintained by the department at remote 
    locations, an amendment prohibiting the use of such facilities by 
    any higher education institution which uses mandatory student fees 
    to perform certain abortions was held germane.

    On July 11, 1979,(15) during consideration of H.R. 2444 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the amendment offered to the following section:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 18022, 18052, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. The Department of Education Organization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 429. (a) With their consent, the Secretary may, with 
        or without reimbursement, use the research, equipment, 
        services, and facilities of any agency or instrumentality of 
        the United States, of any State or political subdivision 
        thereof, or of any foreign government, in carrying out any 
        function vested in the Secretary or in the Department.
            (b) In carrying out his duties, the Secretary, under such 
        terms, at such rates, and for such periods (not exceeding five 
        years), as the Secretary may deem to be in the public interest, 
        is authorized to permit the use by public and private agencies, 
        corporations, associations, or other organizations, or by 
        individuals of any real property, or any facility, structure, 
        or other improvement thereon, acquired pursuant to sections 427 
        and 428, under the custody and control of the Secretary for 
        Department purposes. . . .

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 85, in line 18, 
        strike out the period and insert in its place: ``; except that 
        the Secretary may not permit such use by any institution of 
        higher education which uses mandatory student fees to pay for 
        the performance of abortions, except where the life of the 
        mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to 
        term.''.

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        I think this is a little different from the other. The other 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio had to do with the 
    services that were rendered or to be under the control of the 
    Secretary with regard to employees at remote locations.
        In this one, it seems to me that it is different. It seems to 
    me that we are creating a new law. This is not under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations.
        It is inappropriate for our committee to be acting on this. 
    This is a reorga

[[Page 8692]]

    nization plan. It seems to me we ought not to be legislating new 
    law with regard to this section of the bill.
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . My colleague from New York is correct in 
    one important instance. This is a different section; but a full 
    reading of section 429, particularly lines 13 through 21, clearly 
    indicate the Secretary may require permittees under this section to 
    recondition or maintain to a satisfactory standard at their own 
    expense the real property, facilities, structures, and improvements 
    involved.
        This is merely a limitation on the authorization the Secretary 
    has to permit the use by public and private agencies of the 
    facilities.
        For the reasons indicated before on the previous point of 
    order, it is also a limitation on a specific authority given to the 
    Secretary and does not impose any new duties.
        I suggest that it is germane for that reason.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair concurs that section 429 involves or covers the use 
    of facilities.
        Pursuant to subparagraph (b) of that section, the Secretary is 
    authorized to permit the use by public and private agencies of 
    certain facilities under this statute, including facilities by its 
    terms which are made available under sections 427 and 428 which 
    could include medical facilities.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Ohio seeks to limit that 
    authorization by restricting the use of such facilities for certain 
    medically related purposes.
        Accordingly, the Chairman overrules the point of order.

Restrictions on Activities of State and Local Agencies Receiving 
    Federal Funds

Sec. 32.9 To a proposition amending several laws providing federally 
    funded assistance, an amendment restricting the activities of the 
    state and local agencies which are the recipients of those funds 
    and also providing a judicial remedy where the restrictions imposed 
    upon those agencies are not complied with is germane.

    The proceedings of Mar. 26, 1974, during consideration of H.R. 69, 
to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, are 
discussed in Sec. 3.15, supra.

Limitation on Discretionary Authority of Federal Energy Administrator

Sec. 32.10 To a bill extending the Federal Energy Administration Act, 
    including the Administrator's authority under that Act to conduct 
    energy programs delegated to him, an amendment seeking to restrict 
    the manner in which the Administrator was to submit energy action 
    pro

[[Page 8693]]

    posals to Congress was held germane to the law being extended as a 
    limitation on discretionary authority conferred in that law, and 
    therefore germane to the bill.

    On June 1, 1976,(18) during consideration of H.R. 12169 
(Federal Energy Administration extension), it was held that to a bill 
continuing and reenacting an existing law, a germane amendment 
modifying the provisions of the law being extended was in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 16045, 16046, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Mr. Chairman, I would also like to cite from Deschler's 
    Procedure 28, section 5.10 and section 5.11, as follows:

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

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

            To a section of a committee amendment in the nature of a 
        sub

[[Page 8694]]

        stitute having as its fundamental purpose the funding of urban 
        highway transportation systems, an amendment broadening that 
        section to include rail transportation within its ambit is not 
        germane. . . .

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

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

        The effect of the Eckhardt amendment is to strike the words 
    ``or both'' from section 12(c)(1) of EPAA. As such it is, in 
    effect, an amendment to EPAA, not to the FEA Act under 
    consideration here, and is therefore, nongermane. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the 
    amendment is, as is stated, to limit the discretion of an 
    administrator with respect to submission of energy actions. The 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 provided that subject to 
    the provisions of the procedures set forth in this act, the 
    administrator shall be responsible for such actions as are taken by 
    this office that adequate provision is made to meet the energy 
    needs of the nation. To that end, they shall make such plans and 
    direct and conduct such programs related to the production, 
    conservation, use, control, distribution, rationing and allocation 
    of all forms of energy as are appropriate in connection with only 
    those authorities or functions--and then it lists them.
        What the amendment does, it limits the discretionary authority 
    of the administrator. The act itself creates the agency and gives 
    general authority to the administrator. It is true, of course, that 
    there are other acts that call for certain processes but these 
    processes are conducted under the authority of the administration 
    as described in the energy act.
        The effect of this amendment is simply to require that the FEA 
    submit to Congress, separate from other matters, the question of 
    price decontrol. That is, it may not package in a single proposal 
    to Congress both price decontrol and allocation decontrol. . . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) on the ground that it is not germane to the bill.
        The amendment would amend section 5 of the Federal Energy 
    Adminis

[[Page 8695]]

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

Development of Synthetic Fuels--Restriction on Contracts With Major Oil 
    Companies

Sec. 32.11 To a bill authorizing appropriations and providing 
    contracting authority, an amendment restricting the use of the 
    authorization or contracting authority for the benefit of a certain 
    class of recipients is germane; thus, to a bill authorizing 
    appropriations to enter into contracts for the development of 
    synthetic fuels, an amendment prohibiting the use of the funds 
    authorized to enter into contracts with any major oil company was 
    held germane.

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (20) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 
1979,(1) Chairman Gerry E. Studds, of Massachusetts, held 
the following amendment germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 3930.
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 16694-96, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: On page 11, after line 2, 
    insert the following:
        ``(3) by inserting ``(1)'' before the first word of section (a) 
    and by inserting the following after the last sentence.

[[Page 8696]]

        ``(2) No funds authorized in subparagraph (1) above to carry 
    out the purposes of Sections 305(d)(3) and 305(d)(5) may be used to 
    contract for the purchase or the commitment to purchase any amount 
    of synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical feedstock with any major 
    oil company. For the purposes of this section:
        (A) The term `major oil company' means any person, association, 
    or corporation which, together with its affiliates, either produces 
    or refines a daily world-wide volume of 1,600,000 barrels of crude 
    oil, natural gas liquids equivalents, and natural gas equivalents. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Steve] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, according to rule 
    XVI, clause 7--that is the germaneness rule of the House--one of 
    the tests is the jurisdiction of the committee of jurisdiction. 
    Certainly a bill of this nature which we are talking about, when we 
    have sort of a divestiture of certain oil companies, legislation of 
    this sort should come from the Committee on the Judiciary.
        Second, the title of the bill is another test of jurisdiction. 
    According to the title, this is a bill ``to amend the Defense 
    Production Act of 1950 to extend the authority granted by such act 
    and to provide for the purchase of synthetic fuels and synthetic 
    chemical feedstocks, and for other purposes.''
        Certainly that does not come under germaneness test and the 
    defense title of the bill. If there is any purpose to this bill, it 
    is to provide for the production because of defense purposes, and 
    this is an attempt to interfere and stop a substantial section of 
    our country from participating in the program.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think certainly under rule XVI, clause 7, 
    my argument stands up. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The amendment is 
    carefully drafted as a limitation on authorization. It says, ``No 
    funds authorized . . . to carry out the purposes of sections'' so-
    and-so ``may be used to contract for the purchase or the commitment 
    to purchase any amount of synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical 
    feedstock with any major oil company.''
        The amendment is clearly germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to suggest that the point of order is not well taken. The 
    provisions of this act that provide for an opportunity for 
    Government-based cooperation provides for the limitation on the 
    size of the contract in terms of 100-billion-a-day equivalent 
    synthetic fuels. It has all sorts of parameters in the nature of 
    purchases by contractors and the nature of the agreement. I think 
    this is one further limitation that is in order in terms of this 
    legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair cannot see any questions of germaneness raised by the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). It 
    appears to the Chair to be simply an additional restriction or 
    condition on the contracting authority granted under this act and, 
    therefore, to be germane.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8697]]

Transfer of Property to Provide Homeless Shelter--Restriction on 
    Noncharitable Use of Property

Sec. 32.12 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 in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 5, 1986,(2) Chairman Pro Tempore John P. Murtha, of 
Pennsylvania, overruled a point of order against the amendment 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 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 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)

[[Page 8698]]

        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.

Juvenile Delinquency Control Act--Limitation on Assistance to Projects 
    in District of Columbia

Sec. 32.13 To a bill authorizing federal assistance on the city, state, 
    and national levels for projects designed to prevent juvenile 
    delinquency, an amendment to limit the federal assistance to 
    projects within the District of Columbia was held to be germane.

    In the 87th Congress, during consideration of the Juvenile 
Delinquency Control Act of 1961,(3) an amendment was offered 
(4) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 8028 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 4. 107 Cong. Rec. 17612, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 30, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order on the ground that if

[[Page 8699]]

    this amendment is in order it would take the legislation completely 
    out of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor and 
    transfer it to the Committee on the District of Columbia and, 
    therefore, would completely change the character of the bill.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 17613, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 30, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered is clearly a 
    limitation and actually confines the activity, and for that reason 
    the amendment is germane and the point of order is overruled.

Restrictions on Subsidies to Copper Producers

Sec. 32.14 To a bill authorizing funds for stabilizing production of 
    copper, lead, and certain other commodities through subsidies to 
    domestic producers, an amendment prohibiting subsidy payments to 
    any producer who declares a dividend or transfers funds to a 
    surplus account was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
which sought to stabilize production of copper, lead, zinc, acid-grade 
fluorspar, and tungsten from domestic mines. The following exchange 
(8) concerned a point of order raised by Mr. John J. Rhodes, 
of Arizona, against the amendment, which had been offered by Mr. John 
James Flynt, Jr., of Georgia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. S. 4036 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs).
 8. 104 Cong. Rec. 18960, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 21, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Chairman, may I say that the amendment is as 
    germane to the bill as the provision in the bill which precedes the 
    point at which the amendment is offered, providing a time limit on 
    the disbursement of payments under the act. My amendment would 
    simply provide and place a limitation on eligible producers who can 
    participate under the proceeds of the act. . . .
        The Chairman,(9) without elaboration, overruled the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certain Panama Canal Employees Required To Be American Citizens

Sec. 32.15 To an amendment relating to compensation of employees on the 
    Panama Canal and authorizing, under certain conditions, engagement 
    of persons having specified qualifications, an amendment requiring 
    that des

[[Page 8700]]

    ignated classes of employees be American citizens was held germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 5129 (Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries).
11. See 84 Cong. Rec. 10725, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the improvement and enlargement of 
    the capacity of the Panama Canal . . . is hereby authorized to be 
    prosecuted by the Governor of the Panama Canal. . . . For the 
    purposes aforesaid, the Governor of the Panama Canal is authorized 
    to employ such persons as he may deem necessary and to fix their 
    compensation without regard to any other law affecting such 
    compensation, to authorize the making of any contracts . . . deemed 
    necessary for the prosecution of the work herein authorized . . . 
    and in general to do all things proper and necessary to insure the 
    prompt and efficient completion of the work herein authorized.

    The following committee amendment was offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 10725, 10726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Committee amendment offered by Mr. Bland: Page 2, line 9, 
    insert after the word ``authorized'', the letter ``a'' in 
    parentheses, strike out the word ``with'' on line 10 and all of 
    lines 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, insert a colon and the following: 
    ``Provided, That the compensation of such persons shall not be 
    lower than the compensation paid for the same or similar services 
    to other employees of the Panama Canal: . . . [and] That the 
    Governor of the Panama Canal, with the approval of the Secretary of 
    War, is authorized to engage, under agreement, when deemed 
    necessary, expert assistance in the various arts and sciences upon 
    terms and rates of compensation for services and incidental 
    expenses in excess of the maximum compensation provided by law for 
    employees of the Panama Canal. . . .''

    To such amendment, an amendment was offered which provided: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 10728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Joe] Starnes of Alabama to the 
    committee amendment: On page 1, line 3, after the word ``Canal'' 
    strike out the colon and insert a comma and the following: ``and 
    all such persons occupying skilled, technical, clerical, 
    administrative, and supervisory positions shall be citizens of the 
    United States.''

    Mr. Schuyler Otis Bland, of Virginia, raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane. The Speaker,(14) in 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William B. Bankhead (Ala.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . . From a . . . hurried reading of the committee amendment 
    it appears that the first part of that proviso deals with the 
    compensation of such persons; that is, persons who may be employed 
    on the Canal. As the Chair reads the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Alabama, it is a limitation upon the nature and 
    character of such employees. The Chair is, therefore, of the

[[Page 8701]]

    opinion that the amendment is germane to the committee amendment, 
    and overrules the point of order.

More Limited Treatment of Subject of Bill: Variances in Permitted 
    Levels of Concentration of Pollutants

Sec. 32.16 For an amendment to the Clean Air Act authorizing state 
    governors to permit variances affecting permitted levels in 
    concentration of two pollutants from stationary sources in two 
    classes of areas, a substitute authorizing governors to permit 
    increases in concentration of one of those pollutants in one class 
    of areas was held germane as a more limited approach to the subject 
    treated in the amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 6161 (15) in the Committee 
of the Whole, it was demonstrated that for an amendment changing 
certain language in a pending section, a substitute changing that text 
and also additional language in the section may be germane if it has 
the effect of dealing with the same subject in a related and more 
limited way, when a point of order against the amendment described 
above was overruled. The proceedings of May 25, 1977,(16) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 16648, 16652, 16653, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            On page 296, strike out lines 4 through 23 and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            ``(c)(1) Each applicable implementation plan shall contain 
        an area classification plan based on maximum allowable 
        increases in ambient concentrations of, and maximum allowable 
        levels of ambient concentrations of, sulfur dioxide and 
        particulate matter, in the case of increases based on 
        concentrations permitted under national ambient air quality 
        standards for any period of twenty-four hours or less, such 
        regulations shall provide that the Governor of the State may, 
        upon application of any person and after notice and opportunity 
        for hearing, permit the maximum allowable increases specified 
        for each pollutant to be exceeded during five percent of the 
        hours of the year with respect to such pollutant in Class I and 
        Class II areas. . . .

        Mr. [K. Gunn] McKay [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McKay as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Breaux: Strike out the text of the 
        Breaux amendment and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(c)(1) Except as may otherwise be permitted under 
        subsection (d) in the case of air pollutants other than sulfur 
        oxides and particulates, each applicable implementation plan 
        shall

[[Page 8702]]

        contain an area classification plan based on maximum allowable 
        increases in ambient concentrations of, and maximum allowable 
        levels of ambient concentrations of, any air pollutant for 
        which a national ambient air quality standard is established. 
        In the case of an increase based on concentrations permitted 
        under national ambient air quality standards for any period of 
        twenty-four hours or less, such regulations shall permit such 
        limitations to be exceeded during one such period per year and, 
        in addition, in the case of the maximum allowable increase of 
        sulfur dioxide for the three-hour period of exposure, a class 
        II increment variance may be granted as provided in section 
        162. Such classification plan shall apply to all areas in each 
        State where the national primary and secondary ambient air 
        quality standards for any air pollutant are not being exceeded. 
        Such classification plan shall provide for designation of all 
        such areas as either class I, class II, or class III as to each 
        such pollutant. Until such designation is effective, all such 
        areas shall be deemed to have been designated as class II, 
        except as may be otherwise provided under paragraph (3)(B). . . 
        .

        Mr. Breaux: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this amendment with the author 
    of the amendment, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. McKay), and I think 
    the amendment should be offered. However, I do not think it should 
    be offered as a substitute for the particular amendment that is now 
    pending:
        The reason is, No. 1, that I think the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Utah (Mr. McKay) goes considerably farther in 
    bringing in other sections of the act that is before us than does 
    my amendment.
        My amendment does not speak to any duties or obligations of the 
    Administration of EPA. It does not put any authority on or require 
    the Federal land manager to take any steps or actions in this 5-
    percent exception that my amendment provides for.
        My amendment regulates class I in two areas. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. McKay) only talks to class 
    II areas.
        My amendment regulates and pertains to two potential 
    pollutants, SO2 and particulates. The gentleman's 
    amendment, as I understand it, only relates to particulates.
        While the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
    McKay) may be proper at some other point in this particular 
    legislation, I would object to his offering it at this point 
    because it is not germane and because it goes considerably farther 
    than does the pending amendment . . .
        Mr. McKay: Mr. Chairman, I think what the gentleman from 
    Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) seeks to do is also what I seek to do in 
    many respects, except that my amendment merely narrows what he is 
    trying to do. It only deals with one pollutant, SO2, as 
    the gentleman has indicated. It does not violate the principle or 
    the intent of the act here proposed.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is just a narrowing of the 
    language and becomes very valid in connection with the amendment . 
    . .
        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: . . . Mr. Chairman, both of 
    the amendments to section 108 concern the same issues. They go to 
    the increments and

[[Page 8703]]

    variances, and I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Utah (Mr. McKay) is very much in order as a substitute.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (17) The Chair has heard 
    and considered the point of order and the arguments in support of 
    and in opposition thereto and will now rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The McKay amendment is germane as a substitute for the Breaux 
    amendment. The McKay amendment deals with the same subject of 
    variances for sulfur dioxide pollutants. The Breaux amendment is 
    broader insofar as it affects particulate matter pollutants as well 
    as sulfur dioxide. The McKay substitute, while technically 
    containing more language inserted at another place in section 108, 
    nevertheless deals with the same subject in a more limited way.
        The point of order is overruled.

Amendment in Guise of Limitation

Sec. 32.17 A different subject from that under consideration may not be 
    proposed in the guise of a limitation; thus, to propose an 
    amendment in the mere form of a limitation does not make the 
    amendment germane.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 31.35, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
         D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
 
Sec. 33.--Amendments Affecting Powers Delegated in Bill

    To a provision delegating certain powers, a proposal to limit such 
powers is germane.(19) For example, a proposal to grant the 
President certain discretionary authority can be amended by a provision 
limiting such authority.(20) And where a bill continues the 
authority of an official to set maximum interest rates on loans, an 
amendment placing a limit on such authority is 
germane.(1)

                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 33.22, 33.32, infra.
20. See Sec. 33.1, 33.7, infra.
 1. See Sec. 33.28, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority of President To Enter Foreign-Trade Agreements .

Sec. 33.1 To a bill extending the period during which the President is 
    authorized to enter into foreign-trade agreements, an amendment 
    providing that no such agreements shall become effective until 
    approved by Congress (but not changing the rules of the House) was 
    held to be germane.

[[Page 8704]]

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
which stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. H.J. Res. 96 (Committee on Ways and Means).
3. See 81 Cong. Rec. 1044, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 9, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the period the period during which the 
    President is authorized to enter into foreign-trade agreements 
    under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the act 
    (Public No. 316, 73d Cong.) approved June 12, 1934, is hereby 
    extended for a further period of 3 years from June 12, 1937.
        The following amendment was offered:
        Amendment offered by Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Line 8, 
    before the period, insert a colon and the following: ``Provided, 
    That no foreign trade agreement entered into under the provisions 
    of this act shall become effective until submitted to the Congress 
    by the President and approved by both House and Senate by a 
    majority vote. . . . In the event that Congress shall fail to act 
    within [a] period of 20 days, then said agreement shall thereupon 
    be in full force and effect.

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

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that that amendment is not germane to the bill. It 
    entirely changes the object of the bill and for the first time 
    brings back to the House of Representatives an act of the Executive 
    to be ratified, not by the Senate alone, but by the House. . . .

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair the amendment submitted by the 
    gentleman from New York places a limitation upon the President. The 
    pending joint resolution proposes a grant of discretionary power to 
    the Executive by the Congress, and, therefore, this limitation in 
    the judgment of the Chair is germane.

Sec. 33.2 To a bill to extend the authority of the President to enter 
    into foreign-trade agreements under a section of the Tariff Act, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which sought to establish 
    specific limits on imports of certain hand-made articles.

    On Feb. 9, 1949, the Trade Agreements Act of 1949 (5) 
was under consideration, which provided in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 1211 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 1057, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 9, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 3. The period during which the President is authorized to 
    enter into foreign trade agreements under section 350 of the Tariff 
    Act of 1930, as amended and extended, is hereby extended for a 
    further period of 3 years from June 12, 1948.

[[Page 8705]]

    The following amendment was offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 1070.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Bailey: Page 3, after line 8, insert 
    the following:

            Sec. 7. During any calendar year after 1948 the total 
        amounts of imported wood wire spring clothespins, or the total 
        amount of any article of china, hand-made glassware or 
        tableware, which may be entered or withdrawn from warehouse in 
        the United States for consumption, shall not exceed 25 percent 
        of the production within the United States during the preceding 
        calendar year of clothespins, or of such article of china, 
        hand-made glassware or tableware, as the case may be.

    Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane. Mr. Cleveland M. Bailey, of West Virginia, 
responding to the point of order, stated that, ``there is too much 
competition against the hand-craft glass and pottery industries and 
(such industries need the protection of import quotas).'' The 
Chairman,(8) in sustaining the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia might 
    have been germane to another statute, but it certainly is not 
    germane to the bill under consideration.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Another amendment having a similar purpose had been offered by Mr. 
        Bailey immediately prior to the above proceedings, and had also 
        been ruled out of order. See Sec. 33.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 33.3 To a bill to extend the authority of the President to enter 
    into foreign-trade agreements under a section of the Tariff Act, an 
    amendment providing that no reduction in duty shall be made on 
    certain imports competing with articles produced by ``handicraft 
    methods'' in the United States was held not germane.

    On Feb. 9, 1949, during consideration of the Trade Agreements Act 
of 1949,(10) the following amendment was offered: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 1211 (Committee on Ways and Means).
11. 95 Cong. Rec. 1069, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. See Sec. 33.2, supra, for 
        further discussion of the act and proceedings related to those 
        discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West 
    Virginia]: On page 3, after line 8, amend by adding a new section 
    to be designated as a new section:
        Sec. 7. No reduction in duty under the Tariff Act of 1930 rates 
    shall be made on imports competing directly with articles produced 
    by handicraft industries in the United States. Handicraft 
    industries are defined as those in which the salaries and wages or 
    direct and indirect labor constitute 50 percent or more of the 
    costs of production and include only those groups of manu

[[Page 8706]]

    facturers, excluding contractors, producing by recognized 
    handicraft methods, like or similar products, from which the Bureau 
    of the Census can obtain and publish industrial statistics. The 
    Tariff Commission shall make the final determination of these 
    qualifications.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 1070, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 9, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane. It 
    imposes duties and requirements upon the Bureau of the Census which 
    are certainly not within the scope of the pending bill or the 
    original act which is sought to be amended by the pending bill.

    The Chairman (13) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 33.4 To a bill extending the period during which the President is 
    authorized to enter into foreign-trade agreements, an amendment 
    directing the President to seek to withdraw or modify any past or 
    future reciprocal trade agreement if a domestic industry is damaged 
    thereby was held to be not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) relating to trade agreements as described above, the 
following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.J. Res. 407 (Committee on Ways and Means).
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 1913, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 23, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Page 1, line 8, after the period, insert the following:

            If at any time an established domestic industry as a whole 
        shall be damaged as a result of the inclusion of its product in 
        a reciprocal-trade agreement, the President shall institute 
        negotiations with the signatory country seeking to withdraw or 
        sufficiently modify the concession made upon that product to 
        remedy the damage inflicted upon said established domestic 
        industry.  . .

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

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: I do not desire to detain the 
    Committee and the Chair further than to point out that the 
    amendment contains provisions with respect to making it retroactive 
    and, further, brings in entirely different and irrelevant matters, 
    entirely foreign to the purposes of the resolution under 
    consideration and, of course, is not germane to it.

    The Chairman,(16) who had already called attention to 
the provisions that would operate retroactively, sustained the point of 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 33.5 To an amendment limiting the authority of the President in 
    negotiating

[[Page 8707]]

    trade agreements by providing that such ``authority . . . does not 
    embrace authority to include in any trade agreement negotiations'' 
    certain excise taxes imposed under specified sections of the 
    Revenue Act, an amendment proposing a similar limitation with 
    respect to import duties under the Tariff Act was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a trade agreements 
bill (17) and an amendment thereto excluding consideration 
of certain excise taxes from trade agreement negotiations, an amendment 
was offered by Mr. Karl E. Mundt, of South Dakota,(18) 
containing a similar provision with respect to import duties. The 
following exchange (19) concerned a point of order raised by 
Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.J. Res. 407 (Committee on Ways and Means).
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 1873, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 23, 1940.
19. Id. at p. 1874.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cooper: . . . The amendment here offered is not an 
    amendment to the excise taxes of existing law, but seeks to amend 
    the tariff act with respect to certain rates. I submit, therefore, 
    that the amendment to the amendment is not germane.  . .
        The Chairman: (20) The sections which the gentleman 
    brings in by number include a number of different sections of 
    schedule (7) of title I of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Chair would 
    understand that to relate to sections which deal with import duties 
    as distinguished from excise taxes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mundt: The distinction is not recognized, Mr. Chairman, by 
    the Secretary of State, who holds that they are one and the same.  
    . .
        The Chairman: Of course, the Chair cannot be advised as to what 
    the ruling of the Secretary of State would be on it; but, 
    fundamentally, if as a matter of fact the gentleman's amendment 
    brings into the picture a different class of taxes, his amendment 
    is not germane to the Disney amendment.
        Mr. Mundt: May I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the connecting 
    feature between my amendment and the place where it picks up the 
    Disney amendment is the coordinate conjunction ``and,'' and that 
    they both are based on the same fundamental premise of exempting 
    from further negotiations certain specific products--oil in one 
    instance, and beef, eggs, and other specified farm products in the 
    other. Thus it is strictly in line with the motive and the purpose 
    and the objective of the Disney amendment.  . .
        Mr. Cooper: . . . [T]he gentleman is here seeking to amend 
    those provisions of the tariff act levying certain tariff rates and 
    customs duties through the guise of offering an amendment to an 
    amendment relating solely to excise taxes. . . .

        The Chairman: . . . [F]rom the information the Chair has it 
    seems that

[[Page 8708]]

    the amendment offered by the gentleman, while most likely being 
    germane to the resolution, is not germane to the Disney amendment, 
    because it does seek to bring in, theoretically at least, a 
    different class of taxes--tariff import taxes--whereas the Disney 
    amendment refers entirely to excise taxes.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Sec. 33.6 To an amendment limiting the authority of the President in 
    negotiating trade agreements by providing that such ``authority . . 
    . does not embrace authority to include in any trade agreement 
    negotiations'' certain excise taxes imposed under specified 
    sections of the Revenue Act, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which sought to prohibit entry into American markets of 
    those foreign products of lower total cost than the cost of 
    production of competitive American products.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a trade agreements 
bill,(1) and an amendment thereto as described above, the 
following amendment was offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.J. Res. 407 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 1869, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 23, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Lawrence J.] Connery [of 
    Massachusetts]: ``Provided, That no commodity or article shall be 
    included in any foreign-trade agreement entered into which permits 
    the entry into American markets of products of workers, farmers, or 
    miners of foreign countries at total landed costs, all tariff 
    duties paid, which total costs are less than the cost of production 
    or wholesale selling price of competitive products of American 
    workers, miners, or farmers where such American products are 
    commercially available.''

    Mr. Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, having raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane to the amendment under 
consideration, Mr. Connery stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 1870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that it is perfectly 
    germane inasmuch as the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma is 
    an amendment of limitation. My amendment is simply a further 
    limitation on the gentleman's amendment.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order made by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Cooper] is that the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    [Mr. Connery] is not germane to the pending amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Disney]. The Disney amendment 
    relates to the exclusion of certain excise taxes. The amendment

[[Page 8709]]

    of the gentleman from Massachusetts introduces an entirely new 
    feature and undertakes to limit the authority granted the President 
    on the question of cost of production as well as the wholesale 
    selling propositions. The Chair thinks that while the amendment 
    would undoubtedly be germane to the resolution pending before the 
    House, yet it is not germane to the Disney amendment, and sustains 
    the point of order.

Approval by President of Sale of Helium

Sec. 33.7 To a bill authorizing the President under certain conditions 
    to approve the sale of helium gas for medical, scientific, and 
    commercial uses, an amendment prohibiting the sale of such gas to 
    any foreign country engaged in specified activities was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
which stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. S. 1567 (Committee on Military Affairs). See relevant portions of 
        the bill at 81 Cong. Rec. 9647, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 21, 
        1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (b) That helium not needed for Government use may be produced 
    and sold upon payment in advance in quantities and under 
    regulations approved by the President, for medical, scientific, and 
    commercial use, including inflation of passenger-carrying airships: 
    Provided . . . [that] the Federal Government shall have a right to 
    repurchase helium so sold that has not been lost or dissipated, 
    when needed for Government use, under terms and at prices 
    established by said regulations.

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Samuel] Dickstein [of New York]: Page 
    6, line 13, after the word ``regulation'' change the period to a 
    colon and insert:

            And provided further, That no helium shall be sold to any 
        foreign country which . . . engages in . . . distribution . . . 
        in the United States . . . of any propaganda . . . destructive 
        to the democratic form of government of the United States. . . 
        .

    Mr. R. Ewing Thomason, of Texas, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(6) in 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Jack Nichols (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The bill] gives the President of the United States discretion 
    and authority to dispose of helium. The amendment . . . places a 
    limitation on the powers of the President, and says that under 
    certain conditions the President will not be permitted to dispose 
    of helium to those countries.
        The Chair . . . overrules the point of order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 9653, 9654, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 21, 1937.

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

[[Page 8710]]

Authority of President Regarding Transfer of Defense Equipment to 
    Korea--Amendment Affecting Timetable of Transfer

Sec. 33.8 To a proposition conferring discretionary authority on a 
    federal official, an amendment limiting the exercise of that 
    authority is germane; thus, to a section of a bill authorizing the 
    President to transfer as much defense equipment to the Republic of 
    Korea as he determined necessary in conjunction with withdrawal of 
    an unspecified number of United States troops, an amendment 
    reducing the time period of the equipment transfer, in conjunction 
    with withdrawal of a stated number of troops, was held germane as a 
    restriction on the discretionary authority conferred in the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 12514 (the foreign assistance 
authorization for fiscal year 1979) on Aug. 1, 1978,(8) the 
Chair overruled a point of order against the amendment described above. 
The section of the bill and the amendment offered thereto were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 124 Cong. Rec. 23729, 23730, 23731, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

         special security assistance program for the modernization of 
                   the ground forces of the republic of korea

            Sec. 19. (a)(1) The President is authorized, until December 
        31, 1982--
            (A) to transfer, without reimbursement, to the Republic of 
        Korea, in conjunction with the withdrawal of the 2d Infantry 
        Division and support forces from Korea, such United States 
        Government-owned defense articles as he may determine which are 
        located in Korea in the custody of units of the United States 
        Army scheduled to depart from Korea; and
            (B) to furnish to the Republic of Korea, without 
        reimbursement, defense services (including technical and 
        operational training) in Korea directly related to the United 
        States Government-owned defense articles transferred to the 
        Republic of Korea under this subsection.
            (2) Any transfer under the authority of this section shall 
        be made in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the 
        Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 applicable to the furnishing of 
        defense articles and defense services under chapter 2 of part 
        II of that Act. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton: On page 15, strike out 
        line 12 and all that follows down through line 20 and insert 
        the following:

[[Page 8711]]

            Sec. 19. (a)(1) The President is authorized, until 
        September 30, 1979--
            (A) to transfer, without reimbursement, to the Republic of 
        Korea, in conjunction with the withdrawal of not more than 
        6,000 troops of the 2nd Infantry Division and associated Army 
        support forces from Korea, such United States Government-owned 
        defense articles as he may determine which are located in Korea 
        in the custody of those United States Army units scheduled to 
        depart. . . .

        Mr. [Lester L.] Wolff [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is this:
        There is a limitation placed upon the President for the 
    deployment of troops in Korea. Actually this amendment is subject 
    to a point of order under the germaneness rule, rule XVI, clause 7, 
    as it deals with a subject different from those under consideration 
    in the bill.
        The bill does not purport to deal with the deployment of U.S. 
    combat forces abroad; it deals only with the authority to transfer 
    equipment to the South Korean forces. This amendment may well be 
    unconstitutional as an attempt on the President's constitutional 
    power as Commander in Chief of all U.S. military forces.
        Mr. Stratton: . . . I think my friend, the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Wolff) has not read the amendment. The amendment simply 
    makes several minor changes in the existing text of section 19 of 
    the bill. For example, it puts in two or three additional words in 
    section (a)(1)(A). It makes changes on page 17 and strikes out $800 
    million and puts in $90 million. On page 17, line 15, it changes 
    the date from 1983 to 1979. It adds to the remaining section on 
    page 18 additional reporting requirements beyond those called for 
    in the original section.
        This is absolutely in keeping with the bill itself. . . .
        Mr. Wolff: . . . H.R. 12514 in no way seeks to dictate the 
    level of troops to be maintained in Korea or, for that matter, 
    elsewhere in the world. The fundamental purpose of the amendment is 
    to limit the U.S. troops, as has been indicated in an amendment 
    that this gentleman offered before and a point of order was raised 
    upon. It seeks to limit the number of U.S. troops which may be 
    withdrawn from Korea.
        The fundamental purpose of H.R. 12514 is to authorize the 
    appropriation of funds for the international security assistance 
    program for fiscal year 1979. Therefore, the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill, pursuant to clause 7 of House rule XVI. . . .

        Mr. Stratton: . . . The gentleman's committee bill extends an 
    authority to transfer equipment for 4 years, to December 31, 1982.
        My amendment extends that authority only to the 30th of 
    September 1979, and then says that during that period we are 
    talking about, the withdrawal of 6,000 troops. If the House, if the 
    President, or anybody else, wants to withdraw any more from Korea 
    there is nothing in my amendment to prevent it. My amendment 
    applies strictly to fiscal year 1979. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Wolff) makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, one 
    of the points being constitutionality.

[[Page 8712]]

        The Chair would like to point out that the Chair is not 
    prepared to rule on the constitutionality of legislation pending 
    before the committee; however, as to the germaneness of the 
    amendment, the Chair has examined the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton). In the bill, as has been 
    pointed out, beginning on page 15, line 14, it relates:

            (A) to transfer, without reimbursement, to the Republic of 
        Korea, in conjunction with the withdrawal of the 2d Infantry 
        Division and support forces from Korea, such United States 
        Government-owned defense articles as he may determine which are 
        located in Korea in the custody of units of the United States 
        Army scheduled to depart from Korea;

        The amendment of the gentleman from New York sets a specific 
    number which may be withdrawn, rather than following the language 
    of a more general nature that is in the bill.
        The Chair feels that the amendment meets the test of 
    germaneness since it relates to the withdrawal of troops in Korea, 
    a subject in the text of the bill.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

President's Authority To Establish Priorities Among Users of Petroleum 
    Products--Amendment To Impose Restrictions on Use for School Busing

Sec. 33.9 To a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    conferring authority upon the president to establish rules for the 
    ordering of priorities among users of petroleum products and 
    requiring that vital services in areas of education and 
    transportation shall receive high priority, an amendment 
    restricting that regulatory authority by requiring that petroleum 
    products allocated for public school transportation be used only 
    between the student's home and the school closest thereto was held 
    germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (10) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 13, 1973,(11) it was 
illustrated that to a provision delegating certain authority, an 
amendment proposing to limit such authority is germane. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 11450.
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 41267-69, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        sec. 103. amendments to the emergency petroleum allocation act 
        of 1973.

        (a) Section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 
    is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsections:
        ``(h)(1) If the President finds that, without such action, the 
    objectives of subsection (b) cannot be attained, he may promulgate 
    a rule which shall be deemed a part of the regulation under 
    subsection (a) and which shall provide,

[[Page 8713]]

    consistent with the objectives of subsection (b), an ordering of 
    priorities among users of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any 
    refined petroleum product, and for the assignment to such users of 
    rights entitling them to obtain any such oil or product in 
    precedence to other users not similarly entitled. A top priority in 
    such ordering shall be the maintenance of vital services 
    (including, but not limited to new housing construction, education, 
    health care, hospitals, public safety, energy production, 
    agriculture, and transportation services, which are necessary to 
    the preservation of health, safety, and the public welfare). . . .

    Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
Staggers.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 7, line 
        21, strike out the first period and the quotation marks.
            Page 7, insert after line 21 the following:
            ``(k)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this 
        subsection, no provision of the regulation under subsection (a) 
        (including a regulation under subsection (h)) may provide for 
        allocation of any refined petroleum product to any person 
        (including a State or political subdivision thereof, or State 
        or local educational agency) if the product so allocated will 
        be used for the transportation of any public school student to 
        a school farther than the public school closest to his home 
        offering educational courses for the grade level and course of 
        study of the student within the boundaries of the school 
        attendance district wherein the student resides.
            ``(2) Any energy conservation plan proposed under section 
        105 of the Energy Emergency Act and any regulation under this 
        section for allocation of petroleum products for transportation 
        of public school students shall have as its purpose conserving 
        refined petroleum products by reducing to the minimum the 
        distance traveled by such students to and from the schools 
        within the school attendance district in which the student 
        resides. Such plans shall be formulated in consultation with 
        the affected State and local educational agencies. . . .

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against this amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of the most important points 
    of order that we will argue in this session of Congress.
        As the Chair is well aware, under rule XXIII, the Chairman of 
    the Committee can cite the point of order regardless of rulings of 
    the Speaker.
        The Chairman has full discretion.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this amendment is 
    not germane. It is not germane under several propositions:
        First, it does not apply to the fundamental purposes of the 
    bill.
        As is set forth in Cannon's precedents and in Hind's 
    precedents, it is required that any amendment be to the fundamental 
    purpose of the bill. The fact that the bill contains many subjects 
    does not necessarily mean that another subject can be added.
        I refer in particular to the ruling of the Chair in 5 Hind's 
    Precedents, 5825, which states as follows:

[[Page 8714]]

            While a Committee may report a bill embracing different 
        subjects, it is not in order during consideration in the House 
        to introduce a new subject by way of amendment.

        Now, this subject, the busing of schoolchildren, is a new 
    subject by way of amendment.
        I also make the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that this must be 
    germane to the particular section or paragraph to which it is 
    offered. There is nothing in this paragraph on schoolbusing, and on 
    the second page of the amendment, there is a reference to section 
    105 as well as to section 103.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the basis of 
    germaneness that this is not germane, because it deals with a 
    subject matter that is foreign to the subject matter of the 
    particular paragraph. And I quote now from 8 Cannon's Precedents, 
    2918, which was a bill from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, in which they were dealing with child labor in interstate 
    commerce and an amendment was offered to apply this to foreign 
    commerce, and the Chair ruled as follows:

            It seems to the Chair that most of the gentlemen who argued 
        in favor of this proposition have discussed the power of 
        Congress to regulate both interstate and foreign commerce 
        rather than the question of whether the proposition regulating 
        foreign commerce is germane to a bill regulating interstate 
        commerce. Two subjects are not necessarily germane to each 
        other because they are related.
            The Chair believes this is a bill to regulate child labor 
        and interstate commerce and, therefore, that an amendment 
        proposing to extend it to foreign commerce is a different 
        matter and not in order.
            Further, in Cannon's Precedents, under 2951, there is this 
        proposition:
            An amendment proposing to add an individual proposition to 
        a bill embodying another individual proposition is not 
        admissible even though the two propositions belong to the same 
        class. To a bill providing for insurance for crews of vessels 
        an amendment providing for insurance for sailors transported on 
        such vessels was held not to be germane.

        Now, in this bill, Mr. Chairman, we are providing for 
    allocation of fuel products, and it seems to me that this precedent 
    which provides that we cannot add an amendment applying to those 
    who were being transported on a vessel, is directly in point, and 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman is not germane.
        Mr. Chairman, I would further state that in this particular 
    matter we are dealing with the fundamental purpose of the bill. The 
    fundamental purpose of this bill is not to regulate the busing of 
    children. That is before the Committee on Labor and Education.
        Under the principles set forth in VIII Cannon's Precedents, 
    section 2911, it is clearly stated of child labor, which was 
    particularly involved there, that you could not extend the 
    proposition.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, because this is not germane to the 
    section to which it is offered and because it involves not being 
    germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill because it is not 
    germane even though there are several subjects embraced in this 
    bill, I therefore make a point of order against it. . . .
        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I, 
    too, would like to make a point of order against the amendment 
    because the Com

[[Page 8715]]

    mittee on the Judiciary spent a great deal of time considering the 
    various constitutional problems associated with schoolbusing, and 
    it comes properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor and not this committee. I do not think that we 
    should, in a bill dealing with trying to solve an economic crisis, 
    deal with matters attempting to correct racial imbalances by means 
    of busing of schoolchildren.

        Mr. Adams: Mr. Chairman, I finish my argument by stating in V 
    Hinds' Precedents, section 5825, despite the fact that this bill 
    has within it a number of different subjects, it is not in order to 
    introduce a new subject by way of amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, the regulation of schoolbusing through the 
    allocation of fuel or the failure to allocate fuel is introducing a 
    new subject into this bill. Even though there are many subjects 
    involved in it, it is one that is not properly before the Committee 
    at this time. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Washington has 
    made a most eloquent and moving statement regarding germaneness. It 
    is regrettable that he has apparently not read the amendment which 
    he discusses, because I read in the amendment nothing which refers 
    to matters under the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, nothing relating to enforced schoolbusing, nothing 
    relating to civil rights.
        Quite to the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I read into the amendment 
    the conservation of energy, the conservation of petroleum products, 
    the conservation of refined petroleum products.
        Mr. Chairman, my friend from Washington cited a great number of 
    precedents, and again I say it is most regrettable that he has not 
    bothered to read the amendment which is before us, because the 
    amendment before us relates to the conservation of energy as does 
    the bill before us.
        For the assistance of the Chair and my good friend from 
    Washington, for whom I have an abundance of affection and respect, 
    I will read now from page 442 of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives, under rule XVI, clause 7, which is a rule relating 
    to germaneness and which was not cited by my good friend from 
    Washington, and to read under the annotations thereunder this 
    language:

            Whether or not an amendment be germane should be judged 
        from the provisions of its text rather than from the purposes 
        which circumstances may suggest.

        The text is before the Chair. The Chair has read the text, I am 
    sure, in his preparation for ruling upon the matter before us.
        This amendment relates to allocations of products. It is 
    specifically a prohibition upon the allocation of products. Section 
    103 to which this amendment is drafted is an amendment to the 
    Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973. Section 103, as the 
    Chair will note, at page 4, line 4, relates to priorities among 
    users of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any refined petroleum 
    product, and for the assignment to such users of rights entitling 
    them to obtain any such oil or product in precedence.
        The amendment directs the President as to the way such users 
    may re

[[Page 8716]]

    ceive oil. It refers in line 11 of that page 4 to transportation 
    services. We transport hundreds of thousands of children in school 
    buses. This relates to the kind of allocation and priority of the 
    users of that kind of transportation.
        Further down in the same page, page 4, it refers again at line 
    17 to the President to cause such adjustments in the allocation. 
    Again, at line 19, the word ``allocation''--as may be necessary to 
    provide for the allocation of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any 
    refined petroleum product.
        Again at the bottom of page 4, line 24, ``The President shall 
    provide for procedures by which any user of such oil or product for 
    which priorities and entitlements are established under paragraphs 
    1 and 2.''
        It provides for petition and review and reclassification and 
    modification of any determination regarding priorities.
        At page 5, lines 1 through 4, and on the following page 6, 
    under line 4, the term ``allocation'' is again referred to. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) Unless there are other Members 
    who desire to be heard on the point of order, the Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had the opportunity to examine the amendment for 
    some hours--in fact, for approximately 1 day. The Chair has 
    diligently searched the precedents. The Chair finds that the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adams) that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is 
    not germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, is not 
    good.
        The Chair would like to describe why.
        The amendment is offered to section 103 of the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute which deals with the authority of the 
    President to establish rules for the ordering of priorities among 
    users of petroleum products. Section 103 specifies that in ordering 
    such priorities, the maintenance of vital services in the areas of 
    education and transportation is to be emphasized.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    restricts the authority bestowed upon the President by the pending 
    substitute and by the portion of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation 
    Act which is proposed to be altered. The amendment refers to fuel 
    allocation regulations to be issued under the act, and is germane.
        The Chair must, therefore, overrule the point of order.

Restriction on Official's Discretion To Interpret Laws Administered by 
    Him

Sec. 33.10 To a title of a bill as perfected, limiting in several 
    respects an executive official's authority to construe legal 
    authorities transferred to him in the bill except as specifically 
    permitted by law, an amendment further restricting that official's 
    authority to construe under any circumstances certain laws to be 
    administered by him was held germane as an

[[Page 8717]]

    additional (although more restrictive) curtailment of existing 
    authorities being transferred by the bill.

    On June 11, 1979,(13) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 2444, the Department of Education Organization 
Act of 1979. The first title of the bill as amended, in addition to 
creating a new Department of Education, stated broad findings and 
purposes of the Department including the promotion of daily prayer in 
public schools, prohibited the construction of laws administered by the 
Department to authorize federal control of public education except as 
specifically authorized by federal statute, and prohibited the 
Department from withholding federal funds from educational entities 
because of curriculum except as specifically authorized by law. An 
amendment was offered prohibiting the construction of laws administered 
by the Department to authorize the issuance of regulations requiring 
the transportation of students or teachers to achieve racial balance or 
requiring other desegregation plans as a condition of federal 
assistance. The amendment was held germane as a further restriction, 
related to those in the title as perfected, on the construction of laws 
to be administered by the Secretary of Education. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 14226, 14233, 1423-38, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: G5(14) Are there any amendments to section 2?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If not, the Clerk will designate title I.
        Title I reads as follows:

                         TITLE I--FINDINGS AND PURPOSES

                                    findings

            Sec. 101. The Congress of the United States finds that--
            (1) education is fundamental to the development of 
        individual citizens and the progress of the Nation as a whole;
            (2) there is a continuous need to ensure equal access for 
        all Americans to educational opportunities of a high quality;
            (3) the primary responsibility for education resides with 
        States, localities, and private institutions . . .
            (7) there is a need for improved coordination of Federal 
        education and related programs; and
            (8) there is no single, full-time, Federal education 
        official directly accountable to the President, the Congress, 
        and the people.

                                    purposes

            Sec. 102. The Congress therefore declares that the 
        establishment of a Department of Education is in the public 
        interest and will promote the general welfare of the United 
        States. Establishment of this Department will help ensure that 
        education issues receive proper treatment at the Federal level 
        and will enable the Federal Government to coordinate its 
        education activities more effec

[[Page 8718]]

        tively. The major purposes of the Department are:
            (1) to strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access 
        to equal educational opportunity for every American . . .
            (5) to increase the accountability of Federal education 
        programs to the President, the Congress, and the public;
            (6) to encourage the increased involvement of the public, 
        parents, and students in Federal education programs; and

            (7) to improve the coordination of Federal education 
        programs.

                prohibition against federal control of education

            Sec. 3. 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 or 
        agency to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over 
        the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or 
        personnel of any educational institution, school or school 
        system; over any accrediting agency or association; or over the 
        selection of library resources, textbooks, or other 
        instructional materials by any educational institution or 
        school system, except to the extent specifically authorized by 
        law.

    Subsequent amendments included the following:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 56, in line 17, 
        strike out the ``and'';
            In line 19, strike out the period and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``; and''; and
            After line 19, insert the following:
            (8) to promote in all public schools providing elementary 
        or secondary education a daily opportunity for prayer or 
        meditation, participation in which would be on a voluntary 
        basis. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. Skelton: Page 56, line 22, insert 
        ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 103.'', and on page 57, after 
        line 7, insert the following new subsection:
            (b) No funds provided under any program administered by the 
        Secretary or the Department may be suspended, terminated or 
        otherwise withheld from any educational institution, school or 
        school system on the basis of any requirement imposed by the 
        Secretary or the Department relating to curriculum, program of 
        instruction, administration, personnel, the selection of 
        library resources, textbooks or other instructional materials, 
        except where specifically authorized by law. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: on page 57, line 7 
        strike ``law.''
            And insert in lieu thereof the following language: ``by 
        federal statute. Regulations issued by the Department of 
        Education shall not have the standing of a federal statute for 
        the purposes of this section.''

    The amendment offered by Mr. Robert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, was 
amended to change ``promote'' to ``permit.'' (15) 
Thereafter, the amendments offered by Mr. Walker, Mr. Ike Skelton, of 
Missouri, and Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio, were agreed to. Then Mr. 
Ashbrook offered a further amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The amendment to the Walker amendment was offered by Mr. Arlen I. 
        Erdahl (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 8719]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 56, line 22, insert 
        ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 103.'' and page 57, after line 7 insert:
            ``(b) No provision of law shall be construed to authorize 
        the Secretary to issue any regulation, rule, interpretation, 
        guideline, or order which requires, as a condition of 
        eligibility to receive Federal assistance, or otherwise, the 
        transportation of students or teachers (or the formulation or 
        adoption of any plan for such transportation) to achieve racial 
        balance in or to carry out a plan for the desegregation of any 
        educational institution, school, or school system.''

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point 
    of order? . . .
        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that just a simple 
    reading of the amendment says that it is going to try to make a 
    plan of desegregation of any institution.
        I do think we can have any such plan really in that fashion. I 
    do want to make a point of order against the amendment under rule 
    XVI, clause 7, which requires amendments to be germane to the 
    subject under consideration.
        In order to be germane, an amendment must have the same 
    fundamental purpose as a bill under consideration.
        The purpose of H.R. 2444 is to establish a Department of 
    Education. It deals only with the organizational structure of that 
    Department. Amendments affecting programs or assigning new duties 
    to the Secretary or his assistants and employees that are not now 
    authorized by law are not consistent with that organizational 
    purpose and therefore should be ruled out of order.
        A further test might be that such an amendment would certainly 
    not be sent to the Government Operations Committee if it were 
    offered as a bill on the floor of this Congress. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, even the most strict reading of the 
    preamble clause of this bill, which, as my colleague has indicated, 
    has come out of the Government Operations Committee--not the 
    Judiciary Committee, not the Education Committee, it has come out 
    of the Government Operations Committee--even the most strict 
    interpretation if you read the preamble, they talk about every 
    facet of education, promoting education, making reports available; 
    every particular facet of education that relates to elementary and 
    secondary schools, is reposited in the Department of Education.
        I do not think there is an American, let alone a Congressman, 
    who believes that busing in one way or another is not a part of 
    education. I do not believe there is a Member of this Chamber who 
    believes in one way or another busing will not be under 
    consideration by the newly created Department of Education, and for 
    all those purposes, I believe it to be absolutely germane. I hope 
    the Chair will so rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Section 103, title I, mandates how existing education laws are 
    to be construed in several diverse respects. Section 103 does 
    contain certain limitations upon the statutory constructions

[[Page 8720]]

    of several authorities of the Secretary to control education 
    programs.
        The amendment is a further restriction on construction of other 
    authority of the Secretary in construing existing education law, is 
    germane to title I and the Chair therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Amendment Providing for Disapproval of Agency Regulations by Congress

Sec. 33.11 To a bill authorizing an agency to undertake certain 
    activities, an amendment providing that agency regulations issued 
    pursuant to that authority may be disapproved by Congress is a 
    germane restriction upon the authority conferred in the bill so 
    long as the disapproval mechanism does not directly amend the rules 
    of the House; thus, although other committees of the House have 
    jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory 
    authority contained in various environmental laws, an amendment to 
    a bill reported from the Committee on Science and Technology 
    (having jurisdiction over environmental research and development) 
    which restricts the internal regulations of that agency relating to 
    its research and development activities may be germane if limited 
    to that phase of the agency's operations.

    During consideration of H.R. 12704 (16) in the Committee 
of the Whole on May 4, 1976,(17) the Chair overruled a point 
of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The environmental research, development and demonstration 
        authorization for fiscal year 1977.
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 12344-48, 94th 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 (a) 
        there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Environmental Protection Agency for the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 1977, for the following categories:
            (1) Research, development, and demonstration under the 
        Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 
        $13,813,900.
            (2) Research, development, and demonstration under section 
        301 of the Public Health Service Act, $878,900.
            (3) Research, development, and demonstration under the Safe 
        Drinking Water Act, $13,592,500. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. Ketchum: Page 5, after line 7, add 
        the following new section:
            Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no rule 
        or regulation promulgated on or after the date of enactment of 
        this Act by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
        Agency, in connection

[[Page 8721]]

        with research, development, or demonstration under any of the 
        Acts specified in subsection (a) of the first section of this 
        Act, shall become effective unless . . . the Congress by 
        concurrent resolution does not disapprove such rule or 
        regulation within 60 days. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us 
    has the purpose of authorizing appropriations to the Office of 
    Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency for 
    fiscal year 1977 with respect to certain specific areas.

        One is research, development, and demonstration under the 
    Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which act, as 
    I understand it, is an act wholly under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Agriculture, even with respect to its research 
    operations; with respect to research, development, and 
    demonstration under section 301 of the Public Health Service Act, 
    which is an act which is generally under the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce; research, 
    development, and demonstration under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
    which is an act generally under the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Interstate and Foreign Commerce; research, development, and 
    demonstration under the Clean Air Act, which is also under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    generally; research, development, and demonstration under the Solid 
    Waste Disposal Act, which is generally under the jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce; research, 
    development, and demonstration under the Federal Water Pollution 
    Control Act Amendments of 1972, which is generally under the 
    Committee on Public Works. . . .
        Furthermore, this provision, as I read it, would make a rule or 
    regulation which might include regulatory authority, but which 
    would also include research, development, or demonstration within 
    its reach, subject to what is called the congressional veto.
        Thus, if a rule or regulation were made by the Administrator 
    that affected both research and development and other functions of 
    the agency clearly outside the jurisdiction of this committee, this 
    amendment would reach, broadly, rules and regulations of very 
    diverse character. . . .
        The original rule, if vetoed by concurrent resolution by 
    Congress, would in turn be subject to a veto by the President 
    because the Constitution says that any act requiring the 
    concurrence of both bodies must be submitted to the President and 
    he may veto it.
        So this amendment has great and broad reach far beyond the 
    provisions of the bill, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is 
    therefore not germane to the bill itself. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Ketchum [of California]: . . . If you will 
    read the language of my regulatory reform-type amendment closely, 
    you will see that it pertains only to rules and regulations 
    connected with ``research, development, or demonstration under any 
    of the acts specified in subsection (a).'' Therefore, the scope of 
    my amendment is expressly limited to coincide with the scope of 
    this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Ketchum) is his 
    argument that

[[Page 8722]]

    this is most assuredly within rule XVI of the House which requires 
    germaneness, because in any such situation where a proposition 
    confers broad discretionary power upon an executive official, it is 
    perfectly within the rights of any Member to offer an amendment 
    that directs that official to take certain actions prior to the 
    expenditure of funds or the exercising of certain policies.
        In chapter 28, paragraph 24.2 of Deschler's Procedure, the 
    general rule is stated that points out the precedents on an 
    authorization bill indicate that the authorization itself may be 
    made contingent upon a future event if the event is related to the 
    subject matter before the House. . . .
        Mr. Eckhardt: . . . Rules and regulations, under almost all 
    administrative agency acts or acts concerning a department of 
    Government that has a rule or regulatory structure, are contained 
    in a special section of a bill.
        They generally deal with the action of that department or of 
    that regulatory agency having to do with enforcement, but they also 
    in many instances deal with matters of internal operation of the 
    agency, which internal operation concerns both research and 
    development and examination of projects, direction of personnel of 
    highly technical proficiency, and other matters.
        These matters are related not only to the ultimate regulation, 
    but are related to certain research which occurs prior to the 
    making of such final rules affecting the persons so regulated.
        When we permit an amendment to a bill which purports only to 
    deal with demonstration projects, et cetera, under this committee's 
    jurisdiction, with this whole complex subject of rulemaking, and 
    provide an entirely new method of congressional review whereby a 
    rule will not go into effect if Congress, by concurrent resolution, 
    disapproves such rule or regulation, we vastly alter a section in 
    each of these bills that deals not only with rules and regulations 
    or, rather, with demonstration and research, but also is related to 
    the whole operation of the bill.
        One cannot go in and alter those sections piecemeal. And if we 
    permit an amendment on the floor to provide for this kind of 
    congressional review and then a subsequent presidential veto, we 
    deal with a matter so integrally related with the rulemaking 
    process in each of these bills--four of which I believe were under 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, one under the Committee on Agriculture and one under the 
    Committee on Public Works and Transportation--that we invite utter 
    confusion respecting where the dividing line is between the rule's 
    application to research and development and the rule's application 
    to other functions. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would first point out that the research and 
    development programs in the bill itself are very broad and diverse, 
    as is illustrated by the six categories that are set forth on page 
    2, lines 1 through 15. In addition to that, based upon the language 
    of the amendment itself, as well as the colloquy between the 
    gentleman from California and the gentleman from Washington, the 
    amendment is restricted to regula

[[Page 8723]]

    tions promulgated in connection with research, development, and 
    demonstration activities, under the acts that are specified in this 
    bill. Therefore, it does not go to other research and development 
    programs not specified in the bill and not within the Science and 
    Technology Committee's jurisdiction.
        The Chair would also point out that this amendment provides 
    merely for a disapproval mechanism in a manner that does not change 
    the Rules of the House, so it really is a limitation upon the 
    authority granted under the act. The Chair cannot, of course, rule 
    upon the constitutionality of such a disapproval procedure. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order and holds the 
    amendment germane.

Authority of Federal Energy Administrator -- Amendment To Direct 
    Administrator To Restrict Petroleum Exports

Sec. 33.12 To a proposition conferring broad discretionary authority on 
    an executive official, an amendment directing that official to take 
    certain actions in the exercise of that authority is germane; thus, 
    to an amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizing the 
    Federal Energy Administrator to restrict exports of certain energy 
    resources, an amendment directing that official to prohibit the 
    exportation of petroleum products for use in military operations in 
    Indochina was held germane as a delineation of the broad authority 
    conferred by that substitute.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(19) during consideration of H.R. 11450 
(the Energy Emergency Act), the Chair held the following amendment to 
be germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to which it 
was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 41753, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: 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 Ms. Holtzman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 45, insert 
        after line 9:

           ``sec. 124. prohibition of petroleum exports for military 
                            operations in indochina.

            ``In the exercise of his jurisdiction under the preceding 
        section, and in order to conserve petroleum products for use in 
        the United States, the Administrator shall prohibit the 
        exportation of petroleum products for use, directly or 
        indirectly, in military operations in South Vietnam, Cambodia 
        or Laos.''. . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that this amendment is not germane to the 
    bill since it deals with a subject matter that is under the 
    jurisdiction of other committees of the

[[Page 8724]]

    House of Representatives, the Committee on Armed Services and the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs, as an example. . . .
        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, I do desire to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, certainly the subject of petroleum products seems 
    to be within the jurisdiction of this committee since we have been 
    debating this matter for at least 3 days. So I would urge that that 
    subject is germane, and that my amendment is germane to the bill.

        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    which appears at the bottom of page 44 reads in part as follows:

            To the extent necessary to carry out the purpose of this 
        Act, the Administrator may under authority of this Act, by 
        rule, restrict exports of coal, petroleum products. . . .

        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
    Holtzman) is a further delineation of that type of authority. 
    Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill).

--Amendment Imposing Ceiling Prices on Petroleum Products

Sec. 33.13 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 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,(1) during consideration of H.R. 11793 
(2) 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

[[Page 8725]]

be administered by that agency is not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 5433-36, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Federal Energy Administration Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 reorganization bill, and section 5, under rule 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

[[Page 8726]]

    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: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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 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 California (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.

[[Page 8727]]

        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.

--Amendment To Prohibit Administrator From Setting Domestic Oil Prices 
    Above Certain Level

Sec. 33.14 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 prohibiting the 
    Administrator from setting ceiling prices for domestic crude oil 
    above a designated level in the exercise of the authority 
    transferred to him in the bill was held a germane limitation not 
    directly amending existing law, on the discretionary authority 
    conferred in that section.

    During consideration of the Federal Energy Administration Act (H.R. 
11793) in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 6, 1974,(4) the

[[Page 8728]]

Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 5444-46, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell: Page 19 at the end of 
        line 7 strike the semicolon and add the following: ``The 
        Administrator, in exercising the functions transferred by this 
        Act, may not fix the price for domestic crude oil higher than 
        the price prevailing in the United States on May 15, 1973, plus 
        $1.30 per barrel; or $5.25 per barrel plus 35 per centum 
        thereof, if he finds it consistent with the purposes of this 
        Act.''. . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    amends a section of the Economic Stabilization Act that is not 
    involved in this bill. For that reason and the other reasons I have 
    previously stated, I make the point of order that this amendment is 
    nongermane. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: . . . Mr. Chairman, the question before us is, 
    what is the nature of the amendment and to what statute does the 
    amendment apply. The amendment is first of all, Mr. Chairman, a 
    limitation on the powers which may be exercised.
        As the Chair will observe, the amendment relates to section 5, 
    which is entitled, ``Functions,'' which appears in line 10 on page 
    18. The Chair will note that in the sections transferred under 
    section 5 at line 3, page 19, the administrator shall, and then he 
    is directed to do the following:

            (5) 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;

        Mr. Chairman, to recapitulate briefly, this amendment relates 
    to functions which are transferred to the administrator from other 
    agencies in Government. It refers specifically only to the powers 
    which are vested in him by the transfers accomplished under this 
    bill.
        Referring to page 19, line 3, the administrator would have the 
    duty transferred to him, and I am now quoting section 5:

            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;

        Now, the administrator in exercising these functions as listed 
    above would not be able to fix prices for domestic crude oil higher 
    than the price prevailing in the United States on May 15, 1973, 
    plus the additional limitations which he could add if he were to 
    feel that it were to be consistent with the purposes of the act.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment here is a limitation of the 
    functions to be transferred and the powers which would be 
    transferred. Clearly, this would then be a germane amendment 
    because the amendment does not add, but rather subtracts, limits 
    and restricts the functions and powers and prerogatives which would 
    be vested in the administrator. It adds nothing that is not in the 
    bill now, but rather limits significantly the powers which would be 
    vested in the administrator.
        For that reason, I submit to the Chair that the amendment is 
    germane.

[[Page 8729]]

        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    support of the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, in my opinion this amendment, by the use of the 
    word ``shall,'' imposes a mandate upon the Administrator. The 
    authors have tried to draw this in the form of a limiting 
    amendment. However, it actually says ``shall.'' It says, ``Shall 
    fix the price for domestic crude oil,'' and then it goes on and 
    says no higher than a certain amount and by a certain date and 
    $1.30 per barrel plus 35 percent of $5.25, if he finds it 
    consistent with the act. Therefore, actually, it mandates a duty 
    upon the Administrator and it interferes, in my opinion, with the 
    general mandate that he should stabilize the functions where the 
    bill promotes stability in energy prices to the consumer.
        That is the general statement of the objective, but it does not 
    tell the Administrator how to do it. This tells the Administrator 
    how to do it, and also imposes upon him certain limitations as to 
    what he can do.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has offered an 
    amendment to section 5 of the bill.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has made a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to 
    the section under consideration. The gentleman from California, 
    speaking in support of the point of order, has stated that the 
    amendment mandates certain action by the Administrator.
        The Chair has carefully studied the language of the amendment 
    and does not interpret any portion thereof as a mandate to set a 
    certain price, because the language of the amendment, as read and 
    to be printed in the Record at this point, does not say, ``shall,'' 
    but, rather, uses the words, ``may not.'' Nor does the amendment 
    amend existing law--the Economic Stabilization Act--as has been 
    suggested.
        Section 5 is a section that includes a broad range of functions 
    and duties. It is clear that functions or duties enumerated therein 
    could be limited by way of amendment.
        The language of this amendment appears to limit the functions 
    stated in section 5 of the bill, and the Chair, therefore, 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: So that the Chair ruled that 
    the language ``may not'' is permissive. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state in response to the inquiry 
    of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) that the Chair ruled that 
    the language of the amendment was a limitation above which the 
    Administrator could not go in exercising certain functions 
    transferred to it under the provisions of this act.

--Amendment Directing Administrator To Issue Guidelines for Citizens' 
    Fuel Use

Sec. 33.15 To a proposition conferring discretionary authority, an 
    amendment adding a related function or limiting the exercise of 
    that authority is germane; thus, to a section of a bill prescribing 
    the func

[[Page 8730]]

    tions of a new Federal Energy Administration by conferring wide 
    discretionary powers upon the Administrator, an amendment directing 
    the Administrator to issue preliminary summer guidelines for 
    citizens' fuel use was held germane as a further delineation of 
    those functions.

    On Mar. 5 (6) and 6,(7) 1974, the Committee 
of the Whole had under consideration a section of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act (H.R. 11793) stating in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 5301, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. Id. at pp. 5436, 5437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 5. To meet the energy needs of the Nation for the 
    foreseeable future, the Administrator shall--
        (1) advise the President and the Congress with respect to the 
    establishment of a comprehensive national energy policy for the 
    balance of the twentieth century, and in coordination with the 
    Secretary of State, the integration of domestic and foreign 
    policies relating to energy resource management;
        (2) assess the adequacy of energy resources in meeting demands 
    for the immediate and long-range future for all sectors of the 
    economy and for the general public;
        (3) develop effective arrangements for the participation of 
    State and local governments in the resolution of energy problems;
        (4) develop plans and programs for dealing with energy 
    production shortages;
        (5) 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;
        (6) assure that programs are designed and implemented in a fair 
    and efficient manner so as to minimize hardship and inequity while 
    assuring that the priority needs of the Nation are met;
        (7) develop and oversee the implementation of equitable 
    voluntary and mandatory energy conservation programs and promote 
    efficiencies in the use of energy resources;
        (8) develop and recommend policies on import and export of 
    energy resources;
        (9) collect, evaluate, assemble, and analyze energy information 
    on reserves, production and demand and related economic data;
        (10) identify the need for and take action to expedite the 
    development of energy resources;
        (11) work with business, labor, consumer and other interests 
    and obtain their cooperation; and
        (12) perform such other functions as may be prescribed by law.
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that section 5 be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. . 
    . .
        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Gunter [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 8731]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Gunter: Page 19, line 23, add the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(11) Issue preliminary summer guidelines for citizen fuel 
        use within 30 days of the enactment of this Act.
            Page 19, line 23, strike out ``(11)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``(12)''.
            Page 20, line 1, strike out ``(12)'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``(13)''.

        Mr. Horton: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendments. Basically they are the same arguments I made before and 
    also this sets up a policy or program which is outside the section 
    and not a subject matter of this bill.
        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gunter: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment is rather simple and easy to 
    understand. It requires the Administrator to issue within 30 days, 
    upon enactment of this act, a preliminary summary. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment as stated would simply require the 
    Administrator, to issue within 30 days upon enactment of this act, 
    preliminary summer guidelines for fuel use which, Mr. Chairman, I 
    think falls within the framework of the section specifying the 
    functions. I do not interpret this particular specification as 
    outside of those programs which are spelled out in the committee 
    report, and in the body of the act.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gunter) has offered an 
    amendment to section 5 of the bill, to which amendment the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of order.
        The Chair has carefully read the language of the amendment, and 
    has carefully listened to the arguments made by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Horton), in support of his point of order, and the 
    arguments made by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gunter), in 
    opposition to the point of order.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the language of the amendment as 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida clearly relates to the 
    functions of the Administrator, which are otherwise enumerated and 
    defined within the section now under consideration.
        The Chair finds nothing in the language of the amendment which 
    mandates the Administrator any more than do the other functions 
    enumerated, nor does the Chair find anything in the amendment which 
    would in any way amend or seek to amend existing law.
        The Chair does not rule now or at any other time on the 
    consistency of amendments; the Chair, therefore, after analyzing 
    the amendment and listening to the argument, rules that the 
    amendment is germane and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

--Amendment To Prohibit Rationing Without Congressional Approval

Sec. 33.16 To a section of a bill prescribing the functions of a new 
    Federal Energy Administration, an amendment prohibiting the 
    promulgation

[[Page 8732]]

    of petroleum rationing rules as an exercise of the authority 
    conferred in that section, without prior approval by Congress 
    (which did not constitute a change in House rules), was held a 
    germane limitation on that discretionary authority.

    On Mar. 6, 1974,(9) during consideration of H.R. 11793 
(10) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman John J. Flynt, 
Jr., of Georgia, overruled a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 120 Cong. Rec. 5439, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Federal Energy Administration Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: Page 20, line 2, strike 
        out the period and insert the following: ``; Provided however, 
        That none of the powers or functions granted to the 
        Administrator under the terms of this Act shall permit the 
        promulgation of any rule or rules providing for the 
        establishment of a program for the rationing among classes of 
        users of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any refined petroleum 
        product, and for the assignment to such users of such products 
        of rights, and evidence of such rights, entitling them to 
        obtain such products in precedence to other classes of users 
        not similarly entitled, without the prior approval of 
        Congress.''. . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment for the reasons that I have stated 
    earlier. In addition, in effect it indirectly amends section 4 of 
    the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act, and it also gives specific 
    negative direction to the administrator in a section which purports 
    to outline the general powers or functions of the administrator. 
    Therefore, I think it is a nongermane amendment, and I ask that the 
    Chair declare it nongermane. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: . . . [T]he amendment specifically states that it 
    applies to the limitations of the powers and functions granted to 
    the administrator under the terms of this act. . . .
        For the . . . reason that this is no more than a limitation on 
    the powers granted in the bill, I think this is perfectly germane. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) has offered an 
    amendment to section 5 of the bill. The gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of order against the amendment on 
    the ground of nongermaneness. The Chair has carefully read the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman). It 
    is well settled that section 5 includes a broad range of functions 
    and duties of the administrator. It is clear that under the rules 
    of germaneness, other related functions may be added to the list by 
    way of amendment.
        Also, the functions or duties therein enumerated may be limited 
    by way of amendment.
        The Chair feels that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Maryland is in the nature of a limitation

[[Page 8733]]

    and, therefore, overrules the point of order.

--Limitation on Authority Regarding Setting of Prices for Propane Gas

Sec. 33.17 To a proposition conferring discretionary authority, an 
    amendment limiting the exercise of that authority is germane; thus, 
    to a section of a bill prescribing the functions of a new Federal 
    Energy Administration by conferring wide discretionary powers upon 
    the Administrator, an amendment limiting the authority of the 
    Administrator in setting prices for propane gas by requiring an 
    equitable allocation of costs of production based upon certain 
    delineated standards was held germane where the amendment did not 
    directly amend existing law.

    During consideration of H.R. 11793 (11) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Mar. 5, 1974,(12) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The Federal Energy Administration Act.
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 5309, 5310, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Page 20, after line 2, 
        insert the following new subsection:
            (13) in administering any pricing authority, by rule, 
        provide for equitable allocation of all component costs of 
        producing propane gas. Such rules may require that (a) only 
        those costs directly related to the production of propane may 
        be allocated by any producer to such gas for purposes of 
        establishing any price for propane, and (b) prices for propane 
        shall be based on the prices for propane in effect on May 15, 
        1973. . . .

    Mr. Frank Horton, of New York, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane, and referred to the arguments he had 
successfully used against a prior amendment, which had sought directly 
to amend a statute not amended by the bill.(13) In addition 
to arguing on the basis of committee jurisdiction of the subject matter 
of the bill and amendment, he had sought to establish that the bill's 
purpose was to change the organizational structure through which energy 
programs were administered, without changing substantive laws and 
without changing policies or granting authority to substantially change 
existing programs, so that an amendment which in effect sought to 
achieve the latter would not be germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 120 Cong. Rec. 5306-08, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 5, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York in 
    raising a

[[Page 8734]]

    point of order with reference to my amendment addresses himself to 
    the transfer of functions, which is the entire basis of his 
    argument.
        I point out to the Chairman that the transfer of functions is 
    achieved under section 6, page 20, of the bill entitled 
    ``Transfers.''
        My amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to section 5 entitled 
    ``Functions.''
        While this bill establishes a new Federal Energy Administration 
    for administering the authority transferred to it by the enactment 
    of this bill, it also grants authority to exercise the power of 
    discretion.
        Discretion with respect to the establishment of a comprehensive 
    national energy policy for the balance of the 20th century.
        Discretion to develop plans and programs for dealing with 
    energy production shortages.
        Discretion to promote stability in energy prices to the 
    consumer.
        Discretion to prevent unreasonable profits within the various 
    segments of the energy industry.
        And, discretion to assure that programs are designed and 
    implemented in a fair and efficient manner so as to minimize 
    hardships and inequity.
        Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the exercise of previous Federal 
    discretion has in fact caused hardships and inequity--has in fact 
    been unfair--I offer this amendment to limit the discretion of the 
    Administrator granted in this bill so as to insure that he shall, 
    by rule, assure that programs are in fact designed and implemented 
    in a fair and efficient manner so as to minimize hardship and 
    inequity.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander) has offered an 
    amendment on page 20, after line 2. . . .
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) has raised a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is a nongermane 
    amendment and on the ground that it seeks to amend existing law.
        The Chair has carefully examined the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander) and has listened carefully 
    to the arguments made in support of the point of order by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) and the arguments made against 
    the point of order by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander). 
    The Chair does not find anything in the amendment which seeks to 
    amend any existing law.
        The Chair has referred to volume VIII, Cannon's Precedents, 
    sections 3022 and 3023, where it is stated that to a provision 
    delegating certain powers a proposal to limit such powers is 
    germane.
        To a section authorizing the Interstate Commerce Commission to 
    change rates, an amendment providing that the Commission in making 
    such changes shall not increase rates was held to be germane.
        To a proposal to grant certain authority, an amendment proposed 
    to limit such authority is germane.
        To a bill authorizing the imposition of war risk insurance to 
    insure vessels, an amendment denying such insurance to vessels 
    charging exorbitant rates was held to be germane.
        The pending section, as the Chair points out, contains a list 
    of functions or authority.

[[Page 8735]]

        The Chair will again point out that 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.

        Section 5 of the bill under consideration sets forth the 
    functions of the Administrator. Under the provisions of section 5 
    the Administrator is directed to engage in the following:
        To advise the President and the Congress on energy policies; 
    assess the adequacy of energy resources; develop plans and programs 
    for dealing with energy production shortages; promote stability in 
    energy prices and prevent unreasonable profits; assure that 
    programs are designed and implemented to assure the priority needs 
    of the Nation are met; develop and oversee voluntary and mandatory 
    energy conservation programs; recommend policies on import and 
    export policy; and take action to expedite development of energy 
    resources.
        This section includes a broad range of powers; therefore it is 
    clear that to the list functions so enumerated in this section, 
    other related functions could be added by way of amendment. It is 
    also clear that these functions or duties could be limited by way 
    of amendment. For these reasons, the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Energy Conservation Measures by Civil Aeronautics Board--Amendment To 
    Require Congressional Approval of Revisions of Airline Flights

Sec. 33.18 To a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    providing that the Civil Aeronautics Board and other regulatory 
    agencies shall have authority within their jurisdictions to take 
    actions to conserve energy, an amendment requiring Congressional 
    approval of revisions of scheduled airline flights (but not 
    amending the rules of the House) was held germane as a restriction 
    on the authority granted in that section.

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (H.R. 11450) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 14, 1973,(15) the Chair 
held germane an amendment to the following section of an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 41746, 41747, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        sec. 107. regulated carriers.

        (a) Agency Authority.--The Interstate Commerce Commission (with 
    respect to common or contract carriers subject to economic 
    regulation under the Interstate Commerce Act), the Civil 
    Aeronautics Board, and the Federal Maritime Commission shall, for 
    the duration of the period beginning on the date of enactment of 
    this Act and ending on May 15, 1975, have authority to take any 
    action for the purpose of conserving energy consumption in a manner 
    found by such Commission or Board to be consistent with the 
    objectives and purposes of the Acts adminis

[[Page 8736]]

    tered by such Commission or Board on its own motion or on the 
    petition of the Administrator which existing law permits such 
    Commission or Board to take upon the motion or petition of any 
    regulated common or contract carrier or other person. . . .
        (c) Reports.--Within sixty days after the date of enactment of 
    this Act, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Maritime 
    Commission, and the Interstate Commerce Commission shall report 
    separately to the appropriate committees of the Congress on the 
    need for additional regulatory authority in order to conserve fuel 
    during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act 
    and ending on May 15, 1975, while continuing to provide for the 
    public convenience and necessity. . . .
    Each such report shall further make recommendations with respect to 
    changes in any existing fuel allocation programs which are deemed 
    necessary to provide for the public convenience and necessity 
    during such period.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois] to 
        the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: on Page 16 following 
        line 14, add the following newparagraph and renumber the 
        ensuing paragraphs accordingly:
            ``(c) The revision of regular airline schedules, including 
        the elimination of scheduled flights shall be permitted only 
        pursuant to authority granted by the Civil Aeronautics Board. 
        In exercising this authority, the Civil Aeronautics Board shall 
        report to both Houses of the Congress within 30 days following 
        such approved revision of plane schedules or elimination of 
        regularly scheduled plane flights. The Civil Aeronautics Board 
        shall be empowered to reinstate any such revised plane 
        schedules or elimination of commercial air flights as to which 
        both Houses of Congress shall by affirmative vote overrule any 
        such orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board, and with respect to 
        which the Congress shall find that such joint Congressional 
        action shall not jeopardize the energy control purposes of this 
        legislation.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    substitutes an entirely new procedure and requires a proceedings 
    essentially similar to or identical to that required by the 
    Reorganization Act on reorganization in connection with actions to 
    be taken by a Federal regulatory agency. Nowhere else in the bill 
    which is now before us is any language imposing that kind of a 
    procedure or process of congressional approval over the Federal 
    regulatory agencies.
        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane and 
    falls as violative of the rule of germaneness. Since we are not 
    engaging in an action or after an authority to the regulatory 
    agency involved, but rather to set up an entirely new procedure 
    involving congressional action, congressional approval of agency 
    actions through a device which is totally different than that found 
    anywhere else in the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the language 
    appearing on

[[Page 8737]]

    page 15, section 107. It appears to the Chair that insofar as the 
    amendment is concerned, it represents a restriction in the exercise 
    of the power outlined in section 107(a), so the Chair feels that 
    the amendment is germane to the matter and overrules the point of 
    order.

Broad Authority To Minimize Effect of Energy Emergency Act on 
    Employment--Amendment Directing Particular Means to Assist 
    Unemployed

Sec. 33.19 To a proposition conferring a broad authority to accomplish 
    a particular result, an amendment authorizing and directing a 
    specific approach to be taken in the exercise of such authority is 
    germane; thus, to a section of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute directing the president to minimize any adverse impact 
    upon employment because of actions taken under the Energy Emergency 
    Act to conserve energy resources, an amendment authorizing grants 
    to states for assistance to individuals unemployed as the result of 
    administration of that Act and not eligible for assistance under 
    other unemployment compensation programs was held to be germane.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(17) during consideration of H.R. 11450 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that 
a specific proposition is germane to a proposition more general in 
scope, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, holding an amendment to 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute to be germane, as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 41732, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The Energy Emergency Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        sec. 122. employment impact and worker assistance.

            (a) Carrying out his responsibilities under this Act, the 
        President shall take into consideration and shall minimize, to 
        the fullest extent practicable, any adverse impact of actions 
        taken pursuant to this Act upon employment. All agencies of 
        government shall cooperate fully under their existing statutory 
        authority to minimize any such adverse impact.
            (b) On or before the sixtieth day following the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the President shall report to the 
        Congress concerning the present and prospective impact of 
        energy shortages upon employment. Such report shall contain an 
        assessment of the adequacy of existing programs in meeting the 
        needs of adversely affected workers and shall include 
        legislative recommendations which the President deems 
        appropriate to meet such needs, including revisions in the 
        unemployment insurance laws.

        Mr. [Ronald A.] Sarasin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the

[[Page 8738]]

    gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sarasin to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: Page 44, after 
        line 12, insert the following:
            (b) The President is authorized and directed to make grants 
        to States to provide to any individual unemployed, if such 
        unemployment resulted from the administration and enforcement 
        of this Act and was in no way due to the fault of such 
        individual, such assistance as the President deems appropriate 
        while such individual is unemployed. Such assistance as a State 
        shall provide under such a grant shall be available to 
        individuals not otherwise eligible for unemployment 
        compensation and individuals who have otherwise exhausted their 
        eligibility for such unemployment compensation, and shall 
        continue as long as unemployment in the area caused by such 
        administration and enforcement continues (but not less than six 
        months) or until the individual is reemployed in a suitable 
        position, but not longer than two years after the individual 
        becomes eligible for such assistance. Such assistance shall not 
        exceed the maximum weekly amount under the unemployment 
        compensation program of the State in which the employment loss 
        occurred. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment, that the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill.
        I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane to 
    the section. . . .
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, my point in 
    supporting the point of order raised by the gentleman from Michigan 
    is that the Unemployment Compensation Act is not being amended in 
    any place in this act. The gentleman in the well is attempting to 
    amend the Unemployment Compensation Act.
        I happen to be rather familiar with it; it is one of the acts 
    that is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    and I am sure it is not within the scope of this act at all. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: . . . As the Chair will note, the bill in 
    subsection (a) of section 122, which is amended, provides for the 
    President taking certain actions to minimize the impact of the 
    adverse effect of the act. In the second part, the President is 
    directed to perform a study.
        As the Chair will note, the amendment offered by my good friend 
    from Connecticut--and I commend him for offering it; it is an 
    amendment that appears to have a great deal of merit--but I would 
    point out it is not an amendment which is germane, because the 
    amendment directs the President and the States to provide for 
    individual unemployed and to make payments for unemployment.
        It relates to the eligibility of unemployed for compensation 
    and Federal grants which in turn support the unemployment 
    compensation, and also authorizes appropriations, which is not 
    authorized in the act before us.
        It is for those reasons, since some of the provisions are 
    carried elsewhere in the bill or in the section before us, it is 
    obvious the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Sarasin: . . . On line 7, page 44, the first section of 
    paragraph A, it says:

[[Page 8739]]

            Carrying out his responsibilities under this Act, the 
        President shall take into consideration and shall minimize, to 
        the fullest extent practicable, any adverse impact of actions 
        taken pursuant to this Act upon employment.

        It is the responsibility of various agencies. I do not see that 
    this amendment I have offered to authorize the President to make 
    grants to States providing assistance to any individual unemployed, 
    if such unemployment is resulting from the administration and 
    enforcement of this act, is nongermane.
        It would seem to me that it certainly is a logical extension of 
    what is in here within section 122 as it now stands.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair will state that the section sought to be amended by 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    Sarasin), as he has just read it, directs the President, in 
    carrying out his responsibilities under this act, that he shall 
    take into consideration and shall minimize, to the fullest extent 
    practicable, any adverse impact of actions taken pursuant to this 
    act upon unemployment.
        The amendment does not amend another act. It seeks to provide 
    an authorization for a specific approach for the carrying out of 
    the broad authority bestowed upon the President to ``minimize'' 
    adverse impact of actions taken under the act.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order, and, under 
    clause 6 of rule XXIII, recognizes the gentleman for 5 minutes.

Authority of Price Control Administrator

Sec. 33.20 To a bill amending the Price Control Act of 1942 and 
    containing provisions relating to powers of the Administrator under 
    that act, an amendment was held to be germane which proposed 
    further restrictions and limitations on the authority of the 
    Administrator and employees of the Office of Price Administration, 
    especially with respect to the authority to impose penalties.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(19) to extend the period of operation of the Emergency 
Price Control Act of 1942, the following amendment was offered: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 4941 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
20.  90 Cong. Rec. 5713, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John] Jennings [Jr., of Tennessee]: 
    On page 12, line 2, add a new paragraph as follows:

            Sec. 2. Section 201 of the Emergency Price Control Act of 
        1942, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(f) . . . No person, who in good faith acts upon a 
        written interpretation of any . . . regulation . . . of the 
        Office of Price Administration made by any official authorized 
        by the Price Administrator . . . shall be subjected to any 
        penalty . . unless such interpretation shall have been revoked 
        and notice of such revocation shall have been given. . . .''

[[Page 8740]]

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

        Mr. [A. S. Mike] Monroney [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to 
    this bill. It involves the rationing powers conferred on the O.P.A. 
    by Executive order under authority of the Second War Powers Act, 
    and thus is not germane to price control.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 2. 90 Cong. Rec. 5714, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he pending bill provides for amendment to the 
    Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and contains provisions 
    relating to the Administrator of that act and imposes certain 
    limitations and restrictions on the Administrator. The Chair is of 
    the opinion that the pending amendment also seeks to impose certain 
    restrictions and limitations on the Administrator of the Emergency 
    Price Control Act of 1942. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.

Price and Wage Stabilization--Jurisdiction of Bureau of Internal 
    Revenue

Sec. 33.21 To a bill amending and extending an act providing for price 
    and wage stabilization, an amendment was held to be germane which 
    sought to give to the Bureau of Internal Revenue jurisdiction over 
    stabilization of salaries of executive and professional personnel, 
    and which incorporated by reference certain definitions of terms 
    contained in existing laws.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Defense Production 
Act Amendments of 1952,(3) the following amendment was 
offered: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 821 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 4. 98 Cong. Rec. 8061, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 25, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Cole of Kansas: Page 9, line 3, insert 
    a new section as follows:

            Sec. 110. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this 
        section, administration of salary stabilization for executive, 
        administrative, supervisory, and professional personnel shall 
        be under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, 
        under stabilization policies promulgated by the Economic 
        Stabilization Administrator. The term ``supervisory personnel'' 
        as used herein shall have the same meaning as the term 
        ``supervisor'' as defined by the ``Labor-Management Relations 
        Act, 1947,'' and the terms ``executive,'' ``administrative,'' 
        and ``professional'' shall have the same meaning as the 
        corresponding terms as defined in existing regulations of the 
        Administrator for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

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

[[Page 8741]]

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill but attempts to amend other legislation that is 
    not before us. It attempts to impose other duties upon the Bureau 
    of Internal Revenue, Treasury Department, and also attempts to 
    change the Fair Labor Standards Act.

    Mr. Albert M. Cole, of Kansas, who had offered the amendment, 
stated:

        The amendment . . . merely transfers the responsibility of 
    salary stabilization from the Wage Stabilization Board to the 
    Bureau of Internal Revenue. . . .

    Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, also speaking in defense of the 
amendment, stated:

        . . . The manner of stabilizing salaries and wages surely is 
    not only germane to the bill, because the bill compels the 
    President to stabilize wages and salaries when he controls prices, 
    but in this particular section he is compelled to stabilize wages 
    and salaries, even though the present act was silent on the manner 
    in which he stabilizes salaries. An amendment which provides the 
    machinery for stabilization of salaries would surely be in order.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 6. 98 Cong. Rec. 8062, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 25, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Cole] proposes to change the existing 
    provisions of section 403 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 as 
    amended) by making specific, whereas 403 now leaves discretion.
        The Chair is of the opinion, therefore, that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Cole] is germane. . . .

Discretion of Interstate Commerce Commission in Establishing Rates of 
    Common Carriers

Sec. 33.22 To a bill granting discretion to the Interstate Commerce 
    Commission in establishing rates charged by common carriers, an 
    amendment prohibiting rate increases was held to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a bill (7) 
to amend the Interstate Commerce Act, the following amendment was 
offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 1668 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 3486, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 14, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John R.] Murdock of Arizona: On page 
    2, line 17, after the word ``act'', strike out the period, insert a 
    colon and the words ``And provided further, That rates, fares, or 
    charges existing at the time of the passage of this act to or from

[[Page 8742]]

    points other than water ports shall not be increased.''

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

        Mr. [Samuel P.] Pettengill [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane, because, as I 
    understand it, if agreed to, it would freeze every rate, fare, and 
    charge in the United States, and would forever forbid the 
    Interstate Commerce Commission to permit any change thereafter to 
    be made. Therefore it is not germane to the section of the bill or 
    to the bill itself which was intended to give the Interstate 
    Commerce Commission full authority from time to time to agree to 
    the raising or lowering of rates.

    The Chairman,(9) rejecting the argument that ``the 
purpose of this bill is the fixing of rates,'' sustained the point of 
order. The Chairman commented that the amendment sought ``to accomplish 
directly the opposite purpose to that set forth in the bill.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. J. Mark Wilcox (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority of Carriers of Coal by Pipeline--Reference to Rules Affecting 
    Contracts of Railroad Carriers as Measure of Duration of Contracts 
    of Coal Carriers

Sec. 33.23 An amendment limiting authorities conferred in a bill may be 
    germane if restricted to those authorities, though incorporating as 
    a term of measurement qualifications applicable to authorities 
    beyond the scope of the bill; thus, to a bill authorizing the 
    carriage of coal by pipeline and the exercise of the power of 
    eminent domain by carriers licensed under the bill, an amendment 
    limiting the duration of contracts by a ``carrier'' to the maximum 
    duration of similar contracts by railroad carriers was held germane 
    as a limitation on powers granted in the bill (``carrier'' being 
    defined in the bill as a carrier of coal by coal pipeline subject 
    to the provisions of the bill), which did not limit authorities of 
    rail-carriers.

    On July 19, 1978,(10) during consideration of H.R. 1609 
(the Coal Pipeline Act of 1978) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 124 Cong. Rec. 21703, 21704, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ichord: At the end of section 5 of 
        the amendment in the nature of a substitute, add the following 
        new subsection:

[[Page 8743]]

            (h) No carrier may enter into any contract or agreement 
        with any person to transport coal for a period of time which is 
        longer than the longest period of time during which any common 
        carrier by railroad may transport coal for any person pursuant 
        to any contract or agreement authorized under the Interstate 
        Commerce Act. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I . . . insist on 
    my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is doing much more than 
    affecting just coal slurry pipelines. The provision is as follows:

            No carrier may enter into any contract or agreement with 
        any person to transport coal for a period of time which is 
        longer than the longest period of time during which any common 
        carrier by railroad may transport coal for any person pursuant 
        to any contract or agreement authorized under the Interstate 
        Commerce Act.

        As I read this amendment it amends the Interstate Commerce Act 
    to provide that the period of time permissible or required or limit 
    for a railroad to permit a contract is applicable to all other 
    carriers. . . .
        Mr. Ichord: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the Chair that 
    it does not touch the Interstate Commerce Act at all. It does not 
    touch the operations of railroads at all. All it says is that these 
    contracts shall not be permitted to be longer than those permitted 
    by the railroads.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had opportunity to study this amendment. The term 
    ``carrier'' as defined in the Udall substitute which would apply to 
    this amendment means carrier of coal by coal pipeline. It does not 
    refer to other types of carriers. The limitation involved in the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ichord) 
    applies to the duration of contracts of coal slurry pipeline 
    carriers. It only refers to the duration of railroad contracts as a 
    term of measurement. It does not seek to reach out to contracts of 
    other types of carriers beyond the coal pipeline carriers and, 
    therefore, does not affect railroad contracts or any carriers in 
    other ways. Therefore, the amendment is germane.
        The point of order is overruled.

Authorization of Funds To Carry Out Urban Mass Transportation Act--
    ``Buy America'' Restrictions on Contracts Not Requiring Use of 
    American-made Goods

Sec. 33.24 To a bill granting authorities to the federal government or 
    authorizing the appropriation of funds, an amendment prohibiting 
    the use of those authorities or funds to purchase foreign-made 
    goods or equipment is germane; thus, to an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute comprehensively amending the Urban Mass 
    Transportation Act and authorizing the appropriation of funds to 
    carry out that

[[Page 8744]]

    Act, an amendment amending the Act to prohibit the obligation of 
    funds authorized to be appropriated thereunder for certain 
    contracts unless a certain percentage of American-made goods be 
    used pursuant to the contract was held germane, as a restriction on 
    the broad authorities granted in the bill, and as an incorporation 
    of provisions of another Act which in effect already amended the 
    Urban Mass Transportation Act.

    On Dec. 4, 1980,(12) during consideration of the Surface 
Transportation Act of 1980 (H.R. 6417) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 126 Cong. Rec. 32169, 32170, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                  buy america

            Sec. 225. (a) Section 12 of the Urban Mass Transportation 
        Act of 1964 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(h)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        Secretary of Transportation shall not obligate any funds 
        authorized to be appropriated by this Act for any project 
        contract whose total cost exceeds $500,000 unless only such 
        unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been 
        mined or produced in the United States, and only such 
        manufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been 
        manufactured in the United States at least 50 per centum from 
        articles, materials, and supplies mined, produced, or 
        manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States, will be 
        used in such project contract. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the Oberstar amendment seeks to introduce a new 
    subject which is part neither of this bill nor of the statue which 
    this bill seeks to amend. The Oberstar amendment would introduce a 
    Buy America requirement, through which funds will be limited, into 
    the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964, where none now exists, and in 
    so doing, it repeals the similar provision that currently exists in 
    the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978. It is an attempt 
    to amend the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 by 
    adding to the statute which this bill amends and repealing it where 
    it currently exists.
        It may be argued that the amendments made by this bill are 
    sufficiently broad to open the entire 1964 act for amendment. But 
    the 1964 act contains no such domestic content provision.
        The Oberstar amendment introduces a new subject, and couching 
    it in language that tacks the provision on at the end of the 
    existing section of the

[[Page 8745]]

    1964 act is not enough to make it germane.

        The Oberstar amendment really amends the Surface Transportation 
    Act of 1978, an act which itself amended the 1964 act.
        I submit that regardless of whether H.R. 6417 is broad enough 
    to open the entire 1964 act for amendment, it is not broad enough 
    to open other acts for amendments as well, and neither is it broad 
    enough to render germane any new subject, even though not addressed 
    either in this bill or the act it omits. . . .
        Mr. Oberstar: . . . I rise in opposition to the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering is to the Howard 
    substitute, which is substantially broad enough to admit an 
    amendment dealing with the Buy America Act, which is a part of the 
    original Urban Mass Transit Act. There was a Buy America provision 
    in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, which 
    provided that a final manufactured article should be substantially 
    all-American produced and established the 10-percent price 
    differential between foreign and domestic bids.
        My amendment would broaden that language, which is existing law 
    somewhat, and is perfectly in order because it is an amendment to 
    the Howard substitute and is restricted entirely to the language of 
    the Urban Mass Transportation Act and does not, as the gentleman 
    from Minnesota suggested, go beyond the provisions of the Urban 
    Mass Transportation Act. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority of Secretary of Interior

Sec. 33.25 To that section of a bill authorizing the Secretary of

[[Page 8746]]

    the Interior to promulgate regulations in order to put the bill's 
    provisions into effect, an amendment limiting the Secretary's 
    authority by requiring him, before promulgating such regulations, 
    to consult with persons who would be affected by the regulations 
    was held to be germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration to provide subsistence for Eskimos and other natives of 
Alaska in all branches of the reindeer industry. The bill stated in 
part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. S. 1722 (Committee on Territories).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 12. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to 
    promulgate such rules and regulations as, in his judgment, are 
    necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this act.

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dimond: Page 7, line 21, after the 
    period, insert the following:

            Prior to the promulgation of any such rules and regulations 
        the Secretary of the Interior shall endeavor to ascertain the 
        views of the natives of Alaska who may be affected thereby as 
        to the nature of the rules and regulations desirable for making 
        effective the provisions of this act. . . .

    Mr. John Taber, of New York, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. Mr. Anthony J. Dimond, of 
Alaska, in response to the point of order, stated:

        The proposed amendment merely provides that prior to the making 
    and promulgation of such rules and regulations, the Secretary of 
    the Interior shall consult with the natives affected and endeavor 
    to ascertain their wishes. It does not take away any power 
    conferred by the act upon the Secretary of the Interior. It is 
    intensely and intimately related to the provisions of section 12.

    The Chairman,(15) overruled the point of 
order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Arthur H. Greenwood (Ind.).
16. See the proceedings at 81 Cong. Rec. 9491, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Aug. 20, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority of Secretary of Agriculture

Sec. 33.26 To a bill granting authority to an executive officer to 
    employ persons to assist in exercising powers and duties conferred 
    by the act, an amendment placing limitations upon such authority by 
    specifying certain requirements as to the employment or separation 
    of persons was held to be germane.

[[Page 8747]]

    On June 29, 1937, the farm tenancy bill (17) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 7562 (Committee on Agriculture).
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 6574, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Title IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                        farm security administration

        Section 41. (a) The Secretary shall establish in the Department 
    of Agriculture a Farm Security Administration to assist him in the 
    exercise of the powers and duties conferred by this act.
        (b) For the purposes of this act, the Secretary shall have 
    power to--
        (1) Appoint (without regard to the civil-service laws and 
    regulations) and fix the compensation of such officers and 
    employees as may be necessary. . . .

    The following amendment was offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 6578, 6579.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Faddis: On page 11, line 25, after the 
    word ``Territory'', strike out the period, insert a semicolon and 
    the following:

            Provided hereafter, That appointment of persons to the 
        Federal service for employment within the District of Columbia 
        under the provisions of this act, whether such appointment be 
        within the classified civil service or otherwise, shall be 
        apportioned among the several States and the District of 
        Columbia upon the basis of population as ascertained at the 
        last preceding census.
            In making separations from the Federal service . . . of 
        persons employed within the District of Columbia under the 
        provisions of this act, the appointing power shall give 
        preference in retention to appointees from States that have not 
        received their share of appointments according to population. . 
        . .

    Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, raised the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the paragraph or to the bill. He stated: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 6579
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The second paragraph of the amendment treats with making 
    separations from the Federal service through furloughs and 
    otherwise, it deals with employment in the District of Columbia, 
    and so forth.

    Mr. Charles I. Faddis, of Pennsylvania, in response to the point of 
order, stated:

        . . . The portion of the amendment referred to by the gentleman 
    from Texas as treating with separations refers to separations from 
    the Federal service of those coming under the provisions of this 
    bill.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration seeks to vest in the Secretary of 
    Agriculture, by the language beginning in line 3, on page 11, 
    authority to employ certain persons in connection with the 
    operation of the business, the duties and responsibilities of 
    making acquisitions of land, and making those lands available to 
    the classes of persons embraced in the bill.

[[Page 8748]]

        The amendment under consideration is nothing more nor less than 
    a mere limitation on the authority granted by the bill.

        The Chair therefore rules that the amendment is germane to the 
    bill.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration--Authority of 
    Administrator

Sec. 33.27 To a bill authorizing funds for the National Aeronautics and 
    Space Administration, an amendment was held to be germane which 
    prohibited the Administrator from entering contracts for 
    ``support'' services except where certain comparisons had been made 
    between the cost of such contracts and the cost of obtaining the 
    services by directly hiring employees.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
authorizing appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the following amendment was offered: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 10340 (Committee on Science and Astronautics).
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 17748, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Hardy to H.R. 10340, as reported: On 
    page 5, after line 22, insert the following:

            (h) After January 1, 1968, no support service contract in 
        the amount of $100,000 or more shall be awarded, renewed or 
        extended unless--
            (1) A study has been made showing the relative cost of 
        obtaining the services through contract and through direct hire 
        employees . . . and
            (2) The Administrator has made a written determination 
        (with respect to cost or necessity of obtaining services by the 
        methods specified).
            The Administrator shall maintain a central file of the 
        determinations made pursuant to clause (2) of this subsection 
        and shall make them available upon request to the Senate and 
        the House of Representatives. . . . As used in this subsection 
        the term ``support service contract'' does not include 
        contracts for the production of commercial and industrial 
        products or for the construction of facilities.

    Mr. George P. Miller, of California, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill. In defense of the amendment, 
the proponent, Mr. Porter Hardy, Jr., of Virginia, stated:

        . . . The bill provides authorizations for NASA's operations, 
    and this amendment would simply require that on their service 
    contracts--and the bill provides for service contracts--this 
    amendment would be a limitation upon the manner in which they could 
    engage in service contracts.

    The Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John J. Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It appears to the Chair that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hardy) relates to

[[Page 8749]]

    contracts under the terms of the authorization bill now under 
    consideration.
        The Chair is constrained to rule that the amendment is germane. 
    . . .

Authority of Administrator of Veterans' Affairs To Establish Interest 
    Rates for Loans

Sec. 33.28 To the proposition that the Administrator of Veterans' 
    Affairs be authorized to establish a maximum interest rate for 
    loans, an amendment stating that ``the rate fixed shall not be 
    higher than the FHA rate'' was held germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
extending the authority of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to 
set interest rates on mortgages. An amendment was offered 
(6) as described above. The following exchange concerned a 
point of order raised against the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 13369 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 27351, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 29, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John P.] Saylor [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman makes his point too 
    late. The gentleman from Texas was recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Saylor: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet trying to get 
    recognition. . . . [The Chair then stated that he would hear Mr. 
    Saylor on the point of order.]
        Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the gentleman's 
    amendment comes too late. The committee amendment has been adopted.
        The Chairman: The committee amendment, as amended, is still 
    pending. . . .
        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a further point 
    of order, and I was on my feet when the gentleman offered his 
    amendment. His amendment is not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania made a point of order and the Chairman recognized 
    the gentleman for that purpose. The Chair never ruled against the 
    point of order of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair intended to rule against the point of 
    order of the gentleman from Pennsylvania because the premise of his 
    point of order was not factual. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    made the point of order on the hypothesis that the committee 
    amendment to the bill had been adopted. . . .

    Subsequently, the Chairman, overruling the point of order raised by 
Mr. Teague, stated:

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Patman) offered an amendment to 
    the amendment of the committee. The committee amendment gives the 
    Administrator authority to set the interest and the amendment of 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Patman) establishes a maximum 
    interest.

[[Page 8750]]

Participation in International Development Association--Direction to 
    United States Representative To Oppose Certain Loans

Sec. 33.29 To a bill containing diverse sections (1) continuing United 
    States participation under the International Development 
    Association Act; and (2) repealing existing law which prohibited 
    United States citizens from holding gold, an amendment adding a new 
    section at the end of the bill directing the United States 
    representative to IDA to oppose loans to nations not party to a 
    nuclear non-proliferation treaty was held in order as a germane 
    restriction on authority contained in section 1 of the bill.

    On July 2, 1974,(8) during consideration of the 
International Development Association Act (9) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order against an 
amendment, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 22029, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. H.R. 15465.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Maryland: Page 2, 
        immediately after line 20, insert the following:
            Sec. 3. The International Development Association Act (22 
        U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by inserting at the end thereof 
        the following:
            ``Sec. 15. The United States Governor is authorized and 
        directed to vote against any loan or other utilization of the 
        funds of the Association for the benefit of any country which 
        develops any nuclear explosive device, unless the country is or 
        becomes a State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
        Nuclear Weapons (21 UST 483).''
            Redesignate the succeeding section accordingly.

        Mr. [Charles W.] Whalen [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . . [T]he Chair has ruled 
    that the amendment previously offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Biaggi) was out of order because it should have been 
    offered during the committee's consideration of section 1 which 
    deals directly with the International Development Association.
        Mr. Chairman, this is a very similar amendment to the one 
    previously ruled out of order, except it creates a new section 
    instead of amending an existing one.
        This is an effort to thwart the Chair's earlier ruling. 
    Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from Maryland 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Long of Maryland: I should respond by saying that the 
    gentleman's objection is specious. The amendment

[[Page 8751]]

    is a genuine amendment. It fits in logically in the place that it 
    is offered. I see no substance at all to the point of order.

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Ohio.
        The Chair would observe that when the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Biaggi) offered his amendment it was ruled out of order 
    because section 2 of the bill had already been read; but since the 
    pending amendment is offered as a separate subsequent section, as a 
    new section 3, the amendment is in order and the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.
        The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An amendment in the form of a new section 
at the end of a bill need not necessarily be germane to the preceding 
section of the bill, it being sufficient where the bill contains 
diverse subjects that the amendment relate to the bill as a 
whole.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority of Export-Import Bank--Amendment To Require Consideration of 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission Data in Transactions Involving 
    Nuclear Reactor Sales

Sec. 33.30 To a bill extending the authorities of one agency, including 
    requirements for consultation with several other agencies, an 
    amendment requiring that agency to perform a function based upon an 
    analysis furnished by yet another agency was held germane as an 
    additional limitation on the authority of the agency being extended 
    which did not separately mandate the performance of an unrelated 
    function by another agency.

    On July 27, 1978,(12) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 12151, a bill amending and extending the 
authorities of the Export-Import Bank. The bill incorporated existing 
and new requirements for cooperation and consultation by that agency 
with other designated government agencies. An amendment was offered to 
require, in the case of transactions involving nuclear reactor sales, 
that the Bank first undertake an evaluation based upon an analysis by 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of regulatory and safety practices of 
recipient countries. The amendment was held germane as an additional 
limitation on the authority of the Export-Import Bank to finance 
certain commercial transactions which did not separately mandate the 
performance of an

[[Page 8752]]

unrelated function by another agency. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 23107, 23108, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cavanaugh: Page 5, after line 6, 
        add the following new section and renumber all successive 
        sections accordingly:
            Sec. 10. Section 2(b)(3) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 
        1945 is further amended by inserting at the end thereof the 
        following:
        ``; and

            ``(C) in the case of any transaction involving the sale of 
        a nuclear reactor, an evaluation based upon an analysis 
        prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (i) describing 
        the nuclear regulatory organization and practices of the 
        recipient country, and (ii) indicating the extent to which the 
        Health and Safety standards adopted and implemented by the 
        recipient country are consistent with those established by the 
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and, where applicable, with 
        International Atomic Energy Agency's standards and 
        recommendations.''. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language of the amendment on the ground 
    that it violates rule XVI, clause 7, of the rules of the House and 
    is not germane to the subject matter before us.
        The bill before us deals with amendments to the Export-Import 
    Bank Act, and this pending amendment, although it goes to a section 
    of the act and does pertain to the export of nuclear technology, 
    does not confine itself to that.
        If the Chair will address himself to section 2(b)(3) of the 
    Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, the Chair will find that the only 
    requirements imposed there for reporting are those on the president 
    of the Bank to give Congress a complete analysis of the proposed 
    loans to be made. The section does not in fact impose any duties on 
    anyone else or any other agency.
        Section 2(b)(4) also imposes duties on the Secretary of State, 
    as well as the Board of Directors of the Bank.
        The gentleman's amendment, however, goes beyond anything in the 
    present act and requires a scientific analysis by the Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission, which is not heretofore mentioned in the 
    act, describing completely both the aspects of the organization and 
    the practices of the recipient country, and even beyond that, the 
    health and safety standards applied within that country.
        I am informed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it has 
    no jurisdiction under existing law to address the question of 
    nuclear exports in this matter. Neither the Atomic Energy Act of 
    1954 nor the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 requires the 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review the health and safety 
    standards of the recipient nations of nuclear exports. It has 
    neither the staff nor the funding previously authorized to carry 
    out these duties which are newly imposed by this language.
        So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is beyond the scope of the 
    legislation now before the committee and is outside the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
    Affairs. I would submit it is not germane to the bill before us. . 
    . .

[[Page 8753]]

        Mr. Cavanaugh: . . . Mr. Chairman, the arguments of the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) do not primarily go to the 
    issue of germaneness here. He vastly expands his argument to the 
    question of the capability of the agency, and those should be 
    substantive arguments based on requirements set out in my 
    amendment. The issue here is whether or not this Congress can, 
    through this legislation, require reports to it on a specific 
    transaction involving the sale of nuclear facilities and whether it 
    can require interagency cooperation in order to achieve that. The 
    entire history of the legislation is replete with interagency 
    cooperation provisions reflecting all aspects of the Federal 
    Government.
        The Small Business Administration is mandated by this 
    legislation to cooperate with Ex-Im, as is the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation, and more specifically, with regard to sections 2(b)(3) 
    and 2(b)(4) to which this amendment is particularly germane, the 
    Secretary of State already has analogous responsibilities mandated 
    by Ex-Im legislation conferring particular responsibilities on the 
    Secretary of State and in fact requiring the Secretary of State to 
    similarly, as this amendment provides, examine cooperation with the 
    International Atomic Energy Agency. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
    Cavanaugh) conveniently ignored my major point. Under the rule of 
    germaneness, the amendment must be germane to the proposition 
    before us.
        The gentleman cites as his authority that the present act, the 
    Export-Import Bank Act, in 2 sections requires certain reporting 
    regarding the export of nuclear materials or the financing of them 
    by the Board of the Bank and by the Secretary of State.
        The gentleman's amendment goes far beyond that and imposes, for 
    the first time, on a completely different governmental entity, the 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, certain judgments to be made, as I 
    have described, as to what the recipient country is doing regarding 
    nuclear matters for health and safety, and to describe completely 
    that country's nuclear capabilities and organization. It even goes 
    so far as to require the NRC to apply the International Atomic 
    Energy Agency's standards, which are not under their jurisdiction, 
    adding still a fourth agency.
        Nothing in the present law supports that extension of the power 
    of the Export-Import Bank to make these judgments or to require 
    them from another agency. Therefore, I feel that it is not germane, 
    and the gentleman has not addressed the fact that there is no 
    statutory law which allows the NRC to engage in these practices, 
    nor is there anything in the law that this bill seeks to amend that 
    covers the matters the amendment addresses. . . .
        Mr. Cavanaugh: Mr. Chairman, first of all, this amendment does 
    not, as the gentleman from Maryland has stated, require the 
    imposition of IAEA standards or NRC standards on this transaction. 
    It simply requires that the Export-Import Bank provide the Congress 
    with an evaluation based upon an analysis performed by the NRC, and 
    in no way expands the authority of Exim to the imposition of 
    foreign standards or, indeed, of any standards, but simply a 
    compilation of information which is peculiarly within the ex

[[Page 8754]]

    pertise of the NRC, and it would be impossible for the Export-
    Import Bank to accomplish its appropriate legislative mandate or 
    evaluation to the Congress preliminary to an extension of credit 
    for the sale of nuclear facilities. . . .
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    speaking on the point of order, very briefly, a careful reading of 
    the amendment shows that the amendment itself does not in any way 
    impose on the NRC any additional duties. Clearly this Congress 
    could provide that the Export-Import Bank would not export any 
    nuclear energy or nuclear reactor information and technology. And 
    if the Export-Import Bank is unable to provide this information 
    which is called for in this amendment, my reading of it is they 
    prohibit the exportation of it and the subsidy of it. A careful 
    reading will show it does not impose on the NRC any additional 
    duty.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment is drafted as a further condition to be imposed 
    on the Bank before it may approve certain transactions.
        From page 20 of the report it is evident that the Eximbank is 
    already required by the bill and by the section of law being 
    amended to consult with and seek the cooperation of diverse 
    Government resources and agencies, including the Small Business 
    Administration, the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Department of 
    State, and the President himself.
        For example, on page 20 the report indicates that the Commodity 
    Credit Corporation is called upon to perform new functions in 
    cooperation with the Eximbank.
        In addition, section 2(b)(4) of the act already requires that 
    the Bank be in receipt of information relating to compliance with 
    the International Atomic Energy Agency standards.
        The Chair will also turn to chapter 28, section 23.1 of 
    Deschler's Procedure, which reads as follows:

            To a bill authorizing the procurement of military weapons 
        for the fiscal year, an amendment prohibiting procurement from 
        a particular facility pending the submission of a report by the 
        Comptroller General relating to the feasibility of deactivating 
        that facility was held to be germane. 116 Cong. Rec. 14481, 
        91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 6, 1970.

        The Chair also refers to chapter 28, section 24.21 of 
    Deschler's Procedure, which reads as follows:

            To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on 
        International Relations authorizing appropriations for 
        humanitarian and evacuation assistance to war refugees in South 
        Vietnam, an amendment making that authorization contingent upon 
        a report to Congress on the costs of a portion of the 
        evacuation program, but not requiring the implementation of any 
        new program (within the jurisdiction of another committee) was 
        held germane as a related contingency. 121 Cong. Rec. p.--, 
        94th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 23, 1975 [H.R. 6096, the Vietnam 
        Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act].

        Therefore, the Chair rules the amendment is germane as a 
    restriction on the authority of the Eximbank.
        Accordingly the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 8755]]

Enforcement of Voting Rights

Sec. 33.31 To a bill authorizing proceedings instituted by the Attorney 
    General in federal courts to obtain injunctive relief for citizens 
    deprived of voting rights, an amendment was held to be germane 
    which sought to guarantee a right to a speedy and public trial by 
    jury in certain cases of contempt related to orders issued in such 
    proceedings.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration to provide means of protecting civil rights of persons 
within the jurisdiction of the United States. An amendment was offered 
(15) as described above. A point of order was raised against 
the amendment, as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
15. 103 Cong. Rec. 9184, 9185, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 14, 1957.
16. Id. at p. 9185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment . . . is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the instant bill provides authority in Attorney 
    General to file an action for injunction for the enforcement of 
    civil rights created under old statutes. . . . We provide no method 
    of procedure after the injunction is applied for. . . .

    The Chairman,(17) in overruling the point of order, 
cited the principle that, ``to a proposal to grant certain authority an 
amendment proposing to limit such authority is germane,'' and stated: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 9187, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 14, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair holds that the amendment is a restriction upon 
    the Attorney General and the courts. It deals with procedures and 
    not penalties, and in the opinion of the Chair is 
    germane.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. An amendment having a similar purpose was subsequently held to be 
        germane to the same bill. See the proceedings at 103 Cong. Rec. 
        9365, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment Limiting Jurisdiction of Courts in Contempt Cases

Sec. 33.32 To a bill giving federal courts authority in civil actions 
    for injunctive relief for citizens alleging deprivation of their 
    right to vote, an amendment limiting the jurisdiction of the courts 
    so that no person could be tried for contempt except within the 
    judicial district wherein the alleged contempt occurred, was held 
    to be germane.

[[Page 8756]]

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (20) was under 
consideration to provide means of further securing and protecting the 
civil rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. 
The following amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 1. 103 Cong. Rec. 9374, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Brooks of Louisiana: On page 12, line 
    4, after the period insert, ``No person shall be tried for contempt 
    of any such restraining order or injunction except within the 
    judicial district wherein the alleged contempt occurred.''

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

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to any 
    legislation here and would seek to change the jurisdiction of the 
    court that might have charge of the contempt proceeding. It relates 
    purely to venues and has nothing whatsoever to do with the 
    legislation here, as it relates to jurisdiction.

    Mr. Overton Brooks, of Louisiana, speaking in response to the point 
of order, stated:

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment involves substantially the same 
    principle as the original amendment presented to the Chair for 
    decision which is known as the trial by jury amendment. It simply 
    provides procedure within the framework of the terms of this bill 
    for carrying out the terms of the bill. It does not add anything to 
    it. It provides additional procedure. . . .

    The Chairman,(2) alluding to that part of the bill 
sought to be amended and noting that ``the amendment has to do with 
practically the same subject,'' overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment Relating to Jurisdiction of State Courts

Sec. 33.33 To a bill vesting jurisdiction in the District Courts over 
    certain civil actions for protection of voting rights, amendments 
    to preserve the jurisdiction of the state courts over elections 
    were held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
as described above, the following amendments were offered: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 6127 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 9394, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendments offered by Mr. Hemphill: At the end of line 12, on 
    page 10, of the bill, add a new section, to be known as (par. 
    sixth), section 121, of the bill (42 U.S.C. 1935)), which will read 
    as follows:

            Sixth: Nothing herein contained shall deprive the courts of 
        record of

[[Page 8757]]

        the several States of their jurisdiction over elections, nor 
        shall this legislation preempt the right of the several States 
        in jurisdiction over all elections within the several States.

        Amend at the end of line 13, page 12, of the bill by inserting 
    therein a subparagraph (E), section 131 of the bill (sec. 2004 of 
    the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971)):

            (E) Nothing herein contained shall deprive the courts of 
        record of the several States of their jurisdiction over 
        elections. . . .

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

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: I make the point of 
    order against the amendment that it is not germane to the bill. It 
    provides for election machinery, which certainly has nothing to do 
    with this legislation.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Robert W. Hemphill, 
of South Carolina, stated: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 9394, 9395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The specific language of the statutes in question, which are 
    the statutes referred to in the bill and which are the statutes 
    sought to be amended by this legislation and by these amendments, 
    takes up the question of voting in elections. My amendments take up 
    the same question.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
 7. 103 Cong. Rec. 9395, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Hemphill) offers 
    two amendments, both dealing with the jurisdiction of the courts of 
    the several States over elections. The amendments are offered to 
    sections of the bill that have to do with voting, therefore with 
    elections. For that reason the Chair holds that the amendments are 
    germane and overrules the point of order.


 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
         D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
 
Sec. 34.--Restrictions on Use or Availability of Funds

    Amendments that merely place restrictions on the use of funds that 
are authorized or referred to in the bill are frequently held to be 
germane. As in other cases, however, the extent of the restriction or 
the manner in which it is sought to be imposed may affect the propriety 
of the amendment. Thus, to a bill authorizing funds for a given 
purpose, an amendment placing restrictions on funds authorized or 
appropriated in other bills and in prior years will be ruled out as not 
germane.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 31.30, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While it is normally germane to limit the uses to which an 
authorization carried in a bill may be applied, that principle applies 
more appropriately to annual authorization bills reported from the 
committees of jurisdiction, rather than to a (re)organization bill 
creating a new department and transferring thereto existing au

[[Page 8758]]

thorities and programs, in which case amendments restricting authorized 
funds to effect a change in the administration of substantive law may 
not be germane.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 34.38, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above,(10) it is not germane to make the 
effectiveness of an authorization contingent upon an unrelated 
determination involving issues within the jurisdiction of agencies and 
committees outside the purview of the pending bill.(11) But 
where an amendment seeks to adopt as a measure of the availability of 
certain authorizations contained in the bill a condition that is 
logically relevant and objectively discernible, the amendment does not 
present an unrelated contingency and is germane.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See the discussion in the introduction to Sec. 31, supra.
11. See Sec. 31.27, supra.
12. See Sec. 31.16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Restrictions on expenditures, of course, are often sought to be 
    imposed in furtherance of a larger policy or overriding aim. The 
    precedents indicate that in such case, the germaneness of a 
    proposed amendment should be determined from provisions of its 
    text, rather than from the purposes which circumstances may 
    suggest.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 34.35, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increases in Public Debt Limit as Standard Affecting Availability of 
    Funds

Sec. 34.1 An amendment which conditions the expenditure of funds 
    covered by a bill by adopting as a measure of their availability 
    the monthly increase in the public debt limit may be germane so 
    long as the amendment does not directly affect other provisions of 
    law or impose contingencies predicated upon other unrelated actions 
    of Congress; thus, to a joint resolution making continuing 
    appropriations and restricting the use of any fiscal 1980 funds to 
    pay cost-of-living salary increases for Members of Congress and 
    other federal employees above a certain percentage, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of all such funds to pay over 99 percent of 
    Members' salaries in any month in which the public debt has been 
    increased was held germane since not amending or affecting the 
    public debt limit, but rather using that limit as an easily 
    ascertainable standard by which to relate Members' salary 
    entitlements to the entire Federal fiscal situation.

[[Page 8759]]

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 404 (continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 1980), the Speaker overruled a point of 
order against the amendment described above. The proceedings of Sept. 
25, 1979,(14) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 26150-52, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For further discussion of amendments which seek to adopt, 
        as a measure of the availability of funds for particular 
        purposes, a determination required to be made with respect to 
        the existence of certain conditions, related expenditures, or 
        the like, see the introduction to Sec. 31, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Kramer [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kramer: Page 6, insert before line 
        13 the following: Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        joint resolution or any other provision of law, for any month 
        immediately following any month during which the total public 
        debt subject to the statutory debt limit, as reported in the 
        monthly statement of the public debt published by the 
        Department of the Treasury, indicates an increase from the 
        level so reported during the preceding month, no part of the 
        funds appropriated for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
        1980, by this Act or any other Act may be used to pay the 
        salary of any Member of the Congress at a rate greater than 99 
        percent of the rate which would be payable without regard to 
        this sentence. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane.
        The amendment deals with the subject of Federal pay and has the 
    purpose of limiting Federal pay. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Kramer) introduces a new subject of a 
    public debt, a completely new subject of public debt, and a 
    different method of limiting Federal pay, that is, calculated 
    relations between Federal pay and the public debt. . . .
        Mr. Kramer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from Deschler's 
    Procedure, chapter 25, section 2.1 and also section 2.3. I think 
    the precedents are very clear that this amendment is germane. I 
    read as follows:

            A joint resolution providing continuing appropriations for 
        departments and agencies of government, to provide funds until 
        the regular appropriation bills are enacted, is not a ``general 
        appropriation bill'' within the meaning of clause 2 Rule XXI.
            The restrictions against unauthorized items or legislation 
        in a general appropriation bill or amendment thereto are not 
        applicable to a joint resolution continuing appropriations, 
        despite inclusion of diverse appropriations which are not 
        ``continuing'' in nature.

        Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, in talking to the 
    Parliamentarian's office, that a contingency amendment is, indeed, 
    germane, provided that the contingency itself is within the scope 
    of the performance of Congress.
        I would ask that the amendment be ruled germane on that basis. 
    . . .
        The Speaker: (15) The Chair is ready to rule on the 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

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

[[Page 8760]]

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
    Kramer) provides a mechanism for measuring the ceiling to be placed 
    on the amount of fiscal 1980 funds which can be available to pay 
    salary increases for Members. The amendment does not in any way 
    directly affect provisions of law relating to public debt levels 
    during fiscal 1980.
        As indicated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 
    24.18, the Chair ruled on July 26, 1973, that an amendment which 
    conditions the expenditure of funds in a bill by adopting as a 
    measure of their availability the expenditure during that fiscal 
    year of a comparable percentage of funds authorized by other acts 
    is germane, so long as the amendment does not directly affect the 
    obligation and expenditure of other funds or the administration of 
    other programs.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the legislative standard stated in 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado as a measure 
    of the amount of pay increase to be paid by fiscal 1980 
    appropriated funds is an easily ascertainable method of adjusting 
    the availability of those funds in relation to the Federal 
    financial situation as a whole, and is not drafted as a contingency 
    which is dependent upon specific unrelated events or actions of 
    Congress.
        The gentleman's point of order is overruled.

Levels of Spending in Resolution on Budget as Measure of Spending 
    Authority

Sec. 34.2 To a bill authorizing certain housing programs, an amendment 
    restricting the amounts of direct spending authority in the bill 
    for the next fiscal year to the pertinent levels set forth in the 
    lower of the House or Senate levels as adopted in the concurrent 
    resolution on the budget for that fiscal year was held germane as 
    merely a measure of availability of funds in the bill which did not 
    directly affect the Congressional budget process.

    On June 11, 1987,(16) during consideration of H.R. 4, 
the Housing Authorization Act, the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 133 Cong. Rec. 15540, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hiler: Page 353, after line 9, add 
        the following new title and conform the table of contents 
        accordingly:

                         TITLE VII--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT
        sec. 701. enforcement provisions.

            If this Act and the amendments made by this Act provide for 
        new budget authority, budget outlays, or new entitlement 
        authority, for fiscal year 1988 in excess of the level 
        established (for any budget function or subfunction applicable 
        to programs authorized by this Act and the amendments made by 
        this Act) by

[[Page 8761]]

        the concurrent resolution on the budget for such fiscal year as 
        passed by the House of Representatives or the Senate (whichever 
        is lower), each amount provided by this Act and the amendments 
        made by this Act for such budget function or subfunction shall 
        be reduced by an equal percentage to ensure compliance with 
        such level.
        sec 702. definitions.

            For purposes of this title, the terms ``budget authority'', 
        ``budget outlays'', ``concurrent resolution on the budget'', 
        and ``entitlement authority'' have the meanings given such 
        terms in section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
        U.S.C. 622). . . .

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this 
    amendment is invalid on the face of it because it would commit the 
    House to an improbability of action on the part of the other body, 
    over which we have no jurisdiction whatsoever.
        It is premised on an illusory contingency which may or may 
    never happen. We do not even do that to the Appropriations 
    Committee; so I object on the basis that it foists on the House an 
    unacceptable mandate under the rules. . . .
        Mr. Hiler: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the point of order is 
    in place. It is clear that what we are doing with this amendment is 
    trying to bring this bill within an appropriation budget level, as 
    we do on many, many bills when we have similar kinds of language. I 
    do not think the point of order should be sustained.
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    support the point of order, because this is an attempt to change 
    the Budget Act which is not before us, to put in place a new 
    mechanism and a unique mechanism for enforcement of the Budget Act, 
    which is not a part of this legislation.
        The fact is that it specifies and directs the Secretary in a 
    certain way to enforce this on the Budget Act. It extends to the 
    Budget Act that which cannot be amended. It goes to the 
    reconciliation process and to other processes in the 1974 Budget 
    Act, which is not the subject of this measure that is before us. 
    However important the budget mechanisms that are in place, it is an 
    attempt to modify them in a unique way and I think in a cumbersome 
    way in terms of this issue. . . .

        The Chairman: (17) The Chair will rule that the 
    amendment does not amend the Budget Act. The Budget Act is only a 
    reference point, and levels in the budget resolution are measures 
    of availability of funds authorized or provided by the pending 
    bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Brian J. Donnelly (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will rule that it is not in violation of the rules of 
    the House. No rule of the House requires the Chair to rule on or to 
    determine the workability or unworkability of an amendment.
        The Chair will rule that the amendment is germane and the point 
    of order does not lie.

Expenditures Under Other Acts as Measure of Availability of Funds

Sec. 34.3 An amendment to an authorization bill which conditions the 
    obligation or ex

[[Page 8762]]

    penditure of funds therein by adopting as a measure of their 
    availability the expenditure during that fiscal year of a 
    comparable percentage of funds authorized by other Acts is germane 
    so long as the amendment does not directly affect the use of other 
    funds; thus, to a bill authorizing foreign economic and military 
    assistance, an amendment providing that the percentage of funds 
    obligated or expended pursuant to that Act at any time during 
    fiscal 1974 shall not be more than 10 percent greater than 
    percentages expended under certain other programs authorized by 
    Congress was held to impose a germane limitation on the 
    availability of funds authorized in the bill which did not directly 
    affect the operation of other government programs.

    During consideration of the Mutual Development and Cooperation Act 
of 1973,(18) on July 26, 1973,(19) the Chair 
overruled a point of order made against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 9360.
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 26210, 26211, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Danielson: On page 53, after line 
        23, insert the following new section:

                         equitable expenditure of funds

            Sec. 30. (a) Unless the Congress shall provide otherwise in 
        language expressly made applicable to this section, at any time 
        during the fiscal year 1974, the amount obligated or expended 
        pursuant to this Act for any program or activity authorized by 
        this Act, expressed as a percentage of the amount appropriated 
        by law for purposes of such program or activity, shall not be 
        more than 10 percentage points greater than the amount 
        obligated or expended at that time for any other program or 
        activity authorized by Act of Congress, expressed as a 
        percentage of the amount appropriated by law for purposes of 
        such other program or activity for the fiscal year 1974.
            (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``other program 
        or activity'' shall include any program or activity 
        administered by or under the direction of the Department of 
        Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of 
        Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
        Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of 
        Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
        Veterans' Administration. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    insist on a point of order. . . .
        [T]his bill deals solely with authorizations for appropriations 
    for foreign aid. The amendment of the gentleman covers many 
    programs of agencies: The

[[Page 8763]]

    Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the 
    Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban 
    Development, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the 
    Environmental Protection Agency, and the Veterans' Administration. 
    It goes far afield from the present legislation, and therefore I 
    insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment, and observes that the 
    amendment does not directly affect the obligation or expenditure of 
    funds under other Government programs. Rather, the percentages 
    obligated or expended under other programs merely serve as a 
    measure or limit of percentages which can be obligated or expended 
    under programs in the pending bill. For this reason, the Chair 
    feels that the amendment is a germane restriction on the 
    availability of funds authorized in the pending bill, and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Salaries of Members Who Voted Against Salary Increase

Sec. 34.4 To a proposition limiting the use of any fiscal 1980 funds to 
    pay salary increases for Members of Congress above 5 percent while 
    permitting top executive and judicial salaries to be increased by 7 
    percent, an amendment further restricting availability of those 
    funds to pay salaries of those Members voting against any salary 
    increase for Members contained in the pending joint resolution was 
    held germane as an additional restriction on the use of the same 
    funds, applied to the same category of recipients.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 404 in the House on 
Sept. 25, 1979,(1) the Speaker overruled a point of order 
against the amendment described above, demonstrating that, to a 
proposition restricting the availability of funds to a certain category 
of recipients, an amendment further restricting the availability of 
those funds to a subcategory of the same recipients is germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 26135, 26136, 26138, 26140-43, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.J. Res. 404

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable 
        corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the 
        several departments, agencies, corporations, and other 
        organizational units of the Government for the fiscal year 
        1980, namely:

            Sec. 101. (a)(1) Such amounts as may be necessary for 
        continuing projects or activities. . . .

[[Page 8764]]

            For the fiscal year 1980, funds available for payment to 
        executive employees, which includes Members of Congress, who 
        under existing law are entitled to approximately 12.9 percent 
        increase in pay, shall not be used to pay any such employee or 
        elected or appointed official any sum in excess of 5.5 percent 
        increase in existing pay and such sum if accepted shall be in 
        lieu of the 12.9 percent due for such fiscal year: Provided 
        further, That for the purpose of carrying out this provision 
        and notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Pay 
        Comparability Act of 1970, the Executive Salary Cost-Of-Living 
        Adjustment Act, or any other related provision of law, which 
        would provide an approximate 12.9 percent increase in pay for 
        certain Federal officials for pay periods beginning on or after 
        October 1, 1979, and notwithstanding section 102 of this joint 
        resolution, the provisions of section 304 of the Legislative 
        Branch Appropriation Act, 1979, which limit the pay for certain 
        Federal offices and positions, shall apply to funds 
        appropriated by this joint resolution or any Act for the fiscal 
        year 1980 except that in applying such limitation the term ``at 
        a rate which exceeds by more than 5.5 percent the rate'' shall 
        be substituted for the term ``at a rate which exceeds the 
        rate'' where it appears in subsection (a) of such section for 
        the purpose of limiting pay increases to 5.5 percent. . . .

        Mr. [George M.] O'Brien [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Brien: On page 5, strike lines 
        10 through 16.

            On page 6, line 3, strike everything after ``1980'' through 
        line 8, and insert a period. . . .

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Fisher [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fisher as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. O'Brien: Page 5, beginning on line 3, 
        strike out ``(except as to executive salaries which are covered 
        subsequently)'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(without regard to 
        section 305 thereof)''.
            Page 5, strike out line 10 and all that follows down 
        through ``limitation'' on line 4 of page 6 and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            Notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Pay 
        Comparability Act of 1970, the Executive Salary Cost-Of-Living 
        Act, or any other related provision of law, which would provide 
        an approximate 12.9 percent increase in pay for certain Federal 
        officials for pay periods beginning on or after October 1, 
        1979, and notwithstanding section 102 of this joint resolution, 
        the provisions of section 304 of the Legislative Branch 
        Appropriation Act, 1979, shall apply to funds appropriated by 
        this joint resolution or any Act for the fiscal year 1980; 
        except that in applying the limitation in such section 304 to 
        the pay of offices and positions (other than Members of 
        Congress) covered by that section the term ``at a rate which 
        exceeds by more than 7 percent the rate'' shall be substituted 
        for the term ``at a rate which exceeds the rate'' where it 
        appears in subsection (a) of such section for the purpose of 
        limiting such pay increases to 7 percent, and in applying such 
        limitation to the pay of Members of Congress. . . .

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 8765]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Fisher as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        O'Brien: After the substitute offered by the gentleman from 
        Virginia add the following:
            Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, no 
        part of the funds appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 1980 
        shall be available to pay the salary of any Member at a rate 
        which exceeds the salary rate payable for that office for 
        September 30, 1978, if at any time in the consideration of this 
        resolution that Member voted in a recorded vote for any 
        amendment that has the effect of limiting the amount payable 
        for Members of Congress to the rate payable for September 30, 
        1978. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: . . . I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the substitute. 
    The amendment conditions the use of funds to pay salaries on the 
    votes of Members of Congress on this resolution and, therefore, 
    introduces new subject matter, both a Member's voting record and a 
    new method of calculating pay depending on the Member's voting 
    record. The amendment places nongermane restrictions on the use of 
    funds and should be ruled out of order. . . .
        The Speaker: (2) . . . The Chair will rule that the 
    Fisher substitute contains a selective restriction on the 
    availability of funds in the bill by separating salaries of certain 
    employees, as opposed to Members of the Congress of the United 
    States, and that is in order. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser) is a further selective 
    restriction on the availability of fiscal 1980 funds for the 
    Members' pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair feels that the amendment as offered by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Peyser) is germane to the Fisher amendment, and 
    the point of order of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) 
    is overruled.

Travel of House Committee

Sec. 34.5 To a resolution authorizing an investigation and incidental 
    travel to be undertaken by a committee of the House, an amendment 
    placing restrictions on the funds permitted to be used in such 
    travel may be germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a resolution (3) reported from the 
Committee on Rules was under consideration. The resolution stated: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 84 (Committee on Rules).
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 1547, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 31, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That effective January 4, 1963, the Committee on 
    Armed Services, acting as a whole or by subcommittee appointed by 
    the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, is authorized to 
    conduct a full and complete investigation and study of all 
    matters--
        (1) relating to the procurement . . . and disposition of . . . 
    equipment, supplies, and services, and the acquisition . . . and 
    disposition of real property, by or within the Department of 
    Defense. . . .

    The following committee amendment was reported:

[[Page 8766]]

        On page 3, after line 4, add the following paragraphs:

            Notwithstanding section 1754 of title 22, United States 
        Code, or any other provision of law, local currencies owned by 
        the United States shall be made available to the Committee on 
        Armed Services of the House of Representatives and employees 
        engaged in carrying out their official duties under section 
        190(d) of title 2, United States Code: Provided, (1) That no 
        member or employee of said committee shall receive or expend 
        local currencies for subsistence an amount in excess of the 
        maximum per diem rates approved for oversea travel as set forth 
        in the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, as revised 
        and amended by the Bureau of the Budget; (2) that no member or 
        employee of said committee shall receive or expend an amount 
        for transportation in excess of actual transportation costs; 
        (3) no appropriated funds shall be expended for the purpose of 
        defraying expenses of members of said committee or its 
        employees in any country where counterpart funds are available 
        for this purpose. . . . 

    Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York, made the point of order that 
``the matter of the appropriation of funds and the authorization of the 
use of funds by any committee of the House is within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on House Administration.'' He further stated:

        There is no authorization for the use of funds in the 
    resolution as presented, yet they attempt by the same resolution 
    now to limit the expenditures that may subsequently be authorized 
    by the Committee on House Administration. . . . 

    The Speaker,(5) in overruling the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution before the House does not deal with funds, but 
    the authorization of funds, and is also a restriction on the use of 
    funds that may be made available. The actual funds are matters that 
    will be passed upon by the Committee on House Administration.

Funds for Expenses of Retiring Members

Sec. 34.6 To a portion of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    providing that use of the contingent fund for committee 
    investigations be confined to travel in the United States and that 
    no appropriated funds be expended for committee expenses outside 
    the United States where local currencies are available, an 
    amendment providing that ``notwithstanding any other provision of 
    law, no part of any appropriation and no local currency'' shall be 
    available to pay any expenses in connection with travel outside the 
    United States of retiring Members was ruled out as not germane, 
    since it waived provisions of law not necessarily related to House 
    committee travel.

[[Page 8767]]

    On Oct. 8, 1974,(6) during consideration of House 
Resolution 988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction and procedures of 
House committees), the Chair sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The amendment read, in part, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 34463, 34464, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington:
            Page 28, line 20, strike out ``committee''. . . . 
            Page 29, after line 21, insert the following new 
        subparagraph:
            ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no part 
        of any appropriation and no local currency owned by the United 
        States shall be available for payment of any expenses, nor 
        shall transportation be provided by the United States, in 
        connection with travel outside the fifty States (including the 
        District of Columbia) of the United States of--
             ``(A) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of 
        the House after he has been defeated as a candidate for 
        nomination, or election, to a seat in the House in any primary 
        or regular election until such time as he shall thereafter 
        again become a Member; or
            ``(B) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after the adjournment sine die of the last session of a 
        Congress if he is not a candidate for reelection in the next 
        Congress. . . . 

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment. . . . 
        As I heard the amendment, I believe it is directed at some 
    general laws of the United States, not just at the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives. . . . 
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I think the 
    point of order should be sustained, because it goes far beyond the 
    Rules of the House and it deals with appropriations. It puts 
    jurisdictions on agencies. It puts additional duties on the 
    Department of State, and while I do not know that this directly 
    affects the point of order, it interferes with the 2-year elected 
    term of a Member of Congress. . . . 
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has carefully examined the second amendment read by 
    the Clerk. At the bottom of the page the paragraph starts out:

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
        authorized for a committee, no part of any appropriation shall 
        be available--
    and so forth.

        This prefatory provision itself makes the amendment subject to 
    a point of order. Therefore, the point of order is sustained, and 
    the amendment is not in order.

Sec. 34.7 To a provision in an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    restricting the use of the House contingent fund for committee 
    expenses to travel only in the United States and providing that no

[[Page 8768]]

    appropriated funds be used for committee expenses outside the 
    country, where local currencies are available, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds ``authorized for a committee'' for 
    expenses of retiring Members was held germane as a further 
    restriction on the availability of committee funds.

    During consideration of House Resolution 988 (to reform the 
structure, jurisdiction and procedures of House committees) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order in the 
circumstances described above. The proceedings of Oct. 8, 
1974,(8) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 120 Cong. Rec. 34465, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Duncan [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington: 
        Page 28, line 20, strike out ``committee''. . . . 
            Page 29, after line 21, insert the following new 
        subparagraph:
            ``(2) No funds authorized for a committee shall be 
        available for payment of any expenses, nor shall transportation 
        be provided by the United States, in connection with travel 
        outside the fifty States (including the District of Columbia) 
        of the United States of--
            ``(A) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after he has been defeated as a candidate for nomination, 
        or election, to a seat in the House in any primary or regular 
        election until such time as he shall thereafter again become a 
        Member; or
            ``(B) any Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Member of the 
        House after the adjournment sine die of the last session of a 
        Congress if he is not a candidate for reelection in the next 
        Congress. . . . 

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. It changes the Constitution of the 
    United States wherein it reduces the term of office of a Member and 
    takes away some of his prerogatives and privileges that he has for 
    a 2-year term equal to other Members, and it in effect makes a 
    second-class citizen of a Member who may decide to retire. . . . 

        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair cannot pass upon constitutional questions. The Chair 
    can only pass upon the germaneness of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Tennessee.
        The Chair notes that the amendment is directed to the portion 
    of the Hansen amendment relating to funds for committee travel and 
    unlike the language in the prior amendment against which the point 
    of order was sustained, does not appear to be broader in effect 
    than the language in the Hansen amendment. The Chair holds the 
    amendment germane and overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The prior ruling referred to by the Chair 
is discussed in Sec. 34.6, supra.

[[Page 8769]]

Provision Authorizing Missile System Depending on Specified 
    Conditions--Amendment Containing Unconditional Prohibition on 
    Missile System for One Year

Sec. 34.8 To an amendment precluding the availability of an 
    authorization for a program for part of a fiscal year and then 
    permitting availability for the remainder of the year based upon a 
    contingency, an amendment constituting a prohibition on the 
    availability of the same funds for the entire fiscal year is a 
    germane alternative; thus, where an amendment as amended authorized 
    procurement of an MX missile system after a time certain during the 
    fiscal year if the President determined that the Soviet Union was 
    not limiting similar weapons, a subsequent amendment prohibiting 
    the use of funds in that title as a one year moratorium on the MX 
    program notwithstanding other language in the amendment was held 
    germane as an unconditional prohibition for the same fiscal year.

    During consideration of H.R. 5167 (the Military Procurement 
Authorization for fiscal 1985), on May 16, 1984,(10) the 
Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 130 Cong. Rec. 12566, 12567, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Nicholas] Mavroules [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mavroules to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Bennett: At the end of the section proposed to be added 
        by the amendment add the following:

                      moratorium on mx missile procurement

            Sec. 111. (a) Notwithstanding section 103(a) of this title, 
        the maximum amount that may be appropriated for fiscal year 
        1985 for missiles for the Air Force is $5,942,700,000.
            (b) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to 
        authorizations of appropriations in this title may be used for 
        the MX missile program.
            (c) It is the intent of Congress that the denial of funds 
        for procurement under the MX missile system program for fiscal 
        year 1985 constitutes a moratorium on procurement of missiles 
        under such program but does not constitute a unilateral 
        termination of that program.

    Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
point of order on the amendment.

        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from Alabama 
    (Mr. Dickinson) insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).

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

[[Page 8770]]

        Mr. Dickinson: The gentleman will insist on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, without having had an opportunity 
    to study it, and I have not, but let me attempt to, it appears that 
    this is broader than the scope of what we have just worked on. And 
    I think it takes out missiles for more than just the MX. At this 
    point it affects 1984 money, and at this point, without having any 
    prior notice, there is no chance for me or staff to study it. . . .
        So I respectfully submit that it is not germane, Mr. Chairman. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would rule that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Massachusetts is germane to the Bennett 
    amendment as amended and the Chair does not rule on the consistency 
    of amendments and, therefore, rules that the amendment is in order.

Production of Chemical Weapons

Sec. 34.9 To an amendment only decreasing the fiscal year 1984 
    authorization for Army ammunition funds in Title I of the Defense 
    Department authorization bill, a substitute adding language 
    prohibiting use of any Defense Department funds for the production 
    or procurement of binary chemical weapons was held to be not 
    germane because addressing funds not addressed by the pending 
    amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 2969 in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 15, 1983,(12) the Chair, in sustaining a point of order 
against the amendment described above, indicated that a substitute for 
an amendment must be germane to the amendment to which offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 15803, 15809, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 2, line 15, strike 
        out ``$2,272,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$2,157,900,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bethune as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Zablocki: Page 2, line 15, strike out 
        ``$2,272,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$2,157,900,000''.
            Page 10, after line 12, insert the following new section:

          prohibition on procurement of binary chemical munitions and 
            related production facilities, equipment, and precursor 
                                   chemicals

            Sec. 109. (a) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to 
        the authorizations of appropriations in this title may be 
        obligated or expended

[[Page 8771]]

        for procurement of binary chemical munitions or for production 
        facilities, equipment, or precursor chemicals for such 
        munitions.
            (b) No funds available to the Department of Defense may be 
        made available for the production or procurement of binary 
        chemical munitions (or for production facilities, equipment, or 
        precursor chemicals for such munitions) through the use of 
        reprogramming authority. . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton (of New York): Mr. Chairman, under 
    section 109 of the amendment, on line 9, it says,

            No funds available to the Department of Defense may be made 
        available for the production or procurement of binary chemical 
        munitions (or for production facilities, equipment, or 
        precursor chemicals for such munitions) through the use of 
        reprogramming authority.

        The point of order is that this bill is a bill that would 
    authorize funds for fiscal year 1984 exclusively, whereas the 
    amendment deals with funds that might have been made available to 
    the Department of Defense in other ways, prior years, or subsequent 
    year, and, therefore, is outside of the scope of the pending 
    legislation and is, therefore, out of order. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) The Chair will rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Zablocki amendment addresses the Army ammunition funds 
    authorized by title I of the pending bill. The Bethune substitute 
    addresses other funds available to the Department of Defense not 
    authorized by the pending title I and is not germane to the 
    Zablocki amendment.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Military Operations in North Vietnam

Sec. 34.10 To a bill authorizing supplemental appropriations for 
    military procurement, research and development, and military 
    construction, an amendment declaring it to be the sense of Congress 
    that none of the funds therein authorized shall be used to carry 
    out military operations in North Vietnam, was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) comprising supplemental military authorizations for 
fiscal 1967, an amendment was offered (15) as described 
above. Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, raised the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane to the bill.(16) 
The Chairman,(17) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 4515 (Committee on Armed Services).
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 5142, 5143, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967.
16. Id. at p. 5143.
17. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment relates only to funds authorized in this bill and 
    is similar in concept to an amendment offered to the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1950.

[[Page 8772]]

        That amendment provided that no money authorized by the bill 
    should be granted to any country which violated the Charter of the 
    United Nations.
        It was thus a restriction on funds authorized by the bill.
        Chairman [Oren] Harris of Arkansas ruled that it was germane--
    81st Congress, March 30, 1950, Record, page 4550.
        The Chair thinks the present amendment simply places a 
    restriction on authorizations contained in this bill and relates 
    only to the funds in this bill.
        The Chair holds that the amendment is germane.

Congressional Support for Geneva Accords

Sec. 34.11 To a bill authorizing military expenditures, an amendment 
    providing that ``none of the funds authorized herein'' be used 
    except in accordance with a congressional declaration of support 
    for the Geneva accords of 1954 and 1962 was held to be not 
    germane.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 5139, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 2, 1967. See 
        Sec. 30.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Funds To Relocate Vietnamese Evacuees in High Unemployment Areas 
    in United States

Sec. 34.12 To a substitute dealing with humanitarian and evacuation 
    assistance out of South Vietnam, an amendment prohibiting the use 
    of such assistance to relocate or to create employment 
    opportunities for evacuees in high unemployment areas in the United 
    States was held to raise issues beyond the scope of the bill and 
    was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 6096 (19) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Apr. 23, 1975,(20) Chairman Otis G. Pike, of 
New York, sustained a point of order and held that the following 
amendment went beyond the scope of the bill and was therefore not 
germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 11512, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Clay to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Eckhardt, as a substitute for the amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Add a new section to the 
        end of the bill which reads:
            ``No funds authorized under this act shall be used directly 
        or indirectly to transport Vietnamese refugees to any 
        congressional district or

[[Page 8773]]

        create employment opportunities in any congressional district 
        where the unemployment rate exceeds the national unemployment 
        rate as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United 
        States Department of Labor.''. . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. It goes greatly beyond the 
    scope of the bill and the amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
    Nothing in the bill or in the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute deals with the national unemployment rate. . . .

        Mr. Clay: . . . The amendment simply imposes a condition that 
    none of the money may be used, or a limitation on the way the money 
    will be spent. I do not know how it goes beyond the scope of this 
    bill or the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. For the reasons 
    stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) and for the 
    fact that the contingency set forth in the gentleman's amendment is 
    not related to the purposes of the bill, the point of order is 
    sustained.

Funds for Deployment of Troops Beyond Specified Period

Sec. 34.13 To a bill authorizing funds and limited use of troops for a 
    specific purpose, an amendment stating that ``notwithstanding any 
    other provision of this Act'' funds authorized in the Act could not 
    be used for deployment of troops beyond a certain period of time 
    was held to be a proper limitation on use of funds and germane to 
    the bill.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(1) during consideration of the Vietnam 
Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act (2) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Otis G. Pike, of New York, overruling 
a point of order, held the following amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 11508, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. H.R. 6096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of 
        a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: Page 1, line 5, insert 
        ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 2.'', and page 2, immediately 
        after line 2, add the following new subsection:
            (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no 
        funds authorized or made available under this Act may be used 
        to finance, directly or indirectly, any combat activity, any 
        involvement in hostilities, or any military or paramilitary 
        operation, by the Armed Forces of the United States in, over, 
        or off the shores of South Vietnam after the end of the 30-day 
        period beginning on the first date after the date of enactment 
        of this Act on which any American

[[Page 8774]]

        ground combat forces are introduced into South Vietnam in 
        conjunction with any program of evacuation as defined by 
        Section 4 of this Act. . . .

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        From the few brief words that I heard, the amendment talks 
    about authorizing funds, authorizing the President to operate in 
    combat areas after a 30-day period of time, and I do not know 
    whether that has to do with any provision in the bill. I raise a 
    point of order against it. . . .
        Mr. Solarz: . . . I think it is quite clear from the debate 
    today that the President had the inherent constitutional authority 
    to send American troops to evacuate American citizens and their 
    dependents.
        My amendment says, in effect, if any troops are sent in, they 
    cannot be sent in for any more than 30 days. I think it is quite 
    clear under the constitutional powers that this amendment is 
    germane. . . .
        Ms. Holtzman: . . . I did not understand that there was 
    anything in the bill that authorized the President to engage our 
    troops in combat in Laos or anyplace else and, therefore, it seems 
    to me the gentleman's amendment is not germane and subject to a 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: . . . There is no question in my 
    mind, with all of the precedents I have heard around here for many 
    years, that this is a germane amendment. It is simply a limitation 
    of the proposed legislation, no more and no less. It limits the 
    time that the President can do the things that this bill will give 
    him permission to do for 30 days. It is that simple.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        This amendment constitutes and states in its language, 
    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, no funds 
    authorized or made available under this act may be used to 
    finance,'' et cetera.
        It is a limitation on the funds authorized in the act.
        The amendment is germane, and the point of order is overruled.

Assistance Barred for Country Engaging in Aggression

Sec. 34.14 To a bill to provide foreign economic assistance, an 
    amendment proposing that none of the money therein authorized be 
    granted to any country which violates the Charter of the United 
    Nations or engages in acts of aggression was held to be germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
to provide foreign economic assistance, the following amendment was 
offered: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 7797 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 4550, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 31, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: On 
    page 31, after line 10, insert the following:

[[Page 8775]]

            Title IV, section 401. No money under any of the previous 
        titles of this bill, or any of the acts amended by this bill, 
        shall be granted, lent, or used directly or indirectly, and no 
        assistance provided for, shall be made available to . . . any 
        country which violates any provisions of the Charter of the 
        United Nations, or directly or indirectly engages in acts of 
        aggression as determined by proclamation of the President of 
        the United States of America, or by the United Nations, so long 
        as such acts continue, nor to, for, or in any country which 
        directly or indirectly sells, gives, or ships any material to 
        any country to which American nationals cannot obtain licenses 
        for the sale, gift, or shipment of similar materials unless the 
        consent of the President shall have first been obtained.

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, raised the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(5) 
in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The language of the amendment relates to a title of the bill.
        The point of order is overruled.

Operation of Early-warning System in Sinai--Amendment Making Funds 
    Dependent on Reduction in United States Contribution to United 
    Nations' Peacekeeping Forces

Sec. 34.15 To a joint resolution authorizing the use of American 
    civilians to operate an early-warning system in the Sinai, an 
    amendment providing that funds subsequently authorized to carry out 
    the provisions of the resolution may only be used to the extent 
    that the United States contribution to the United Nations' 
    peacekeeping forces in the Middle East is proportionately reduced, 
    there being no mention of the United Nations' peacekeeping role or 
    of United States contributions thereto in the resolution, was held 
    to go beyond the scope of the resolution and was ruled out as not 
    germane.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 683 (to implement 
the United States proposal for the early-warning system in the Sinai), 
the Chair sustained a point of order against the amendment described 
above. The proceedings of Oct. 8, 1975,(6) in the Committee 
of the Whole, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 32430, 32431, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: Page 2, line 10, 
        after the period insert the following new sentence: To the 
        extent funds are authorized to carry out the provisions of this 
        resolution, such funds may be

[[Page 8776]]

        used only to the extent that the United States contribution to 
        the United Nations for the purpose of peacekeeping forces in 
        the Middle East is reduced. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane under clause 7 of 
    rule 16 because it deals with a subject matter which is not dealt 
    with in this resolution. The resolution would authorize the 
    stationing of American technicians in the Sinai.
        The cost of this operation would come from the special 
    requirements fund for the Middle East, under section 903 of the 
    Foreign Assistance Act. Neither the resolution before the House, 
    nor section 903 of the Foreign Assistance Act, deal with the U.N. 
    peacekeeping force.
        The U.S. participation in the U.N. peacekeeping force is 
    authorized by different legislation. U.S. contribution to that 
    force comes also from separate legislation. The amendment, by 
    attempting to tie this resolution to U.S. contribution to the U.N. 
    peacekeeping force, goes far afield from the purpose of this 
    legislation. It would considerably broaden the scope of this 
    legislation and is therefore not germane. . . .
        Mr. Young of Florida: . . . The title of House Joint Resolution 
    683 reads:

            To implement the United States proposal for the early-
        warning system in Sinai.

        The resolving clause says:

            That the President is authorized to implement the ``United 
        States Proposal for the Early-Warning System in Sinai''

        Mr. Chairman, the vast authority to implement stressed in the 
    title and resolving clause make this an extremely broad and 
    encompassing piece of legislation, in fact, more so than most.
        For example, according to the report and also according to my 
    earlier colloquy with the chairman, implementation of this early 
    warning proposal will require $20 million the first year of already 
    appropriated funds or funds still to be appropriated.
        Since this resolution authorizes the implementation of the 
    proposal, without a doubt, it inherently authorizes the spending of 
    the funds.
        The Chair has ruled many times that amendments to place a 
    limitation on appropriations bills are in order if said amendments 
    are limiting in nature and do not include legislation. . . .
        Further, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the language of the title 
    and resolving clause of this resolution are in fact broad enough 
    that this amendment be considered in order.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. K. Gunn McKay (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) makes a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Young) on the grounds that it is not germane to the joint 
    resolution.
        The Chair observes that the resolution does not involve the 
    role of the U.N., and that the amendment would broaden the scope of 
    the pending measure in a significant manner. By requiring a 
    reduction in the U.S. contribution to the U.N. peacekeeping force, 
    in an

[[Page 8777]]

    amount necessary to accomplish the purpose of the joint resolution, 
    the amendment would inject into the joint resolution the issue of 
    the extent of U.S. participation in the U.N. peacekeeping force and 
    the issue of the curtailment of the entire peacekeeping role of the 
    United Nations in the Middle East. As stated in Cannon's Procedure, 
    page 205, two subjects are not necessarily germane because related, 
    and the fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill, as indicated at page 199, Cannon's 
    Procedure.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Federal Aid Road Act--Restriction Affecting States Practicing 
    Segregation

Sec. 34.16 To a bill to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, 
    an amendment providing that no funds collected under the act be 
    available to any state or subdivision in which segregation is 
    practiced in restaurants, restrooms, or in road construction was 
    held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
amending the Federal Aid Road Act. The following amendment was offered 
to the bill: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 7474 (Committee on Public Works).
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 11710, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Earl] Wilson of Indiana:

            On page 32, following line 7, add a new section 19:
            No funds collected under this act may be available to any 
        State, city, or subdivision in which segregation is practiced 
        in restaurants, restrooms, or in road construction. . . .

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

        Mr. [Robert E.] Jones [Jr.] of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. Wilson [of Indiana]: . . . Here we are authorizing this 
    great appropriation, under which we are going to spend billions of 
    dollars in every State in the Union. Yet, there are some States in 
    which the Negroes are not going to have a chance to work and earn 
    part of this money to pay the taxes to build the highways, to earn 
    money to pay the excise taxes on their trucks, to earn money to pay 
    the extra cost of their tires.
        . . . I think these Negroes should be given the opportunity to 
    help build the highways because they are going to help to pay the 
    taxes. I think they should be able to use the facilities, the 
    restaurants, and the comfort stations, and so forth, that appear 
    along the highways.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman from Indiana offers 
    an amendment to provide for a limitation on the funds collected 
    under the pending bill, to which the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
    Jones] makes a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that since the amendment refers 
    to and

[[Page 8778]]

    touches upon the funds collected under this act, limiting their 
    use, the amendment is germane; therefore, the Chair overrules the 
    point of order.

Branches of Air Force Practicing Segregation

Sec. 34.17 To that section of a supplemental appropriation bill making 
    appropriations for the Air Force, an amendment providing that none 
    of the funds appropriated therein be used in branches of the 
    Department of the Air Force in which racial segregation exists was 
    held to be germane.

    In the 80th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(11) comprising Supplemental National Defense Appropriations 
of 1948, an amendment was offered (12) as described above. A 
point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 6226 (Committee on Appropriations).
12. 94 Cong. Rec. 4543, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 15, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment is not germane and it is, 
    therefore, not in order on this bill; that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; that [it] imposes additional burdens and 
    restrictions that are entirely out of place.
        This is an aircraft procurement bill. This is not a labor bill. 
    . . .

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., 
of New York, stated:

        . . . This is an amendment which has limitations; it is 
    negative; it is the type that has been ruled in order on previous 
    appropriation bills.

    The Chairman (13) overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph P. O'Hara (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Persons or Corporations Practicing Discrimination in Employment

Sec. 34.18 To a bill on the Consent Calendar seeking to remove from a 
    paragraph of an appropriation bill a provision that no loans be 
    made for the construction of any public works except in pursuance 
    of a specific authorization, an amendment was held to be not 
    germane which provided that none of the funds appropriated in the 
    same paragraph ``shall be paid to any person, firm or corporation 
    which refuses equality in employment because of race, color or 
    creed.''

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) relating to loans by federal agencies for the 
construction of certain public

[[Page 8779]]

works, an amendment was offered (15) as described above. A 
point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 1771 (Committee on Public Works).
15. 95 Cong. Rec. 7951, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., June 20, 1949.
16. Id. at pp. 7951, 7952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment that it is not germane 
    to the bill under consideration. It is not a limitation because 
    there is no appropriation involved. The purpose of the pending bill 
    is merely to remove a restriction on legislation already passed 
    where appropriations have been made. This makes no appropriation 
    whatever.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 7952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, my amendment 
    refers to the First Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1946. This 
    bill, H.R. 1771, seeks to make amendments to that act. I submit the 
    amendment I have offered to the pending bill is a further amendment 
    of the Federal Public Works section of that act. My amendment is a 
    further proviso restricting the use of funds. . . .

    The Speaker pro tempore,(18) without elaboration, 
sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actions Brought on Account of Discriminatory Practices of State and 
    Local Governments

Sec. 34.19 To that title of a bill authorizing the Attorney General to 
    participate in actions brought on account of discriminatory 
    practices of state and local governments, an amendment to limit 
    expenditures to carry out purposes of the title was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 88th Congress, during consideration of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1963,(19) the following amendment was offered: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 7152 (Committee on the Judiciary).
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 2274, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: On page 
    50, line 3, after the word ``title'' insert a new section 305 to 
    read as follows:

            In carrying out the provisions of title III of H.R. 7152 
        expenditures shall be limited to not more than $312,530.

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

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa is not 
    germane to the title of the bill. It would limit expenditures. The 
    title itself makes no mention of expenditures; therefore, the 
    amendment is not germane.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will hold that the amendment is in the form of a 
    limitation on

[[Page 8780]]

    the authorizations of appropriations which may be made under the 
    title; that there are sections authorizing activities for carrying 
    out the provisions and of the title; and therefore the Chair 
    overrules the point of order. . . .

Transportation Programs Intended To Overcome Racial Imbalance

Sec. 34.20 To a program authorizing federal financial assistance, an 
    amendment limiting the uses to which those funds may be put is 
    germane; thus, to a bill providing assistance for mass 
    transportation programs, including language permitting school 
    systems to be eligible applicants for schoolbus construction and 
    operating subsidies where not in competition with private 
    operators, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds authorized by 
    the bill to implement transportation programs intended to overcome 
    racial imbalance in school systems was held germane as a 
    restriction on the availability of assistance contained in the 
    bill.

    On Aug. 15, 1974,(2) during consideration of H.R. 12859 
(3) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that 
the germaneness of an amendment should be determined from provisions of 
its text rather than from the purposes which circumstances may suggest. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 28423, 28438, 28439, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. The Federal Mass Transportation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``Sec. 520. schoolbuses

        ``No Federal financial assistance shall be provided under this 
    title for the construction or operation of facilities and equipment 
    for use in providing public mass transportation service to any 
    applicant for such assistance unless such applicant and the 
    Secretary shall have first entered into an agreement that such 
    applicant will not engage in schoolbus operations, exclusively for 
    the transportation of students and school personnel, in competition 
    with private schoolbus operators. This section shall not apply to 
    an applicant with respect to operation of a schoolbus program if 
    the applicant operates a school system in the area to be served and 
    operates a separate and exclusive schoolbus program for this school 
    system. This section shall not apply unless private schoolbus 
    operators are able to provide adequate transportation, at 
    reasonable rates, and in conformance with applicable safety 
    standards; and this section shall not apply with respect to any 
    State or local public body or agency thereof if it (or a direct 
    predecessor in interest from which it acquired the function of so 
    transporting schoolchildren and personnel along with facilities to 
    be used therefor) was so engaged in schoolbus operations any time 
    during the twelve-month period immediately prior to the

[[Page 8781]]

    date of the enactment of this section. A violation of an agreement 
    under this section shall bar such applicant from receiving any 
    other Federal financial assistance under this title.
        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Snyder: Page 68, line 4. After the 
        period insert the following: ``No funds appropriated for the 
        purpose of carrying out any applicable program may be used for 
        the transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase 
        of equipment for such transportation) in order to overcome 
        racial imbalance in any school or school system, or for the 
        transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase of 
        equipment for such transportation), in order to carry out a 
        plan of racial desegregation of any school or school system,'' 
        . . .

        Mr. James V. Stanton [of Ohio]: I do insist on my point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the amendment as offered by the 
    gentleman from Kentucky is totally unrelated to a national bus 
    transportation policy that is being considered under this act. His 
    amendment goes to a policy of social concern that he apparently has 
    a deep commitment to, that I do not think should be considered in 
    this bill, because this bill is dealing with physical property in 
    transportation. It is not dealing with social causes involved in 
    the gentleman's amendment. . . .
        Mr. Snyder: . . . Certainly there is no question that what the 
    gentleman says is absolutely correct. This is unrelated to the mass 
    transit policy of this country, but it is absolutely related to the 
    language of this bill and the exception to the prohibition that 
    appears on line 13, page 67, relates not to the mass transit policy 
    of this Nation, but to an individual school system that might 
    operate a schoolbus system in connection with their school 
    operation. There is where the prohibition is necessary if, in fact, 
    the funds are not going to be used for this purpose.
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. James W. Symington (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would remind the committee that the germaneness of an 
    amendment should be determined from provisions of its text, rather 
    than from the purposes which circumstances may suggest (Hinds' 
    Precedents, volume V, sections 5783, 5803).
        Since the text of the amendment is related to a subject covered 
    by the bill, which is to say there is money authorized in the bill 
    for the construction and operation of buses which might be used for 
    the transportation of students, it is germane to place a limitation 
    on the uses for which that money may be directed.

Funds To Purchase Foreign-made Goods

Sec. 34.21 To a bill granting authorities to the federal government or 
    authorizing the appropriation of funds, an amendment denying the 
    use of those authorities or funds to purchase foreign-made goods or 
    equipment is germane.

    The proceedings of Dec. 4, 1980, during consideration of H.R. 6417,

[[Page 8782]]

the Surface Transportation Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 35.82, 
infra.

Funding Denied Unless Goods Produced by Slave Labor in Soviet Union are 
    Barred From Customs Entry

Sec. 34.22 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    prohibiting the availability of funds in any Act for salaries and 
    expenses for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for 
    Enforcement and Operations after a date certain unless Congress 
    enacts authorizing legislation for the Customs Service, a proposed 
    substitute amendment restricting availability of funds in that bill 
    for the same office unless specific categories of products, 
    determined to have been produced by slave or convict labor in the 
    Soviet Union, are barred from customs entry into the United States 
    was conceded to be not germane as a condition totally unrelated to 
    that contained in the Senate amendment.

    On Nov. 7, 1985,(5) during consideration of H.R. 3036 
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against an amendment, thereby holding that to a 
proposition conditioning the availability of funds upon the enactment 
of an authorizing statute for an enforcing agency, a substitute 
proposal conditioning the availability of some of those funds upon a 
prohibition of certain imports into the United States was not germane, 
as establishing a contingency unrelated to that contained in the 
proposition to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 131 Cong. Rec. 30984, 30985, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. The Department of the Treasury and Postal Service Appropriations, 
        fiscal 1986.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Clerk will 
    designate the first amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 14, after ``Annex'' 
        insert ``: Provided further, That none of the funds contained 
        in this or any other Act shall be available for the salaries 
        and expenses for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
        Treasury for Enforcement and Operations, after March 1, 1986, 
        unless United States Customs Service authorizing legislation is 
        passed by the Congress.''

[[Page 8783]]

        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Roybal moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following: 
        ``Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act 
        shall be available for the salaries and expenses of the Office 
        of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and 
        Operations if any of the following products of the Union of 
        Soviet Socialist Republics are entered, or withdrawn from 
        warehouse, for consumption in the customs territory of the 
        United States after December 31, 1985, unless the Commissioner 
        of Customs is provided with sufficient information pursuant to 
        19 CFR 12.43 attesting to the fact that the products have not 
        been produced, manufactured, or mined (in whole or in part) by 
        forced labor, convict labor, or indentured labor under penal 
        sanctions:
            ``(1) gold ore,
            ``(2) agricultural machinery . . .
            ``(8) any other product that the Commissioner of Customs 
        determines to have been produced, manufactured, or mined (in 
        whole or in part) by forced labor, convict labor, or indentured 
        labor under penal sanctions: Provided further, That none of the 
        funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to hinder or 
        impede the Commissioner of Customs in making determinations 
        tons in making determinations under subsection (8) of the 
        preceding proviso''. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment 
    numbered 3 under clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House.
        Senate amendment numbered 3 provides that no funds shall be 
    available for salaries and expenses for the Office of the Assistant 
    Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and Operations after 
    March 1, 1986, unless Congress passes authorizing legislation for 
    the U.S. Customs Service.
        The proposed substitute amendment, on the other hand, prohibits 
    funding of that office unless seven specific categories of products 
    and other categories determined by the Commissioner of Customs to 
    be produced by slave or convict labor in the Soviet Union are 
    barred entry into the United States after December 31.
        The amendment clearly raises new issues and involves subject 
    matter quite different from the Senate amendment. It also 
    constitutes legislation specifically to prohibit certain imports 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
        Mr. Roybal: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order at this particular point, and I just would like to state that 
    the original Senate amendment provided that none of the funds 
    contained in this or any other act shall be available unless the 
    U.S. Customs Service authorizing legislation is passed by the 
    Congress. . . .
        This provision is more restrictive than the amendment in the 
    Senate bill in that, No. 1, it limits the prohibition of funds to 
    those made available by this act only and it does not apply to any 
    other act.
        No. 2, the language included in the amendment could 
    appropriately be included in the authorizing legislation designated 
    in the Senate amendment. It, therefore, does not address any ad

[[Page 8784]]

    ditional topic, question, issue, or proposition not committed to 
    committee or conference because the Customs authorizing legislation 
    could contain all of the provisions included in the amendment.
        It is the committee's position that the primary purpose of this 
    provision is not to change the scope of existing law. The purpose 
    of this amendment is to compel the U.S. Customs Service to enforce 
    existing laws.
        I would like to put the administration on notice that we expect 
    them to start enforcing the law.

        Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman concedes the point of 
    order, and the point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
    Frenzel] is sustained.

United States Payments to Asian Development Bank

Sec. 34.23 To be germane an amendment restricting authorized funds in a 
    pending title must relate solely to those funds and may not apply 
    to another related category of funds; thus, to a title of a bill 
    authorizing a United States contribution to the Asian Development 
    Fund, a special fund of the Asian Development Bank, and providing 
    for accounting procedures by the Bank applicable to such 
    contribution, an amendment restricting United States payments to 
    the Bank for subscriptions in Bank stock, as well as payments to 
    the special Fund, was held not germane since affecting funds not 
    carried in the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 3829 (8) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Mar. 6, 1980,(9) the Chair sustained a point 
of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. A bill increasing United States participation in international 
        financial institutions.
 9. 126 Cong. Rec. 4960, 4970, 4971, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                        TITLE II--ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

            Sec. 201. The Asian Development Bank Act, as amended (22 
        U.S.C. 285 et seq.), is further amended by adding at the end 
        the following new section:
            ``Sec. 24. (a) The United States Governor of the Bank is 
        hereby authorized to contribute on behalf of the United States 
        $445,000,000 to the Asian Development Fund, a special fund of 
        the Bank: Provided however, That any commitment to make such 
        contribution shall be made subject to obtaining the necessary 
        appropriations.
            ``(b) In order to pay for the United States contribution to 
        the Asian Development Fund provided for in this section, there 
        are hereby authorized to be appropriated without fiscal year 
        limitation $445,000,000 for pay

[[Page 8785]]

        ment by the Secretary of the Treasury.
            ``(c) For the purpose of keeping to a minimum the cost to 
        the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay the 
        United States contribution to the Asian Development Fund 
        authorized by this section by letter of credit in four annual 
        installments. The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to take 
        the steps necessary to obtain a certification from the Bank 
        that any undisbursed balances resulting from drawdowns on such 
        letter of credit will not exceed at any time the United States 
        share of expected disbursement requirements for the following 
        three-month period.''. . .

        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 3, line 24, strike 
        out ``section'' and insert in lieu thereof ``sections''.
            Page 4, insert the following after line 21:
            ``Sec. 25. No payment may be made to the Bank by the 
        Secretary of the Treasury for (1) the United States share of 
        the increase in subscriptions to the paid-in capital stock and 
        callable capital stock, or (2) the United States contribution 
        to the Asian Development Fund, if Taiwan (before January 1, 
        1979, known as the Republic of China) is excluded from 
        membership in the Bank.''
            Page 4, line 21, strike out the closed quotation marks and 
        final period. . . .

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    is not germane to the bill before us. Chapter 28 of ``Deschler's 
    Procedure'' sets forth many examples of and precedents indicating 
    that an amendment must be germane to the bill before the committee.
        In this instance, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York would, if adopted, amend the relationship of the United 
    States to the Asian Development Bank.
        The bill before the committee in no way makes any reference to 
    the Asian Development Fund.
        I would argue that the gentleman's amendment is not germane and 
    should be ruled out of order. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    legislation before us is the general authorizing legislation for 
    all of the various multilateral lending institutions covered by the 
    bill. The terms of this bill before us are broad in scope, and in 
    the case of the Asian Development Bank, they specifically, for 
    instance, in title IV, section 401, direct the Secretary of the 
    Treasury to instruct the Directors of the Asian Development Bank to 
    take certain steps regarding some future contingent event described 
    therein. There are a number of other restrictions placed upon the 
    lending institutions described in this bill.
        The gentleman from New York's amendment simply suggests an 
    additional limitation of the same quality and type already included 
    in this bill be imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury as it 
    pertains to the Asian Development Bank, one of the institutions 
    that the bill authorizes. The amendment is germane. . . .
        Mr. Solomon: . . . I would just like to explain, in reference 
    to the germaneness of the amendment, that this amendment would 
    prohibit the U.S. participation in the Asian Development

[[Page 8786]]

    Bank if Taiwan is excluded from membership in that particular bank.
        The gentleman is talking about the Asian Development Fund, 
    rather, capital stock, and the pending bill makes no reference to 
    capital stock. We are talking about the Asian Development Fund.
        So the gentleman's amendment properly is not germane to the 
    subject matter under consideration.
        Mr. Solomon: With all due respect to the chairman, it is simply 
    a limitation. It refers to title II, the Asian Development Bank. I 
    would state that the amendment is germane.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, I do so 
    only to underline the major motivation for my point of order, and 
    this is that our bill addresses itself to the Asian Development 
    Fund. At no point is it considering the question of capitalization 
    structure or the stock. . . .
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair would direct [a] 
    question to the gentleman and ask whether or not the $445 million 
    authorized to be contributed in title II, does it include in that 
    the U.S. share of subscriptions to the paid-up in capital stock and 
    the callable capital stock, as well as the contribution to the 
    Asian Development Fund?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Robert Duncan (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gonzalez: No; if the distinguished chairman will look at 
    page 4 of the bill, the first line, section 24(a):

            The United States Governor of the Bank is hereby authorized 
        to contribute on behalf of the United States $445 million to 
        the Asian Development Fund.

        There is a distinction between the fund and the bank. The 
    amendment of the gentleman addresses itself to the bank and the 
    capitalization structure, et cetera, et cetera. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Having examined title II, and concurring with the gentleman 
    from Texas that the authorizations are entirely to the Asian 
    Development Fund and without reference to the bank and without 
    reference to either paid in capital stock or callable capital 
    stock, the Chair is forced to rule that to that extent the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is 
    nongermane to title II of H.R. 3829.

Restriction on Funds for Abortions

Sec. 34.24 To the ``general provisions'' title of the annual Defense 
    Department authorization bill, including authorizations for special 
    pay to health professionals within the armed services and 
    authorization ceilings on payments to physicians under the 
    uniformed services health benefit program (CHAMPUS) as well as 
    other miscellaneous provisions and authorizations, an amendment 
    prohibiting the use of funds authorized by the bill to pay for 
    abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered 
    if the fetus were carried to term

[[Page 8787]]

    was held in order as a germane limitation on the use of the funds 
    and authorities provided in the bill.

    On Oct. 4, 1978,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering an amendment to H.R. 14042 when a point of order was raised 
against the amendment on grounds that it was not germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 33529, 33530, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 39, immediately after 
        line 3, insert the following new section:

                   prohibition on use of funds for abortions

            Sec. 818. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
        by this Act may be used to pay for abortions performed by any 
        means except where the life of the mother is in danger if the 
        fetus is carried to term, nor may such funds be used to promote 
        or encourage abortion.

        Mr. [Mendel J.] Davis [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the basis of germaneness. In this bill, title I 
    authorizes money for the procurement of major weapons systems for 
    the Department of Defense.
        Title II authorizes funds for R. & D. by the Department of 
    Defense, and title VII authorizes funds for Civil Defense. However 
    in the operation and maintenance of hospitals, medical clinics, 
    payments for the services, and so forth, they are operated and paid 
    for out of the O. & M. account and therefore not subject for 
    authorization by this bill.
        The amendment was introduced likewise on the appropriation 
    bill. That is where it should have been, because that is where the 
    moneys are, but, Mr. Chairman, to burden this bill with a 
    nongermane amendment going to a limitation of funds that are not 
    authorized by this bill is improper, and I would hope the Chair 
    would sustain the point of order.
        The Chairman: (12) Does the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Dornan) care to be heard on that point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dornan: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The distinguished gentleman from South Carolina did not mention 
    title VIII. If my colleagues will turn to title VIII of this bill 
    they will see a section entitled ``Extension of Authority for 
    Special Pay for Health Professionals.'' This impacts of course in 
    some areas on abortion. On page 29 they will see the heading 
    ``Ceiling for Payments to Physicians Under CHAMPUS.'' It was this 
    very program that first called my attention to how far we had moved 
    in supporting and encouraging abortion with Defense dollars, 
    because it was under this program in a military medical journal 
    where they began to outline how vigorously they were going to move 
    in the area of abortion far and beyond the movement we have seen, 
    contrary to the wishes of the President and of Mr. Califano even in 
    HEW.

[[Page 8788]]

        So I believe it is not only germane, it is super-germane to 
    this bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Dornan) and noted the arguments made by the 
    gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Davis). There are in title VIII 
    authorizations for appropriations for certain programs involving 
    military personnel as well as ceilings for payments and limitations 
    with respect to the expenditure of funds involving personnel. It is 
    for this reason and because of the specific provisions in title 
    VIII mentioned by the gentleman from California that the Chair 
    overrules the point of order and sustains the germaneness of the 
    amendment.
        The gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) is recognized for 5 
    minutes in support of his amendment.

Education Bill--Funds for Teaching or Counseling as to Use of Abortion

Sec. 34.25 To a title of a bill establishing a new Department of 
    Education, containing findings and purposes and setting forth 
    restrictions on the authority of the new department to exercise 
    federal control over education, an amendment denying the use of 
    funds under federal programs to assist the teaching of or 
    counseling as to the use of abortion was ruled out of order as not 
    germane, being unrelated to the fundamental purpose of the title to 
    restrict federal control over public education and curricula, 
    inasmuch as it sought to address funding authority rather than 
    legal restrictions.

    On June 12, 1979,(13) the Chair sustained a point of 
order against an amendment to a title of a bill (14) which 
restricted the authority of an entity to exercise control over 
institutions for which it was to administer funding under existing 
laws, holding that the amendment, which curtailed the authority of the 
agency to provide funds for certain reasons, was not germane. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 14464, 14465, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H.R. 2444, 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

[[Page 8789]]

        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 counseling 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 would say (the 
    germaneness 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 and I would like to speak on it if I might. 
    . . .
        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 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. . . .
        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 1971 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

[[Page 8790]]

    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 past 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: (15) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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 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.

Amendment Denying Assistance to Health Centers in States That Permit 
    Public Bath Houses

Sec. 34.26 It is not germane to condition assistance to a particular 
    class of recipient covered by a bill upon an unrelated contingency, 
    such as action or inaction by another class of recipient or agent 
    not covered by the bill; thus,

[[Page 8791]]

    to a bill only relating to federal funding and programs for 
    community and migrant health centers not operated by state 
    governments, an amendment denying assistance under the bill to any 
    health center located in any state which permitted the operation of 
    public bath houses was ruled out as imposing a nongermane 
    contingency to bar the use of funds, since state governments were 
    not recipients of funds in, or otherwise affected by, the 
    provisions of the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 2418 (Health Services Amendments of 
1985), in the Committee of the Whole on Mar. 5, 1986,(16) 
the Chair sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 132 Cong. Rec. 3613, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 5, after line 23 
        insert the following:
        sec. 7. grant condition.

            Effective 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
        Act, no grant may be made under section 329 of the Public 
        Health Service Act for a migrant health center or under section 
        330 of such Act for a community health center if such center is 
        located in a State which permits the operation of any public 
        bath which is determined by the State or a local health 
        authority to be hazardous to the public health or used for 
        sexual relations between males. . . .

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I assert 
    my point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by our colleague, the 
    gentleman from California, is not germane to this bill. This bill 
    provides for the operation of community health centers and migrant 
    health centers. To our knowledge, no community or migrant health 
    centers are operated by State governments. This amendment would 
    delay the operation of the legislation until a contingency not 
    related to the purposes of this bill is carried out by States. This 
    amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . Mr. Chairman, the point of order that is 
    being asserted by my friend from Los Angeles may have some merit if 
    the proscription of the amendment had general applicability to all 
    health care funds. It does not.
        It is limited exclusively to any funding that may be available 
    under the two programs. Community Health Centers and Migrant Health 
    Centers. With that limitation, I think it is most appropriate to 
    say in this authorization bill that none of the funds can be used 
    unless, within 6 months, States of the Union who seek to apply for 
    these funds have shut down bathhouses in their jurisdictions. In 
    that narrow area, I believe it should pass muster as having 
    germaneness and applicability.
        Mr. Waxman: Mr. Chairman, if I might be heard further on this 
    amend

[[Page 8792]]

    ment. An amendment delaying the operation of proposed legislation 
    pending an unrelated contingency is not germane. The funds granted 
    under this program are to private entities, not to State 
    governments.
        To permit that those funds be cut off to private entities 
    because of the inaction by State government is not germane because 
    it is a contingency that cannot be met by the organization to which 
    the funds would be granted. Chapter 28, section 24, provides that 
    an amendment making the implementation of Federal legislation 
    contingent upon the enactment of unrelated State legislation is not 
    germane.
        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: . . . There is reference 
    in this amendment that would close down these programs if something 
    was ``used for sexual relations between males.'' There is nothing 
    in this bill dealing with that. It introduces an entire new subject 
    and would require the ascertainment of a fact that has nothing to 
    do with the subject matter of this bill and would delay the 
    enactment of the program on that basis. . . .
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This bill, H.R. 2418, is a categorical grant program. The money 
    that is authorized under the bill, if appropriated, goes to 
    community and migrant health centers and not to the States. The 
    bill was narrowed earlier in these proceedings to remove from the 
    bill the only paragraph that referred to the States.
        This amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr. 
    Dannemeyer, seeks to impose a condition upon a State which must be 
    met by the State government before community health centers that 
    may be in that State or partly in that State can receive the funds. 
    States are not recipients of the funds provided in the bill or 
    otherwise within the purview of the bill.
        An earlier ruling of September 25, 1975, which appears in 
    Deschler's Procedures of the House at page 596, states, ``That an 
    amendment is not germane if it makes the effectiveness of a bill 
    contingent upon an unrelated event or determination.''
        Therefore, the amendment is not germane and the point of order 
    is sustained.

Federal Energy Administration Hearings To Be Conducted in Specified 
    Areas

Sec. 34.27 To a bill extending the existence of the Federal Energy 
    Administration and authorizing appropriations for that agency, an 
    amendment requiring that agency to promulgate regulations to assure 
    that the agency hearings funded by the bill are conducted in the 
    areas to be affected by that agency's actions was held germane as a 
    restriction on the use of funds authorized by the bill.

    On June 1, 1976,(18) during consideration of H.R. 12169, 
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Ken

[[Page 8793]]

tucky, overruled a point of order against an amendment to the bill. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 16057, 16058, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8794]]

Contracts for Development of Synthetic Fuels--Prohibition Against 
    Contracts With Major Oil Producers

Sec. 34.28 To a bill authorizing appropriations to enter into contracts 
    for the development of synthetic fuels, an amendment prohibiting 
    the use of the funds authorized to enter into contracts with any 
    major oil company was held germane.

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (19) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated 
that to a bill authorizing appropriations and providing contracting 
authority, an amendment restricting the use of the authorization or 
contracting authority for the benefit of a certain class of recipients 
is germane. The proceedings of June 26, 1979,(20) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 3930.
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 16694-96, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: On page 11, after line 2, 
        insert the following:
            ``(3) by inserting ``(1)'' before the first word of section 
        (a) and by inserting the following after the last sentence.
            ``(2) No funds authorized in subparagraph (1) above to 
        carry out the purposes of Sections 305(d)(3) and 305(d)(5) may 
        be used to contract for the purchase or the commitment to 
        purchase any amount of synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical 
        feedstock with any major oil company. For the purposes of this 
        section:
            ``(A) The term `major oil company' means any person, 
        association, or corporation which, together with its 
        affiliates, either produces or refines a daily world-wide 
        volume of 1,600,000 barrels of crude oil, natural gas liquids 
        equivalents, and natural gas equivalents''. . . .

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, according to 
    rule XVI, clause 7--that is the germaneness rule of the House--one 
    of the tests is the jurisdiction of the committee of jurisdiction. 
    Certainly a bill of this nature which we are talking about, when we 
    have sort of a divestiture of certain oil companies, legislation of 
    this sort should come from the Committee on the Judiciary.
        Second, the title of the bill is another test of jurisdiction. 
    According to the title, this is a bill ``to amend the Defense 
    Production Act of 1950 to extend the authority granted by such act 
    and to provide for the purchase of synthetic fuels and synthetic 
    chemical feedstocks, and for other purposes.''
        Certainly that does not come under germaneness test and the 
    defense title of the bill. If there is any purpose to this bill, it 
    is to provide for the production because of defense purposes, and 
    this is an attempt to interfere and stop a substantial section of 
    our country from participating in the program.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I think certainly under rule XVI, clause 7, 
    my argument stands up. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The amendment is 
    carefully draft

[[Page 8795]]

    ed as a limitation on authorization. It says, ``No funds authorized 
    . . . to carry out the purposes of sections'' so-and-so ``may be 
    used to contract for the purchase or the commitment to purchase any 
    amount of synthetic fuel or synthetic chemical feedstock with any 
    major oil company.''
        The amendment is clearly germane to the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    to suggest that the point of order is not well taken. The 
    provisions of this act that provide for an opportunity for 
    Government-based cooperation provides for the limitation on the 
    size of the contract in terms of 100-billion-a-day equivalent 
    synthetic fuels. It has all sorts of parameters in the nature of 
    purchases by contractors and the nature of the agreement. I think 
    this is one further limitation that is in order in terms of this 
    legislation. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair cannot see any questions of germaneness raised by the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). It 
    appears to the Chair to be simply an additional restriction or 
    condition on the contracting authority granted under this act and, 
    therefore, to be germane.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Direction to Department of Energy Concerning Purchase of Alternative 
    Fuels

Sec. 34.29 To a title of the annual Department of Energy authorization 
    bill, providing limitations and directions on the use of operating 
    expenses for the entire Department funded throughout the bill, and 
    specifically limiting the use of funds for physical facilities and 
    for the purchase of gasoline for use of the Department, an 
    amendment providing procedures for the Department to follow in 
    purchasing alternative fuels for use in its vehicles during the 
    fiscal year covered by the bill, was held germane as a further 
    related restriction or direction on the use of operating funds for 
    the fiscal year.

    During consideration of H.R. 3000 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Oct. 18, 1979,(2) the Chair overruled a point of order, 
demonstrating that to a title of an annual authorization bill 
containing both limitations on the use of funds and directions to the 
agency for the fiscal year covered by the bill, an amendment adding 
further directions to that agency to be followed during the same period 
is germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 28795, 28796, 28798-800, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 8796]]

                    limitation of reprogramming of funds

        Sec. 801. (a)(1) Subject to the limitations of sections 201(b) 
    and 802, no amount appropriated pursuant to this Act (other than 
    title I) may be used for any program, function, or purpose in 
    excess of the amount expressly authorized to be appropriated for 
    that program, function, or purpose by this Act, nor may the amount 
    available for any program, function, or purpose from sums 
    appropriated pursuant to this Act (other than title I) be reduced 
    by more than 5 percent of the total of the sums appropriated 
    pursuant to this Act for such program, function, or purpose or by 
    more than $10,000,000 (whichever is the lesser) . . .
        ``(e) Not later than 120 days after the close of a fiscal year, 
    the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to the Congress a report 
    on--
        ``(1) revenues received during such fiscal year from uranium 
    enrichment activities and other programs, and . . .

        limitation of funds for facilities for department of energy

        Sec. 809. No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
    may be used for the renovation . . . of facilities to provide 
    temporary or permanent space for personnel relocated as a result of 
    the establishment and activation of the Department of Energy and 
    for which funds were appropriated by chapter V of title I of the 
    Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1978.

                limitation on use of gasoline by department

         Sec. 810. No funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to 
    this Act for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, may be used 
    to purchase motor gasoline or to reimburse any other Federal agency 
    for motor gasoline in an amount which exceeds 85 percent of the 
    amount of motor gasoline purchased . . . during the fiscal year 
    ending September 30, 1979, by any component of the Department for 
    which funds are authorized to be appropriated by this Act. . . .
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 78, line 11, 
        insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 810.''.
            Page 78, after line 20, insert the following new 
        subsection:
            (b)(1) The Secretary of Energy shall advertise in the 
        Federal Register to request bids from distributors of 
        alternative fuels produced in the United States for the 
        purchase of such alternative fuels for use during the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 1980, in motor vehicles owned by the 
        Department of Energy.
            (2) The Secretary shall require that each such distributor 
        who submits such a bid include in such bid an agreement--
            (A) to provide a quantity of an alternative fuel--
            (i) which will produce an amount of energy which is not 
        less than the amount of energy produced by 200,000 gallons of 
        motor gasoline, and
            (ii) the cost of which does not exceed the cost that the 
        Secretary would incur to purchase 200,000 gallons of motor 
        gasoline,
            (B) to pay any amount, as determined by the Secretary, by 
        which any cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining any 
        facility for the storage of such alternative fuel ex

[[Page 8797]]

        ceeds the cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining any 
        facility for the storage of motor gasoline that would have been 
        incurred if such motor gasoline had been purchased by the 
        Secretary in lieu of such alternative fuel. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the rules of 
    the House require that amendments to legislation shall be germane, 
    first, to the bill, and second, to the portion of the bill to which 
    they are directed.
        Mr. Chairman, without addressing at this particular moment 
    whether or not the amendment is germane to the bill, I will address 
    the second point, which is the lack of germaneness of the amendment 
    to the portion of the bill to which it is offered.
        Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will observe, the portion of the 
    bill to which the amendment is offered, it can be observed it is a 
    limitation on the use of gasoline by a department. It then is a 
    limitation on funds, which reads as follows:

            No funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this Act 
        for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, may be used to 
        purchase motor gasoline or reimburse any other Federal agency 
        for motor gasoline in an amount which exceeds 85 percent of the 
        amount of the motor gasoline purchase.

        In other words, we have here a limitation. The proposal that is 
    offered by my dear friend, the gentleman from California, is one 
    which would set up a rather large program which would require the 
    Secretary of Energy to do a whole series of things, none of which 
    are consistent with or which are relevant to this limitation. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, section 810 of the committee bill 
    which is before the committee now for its consideration contains a 
    restriction on the use of funds during the existing fiscal year for 
    the purchase of motor gasoline. That is in section 810 of the bill 
    before the committee.
        For instance, it provides that the Department of Energy is 
    required to reduce its consumption of gasoline by not less than 15 
    percent during this 1980 fiscal year.
        That is the very thrust of this proposed amendment. It is 
    designed also to reduce the quantity of gasoline that is being 
    consumed by the Department of Energy through the medium of 
    soliciting alternative sources of supply. It is not specific; it 
    just says, ``alternative fuels'' in the proposed amendment. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will observe that the rules of the House require that 
    the amendment first be germane to the pending portion of the bill 
    to which it is offered.
        Title VIII deals with operating funds and personnel expenses of 
    the entire Department of Energy for the fiscal year 1980. The 
    amendment appears to the Chair to be confined to fiscal year 1980 
    and to constitute an appropriate restriction or direction on how 
    the Department uses its operating funds for the fiscal year in 
    question, and it is, therefore, germane.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Administrative Services Related to Construction of Electrical Power 
    Facilities

Sec. 34.30 To that paragraph of the Agriculture Appropria

[[Page 8798]]

    tions Bill making appropriations for the Rural Electrification 
    Administration, an amendment was held to be germane which provided 
    that ``during the period of the war . . . no part of [the 
    appropriation in the paragraph] shall be expended for 
    administrative services which have to do with the construction of 
    any facilities for the production . . . of electric power in any 
    area now receiving central station service.''

    In the 77th Congress, during consideration of the Agricultural 
Appropriations Bill of 1943,(4) an amendment was offered 
(5) to a paragraph of the bill in an attempt to place 
restrictions, in the manner described above, on the expenditure of the 
appropriation in that paragraph. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane, and that 
it constituted legislation on an appropriation bill. He stated: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 6709 (Committee on Appropriations).
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 2445, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1942.
 6. Id. at pp. 2445, 2446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that the duties 
    of the Rural Electrification Administration are already prescribed 
    in existing law. This amendment attempts to change that, which 
    makes it purely legislation on an appropriation bill. Besides, as I 
    pointed out a moment ago, this expense account has nothing whatever 
    to do with the disposition of the money borrowed by the rural 
    electrification cooperatives from the R.F.C. or through the R.F.C. 
    . . .

    The following exchange (7) ensued between Mr. Malcolm C. 
Tarver, of Georgia, who spoke in support of the point of order, and the 
Chairman: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 2446.
 8. The Chairman was Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, may I offer an observation in 
    connection with this argument? The limitation which the gentleman 
    seeks to impose upon the administrative expenses cannot be germane 
    to this paragraph of the bill, which has nothing to do with 
    administrative expenses but merely with the item of loans. The item 
    of administrative expenses has already been passed.
        The Chairman: The Chair would call attention to the fact that 
    the amendment is offered to the total amount for rural 
    electrification, which includes everything for rural 
    electrification.

    Subsequently, the Chairman overruled the point of order. He stated:

        The gentleman from Mississippi makes the point of order [that 
    the amendment] is not germane. The Chair feels that the present 
    amend

[[Page 8799]]

    ment . . . being limited to the amount proposed to be appropriated 
    for the Rural Electrification Administration, and being a 
    limitation only upon the expenditure of those funds, is in order. . 
    . .

    Prior to the above ruling, the Chairman had ruled that a similar 
amendment, providing that no part of the money appropriated ``under 
this bill'' should be expended for the stated purposes, was not germane 
to the paragraph in question. Inclusion of the quoted language, the 
Chairman indicated, rendered the amendment improper at that point, 
``since the amendment is directed to the entire bill.'' (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See the proceedings at 88 Cong. Rec. 2445, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Mar. 13, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funds for Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Amendment Affecting Exports of 
    Uranium

Sec. 34.31 It is germane to a bill authorizing appropriations for an 
    agency, to prohibit the use of such funds for any purpose to which 
    the funds may otherwise be applied; thus, to a bill authorizing 
    appropriations for all the annual activities of the Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission, including review and approval of exports of 
    uranium, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds authorized in 
    the bill to review, process or approve exports of certain uranium 
    was held germane.

    On Nov. 5, 1981,(10) during consideration of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission authorization bill for fiscal years 1982 and 
1983,(11) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 127 Cong. Rec. 26715, 26716, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 4255.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Page 16, after line 20, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 14. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no part 
        of any funds authorized to be appropriated by the Act may be 
        used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review, process, 
        or approve any application for a license to export uranium 
        enriched to greater than 20 percent U-235.
            (b) The prohibition contained in subsection (a) shall not 
        apply to any application for a license to export uranium if 
        such uranium is exported for use in reactors which the Nuclear 
        Regulatory Commission determines cannot feasibly be converted 
        to low enriched uranium. . . .

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, I make a point of order against this amendment. I make 
    the point of order against the amendment on the grounds that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill and the amendment is not 
    germane to the nature of the substitute

[[Page 8800]]

    that is before us and thus is in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI 
    of the rules of the House.
        Proceeding further with my argument, I would point out that the 
    measure before us, the purpose is to authorize appropriations 
    through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with the 
    provisions of section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act.
        In addition, the bill before us makes other changes in the 
    authority of the NRC, granting them rights to issue temporary 
    operating licenses to nuclear-powered electric generating plants 
    and also gives (discretion to the NRC) to report to the Congress on 
    their recommendations for reducing the licensing time for nuclear-
    powered electric generating facilities.
        Now the amendment as proposed by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is an amendment to entirely different 
    sections of the act. It sets up new criteria governing the 
    exportation of certain nuclear material. That subject matter is 
    found nowhere in the bill before us.
        The bill before us does not address in any way the question of 
    exportation of nuclear matter. In fact, the question of criteria 
    governing the export of nuclear material is found in an entirely 
    different section of the act, section 127. . . .
        I would remind the Chair that not only should the fundamental 
    purpose of an amendment be germane to the fundamental purpose of 
    the bill, but also any amendment seeking to restrict the use of 
    funds must be limited to the subject matter and scope of the 
    provision sought to be amended. I do not believe that the amendment 
    meets either test.
        I would also question whether an amendment of this nature 
    involving exportation of material to foreign countries might also 
    fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
    Their jurisdiction is over measures to foster commercial 
    intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business 
    interests abroad.
        I am questioning whether or not there might be jurisdiction of 
    another committee involved here.
        For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is imperative 
    that this amendment is not germane and would urge the Chair to 
    sustain the point of order. . . .
        Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, what 
    we have before us at this time is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
    authorization. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is for all 
    purposes, for all funding. This is merely a limitation on the 
    expenditure of those funds from one of those functions.
        Clearly, it is germane within the definition of the functions 
    of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to place a restriction upon 
    the expenditure of funds for these purposes. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from North Carolina makes a point of order that 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts is not 
    germane to the bill and is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI, of 
    the rules of the House.
        The bill before the Committee is a general authorization bill 
    for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which

[[Page 8801]]

    provides funds for a variety of functions of the Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission, including nuclear reactor regulations, instructions and 
    enforcement standards development, nuclear materials safety, 
    safeguards, nuclear regulatory research program, technical support 
    administration and international programs.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    merely limits whatever funds are available under this authorization 
    bill for the issuing of export licenses, that is, those funds that 
    are used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review, process, 
    or approve any application for license to export uranium. If there 
    are no funds authorized to perform those activities, the amendment 
    would not be relevant; but the amendment merely restricts whatever 
    role the NRC has with respect to the export of enriched uranium and 
    it goes no further.
        In addition, in the Interior Committee report the chairman of 
    the Foreign Affairs Committee in a letter to the chairman of the 
    Interior and Insular Affairs Committee states, and I read from his 
    letter:

            We have paid particular attention to activities within both 
        the Office of International Programs and the Office of Nuclear 
        Material Safety and Safeguards, both of which have major 
        responsibilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 
        to upgrade international standards, strengthen the export and 
        import licensing process, and explore further international 
        cooperation in the area of nuclear health and safety.

        The letter goes on to relate those activities to the operation 
    of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
        So the Chair finds that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts is germane and the point of order is overruled.

Funds for Airport Access Road

Sec. 34.32 To a bill appropriating funds for an additional Washington 
    airport, an amendment placing a limit on the amount of the 
    appropriation permitted to be used for the construction of an 
    authorized access road was held to be germane.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of the Supplemental 
Appropriation Act of 1960,(13) an amendment was offered 
(14) as described above. Ruling on a point of order raised 
by Mr. Harold R. Gross, of Iowa, the Chairman (15) stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 7978 (Committee on Appropriations).
14. 105 Cong. Rec. 12121, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1959.
15. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas offers an amendment . . . to which the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross) has made a point of order on the 
    grounds that the amendment is not germane and that it constitutes 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chair is constrained to hold that inasmuch as the access 
    roads were authorized by legislation creating the airport and that 
    the amount of $400,000 is a limitation on the purposes for which 
    funds may be used, that it is

[[Page 8802]]

    germane to the bill and is not legislation.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Salaries Within Public Housing Administration

Sec. 34.33 To a general appropriation bill, an amendment providing that 
    no part of an appropriation therein for ``defense housing'' be used 
    for administrative expenses or salaries within the Public Housing 
    Administration ``so long as that agency proceeds with'' certain 
    projects was held to be germane.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of a supplemental 
appropriation bill,(16) the following amendment was offered: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 8370 (Committee on Appropriations).
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 8353, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 27, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Gordon L.] McDonough [of California]: 
    On page 14, line 18, after the period, insert the following: ``No 
    part of this appropriation may be used for administrative expenses 
    or to pay salaries to any employee within the Public Housing 
    Administration or for any other purposes so long as that agency 
    proceeds with any public-housing project after such project has 
    been rejected or previous approval thereof canceled by the 
    governing body of the locality by resolution or otherwise or by 
    public vote and the governing body has recognized local liability 
    to reimburse the Federal Government for funds, if any, advanced on 
    such project prior to such cancellations.''

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

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to 
    the bill, and it introduces new subject matter.
        The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair has had opportunity to examine this amendment, 
    and is of the opinion that it is merely a limitation upon the 
    manner in which, and the purpose for which, the money can be used 
    and therefore is germane and overrules the point of order.

Payments to Persons Who Strike Against Government

Sec. 34.34 To a bill proposing to establish a national housing 
    objective and the policy to be followed in the attainment thereof, 
    an amendment providing that no part of any appropriation, loan, or 
    expenditure authorized in the act be paid to any person who engages 
    in a strike against the government or who seeks the overthrow of 
    the government was held to be germane.

[[Page 8803]]

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of the Housing Act of 
1949,(19) an amendment was offered (20) as 
described above. The following exchange (1) concerned a 
point of order raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 4009 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 8659, 8660, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1949.
 1. Id. at p. 8660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to this bill. 
    . . .

        Mr. [Ben F.] Jensen [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a similar 
    provision has been placed in every appropriation bill which this 
    House has passed during this session of Congress. . . . [The 
    provision] is a limitation which is in effect in both appropriation 
    and authorization bills.
        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, this is not an appropriation bill. In 
    an appropriation bill it probably would be in order.
        Mr. Jensen: This bill has the effect of an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (2) . . . The legislation before the 
    committee authorizes loans and other funds to be used, consequently 
    the Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lease of Property by National Park Service to Concessioners

Sec. 34.35 For an amendment to a general appropriation bill directing 
    the National Park Service to lease certain land at fair market 
    rental value, a substitute prohibiting the use of funds in the bill 
    for lease of that same property by the National Park Service to 
    concessioners was held germane and a negative limitation on the use 
    of funds which did not add legislation to that permitted to remain 
    in the original amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 14231 (3) in the Committee 
of the Whole on June 25, 1976,(4) the Chair overruled a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. The Department of Interior Appropriation bill for fiscal 1977.
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 20548-50, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: On page 10, line 2, strike 
        the period, insert a semicolon and the following:
            Provided, That the National Park Service shall not lease 
        the facilities located at 900 Ohio Drive in the District of 
        Columbia on any other basis than the fair market rental value 
        generally pertaining for such premises in the area.

        Mr. [Gilbert] Gude [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gude as a substitute for the 
        amendment

[[Page 8804]]

        offered by Mr. Yates: On page 27, between lines 18 and 19, 
        insert the following:
            ``Sec. 109. No part of the appropriations made available 
        under this title shall be available for the use of the Federal 
        buildings located at 900 Ohio Drive, Haines Point in the 
        District of Columbia by any concessioner of the National Park 
        Service for any purpose.''

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Gude). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, while this amendment has the appearance of a 
    simple limitation, as a matter of fact, it is much more than that. 
    The amendment prohibits the use of funds in the bill for use by a 
    national park concessioner of a National Park Service building. The 
    intent of the amendment is to evict the concessioner from the 
    building. At the present time, the concessioner which occupies the 
    building pays an annual rent and also pays for utilities and 
    routine maintenance. If the concessioner vacates the building, the 
    National Park Service must assume responsibility for maintenance 
    and utility costs. The National Park Service estimates these costs 
    to be about $26,000 per year.
        Mr. Chairman, there are ample precedents in the rules of the 
    House and I suggest that on page 551 under the Rules of the House, 
    under section 843, ample precedents are cited to demonstrate that 
    limitations on appropriation bills ``must not impose new duties 
    upon an executive officer.''
        Clearly this amendment imposes additional duties and 
    responsibilities on the National Park Service. . . .
        Mr. Gude: Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment provides nothing 
    more than the Park Service merely targets a lease. I do not think 
    it confers any responsibilities on them that they do not already 
    have. I think it is clearly germane and in order. It is no less 
    germane than the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Yates).
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) raises a point of order 
    to the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York.
        The question the Chair must decide is whether the substitute 
    amendment is germane to the original amendment and whether it adds 
    additional legislation to that which is already in the amendment of 
    the gentleman from Illinois.
        The substitute amendment of the gentleman from Maryland, in the 
    opinion of the Chair, is germane--relating to leasing of the same 
    property, and does not add additional legislation to that which is 
    already in the original amendment. Rather, the substitute is a 
    negative limitation on funds in the bill.
        The Chair must, therefore, reluctantly overrule the point of 
    order.

Amendment To Limit Use of Funds by Agency Funded in Previous Title of 
    Bill

Sec. 34.36 An amendment limiting the use of funds by a particular 
    agency funded in a

[[Page 8805]]

    general appropriations bill may be germane to more than one portion 
    of the bill, and so may be offered, for example, to the paragraph 
    carrying such funds or to any general provisions portion of the 
    bill affecting that agency or all agencies funded by the bill; 
    thus, where the last title of a general appropriations bill 
    contains general provisions applying to funds carried throughout 
    the bill, an amendment offered to that title which limits the use 
    of funds by an agency funded in a previous title of the bill may be 
    germane.

    On July 16, 1979,(6) during consideration of the 
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations for 
fiscal 1980,(7) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 125 Cong. Rec. 18807, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. H.R. 4393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Symms: On page 39, after line 16, 
        add the following new section:
            Sec. 613. No part of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
        made available to the Internal Revenue Service by this Act 
        shall be paid to any person as a reward or bounty for 
        information concerning violations of the internal revenue laws. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    out of order. We have already passed that place in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not legislate on an 
    appropriation bill. It is only a limitation of spending and adds a 
    new section to the bill. I would maintain that it is in order and 
    it is germane to the bill as a whole.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order. The Chair feels that the amendment comes at an 
    appropriate point in the bill and is germane to the general 
    provisions title and the point of order is overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this bill, there were ``general 
provisions'' in the Internal Revenue Service title applicable only to 
that agency, as well as a general provisions title at the end of the 
bill containing limitations and legislation applicable to all agencies 
funded by the bill. Thus in this case the amendment could have been 
germane at three places in the bill.

[[Page 8806]]

Application of Separate Substantive Law to Operations of Agency as 
    Nongermane Despite Language Restricting Amendment's Effects to 
    ``Use of Funds in the Bill''

Sec. 34.37 The mere recitation that the application of separate 
    substantive law cited in an amendment is only ``with respect to the 
    use of funds in the bill'' for an agency does not assure that the 
    amendment is confined in its application to a restriction on the 
    use of funds (and therefore germane to a proposition containing 
    other such funding restrictions), where the laws being applied are 
    not directly related to funding but rather are statutes governing 
    the conduct of individuals and the relationship of government 
    agencies to each other; thus, to a proposal to restrict 
    availability of funds to an agency for a year and amending the 
    organic law as it relates to the internal functions of that agency, 
    an amendment not only placing further restrictions on funding but 
    also applying to the operation of that agency provisions of 
    separate criminal and other law not otherwise applicable thereto is 
    nongermane, even though it is offered ``with respect to the use of 
    funds in the bill,'' as going beyond the limitation on funding and 
    issues of organization to the positive enactment and enlargement of 
    the applicability of those separate laws.

    During consideration of H.R. 2991 (9) in the House on 
Oct. 26, 1989,(10) the Speaker sustained a point of order in 
the circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
        Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990.
10. 135 Cong. Rec. p. __, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. David R. Nagle (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 179: Page 19, after line 16, insert:
            Sec. 608. Funds appropriated to the Legal Services 
        Corporation and distributed to each grantee funded in fiscal 
        year 1990 pursuant to the number of poor people determined by 
        the Bureau of the Census to be within its geographical area 
        shall be distributed in the following order:
            (1) grants from the Legal Services Corporation and 
        contracts entered into with the Legal Services Corporation 
        under section 1006(a)(1)

[[Page 8807]]

        shall be maintained in fiscal year 1990 at not less than $8.98 
        per poor person within the geographical area of each grantee or 
        contractor under the 1980 census . . . Provided, That none of 
        the funds appropriated in this Act for the Legal Services 
        Corporation shall be used to bring a class action suit against 
        the Federal Government or any State or local government 
        unless--
            (1) the project director of a recipient has expressly 
        approved the filing of such an action in accordance with 
        policies established by the governing body of such recipient . 
        . . Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in 
        this Act made available by the Legal Services Corporation may 
        be used--
            (1) to pay for any publicity or propaganda intended or 
        designed to support or defeat legislation pending before 
        Congress or State or local legislative bodies . . . Provided 
        further, That none of the funds appropriated in this Act for 
        the Legal Services Corporation may be used to carry out the 
        procedures established pursuant to section 1011(2) of the Legal 
        Services Corporation Act unless the Corporation prescribes 
        procedures to ensure that an application for refunding shall 
        not be denied unless the grantee, contractor, or person or 
        entity receiving assistance under this Act has been afforded 
        reasonable notice and opportunity for a timely, full, and fair 
        hearing . . . Provided further, That the fourteenth and 
        fifteenth provisos of this section (relating to parts 1607 and 
        1612 of the Corporation's regulations) shall expire if such 
        action is directed by a majority vote of a Board of Directors 
        of the Legal Services Corporation composed of eleven 
        individuals nominated by the President after January 20, 1989, 
        and subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate: 
        Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
        this Act or under any prior Act for the Legal Services 
        Corporation shall be used to consider, develop, or implement 
        any system for the competitive award of grants or contracts 
        until such action is authorized pursuant to a majority vote of 
        a Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation composed 
        of eleven individuals nominated by the President after January 
        20, 1989, and subsequently confirmed by the United States 
        Senate, except that nothing herein shall prohibit the 
        Corporation Board, members, or staff from engaging in in-house 
        reviews of or holding hearings on proposals for a system for 
        the competitive award of all grants and contracts . . . 
        subsequent to confirmation such new Board of Directors shall 
        develop and implement a proposed system for the competitive 
        award of all grants and contracts, Provided further, That the 
        Corporation shall insure that all grants and contracts made for 
        calendar year 1990 to all grantees receiving funds under 
        sections 1006(a) (1)(A) and (3) of the Legal Services 
        Corporation Act as of September 30, 1989, with funds 
        appropriated by this Act or prior appropriations Acts, shall be 
        made for a period of at least twelve months beginning on 
        January 1, 1990, so as to insure that the total annual funding 
        for each current grantee or contractor is no less than the 
        amount provided pursuant to this Act . . . Provided further, 
        That any new rules or regulations, or revisions to existing 
        rules or regulations adopted by the Board of the Legal Services 
        Corporation after October 1, 1989, shall not become effective 
        until after October 1, 1990, or until authorized pursuant to a 
        majority vote of a Board of Directors of the Legal Services 
        Corporation composed of eleven individuals nominated by the 
        President after January 20, 1989, and subsequently confirmed by 
        the United States Senate: Provided further, That, 
        notwithstanding any decision or action of the President of the

[[Page 8808]]

        Corporation after September 7, 1989, funds appropriated under 
        this Act or any prior Acts shall not be denied, for the period 
        October 1, 1989 through December 31, 1990, to any grantee or 
        contractor which in fiscal year 1989 received funding 
        appropriated under any prior Act, as a result of activities 
        which have found by an independent hearing officer appointed by 
        the President of the Corporation prior to October 1, 1989, not 
        to constitute grounds for a denial of refunding, and any 
        decisions or action of the President of the Corporation 
        reversing or setting aside such decision of an independent 
        hearing officer concerning section 1010(c) of the Act rendered 
        in fiscal year 1989 shall be null or void. . . .

        Mr. [Charles W.] Stenholm [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Stenholm moves that the House concur in the Senate 
        amendment No. 179 with the following amendment: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, insert the 
        following:
            Sec. 608. Funds appropriated to the Legal Services 
        Corporation and distributed to each grantee funded in fiscal 
        year 1990 pursuant to the number of poor people determined by 
        the Bureau of the Census to be within its geographical area 
        shall be distributed in the following order:
            (1) grants from the Legal Services Corporation and 
        contracts entered into with the Legal Services Corporation 
        under section 1006(a)(1) shall be maintained in fiscal year 
        1990 at not less than $8.98 per poor person within the 
        geographical area of each grantee or contractor under the 1980 
        census . . . Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in 
        this Act for the Legal Services Corporation shall be used to 
        bring a class action suit against the Federal Government or any 
        State or local government unless--
            (1) the project director of a recipient has expressly 
        approved the filing of such an action in accordance with 
        policies established by the governing body of such recipient;
            (2) the class relief which is the subject of such an action 
        is sought for the primary benefit of individuals who are 
        eligible for legal assistance; and
            (3) that prior to filing such an action, the recipient 
        project director has determined that the government entity is 
        not likely to change the policy or practice in question, that 
        the policy or practice will continue to adversely affect 
        eligible clients, that the recipient has given notice of its 
        intention to seek class relief and that responsible efforts to 
        resolve without litigation the adverse effects of the policy or 
        practice have not been successful or would be adverse to the 
        interest of the clients:
        except that this proviso may be superseded by regulations 
        governing the bringing of class action suits promulgated by a 
        majority of the Board of Directors of the Corporation who have 
        been confirmed in accordance with section 1004(a) of the Legal 
        Services Corporation Act . . . Provided further, That none of 
        the funds appropriated under this Act for the Legal Services 
        Corporation will be expended to provide legal assistance for or 
        on behalf of any alien unless the alien is present in the 
        United States and is--

            (1) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence as 
        defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)) . . .
            (3) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States 
        pursuant to an admission under section 207 of the Immigration 
        and Nation

[[Page 8809]]

        ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157, relating to refugee admissions) or 
        who has been granted asylum by the Attorney General under such 
        Act; or
            (4) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States 
        as a result of the Attorney General's withholding of 
        deportation pursuant to section 243(h) of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(h)):
        Provided further, That an alien who is lawfully present in the 
        United States as a result of being granted conditional entry 
        pursuant to section 202(a)(7) of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(7)) before April 1, 1980, 
        because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of 
        race, religion, or political opinion or because of being 
        uprooted by catastrophic natural calamity shall be deemed, for 
        purposes of the previous proviso, to be an alien described in 
        clause (3) of the previous proviso . . .
        Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
        Act for the Legal Services Corporation may be used to carry out 
        the procedures established pursuant to section 1011(2) of the 
        Legal Services Corporation Act unless the Corporation 
        prescribes procedures to ensure that an application for 
        refunding shall not be denied unless the grantee, contractor, 
        or person or entity receiving assistance under this Act has 
        been afforded reasonable notice and opportunity for a timely, 
        full, and fair hearing to show cause why such action should not 
        be taken and subject to all other conditions of the previous 
        proviso: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated 
        in this Act for the Legal Services Corporation shall be used by 
        the Corporation in making grants or entering into contracts for 
        legal assistance unless the Corporation insures that the 
        recipient is either (1) a private attorney or attorneys (for 
        the sole purpose of furnishing legal assistance to eligible 
        clients) or (2) a qualified nonprofit organization chartered 
        under the laws of one of the States, a purpose of which is 
        furnishing legal assistance to eligible clients, the majority 
        of the board of directors or other governing body of which 
        organization is comprised of attorneys who are admitted to 
        practice in one of the States and who are appointed to terms of 
        office on such board or body by the governing bodies of State, 
        county, or municipal bar associations the membership of which 
        represents a majority of the attorneys practicing law in the 
        locality in which the organization is to provide legal 
        assistance, or, with regard to national support centers, the 
        locality where the organization maintains its principal 
        headquarters: Provided further, That none of the funds 
        appropriated in this Act for the Corporation shall be used, 
        directly or indirectly, by the Corporation to promulgate new 
        regulations or to enforce, implement, or operate in accordance 
        with regulations effective after April 27, 1984, unless the 
        Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress have been 
        notified fifteen days prior to such use of funds as provided 
        for in section 606 of this Act . . . Provided further, That if 
        a Presidential Order pursuant to Public Law 100-119, the 
        Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act 
        of 1987, is issued for fiscal year 1990, funds provided to each 
        grantee of the Legal Services Corporation shall be reduced by 
        the percentage specified in the Presidential Order . . . 
        Provided further, That, with respect to the use of funds 
        appropriated by this Act to the Legal Services Corporation--

            (1) for purposes of sections 286, 287, 641, 1001, and 1002 
        of title 18, United States Code, the Legal Services Corporation 
        shall be considered to be a department or agency of the United 
        States Government;

[[Page 8810]]

            (2) for purposes of sections 3729 through 3733 of title 31, 
        United States Code, the term 'United States Government' shall 
        include the Legal Services Corporation;
            (3) for purposes of section 3801 of title 31, United States 
        Code, the term ``authority'' includes the Legal Services 
        Corporation, and the provisions of section 3801 through 3812 of 
        title 31, United States Code, shall apply to all parties with 
        whom the Corporation makes grants or contracts under sections 
        1006(a)(1) and 1006(a)(3) of the Legal Services Corporation Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 2996e(a)(1) and 2996e(a)(3));
            (4) applicants for financial assistance from the Legal 
        Services Corporation shall file applications supported by 
        written declaration pursuant to section 1746 of title 28, 
        United States Code, and such declarations shall be subject to 
        sections 1621(2) and 1622 of title 18, United States Code, 
        relating to perjury;
            (5) for purposes of sections 716 and 717 of title 31, 
        United States Code, the Legal Services Corporation shall be 
        considered to be a department or agency of the United States 
        Government;
            (6) for purposes of section 1516 of title 18, United States 
        Code, as added by section 7078 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 
        1988 (Public Law 100-680)--
            (A) the term ``Federal auditor'' shall include any auditor 
        employed or retained on a contractual basis by the Legal 
        Services Corporation,
            (B) the term ``contract'' shall include any grant or 
        contract made by the Legal Services Corporation, and
            (C) the term ``person'', as used in subsection (a) of such 
        section, shall include any grantee or contractor receiving 
        financial assistance under section 1006(a)(1) or 1006(a)(3) of 
        the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996e(a)(1) or 
        2996e(a)(3)); and
            (7) funds provided by the Legal Services Corporation under 
        section 1006 of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 
        2996e) shall be deemed to be Federal appropriations when used 
        by a contractor, grantee, subcontractor, or subgrantee of the 
        Legal Services Corporation. . . .

        Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion on the grounds that it violates 
    rule XVI, clause 7, of the rules of the House of Representatives in 
    that the subject matter of the proposed amendment is not germane to 
    the matter under consideration.
        The proposed motion deals with eight different issues relevant 
    to the operation of the Legal Services Corporation and funds 
    provided thereunder.
        Six of the eight issues are not addressed at all in the 
    underlying amendment. These six issues are as follows: First, 
    prohibition on redistricting activity--the 19th proviso; second, 
    protection against theft and fraud--the 20th proviso; third, 
    procedural safeguards for agricultural litigation--the 21st 
    proviso; fourth, timekeeping--the 22d proviso; fifth, authority of 
    local governing boards--the 23d proviso; and sixth, earmarking of 
    certain funds--the 24th proviso.
        With regard to the seventh issue addressed by the motion, that 
    dealing with the regulation of nonpublic resources--also addressed 
    in the 24th proviso--the proposed motion is substantially broader 
    than the provision dealing with nonpublic resources contained in 
    the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment would prevent the 
    Corporation from implementing pro

[[Page 8811]]

    posed regulations that would place restrictions on nonpublic 
    resources. The proposed amendment, on the other hand, would amend 
    the Legal Services Act to extend existing restrictions on the use 
    of private funds to ``all nonpublic funds and in-kind services used 
    or obtained by that person or entity.'' Current restrictions in the 
    act apply only to funds provided for the purpose of providing legal 
    services and not other activities for which funds may be received.
        The last issue in the proposed amendment is the amendment 
    dealing with competition--the 25th proviso. The underlying Senate 
    amendment would prohibit the implementation of a competitive 
    bidding process unless done under the authority of a confirmed 
    board of directors composed of members named by the current 
    president. The motion under consideration here, however, goes 
    considerably beyond the question of whether the current board may 
    implement a competitive bidding process. In addition, to that 
    question, the proposed amendment would eliminate critical 
    procedural safeguards against termination or defunding or existing 
    LSC grantees within the context of a competitive bidding process.
        In addition to the foregoing, the provisions of the motion 
    relating to theft and fraud--the 20th proviso--would criminalize 
    activity not previously subject to Federal criminal statutes. The 
    amendment proposes to do so by applying the provisions of sections 
    286, 287, 641, 1001, and 1002 of title 18, United States Code to 
    the Legal Services Corporation. In addition, the amendment would 
    make applications for financial assistance subject to section 1746 
    of title 28, United States Code, and sections 1621(2) and 1622 of 
    title 18, United States Code, relating to perjury. The underlying 
    Senate amendment makes no reference to federal criminal statutes 
    and such conduct is not now covered by such acts.
        Also, the theft and fraud provisions--the 20th proviso--would 
    make sections 716 and 717 of title 31, United States Code, relating 
    to audits by the Controller General and the evaluation of programs 
    and activities of the U.S. Government, applicable to the Legal 
    Services Corporation. That section of the amendment also provides 
    that funds provided to the Legal Services Corporation shall be 
    ``deemed to be Federal appropriations when used by a contractor, 
    grantee, subcontractor, or subgrantee of the Legal Services 
    Corporation.'' Those issues are not dealt with in any way in the 
    underlying Senate amendment and deal with subject matter properly 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations.
        Finally, the 21st provision, which places limits on the ability 
    of employees of Legal Services supported programs to represent farm 
    workers is a substantial intrusion on the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor in that it would subtantially 
    diminish the ability of farm workers to assert their Federal rights 
    under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Act, and would 
    set up barriers not contemplated in that act for the exercise of 
    such rights. The amendment would require that, before a legal 
    services attorney could file a suit on behalf of such a farm worker 
    to vindicate Federal rights, the farm worker would have to exhaust 
    all administra

[[Page 8812]]

    tive remedies and participate in negotiations and in mediation 
    programs, if available. In each case, the name of the farm worker 
    would have to be revealed to the grower. Finally, attorneys could 
    not act without receiving a ``documented request from the named 
    worker or employer.''
        Mr. Speaker, on all these grounds, I ask that the amendment be 
    ruled not in order. . . .
        Mr. Stenholm: . . . I would respond to the point of germaneness 
    by simply pointing out that our amendment is germane to the Rudman 
    amendment, which is the purpose for which we offer this amendment.
        The Rudman amendment has already had all points of order 
    relating to authorizing in the appropriation bill waived by the 
    rule under which we are being considered today.

        The second point that I would make is that every item in our 
    amendment refers to how these appropriations are or are not 
    supposed to be spent. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Do any other Members desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Morrison) makes the point 
    of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Stenholm) is not germane to the Senate amendment No. 179. As 
    described on pages 82 and 83 of the joint statement of the 
    managers, Senate amendment No. 179 is a comprehensive series of 
    restrictions on Legal Services Corporation activities accomplished 
    by means of funding restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation 
    and its grantees.
        In addition to the various funding restrictions in the Senate 
    amendment, changes in the Legal Services Corporation law governing 
    corporation activities, a directive that the Corporation 
    reconstitute its board of directors, are included. The Senate 
    amendment does not, however, incorporate provisions of criminal 
    law, the False Claims Act and other laws requiring the furnishing 
    of information to the General Accounting Office.
        The proposed amendment, in addition to the inclusion of 
    additional funding restrictions, attempts to indirectly apply 
    substantive provisions of Federal criminal law and other laws to 
    render the Legal Services Corporation an agency of a department of 
    the U.S. Government for purposes of prosecution of certain activity 
    and the furnishing of information. While these incorporations of 
    provisions of law are prefaced as being ``with respect to the use 
    of funds appropriated by this act to the Legal Services 
    Corporation,'' it appears that these provisions in the amendment go 
    beyond merely a restriction on the use of funds and constitute an 
    application of other Federal law for the period covered by the 
    appropriation in the bill.
        On June 16, 1983, the Chair ruled nongermane an amendment 
    conditioning the availability to certain recipients of the funds in 
    an authorization bill upon their compliance with Federal law not 
    otherwise applicable to those recipients and within the 
    jurisdiction of other House committees.
        In the opinion of the Chair, that portion of the proposed 
    amendment which incorporates several provisions of law not 
    contained in the Senate amendment and enacts those provisions as 
    positive law applicable to the Legal Services Corporation and its 
    grantees

[[Page 8813]]

    for the period fiscal 1990 renders the amendment not germane.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Creating New Department and Transferring Administration of 
    Existing Laws Thereto--Amendments Changing Substantive Laws Being 
    Administered

Sec. 34.38 Although it is ordinarily germane by way of amendment to 
    limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations carried 
    in a bill may be applied, that principle normally applies to annual 
    authorization bills reported by the committees having legislative 
    and oversight jurisdiction over the statutes for which the funds 
    are authorized; but where the Committee on Government Operations 
    has reported an organizational bill to create a new department in 
    the executive branch, which transfers the administration of 
    existing statutes and programs to that department without modifying 
    such statutes and programs, and which contains a general 
    authorization of appropriations for the department to carry out its 
    functions under the Act, such a bill is not necessarily open to 
    amendments which change the substantive laws to be administered.

    On June 19, 1979, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 2444, reported from the Committee on Government 
Operations, to establish a new Department of Education, and 
transferring to such Department the administration of federally funded 
programs within the jurisdiction of other committees. The bill 
contained an authorization of appropriations to carry out its 
provisions and to enable the Department to perform the functions 
transferred to it, subject to existing laws limiting appropriations 
applicable to any of those functions.(12) An amendment was 
offered (13) to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated 
under such authorization to provide for transportation of students or 
teachers for purposes of establishing racial or ethnic quotas in 
schools. The amendment was ruled out as not germane, on the grounds 
that the bill was merely organizational in nature and only transferred 
the administration of

[[Page 8814]]

educational laws to the Department without modifying those laws; and 
because the amendment would impinge on the jurisdiction of other House 
committees having jurisdiction over those basic laws. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 14717, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1979.
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 15570, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        authorization of appropriations

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

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

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

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

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . . [T]he language of section 436 
    that says that this authorization is subject to any limitation 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    department, was added to the bill to negate any inference that this 
    section authorizes any funds for programs so transferred.
        Now, the section is designed to authorize only those additional 
    appropriations which are necessary to establish and operate the 
    department. Funds provided to public and private entities under the 
    programs of the department are not authorized by this section, but 
    by legislation subject to the jurisdiction of other committees and 
    not now before the house.
        An amendment to limit or constrain the use of those funds is, 
    therefore, not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    may be supporting the bill. I do not think this is a frivolous 
    amendment. I believe it is germane.
        So as not to waste the time of this body or of this committee, 
    I asked the parliamentarian last week to take an initial look at 
    this. He said that it might take some further study, but that it 
    looked germane at first view.
        What it attempts to do, if it appears slightly redundant, is to 
    make sure that the Department of Education is not crippled by the 
    burden of reverse discrimination dealing with quotas, busing or 
    teacher transfers. The teacher transfer problem is one to which my 
    own brother has been subjected after teaching in a Los Angeles 
    school system for 12 years.
        I will accept whatever ruling the Chair issues to this one 
    section and

[[Page 8815]]

    not legislating in an appropriations bill, to point out areas in 
    which money cannot be spent and to allocate any personnel to carry 
    out someone else's school plan or to have a brand new department of 
    education suffering under the burden of coming up with their own, I 
    think would get the new department off to a bad footing for this or 
    what I expect to be a whole new administration starting on January 
    20 of 1981. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes that amendments are ordinarily germane 
    which limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations or 
    an appropriation for an existing program may be put; however, the 
    Chair knows of no precedent applying that principle to a bill which 
    is only organizational in nature. Ordinarily, bills authorizing or 
    making appropriations to carry out existing statutes emerge from 
    the committees which have reported such statutes and which during 
    the authorization and appropriation process have exercised 
    oversight over the manner in which those programs are and should be 
    carried out; but the fundamental issue involved with the pending 
    bill is not whether those programs should be carried out as it is 
    with annual authorizations or appropriations, but who should 
    administer them. . . .
        To allow as germane the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
    from California would be to impinge upon the jurisdiction of the 
    committees responsible for overseeing and authorizing the 
    administration of the laws transferred by the pending legislation, 
    and would broaden its scope beyond an organizational bill to one 
    also modifying and limiting the programs proposed to be transferred 
    intact to the new department.
        The Chair believes that it is important to understand the 
    impact which section 436 has upon the bill.
        In this regard, the Chair will focus upon the first clause in 
    that section, which on its face renders the authorization for 
    appropriations subject to any limitations on appropriations 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    department or secretary. Since the basic purpose of this bill is to 
    create a new departmental entity to carry out existing educational 
    programs and policies, it is reasonable to infer that the thrust of 
    section 436 is merely to assure under the rules of the House that 
    appropriations both for substantive educational programs and for 
    administrative expenses of the new department as an organizational 
    entity will continue to be considered as authorized by and subject 
    to provisions of existing law.
        Thus, amendments to section 436 which attempt to restrict the 
    availability of funds authorized therein in ways which are not 
    addressed by existing law, such as the denial of funds to pay 
    salaries and expenses to persons who promulgate regulations 
    relating to some newly stated aspect of educational policy, are 
    beyond the scope of title IV. Title IV establishes an 
    administrative structure within the new department to carry out 
    presently enacted educational programs and policies. Such a title 
    should not, in an organizational bill, be open to amendments which 
    redirect the administration of educational programs in ways

[[Page 8816]]

    not precisely contemplated by existing law.
        Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order.



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


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

[[Page 8817]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8818]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8819]]

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

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

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

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

                        title i--land-use adjustment

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

[[Page 8820]]

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

                        title iii--marketing orders

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

                        title iv--commodity programs

                          Subtitle A--Feed Grains

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

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

                           ``Legislative Findings

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

                         ``national marketing quota

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

                        ``national acreage allotment

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

[[Page 8821]]

    which such marketing year begins. . . .

                        Title V--General Provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8822]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8823]]

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

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

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

Agricultural Price Supports--Amendment Adding Commodity to Those 
    Covered

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

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

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

[[Page 8824]]

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8825]]

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

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

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

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

Amendment Affecting Different Section of Existing Law

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

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

[[Page 8826]]

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

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

    An amendment was offered, as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8827]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8828]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8829]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                         Title V--Agricultural Workers

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

[[Page 8830]]

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

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

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

                         Title V--Agricultural Workers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8831]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8832]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8833]]

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

--Amendment Affecting Labor Standards Under Different Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8834]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8835]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8836]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8837]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8838]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8839]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Amendment offered by Mr. Flannagan:

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

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

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

[[Page 8840]]

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

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

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

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

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

                                  Definitions

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

[[Page 8841]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8842]]

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

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

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

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

                     amendment offered by mr. erlenborn

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

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

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

[[Page 8843]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8844]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8845]]

    tion covered by the language of this act.

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

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

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

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

[[Page 8846]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8847]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8848]]

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

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8849]]

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

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

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

[[Page 8850]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8851]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8852]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8853]]

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

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

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

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

Sec. 35.27 To a committee amendment making price and wage

[[Page 8854]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8855]]

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

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8856]]

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

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

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

--Additional Sense of Congress Expression

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8857]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8858]]

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

    Mr. Vorys further observed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8859]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Amendment Relating To Subject Matter Stricken From Bill

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

[[Page 8860]]

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

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

                     Part IV--Amendments to Other Laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8861]]

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

Amendments to Other Acts

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

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

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

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

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

        ``No such report shall contain any miscellaneous item. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground again that there is 
    nothing in this bill relating to the expenditure of committee 
    funds, of select or special committees, or traveling committees 
    and, therefore, the amendment is not germane to the bill.

    The following exchange then occurred:

        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Iowa concedes 
    the point of order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military Assistance to Foreign Nations--Transfer of Military Equipment 
    to Israel

Sec. 35.35 To a bill authorizing foreign assistance and

[[Page 8862]]

    amending several provisions of the basic law relating to military 
    assistance, an amendment authorizing the President to negotiate 
    with Israel concerning the sale to that nation of certain military 
    equipment was held to be germane.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 22098, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 18, 1968. See 
        Sec. 35.36, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.36 To a bill amending those provisions of the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1961 relating to military assistance to foreign 
    nations, an amendment authorizing the transfer of military planes 
    to Israel under conditions and procedures compatible with the basic 
    law was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1968,(8) the following amendment was 
offered: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 15263 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 9. 114 Cong. Rec. 22098, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 18, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered to the committee amendments offered by Mr. 
    [Lester L.] Wolff [of New York]: on page 11, line 9, after the 
    Conte amendment insert:

            (d) The President shall take such steps as may be necessary 
        . . . to negotiate an agreement with the Government of Israel 
        providing for the sale by the United States of not less than 50 
        military planes. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: I raise a point of order against 
    the amendment because it would order the President to make an 
    affirmative determination. It has been ruled here many times that 
    one cannot do that.
        In addition, it is not germane to the bill because we are 
    coming up with a military sales bill, and this bill has nothing 
    about military sales in it. The amendment may be germane to the 
    military sales bill.

    The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Part II of chapter 2 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961, section 503, designating the general authority, states the 
    President is authorized to furnish military assistance on such 
    terms and conditions as he may determine, to any friendly country 
    or international organization, the assisting of which the President 
    finds will strengthen the security of the United States and promote 
    world peace and which is otherwise eligible to receive such 
    assistance.
        The Chair will hold that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from New York further authorizes the President to take such steps 
    as may be necessary to negotiate an agreement with the Government 
    of Israel providing for the sale of military planes, and is a 
    condition in keeping with the authority

[[Page 8863]]

    already given to the President in section 503 of the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and therefore holds the 
    amendment to be germane. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Amending Mutual Security Act of 1954--Amendment Authorizing 
    Librarian of Congress To Use Foreign Currencies in Acquisitions

Sec. 35.37 To a bill relating to military and economic assistance to 
    foreign countries and amending the Mutual Security Act of 1954, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which authorized the Librarian 
    of Congress to use designated foreign currencies in connection with 
    programs for the evaluation and acquisition of certain foreign 
    books and materials.

    In the 85th Congress, a bill (11) was under 
consideration amending the Mutual Security Act of 1954. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 12181 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
12. 104 Cong. Rec. 8751, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of 
        Michigan]:

        (m) Add a new section as follows:
        Sec. 519. Overseas programs relating to scientific and other 
    significant works (a) The Librarian of Congress, in consultation 
    with the National Science Foundation and other interested agencies, 
    is authorized to establish programs outside of the United States 
    for (1) the analysis and evaluation of foreign books . . . and 
    other materials to determine whether they would provide information 
    of technical or scientific significance in the United States . . . 
    and the acquisition of such books. . . .
        . . . [T]he Librarian of Congress may, in carrying out the 
    provisions of this section . . . use currencies, or credits for 
    currencies, of any foreign government (1) held or available for 
    expenditure by the United States and not required by law or 
    agreement with such government to be expended or used for another 
    purpose. . . .

    The following exchange concerned a point of order raised against 
the amendment:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is 
    not germane to the bill or at this place in the bill. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment sets up an outfit in the Library 
    of Congress which is not mentioned anywhere else to review a great 
    bunch of books. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) . . . The Chair is not, of 
    course, passing on the merits of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan. The amendment is obviously not germane to 
    the purposes of the pending bill. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A subsequent exchange concerned the timeliness of Mr. Taber's point 
of order:

[[Page 8864]]

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] was much too 
    late in making his point of order, inasmuch as the amendment had 
    already been read and debate had started.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] was on 
    his feet at the time and was recognized by the Chair as soon as the 
    Chair saw the gentleman on his feet. The point of order of the 
    gentleman from Ohio comes too late.

Foreign Assistance to Certain Nations--Amendment Requiring Reports on 
    Human Rights Violations by Any Nation

Sec. 35.38 To a bill amending existing law to authorize foreign 
    economic assistance to nations qualifying as recipients under that 
    law, but not addressing foreign relations with countries not 
    receiving such assistance, an amendment to that law to require 
    reports on human rights violations by all foreign countries, not 
    merely those receiving aid under the law, was conceded to be 
    broader in scope and was ruled out as not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 12222 (14) in the Committee 
of the Whole, a point of order against the amendment described above 
was conceded and sustained. The proceedings of May 12, 
1978,(15) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1978.
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 13499, 13500, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Michel: On page 48, immediately 
        after line 15, insert the following new subsection:
            ``(e) Section 116(d)(1) of such Act is amended by inserting 
        immediately before the semicolon ``and in all other foreign 
        countries (except those countries with respect to which a 
        report is transmitted pursuant [to another section] ).''

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Michel: . . . [I]f the gentleman insists on his point of 
    order, I would concede it in the interests of time.
        Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I will concede the point 
    of order and will offer another amendment.
        The Chairman: (16) The point of order is conceded 
    and sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Elliott Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laws Concerning State Department and Foreign Relations--Guidelines for 
    Acceptance of Foreign Gifts

Sec. 35.39 To a House bill containing diverse amendments

[[Page 8865]]

    to existing laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    International Relations, relating to foreign relations and the 
    operation of the Department of State and related agencies, a 
    portion of a Senate amendment thereto contained in a conference 
    report, amending the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (within the 
    jurisdiction of the same committee) to provide guidelines and 
    procedures for the acceptance of foreign gifts by United States 
    employees and to provide that the House Committee on Standards of 
    Official Conduct adopt regulations governing acceptance by Members 
    and House employees of foreign gifts, was held germane when a point 
    of order was raised against a portion of the conference report 
    under Rule XXVIII, clause 4.

    The proceedings of Aug. 3, 1977, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 6689, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal 1978, 
are discussed in Sec. 26.28, supra.

General Sanctions Offered to Specific Sanctions

Sec. 35.40 To a bill dealing with enforcement of United Nations 
    sanctions against one country in relation to a specific trade 
    commodity, an amendment permitting the president to suspend all 
    economic relations and communications between the United States and 
    any other country, on the basis of human rights violations as 
    determined by the president, was held to be not germane.

    On Mar. 14, 1977,(17) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 1746, amending the United Nations 
Participation Act of 1945 to halt the importation of Rhodesian chrome. 
The bill permitted the president to enforce United States compliance 
with United Nations Security Council sanctions against trade with 
Rhodesia particularly with reference to the importation of Rhodesian 
chrome. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 7432, 7446, 7447, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it amended by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 5 of 
    the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C. 287c) is 
    amended--
        (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following new 
    sentence: ``Any Executive order which is issued under this 
    subsection and which applies measures against Southern Rho

[[Page 8866]]

    desia pursuant to any United Nations Security Council Resolution 
    may be enforced, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law; 
    and
        (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
        ``(c)(1) During the period in which measures are applied 
    against Southern Rhodesia under subsection (a) pursuant to any 
    United Nations Security Council Resolution, a shipment of any steel 
    mill product (as such product may be defined by the Secretary) 
    containing chromium in any form may not be released from customs 
    custody for entry into the United States if--
        ``(A) a certificate of origin with respect to such shipment has 
    not been filed with the Secretary; or
        ``(B) in the case of a shipment with respect to which a 
    certificate of origin has been filed with the Secretary, the 
    Secretary determines that the information contained in such 
    certificate does not adequately establish that the steel mill 
    product in such shipment does not contain chromium in any form 
    which is of Southern Rhodesian origin. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Elliott] Levitas [of Georgia]: 
        Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
        That section 5(a) of the United Nations Participation Act of 
        1945 is amended--

            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2)(A) Subject to the conditions prescribed in 
        subparagraph (B), if the President determines that the 
        government of a foreign country is engaged in a consistent 
        pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human 
        rights (including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading 
        treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, 
        or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the 
        security of person), the President may, through any agency 
        which he may designate and under such orders, rules, and 
        regulations as may be prescribed by him, suspend (in whole or 
        in part) economic relations or rail, sea, air, postal, 
        telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication between 
        that foreign country or any national thereof or any person 
        therein and the United States or any person subject to the 
        jurisdiction thereof, or involving any property subject to the 
        jurisdiction of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order the amendment is not germane.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill deals only with United Nations sanctions against 
    importation of chrome, while the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Georgia deals with embargoes and other economic sanctions on 
    any material or commercial transaction. Also, the bill deals only 
    with sanctions against Rhodesia, both in the title and in the body 
    of the bill. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
    permits U.S. rather than U.N. sanctions to be imposed on products 
    or communications from any foreign country. It is the opinion of 
    the Chair that the amendment is not germane, and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

Sec. 35.41 To a bill amending existing law for limited pur

[[Page 8867]]

    poses, an amendment further changing that law but affecting 
    programs beyond the scope of the bill and the law being amended and 
    waiving other inconsistent provisions of law is not germane.

    On Sept. 23, 1977,(19) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (20) jointly reported from the 
Committees on Ways and Means and Interstate and Foreign Commerce to 
enable the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to investigate 
and prosecute fraud and abuse in the medicare and medicaid health 
programs within their respective jurisdictions. An amendment was 
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means to prohibit any federal 
officer or employee from disclosing any identifiable medical record in 
the absence of patient approval. The amendment was held not germane, as 
exceeding the scope and subject matter of the bill. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 30532-34, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H.R. 3, Medicare-Medicaid Antifraud and Abuse Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will report the second 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by the Committee on Ways and Means: Page 
        66, strike out line 22 down through and including line 5 on 
        page 70 and insert in lieu thereof:
            (l)(1) Part A of title XI of such Act (as amended by 
        section 3(a) of this Act) is amended by adding after section 
        1124 the following new section:

           ``disclosure of individually identifiable medical records

            ``Sec. 1125. (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act except paragraph (2) of this subsection, no officer, 
        employee, or agent of the United States, or any office, agency, 
        or department thereof, or any Professional Standards Review 
        Organization or any person acting or purporting to act on 
        behalf of such Organization, may inspect, acquire, or require 
        the disclosure of, for any reason whatever, any individually 
        identifiable medical record of a patient, unless the patient 
        has authorized such inspection, acquisition, or disclosure in 
        accordance with subsection (b). . . .
            (2) After taking into consideration the recommendations 
        contained in the final report of the Privacy Protection Study 
        Commission (established under section 5 of the Privacy Act of 
        1974), the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall 
        prepare and submit, not later than three months after the date 
        such Commission submits its final report, to the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Committee on Ways and 
        Means of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on 
        Human Resources and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
        report containing specific recommendations (including draft 
        legislation) for the timely development and implementation of 
        appropriate procedures (including use of detailed written 
        consent forms) in order to (A) maintain the confidentiality of 
        individually identifiable

[[Page 8868]]

        medical records (whether they relate to medical care provided 
        directly by, or through the financial assistance of, the 
        Federal Government or not), and (B) prevent the unwarranted 
        inspection by, and disclosure to, Federal officers, employees, 
        and agents and Professional Standards Review Organizations of 
        such records. . . .

        Mr. [Richardson] Preyer [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    raise a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [T]his amendment in its scope would apply far beyond the 
    purpose of the bill and the jurisdiction of the committee. The 
    jurisdiction of the committee and the purpose of the bill is to 
    deal with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and 
    increase the Department's ability to investigate and prosecute 
    medicare and medicaid fraud and abuse.
        However, the amendment covers not only the Department of 
    Health, Education, and Welfare but all the officers, employees, and 
    agents of the United States. The committee report specifically 
    states, ``Under the bill PSRO's and employees or agents of the 
    Federal Government may not inspect, acquire or require the 
    disclosure of individually identifiable medical records.'' The Ways 
    and Means Committee does not have jurisdiction, for example, over 
    the employees of the Department of Defense, the Veterans' 
    Administration, or the Federal courts.
        In addition this amendment clearly conflicts with the Deschler 
    precedent in chapter 28, section 8.1, which states that--

            To a bill limited in its application to certain departments 
        and agencies of government, an amendment applicable to all 
        departments and agencies is not germane.

        Finally, Mr. Chairman, I note the amendment attempts to 
    supersede all other laws and regulations of the United States in 
    conflict with this amendment. This violates the principle of the 
    Deschler precedent in chapter 28, section 29.4 which states that--

            To a bill referring to certain provisions of existing law, 
        an amendment repealing a portion of that law was held not 
        germane. . . .

        Mr. [Philip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the point of order. The Ways and Means amendment, 
    set forth as section 5(l) of H.R. 3 as reported by that committee, 
    is clearly germane to the original bill and the bill in its current 
    form.
        In the first place, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3 ostensibly has as its 
    purpose the prevention of fraud and abuse in the medicare and 
    medicaid programs. To achieve that objective, a very complex set of 
    provisions were put into the original bill, including provisions in 
    section 5, that greatly strengthen the investigatory and 
    enforcement roles of professional standards review organizations 
    (PSRO's).
        These organizations do not simply acquire and inspect records 
    only of medicare and medicaid patients, or of doctors and other 
    health professionals who treat only those patients. Quite the 
    contrary is true. PSRO's are required to compile statistically 
    valid ``profiles'' of patients and providers, in order to identify, 
    among other things, patterns of suspected unnecessary services and 
    treatment that does not conform to ``appropriate'' medical 
    standards. In so doing, they not only

[[Page 8869]]

    may--they must--inspect, acquire, and require the disclosure of the 
    records of private patients and their doctors. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the precedents of this body--
    and I am certain that my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee 
    are as well--that would not allow section 5(l) of H.R. 3 to be 
    broader in scope than the original bill. The fact is, however, that 
    section 5(h) of the bill now before us clearly extends the specter 
    of unauthorized violations of patients' rights to confidentiality 
    to all patients, by all Federal agencies and departments. There is 
    no way for Congress to know, in advance, precisely who will seek to 
    inspect, acquire or require the disclosure of the data and records 
    gathered by a PSRO and mandated to be shared with others by the 
    original language of H.R. 3. Furthermore, a private patient's 
    medical record can be transformed into a medicare or medicaid 
    patient's record simply by a change in the status of the patient--
    his becoming eligible, for example, through disability, age, or 
    poverty. The medicare and medicaid programs have much to fear if 
    the kinds of safeguards provided for in the Crane-Stark amendment 
    are not extended to all records of patients and all Federal 
    officials.
        The Crane-Stark amendment most certainly relates to the 
    fundamental purpose of H.R. 3, and applies only to those 
    individuals, agencies and departments that are within the scope of 
    the original bill. To decide otherwise would, I respectfully 
    submit, significantly and adversely affect the very patients who 
    are the intended beneficiaries of this important legislation. It 
    would create potential barriers between patient and doctor by 
    inhibiting free communication, since there would be no guarantees 
    that their jobs would be secure or their friends and families would 
    be free from interrogation and investigation by the Federal 
    Government. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from North Carolina makes the point of order 
    against the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
    Means printed on page 66, line 22, through page 70, line 5, on the 
    grounds that it is not germane to the bill H.R. 3.
        The bill amends several titles of the Social Security Act to 
    correct fraudulent activities under the medicare and medicaid 
    programs by strengthening penalty sanctions, increasing disclosure 
    of information requirements, improving the professional standards 
    review program, and by proposing certain administrative reforms.
        The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    while addressing the role of professional standards review 
    organizations in permitting disclosure of confidential medical 
    records of patients under medicare and medicaid programs, goes 
    beyond that issue and encompasses a prohibition against any officer 
    or employee of the Federal Government from disclosing any 
    identifiable medical record absent specific authorization from the 
    patient. As drafted, the amendment would supersede any other 
    provision of law which would otherwise permit Federal officials to 
    disclose medical records, and would appear to affect health 
    programs which are not medicare or medicaid related which do

[[Page 8870]]

    not involve PSRO participation and which are not established under 
    the Social Security Act.
        For this reason, the Chair holds that the amendment recommended 
    by the Committee on Ways and Means is not germane to H.R. 3 and 
    sustains the point of order.

Bill Amending One Title of Social Security Act--Amendment to Different 
    Title

Sec. 35.42 To a bill to amend one title of the Social Security Act to 
    provide a national program for war mobilization and reconversion, 
    an amendment offered to amend another title of the act and relating 
    to military pay and allowances was held not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the War Mobilization 
and Reconversion Bill of 1944,(2) the following amendment 
was offered: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. S. 2051 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 3. 90 Cong. Rec. 7465, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [H. Jerry] Voorhis of California: On 
    page 39, line 24, add the following new title, Title 4, section 
    401:

            Title II of the Social Security Act, as amended, is amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

                          ``Military Service Benefits

            ``Sec. 210. (a) For the purposes of this title, an 
        individual who is engaged in military service within the period 
        beginning with October 1, 1940, and ending 1 year after the 
        termination of the emergency declared by the President on May 
        27, 1941, shall be deemed to have been paid for each month in 
        which he performs any military service within such period wages 
        equal to [a specified amount]. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 7465, 7466.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jere] Cooper [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Voorhis) that it is not germane to this bill or any 
    part of it. It relates to military pay and allowances, which is 
    certainly not within the scope of anything in this bill. . . .
        . . . I submit further that the gentleman's amendment is to 
    title II of the Social Security Act, which is not . . . dealt with 
    in the pending bill at all. The only amendment to the Social 
    Security Act in this bill relates to title III.

    The Chairman,(5) adopting the reasoning of Mr. Cooper, 
sustained the point of order.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
 6. 90 Cong. Rec. 7466, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 1944.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 8871]]

Continuing Appropriations and Imposing Conditions on Availability--
    Amendment To Change Law Governing Eligibility

Sec. 35.43 To a proposal continuing the availability of appropriated 
    funds and also imposing diverse legislative conditions upon the 
    availability of appropriations, an amendment directly and 
    permanently changing existing law as to the eligibility of certain 
    recipients was conceded to go beyond the scope of the categories of 
    legislative changes contained therein and to be nongermane.

    The proceedings of Dec. 10, 1981, relating to House Joint 
Resolution 370, continuing appropriations for fiscal 1982, are 
discussed in Sec. 23.4, supra.

Bill Relating to Exchange Value and Gold Content of Dollar--Amendment 
    Affecting Purchase of Foreign Gold

Sec. 35.44 To a bill amending the Gold Reserve Act to extend certain 
    powers of the President with respect to use of the stabilization 
    fund for purposes of stabilizing the exchange value of the dollar, 
    and with respect to altering the gold content of the dollar, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which referred to another part 
    of the act and related to terms upon which foreign gold could be 
    purchased by the Secretary of the Treasury.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of a bill (7) 
as described above, the following amendment was offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 3325 (Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures).
 8. 84 Cong. Rec. 4628, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 21, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: On 
    page 2, at the end of section 3, add a new section, as follows:

            Sec. 4. That section 3700 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C., 
        title 31, sec. 734, as amended by section 8 of the Gold Reserve 
        Act of 1934 (73d Cong., H.R. 6976), is further amended to read 
        as follows:
             ``Sec. 3700. With the approval of the President, the 
        Secretary of the Treasury may purchase gold . . . at home or 
        abroad . . . upon such terms . . . as he may deem most 
        advantageous to the public interest: Provided, That no payments 
        for gold so purchased shall be made . . . to any foreign vendor 
        (including foreign governments) . . . unless and until such 
        vendor . . . shall guarantee to the Secretary of the Treasury 
        as a condition precedent to receiving such payment: (1) That [a 
        specified amount] shall be used exclusively for the purchase of 
        commodities or articles produced, grown, or manufactured in the 
        United States. . . .''

[[Page 8872]]

    Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. He argued that, where only one 
amendment to existing law is contained in the bill, no other amendments 
to the law can be proposed by way of amendment of the bill; and that, 
where more than one amendment is proposed in the bill, the question for 
the Chair is whether the bill is a general amendatory bill and thus 
open to amendments further modifying the law. The 
Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 4629, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 21, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill picks out two powers granted in the Gold Reserve Act 
    of 1934, from a number of other powers in that act, and it extends 
    the date of expiration of those powers vested in the President and 
    also in the Secretary of the Treasury, and continues those powers 
    for an additional period.

    Chairman McCormack then cited prior instances in which, ``to a bill 
amending the Federal Reserve Act in a number of particulars an 
amendment relating to the Federal Reserve Act, but to no portion 
provided for in the pending bill, was held not to be germane''; and in 
which it was held that, ``to a bill amendatory of an act in several 
particulars an amendment proposing to modify the act but not related to 
the bill'' was not germane.
    A further ruling of the Speaker in a prior situation was quoted, as 
follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 4630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It does not seem to the Chair that this bill brings the whole 
    National Defense Act before the House. It only brings before the 
    House a very limited portion of it, and not the portion affected by 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. The 
    Chair is disposed to sustain the point of order. The point of order 
    is sustained.

    The Chair sustained the point of order.

Penalties Under Export Administration Act--Amendment Relating to 
    Different Class of Penalties

Sec. 35.45 To a bill relating to the imposition of penalties of a 
    certain class, all falling within the jurisdiction of one 
    committee, an amendment relating to another class of penalties 
    falling within the jurisdiction of another committee is not 
    germane; thus, to a title of a bill reported from the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs comprehensively amending the Export Administration 
    Act, and addressing

[[Page 8873]]

    penalties for violating export controls within that committee's 
    jurisdiction, such as revocation of export licenses and forfeiture 
    of property interests and proceeds related to exports, an amendment 
    authorizing the President to control imports by persons violating 
    export controls was held to be not germane because it was a penalty 
    not within the class covered by the title and by the Export 
    Administration Act, and was a matter within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee (Ways and Means).

    The proceedings of Sept. 29, 1983, relating to H.R. 3231, the 
Export Administration Amendments Act of 1983, are discussed in 
Sec. 4.55, supra.

Bill Affecting Gold Reserve Requirements--Amendment Relating to 
    France's War Debt to United States

Sec. 35.46 To a bill eliminating the gold reserve requirements for 
    certain United States currencies, an amendment providing that no 
    redemption in gold be made to France until agreement is reached 
    respecting payment of France's World War I debt to the United 
    States was held to be not germane.

    The following ruling (12) of the Chair was made with 
respect to the germaneness of an amendment offered by Mr. Lester L. 
Wolff, of New York, to a bill (13) eliminating certain gold 
reserve requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 114 Cong. Rec. 3687, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 21, 1968.
13. H.R. 14743 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) . . . The bill before the House, 
    H.R. 14743, deals only with the question of eliminating reserve 
    requirements for Federal Reserve notes and for U.S. notes and 
    Treasury notes of 1890. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York, while put in the form of an amendment to the same section 
    of the Gold Reserve Act amended by section 8 of the bill before the 
    Committee, has to do with war debts, a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and a matter not 
    involved in the subject before the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Contributions to International Financial Organization--Restriction on 
    Uses of Funds

Sec. 35.47 To a bill continuing authority under existing law to make 
    contributions to an international financial orga

[[Page 8874]]

    nization and authorizing appropriations for those contributions, an 
    amendment adding a further restriction on the use of United States 
    contributions to those already contained in that law is germane.

    On July 2, 1974,(15) during consideration of a bill 
continuing United States participation under the International 
Development Association Act (H.R. 15465), an amendment prohibiting the 
use of United States contributions as loans for the purchase of nuclear 
weapons or materials was held germane as a restriction on the use of 
loans by recipient nations which added to several restrictions already 
contained in the Act:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 22026, 22028, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        International Development Association Act (22 U.S.C. 284 et 
        seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        section:
            Sec. 14. (a) The United States Governor is hereby 
        authorized to agree on behalf of the United States to pay to 
        the Association four annual installments of $375,000,000 each 
        as the United States contribution to the Fourth Replenishment 
        of the Resources of the Association.
            ``(b) In order to pay for the United States contribution, 
        there is hereby authorized to be appropriated without fiscal 
        year limitation four annual installments of $375,000,000 each 
        for payment by the Secretary of the Treasury.''.

        The Chairman: (16) Are there any amendments to this 
    section? There being no amendments the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. Subsections 3 (b) and (c) of Public Law 93-110 (87 
        Stat. 352) are repealed and in lieu thereof add the following:
            ``(b) No rule, regulation, or order in effect on the date 
        subsections (a) and (b) become effective may be construed to 
        prohibit any person from purchasing, holding, selling, or 
        otherwise dealing with gold in the United States or abroad. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Biaggi: Page 2, immediately after 
        line 9, insert the following new section:
            Sec. 2. The International Development Association Act (22 
        U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 15. No moneys contributed by the United States to 
        the Association may be loaned to, or utilized by, any country 
        for the purpose of purchasing nuclear materials, or nuclear 
        energy technology or for the purpose of developing nuclear 
        explosive devices or nuclear weapons.''. . .

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane. It 
    purports to amend subsections 3 (b) and (c) of Pub

[[Page 8875]]

    lic Law 93-110 (87 Stat. 352). Public Law 93-110 is the Par Value 
    Act which affected the gold value of the dollar. The amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Biaggi) attempts to 
    amend the International Development Association Act, this has to do 
    with nuclear materials, it is, therefore, entirely nongermane to 
    the act which it seeks to amend. . . .
        Mr. Biaggi: . . . Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply seeks to 
    add a new section to this bill, section 15. This section would 
    condition any of the moneys to be spent in the event IDA is 
    successful this afternoon, or any of the moneys to be loaned, and I 
    use that as a euphemism because, in fact, it is an outright grant 
    in its nature, and we have recognized it as such, and I do not 
    think anyone thinks that we will ever have the money returned, but 
    it represents a condition under which the money can be loaned.
        The fact of the matter is, the money, if it is to be loaned, 
    cannot be used to provide nuclear technology or nuclear material in 
    any of the proposed countries, and it is my judgment that the 
    appropriate manner in which to do that is to add an additional 
    section, and we do that in my amendment by creating section 15.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Reuss).
        The bill is drafted as a continuation of the U.S. Governor's 
    authority to agree to make U.S. money available to IDA under terms 
    of the International Development Association Act. That statute 
    already contains several restrictions on the Governor's authority 
    to cast dissenting votes for loans to nations lacking certain 
    qualifications. Therefore an amendment to further restrict the use 
    of funds for loans under IDA, part of which are authorized by the 
    bill, would be germane, and the point of order is 
    overruled.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. In response to a further point of order, the Chair ruled that the 
        Biaggi amendment came too late, because section 2 of the bill 
        had already been read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extending Authorization for Contributions to International Monetary 
    Fund--Amendment Restricting Total Budget Outlays of Government

Sec. 35.48 An amendment must be germane to the pending bill, and where 
    the bill amends one portion of an existing law, an amendment that 
    affects another provision of that law, not related to the subject 
    of the bill, is not germane; thus, to a title of a bill amending 
    that portion of an existing law to extend the authorization for 
    United States contributions to the International Monetary Fund, 
    amendments affecting another section of that law by mandating, or 
    affirming congressional commitment to mandate, that the total 
    budget outlays of the federal gov

[[Page 8876]]

    ernment shall not exceed its receipts were held not germane, as 
    addressing issues of federal spending and revenue beyond the scope 
    of the title and amending or referencing a section originally added 
    to the law as a nongermane Senate amendment.

    During consideration of H.R. 2957 (18) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Aug. 3, 1983,(19) the Chair sustained points 
of order in the circumstances described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. International Recovery and Financial Stability Act.
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 22678, 22679, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 28, after line 8, 
        add the following:
            Sec. 308. Consistent with the objective of sustaining 
        worldwide economic growth and recovery set forth in this title, 
        section 3 of Public Law 96-389, the Bretton Woods Agreements 
        Act Amendments of 1980, is amended by striking it in its 
        entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following: Beginning 
        in fiscal year 1985, the total budget outlays of the Federal 
        Government shall not exceed its receipts. . . .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        [M]y point of order is that it relates to a balanced budget for 
    the United States and is therefore not germane to that part of the 
    legislation before us.
        Title III of the legislation provides for U.S. contributions to 
    the IMF, as well as certain conditions and restrictions of those 
    contributions and on lending by U.S. banks. The title does not 
    address the far broader issues of overall Federal Government 
    spending and taxing raised by this amendment.
        The amendment also has a different fundamental purpose from 
    title III, in that it seeks to impose limitations on aggregate 
    receipts and expenditures of the Federal Government, which has 
    nothing to do with the purposes of the IMF legislation.
        The mere fact that previous nongermane amendments dealing with 
    budget outlays and receipts have been attached to IMF legislation 
    in past Congresses does not make the amendment germane. The 
    amendment must be germane to the bill, not to the underlying law 
    being amended in the bill.
        Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 27.
        I ask the Chair to rule the amendment out of order. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have placed 
    before the House relates precisely to the law to which this 
    particular piece of legislation speaks. And let me also cite 
    Deschler's Procedure. Deschler's Procedure, 28.55, says that a bill 
    amending several sections of an existing law may be sufficiently 
    comprehensive to permit amendments which are germane to other 
    sections of that law.
        That is precisely what I am doing here. The language of this 
    amendment

[[Page 8877]]

    relates to balanced budget language that is in the present law. 
    This bill amends several sections of that law. So, therefore, this 
    particular amendment is entirely germane to that which is before 
    us.
        Deschler's Procedure also says, in section 28.57, to a bill 
    amending a law dealing with several subjects within a definable 
    class, an amendment further amending that law to add another 
    subject within the same class is germane.
        This again is the same subject area. We have balanced budget 
    language which exists in the present law. This is in the same 
    class. So, therefore, it seems to me that under precedents of the 
    House it is entirely germane to the bill that we are considering.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Although the balanced budget provision of law which would be 
    amended by this amendment was originally added to the Bretton Woods 
    Agreement Act as a nongermane Senate amendment in the 95th Congress 
    and was subsequently amended in a similar bill in the 96th 
    Congress, the pending bill does not relate to the entire Federal 
    budget.
        The Chair rules that the amendment must be germane to the 
    pending bill, it not being sufficient that the amendment relate to 
    a nongermane provision of a law being amended by the pending bill.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Mr. Walker then offered a further amendment:

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 28, after line 8, 
        add the following:
            Sec. 308. Consistent with the objective of sustaining 
        worldwide economic growth and recovery set forth in this title, 
        Congress reaffirms its commitment to the mandates required 
        under section 7 of Public Law 95-435, the Bretton Woods 
        Agreements Act Amendments of 1978. . . .

        Mr. St Germain: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against 
    the amendment. . . .
        [T]he amendment relates to a balanced budget for the United 
    States and is therefore not germane to that part of the legislation 
    before us. Title III of the legislation provides for U.S. 
    contributions to the IMF, as well as certain conditions and 
    restrictions on those contributions and on lending by U.S. banks. 
    The title does not address the far broader issues of overall 
    Federal Government spending and taxing raised by this amendment.

        The amendment also has a different fundamental purpose from 
    title III, in that it seeks to impose limitations on aggregate 
    receipts and expenditures of the Federal Government, which has 
    nothing to do with the purposes of the IMF legislation.
        The mere fact that previous nongermane amendments dealing with 
    budget outlays and receipts have been attached to IMF legislation 
    in past Congresses does not make this amendment germane. The 
    amendment must be germane to the bill, not to the underlying law 
    being amended in the bill.
        Deschler's, chapter 28, section 27.
        I ask the Chair to rule the amendment out of order. . . .

[[Page 8878]]

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, in the case of this amendment, it 
    does two things. No. 1, it speaks to exactly the same kinds of 
    issues that were involved in amendment language that was added in 
    the committee to the bill dealing with apartheid. This particular 
    language simply says that consistent with the objectives sustaining 
    worldwide economic growth and recovery set forth in the title--so 
    it relates directly to the title of the bill under consideration. 
    We are reaffirming the process of the law that was previously 
    decided by this Congress. This simply reaffirms section 7 of Public 
    Law 95-435 which already exists. This is a different amendment from 
    the previous one. The precedent cited by the gentleman--I could 
    agree with the Chair--applied to the previous amendment. In this 
    case, though, the amendment language is specifically consistent 
    with the title under consideration, and I think that the amendment 
    is entirely germane to the bill that we are considering.
        The Chairman: The Chair rules that the issues raised with this 
    amendment are fundamentally the same as those raised by the 
    previous amendment. The issues are not germane to the bill at hand, 
    and the point of order is sustained.

Bill and Amendment Affecting Definitions of Terms in Bank Holding 
    Company Act

Sec. 35.49 To a bill amending two sections of the Bank Holding Company 
    Act to, first, redefine ``bank holding company'' to include 
    companies having actual control of any bank and, second, exempt 
    from the definition of such term certain institutions controlling 
    banks engaged primarily in foreign business, an amendment to a 
    third section of the act to change the definition of the word 
    ``company'' to include partnerships was held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
amending the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. During consideration of 
the bill, an amendment had been offered as follows,(2) and 
subsequently adopted: G5(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 6778 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 2. 115 Cong. Rec. 33141, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 5, 1969.
 3. Id. at p. 33142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Page 12, 
    strike lines 18 through 21 and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following:

            (b) Section 2(a) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 2. (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (5) of 
        this subsection, `bank holding company' means any company that 
        has control over any bank or over any company that is or 
        becomes a bank holding company by virtue of this Act.
            ``(2) Any given person has control.
            ``(A) over any company which is a corporation if the person 
        . . . has power to vote 25 percent or more of any class of 
        voting securities of that corporation.

[[Page 8879]]

            ``(B) over any company which is a corporation or trust if 
        the person controls in any manner the election of a majority of 
        its directors or trustees. . . .''
            (c) Section 4(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(12) . . . activities conducted by any company organized 
        under the laws of a foreign country the greater part of whose 
        business is conducted outside the United States, if the Board . 
        . . determines that . . . the exemption would not be 
        substantially at variance with the purposes of this Act. . . 
        .''

    In explaining the amendment, the proponent had stated: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 33141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is concerned with the criteria for 
    determining whether or not a company is a bank holding company for 
    purposes of the 1956 act, as amended. The bill before us, H.R. 
    6778, defines a bank holding company as any company that directly 
    or indirectly owns or controls 25 percent or more of the voting 
    shares of any bank. . . .
        Testimony before our committee indicated that in some instances 
    companies might seek to avoid coverage of the act by keeping their 
    stock ownership at less than 25 percent. My amendment simply 
    modifies H.R. 6778 by providing that actual control of any bank, 
    even at less than 25 percent, is sufficient to require the 
    controlling company to register as a bank holding company. . . .
        Second, Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes it clear, subject to 
    action by the Federal Reserve Board, that no foreign institution 
    will be a bank holding company by virtue of its ownership or 
    control of any bank the greater part of whose business is conducted 
    outside the United States. . . .

    After adoption of the Ashley amendment, the following amendment was 
offered to the bill: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 33142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Page 
    12, immediately after line 21, insert the following:

            (c) Section 2(b) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 is 
        amended (A) by inserting ``partnership,'' immediately after 
        ``corporation,'', (B) by striking ``(1)'', and (C) by striking 
        ``, or (2) any partnership''. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Thomas M.] Rees [of California]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment is out of order as it is not germane to the bill now 
    before us. The bill before us is in the form of one committee 
    amendment. The committee amendment deals with section 2(a) of the 
    Bank Holding Company Act. It then on line 22 proceeds to jump to 
    section 4(c) of the Bank Holding Act. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio goes to 2(b) and there is no mention in the 
    bill before us of section 2(b) of the Bank Holding Company Act.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. Wylie: Mr. Chairman, the principle is well established that 
    in passing on the germaneness of an amendment,

[[Page 8880]]

    the Chair considers the relationship of the amendment to the bill 
    as modified by the Committee of the Whole at the time the amendment 
    is offered, and not as originally referred to the committee--
    Cannon's Procedure, page 200.
        Mr. Chairman, in the light of this principle, the attention of 
    the Chair is respectfully directed to the present status of the 
    committee amendment, which under the rule is considered as an 
    original bill for the purpose of amendment. The Committee of the 
    Whole has adopted, among others, the Ashley amendment, which 
    completely rewrites the definition of ``bank holding company'' in 
    the Bank Holding Company Act.
        It is obvious that the legal significance of the definition of 
    ``bank holding company'' depends in turn on the definition of 
    ``company.'' It is equally obvious that a change in the definition 
    of ``company'' will, to that extent, modify the definition of 
    ``bank holding company.''
        My amendment, Mr. Chairman, amends the definition of 
    ``company'' so as to include partnerships. I think it is clear, Mr. 
    Chairman, that my amendment thereby modifies the definition of 
    ``bank holding company''--indeed, Mr. Chairman, this is its 
    principal purpose. By adopting the Ashley amendment, the Committee 
    of the Whole necessarily made in order any amendment proposing a 
    germane modification of the bill as so amended, in accord with the 
    principle which I stated at the beginning of my remarks. . . .

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The fact that there was no point of order raised to the 
    Ashley amendment allowed the Ashley amendment to be considered and 
    adopted by the committee and that changed the tenor of the bill to 
    the extent that the language therein be changed, and the committee 
    amendment now under consideration amends sections 2(a) and 4(c) of 
    the act. These two sections, and the amendment proposed to them, 
    are unrelated. The committee report on the pending bill discloses 
    that the committee amendment does two things: Subjects single bank 
    holding companies to the 1956 act and changes the existing law with 
    respect to what particular nonbanking activities are prohibited to 
    them.
        It is a well-established principle of the germaneness rule that 
    where a bill amends existing law in two or more unrelated respects, 
    other amendments to that law may be germane. . . .

        Section 2(b) of existing law . . . defines the word ``company'' 
    as it is used in the term ``bank holding company'' and elsewhere in 
    the act. . . .
        Since the committee amendment amends two provisions of existing 
    law and opened up for consideration the meaning of the term ``bank 
    holding company,'' . . . words within or dependent upon that term, 
    even if defined elsewhere in the act, are also subject to 
    interpretation and definition.
        The Chair holds the amendment germane and overrules the point 
    of order.

Bill Amending Federal Reserve Act--Amendment To Permit National Banks 
    To Purchase Certain Banks Under Another Law

Sec. 35.50 To a bill amending an existing law to accomplish a

[[Page 8881]]

    particular purpose, an amendment to another law not related to the 
    same subject is not germane; thus, to a bill amending several 
    sections of the Federal Reserve Act to expand the authority of the 
    Federal Reserve Board to manage the national monetary supply by 
    providing mandatory reserve requirements and by imposing other 
    requirements on member banks, an amendment to another law to permit 
    national banks to purchase small banker-owned banks was conceded to 
    be nongermane since unrelated to the Federal Reserve Act.

    During consideration of H.R. 7 (7) in the Committee of 
the Whole on July 20, 1979,(8) a point of order was conceded 
and sustained against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The Monetary Control Act of 1979.
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 19673, 19674, 19688-90, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 3. (a) Section 19(a) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 
        U.S.C. 461) is amended (1) by changing ``member bank'' to read 
        ``depository institution'' each place it appears therein, and 
        (2) by adding at the end thereof the following: ``The Board 
        shall exercise its authority to define the term `deposit' when 
        applicable to reserve requirements of nonmember depository 
        institutions after consultation with the Board of Directors of 
        the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Home 
        Loan Bank Board, and the National Credit Union 
        Administration.''. . .

        Mr. [James A.] Mattox [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Mr. Mattox: Add a new section:
            Sec. 8. Section 5136 of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 
        24(7)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
        thereof the following: ``: Provided further, That, 
        notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the 
        association may purchase for its own account shares of stock of 
        a bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation if 
        the stock of such bank is owned exclusively by other banks and 
        if such bank is engaged exclusively in providing banking 
        services for other banks and their officers, directors, or 
        employees, but in no event shall the total amount of such stock 
        held by the association exceed at any time 10 per centum of its 
        capital stock and paid in and unimpaired surplus, and in no 
        event shall the purchase of such stock result in the 
        association's acquiring more than 5 per centum of any class of 
        voting securities of such bank''. . . .

        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: . . . The amendment is 
    clearly not germane to this bill. I might say I have some sympathy 
    with the gentleman's amendment, but it is a rather complicated 
    amendment which ought to be debated more fully than we have time 
    here today to do, in my judgment. This bill we have before us today 
    is a bill to facilitate the implementation of monetary policy and 
    to promote competitive equality among depository institutions.
        The gentleman's amendment would establish a new bank. It would 
    estab

[[Page 8882]]

    lish a whole new concept and it is obviously not within the purview 
    of the bill before us today.
        The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman wish to be 
    heard against the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mattox: Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman concedes the point of order.
        The point of order is sustained.

Deposit Insurance Coverage--Amendment Imposing Maximum Interest and 
    Dividend Rates Payable

Sec. 35.51 To a proposition to amend existing law in one particular, an 
    amendment to further change that law in another respect not covered 
    by the bill is not germane; thus, to a bill limited in scope to the 
    amount and extent of deposit insurance coverage in various savings 
    institutions, an amendment imposing uniform maximum interest or 
    dividend rates which may be paid by those savings institutions was 
    held not germane.

    On Feb. 5, 1974,(10) during consideration of H.R. 11221 
(amending the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 2064-66, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert W.] Johnson of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Johnson of Pennsylvania: On page 
        3, strike the quotation mark at the end of line 17, and insert 
        the following after line 17:
            ``(C) In order to provide for the equality of interest or 
        dividend rates, terms and conditions on deposits or investments 
        in insured banks or insured institutions made by any depositor 
        referred to in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the 
        Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
        System, and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, shall, in the 
        event that limitations on interest or dividend rates are 
        imposed on such deposits or investments, issue uniform 
        regulations specifying maximum interest or dividend rates which 
        may be paid on such deposits or investments made under the same 
        terms and conditions.''. . .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: . . . Mr. 
    Chairman, I make a point of order against the so-called Johnson 
    amendment to H.R. 11221.
        This section merely provides full Federal insurance on such 
    funds placed in financial institutions, and restricts itself to 
    that.
        The amendment before us speaks to the question of what interest 
    rates may be offered to such funds and, therefore, is not germane 
    since it is beyond the scope of the legislation contained in H.R. 
    11221, as well as this particular section.

[[Page 8883]]

        Mr. Johnson of Pennsylvania: . . . Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    defend the amendment against the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Rhode Island. The amendment is indeed germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill before us today. On its face, the 
    bill provides full insurance of the deposits of public units in all 
    insured banks and institutions. As such, it is designed and 
    intended to make a basic change in the relationships between the 
    financial institutions which are regulated by the Federal Reserve, 
    the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Home 
    Loan Bank Board--the intention is to redistribute the deposits 
    among these institutions.
        In the bill, the primary method for achieving this 
    redistribution is through the provision of insurance. Whereas, 
    public deposits are presently limited for all practical purposes to 
    commercial banks, which can supplement their account insurance with 
    the protection afforded by the pledging of collateral to secure 
    these public deposits--and this pledging is required in most 
    instances by State law--the thrust of the pending legislation is to 
    enable thrift institutions, savings and loan associations, and 
    mutual savings banks in particular, to accept these public 
    deposits.
        My amendment would only serve to modify these terms and 
    conditions under which the deposits of public funds would be 
    accepted by the financial institutions involved. The same 
    fundamental purpose would be sought by amendment as by the bill 
    itself, that of regulating the flow of public funds between these 
    institutions. . . .
        It is claimed that the difference in terms on its face makes my 
    amendment nongermane, since the bill deals with insurance of 
    deposits, and my amendment deals with the interest or dividends 
    payable on those deposits. However, I must insist that the purpose 
    and thrust be examined, rather than just the language.
        The reason for extending full insurance of these deposits is to 
    influence the custodians of these public funds in their decisions 
    as to where they will be deposited--that is the stated purpose of 
    this bill, as reported by the Banking and Currency Committee and as 
    discussed here on the House floor today.
        In no way does my amendment depart from this same fundamental 
    purpose--it seeks to use the powers of the same regulatory agencies 
    to influence the same deposits of the same public depositors in the 
    same institutions. . . .

        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Spark Matsunaga (Hi.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St Germain) makes the 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Johnson) is not germane to the bill H.R. 11221. . 
    . .
        The pending bill provides for full deposit insurance coverage 
    for deposits of public funds in various types of savings 
    institutions without regard to the existing $20,000 ceiling, and 
    provides for an increase in the present $20,000 ceiling on deposit 
    insurance for individual accounts to $50,000. The bill is thus 
    limited in scope to the question of amount and extent of deposit 
    insurance.
        The proposed amendment provides that in order to assure 
    equality of in

[[Page 8884]]

    terest or dividend rates, terms and conditions in the savings 
    institutions covered by the bill, the regulatory authorities of 
    those institutions must issue uniform regulations, specifying 
    maximum interest or dividend rates which may be paid on deposits or 
    investments made under the same terms and conditions.
        On September 8, 1966, Chairman Boland, the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts, held that to a substitute amendment amending several 
    banking acts relating to interest rates, and amending one 
    subsection of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, an amendment 
    proposing further modifications to the latter act to increase the 
    insurance coverage on deposits was not germane. In that case, the 
    Chair, citing ``Cannon's Precedents'' (VIII, 2937), stated that 
    where it is proposed to amend existing law in one particular, an 
    amendment to amend the law in another respect not covered by the 
    bill is not germane.
        Accordingly, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

Bill Amending Internal Revenue Code To Provide Tax Credits--Senate 
    Amendment Authorizing Payments to Social Security Recipients

Sec. 35.52 To a House bill containing several diverse amendments to the 
    Internal Revenue Code to provide individual and business tax 
    credits, that part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute contained in a conference report which authorized 
    appropriations for special payments to social security recipients 
    was deemed not to be related to tax benefit provisions in the 
    Internal Revenue Code and was held to be not germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(12) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 2166,(13) it was held that to a 
proposition seeking to reduce tax liabilities of individuals and 
businesses by providing diverse tax credits within the Internal Revenue 
Code, an amendment to provide rebates to recipients under retirement 
and survivor benefit programs was not germane. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 8911, 8912, 8931, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The Tax Reduction Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sec. 702. Special Payment to Recipients of Benefits Under Certain 
                 Retirement and Survivor Benefit Programs.

        (a) Payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, at the 
    earliest practicable date after the enactment of this Act, make a 
    $50 payment to each individual, who for the month of March, 1975, 
    was entitled . . . to--
        (1) a monthly insurance benefit payable under title II of the 
    Social Security Act,
        (2) a monthly annuity or pension payment under the Railroad 
    Retire

[[Page 8885]]

    ment Act of 1935, the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, or the 
    Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, or
        (3) a benefit under the supplemental security income benefits 
    program established by title XVI of the Social Security Act; . . .
        (c) Coordination With Other Federal Programs.--Any payment made 
    by the Secretary of the Treasury under this section to any 
    individual shall not be regarded as income (or, in the calendar 
    year 1975, as a resource) of such individual (or of the family of 
    which he is a member) for purposes of any Federal or State program 
    which undertakes to furnish aid or assistance to individuals or 
    families, where eligibility to receive such aid or assistance (or 
    the amount of such aid or assistance) under such program is based 
    on the need therefor of the individual or family involved. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: I make a point of 
    order against the conference report on the ground that it contains 
    matter which is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI.
        The nongermane matter I am specifically referring to is that 
    section of the report dealing with a rebate to social security 
    recipients. This section appears as section 702 of the conference 
    report on page 55. . . .
        There is clearly nothing in the House bill dealing with social 
    security matters. There is nothing relating to a trust fund or the 
    relationship of trust fund and general fund.
        For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this . . . is 
    clearly outside the scope of the House bill. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: . . . In the House-passed bill 
    there was a provision very specifically rebating funds to 
    individuals under title I. The measure included in this conference 
    report does not affect the trust fund in any way. It does not in 
    any way amend the Social Security Code.
        In the statement of the managers we say the following:

            The conferees emphasize that these payments are not Social 
        Security benefits in any sense, but are intended to provide to 
        the aged, blind, and disabled a payment comparable in nature to 
        the tax rebate which the bill provides to those who are 
        working.

        Therefore, in a broadly based bill such as this kind, where 
    various kinds of rebates are passed along to different segments of 
    the public, it seems to me that this is perfectly within the scope 
    of the bill and should be determined germane to the bill. . . .
        The Speaker: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title V of the Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    ``Miscellaneous Provisions'' contained sections which did not amend 
    the Internal Revenue Code and which could not be considered germane 
    to any portion of the House-passed bill or the bill as a whole. 
    Specifically, section 501 of the Senate amendment providing a 
    special payment to recipients of benefits under certain retirement 
    and survivor benefit programs, a modification of which was 
    incorporated into section 702 of the conference report, is not 
    germane to the House-passed bill. That provision is not related to 
    the Internal Revenue Code and would provide an authorization of 
    appropriations from the Treasury.

[[Page 8886]]

        For this reason, the Chair holds that the section 702 of the 
    conference report is not germane to the House bill and sustains the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Conable: Mr. Speaker, I move the House reject the 
    nongermane amendment covered by my point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 20 
    minutes in support of his motion.

--Senate Amendment Providing Unemployment Compensation Benefits

Sec. 35.53 To a House bill amending diverse portions of the Internal 
    Revenue Code to provide individual and business tax credits, a 
    portion of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    contained in a conference report providing certain unemployment 
    compensation benefits--a matter not within the class of tax 
    benefits contained in the House bill--was conceded to be not 
    germane.

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(15) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 2166,(16) a point of order against 
a Senate matter in the report was conceded and held to be not germane. 
The proceedings were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 8911, 8933, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. The Tax Reduction Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
    Sec. 701. Certain Unemployment Compensation.

        (a) Amendment of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 
    1974.--Section 102(e) of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 
    Act of 1974 is amended--
        (1) in paragraph (2) thereof, by striking out ``The amount'' 
    and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as provided in paragraph 
    (3), the amount''; and
        (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
        ``(3) Effective only with respect to benefits for weeks of 
    unemployment ending before July 1, 1975, the amount established in 
    such account for any individual shall be equal to the lesser of--
        ``(A) 100 per centum of the total amount of regular 
    compensation (including the dependents'' allowances) payable to him 
    with respect to the benefit year (as determined under the State 
    law) on the basis of which he most recently received regular 
    compensation; or
        ``(B) twenty-six times his average weekly benefit amount (as 
    determined for purposes of section 202(b)(i)(C) of the Federal-
    State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970) for his 
    benefit year.''
        (b) Modification of Agreements.--The Secretary of Labor shall, 
    at the earliest practicable date after the enactment of this Act, 
    propose to each State with which he has in effect an agreement 
    entered into pursuant to

[[Page 8887]]

    section 102 of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1974 
    a modification of such agreement designed to cause payments of 
    emergency compensation thereunder to be made in the manner 
    prescribed by such Act, as amended by subsection (a) of this 
    section. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the conference report on the ground that it 
    contains matter which is in violation of the provisions of clause 7 
    of rule XVI. The nongermane matter that I am specifically referring 
    to is that section of the report dealing with section 701, 
    providing certain unemployment compensation benefits. . . .
        I have looked over the House bill, and I can find no reference 
    therein to unemployment compensation benefits. As nearly as I can 
    figure it, this particular section came from a Senate nongermane 
    amendment and has no relation whatsoever to anything that was 
    contained in the House bill.
        I, therefore, say the point of order should be sustained.
        The Speaker: (17) Does the gentleman from Oregon 
    desire to be heard upon the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Oregon concedes the point of 
    order, and the point of order is sustained.

--Senate Amendment Limiting Use of Foreign Tax Credits

Sec. 35.54 Where a bill amends existing law relating to a certain 
    subject in several diverse respects, additional amendments germane 
    to that subject may be germane to the bill.

    To a House bill containing several sections amending diverse 
portions of the Internal Revenue Code to provide certain individual and 
business tax credits, a new section of a Senate amendment in the nature 
of a substitute contained in a conference report, which added a new 
section to the House bill and which dealt with earnings and profits of 
controlled foreign corporations and included limitations on the use of 
foreign tax credits from foreign oil-related income was held germane. 
The proceedings of Mar. 26, 1975,(18) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 8909, 8915, 8933, 8934, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was the conference report on H.R. 2166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sec. 602. Taxation of Earnings and Profits of Controlled Foreign 
                    Corporations and Their Shareholders.

        (a) Repeal of Minimum Distribution Exception to Requirement of 
    Current Taxation of Subpart F Income.--
        (1) Repeal of minimum distribution provisions.--Section 963 
    (relating to receipt of minimum distributions by domestic 
    corporations) is hereby repealed.

[[Page 8888]]

        (2) Certain distributions by controlled foreign corporations to 
    regulated investment companies treated as dividends.--Subsection 
    (b) of section 851 (relating to limitations on definition of 
    regulated investment company) is amended by adding at the end 
    thereof the following new sentence:
        ``For purposes of paragraph (2), there shall be treated as 
    dividends amounts included in gross income under section 
    951(a)(1)(A)(i) for the taxable year to the extent that, under 
    section 959(a)(1), there is a distribution out of the earnings and 
    profits of the taxable year which are attributable to the amounts 
    so included.''. . .

    limitation on foreign tax credit for taxes paid in connection with 
                         foreign oil and gas income

        House bill.--No provision.
        Senate amendment.--The Senate amendment repeals the foreign tax 
    credit on all foreign oil-related income and allows any taxes on 
    that income as a deduction. The amendment also provides that 
    foreign oil-related income is to be taxed at a 24-percent rate.
        Conference substitute.--The conference substitute modifies the 
    Senate amendment and applies a strict limitation on the use of 
    foreign tax credits from foreign oil extraction income and foreign 
    oil-related income. . . .
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the conference report on the ground that it 
    contains matter which is in violation of the provisions of clause 7 
    of rule XVI. The nongermane matter that I am specifically referring 
    to is that section of the report dealing with taxation of earnings 
    and profits of controlled foreign corporations and their 
    shareholders in section 602 as reported by the committee of 
    conference. . . .
        As the Speaker well knows, I am sure, from listening carefully 
    to the explanations regarding previous points of order, at no point 
    during the consideration of the House-passed bill is there any 
    mention of foreign taxation and the dealings of foreign taxes 
    insofar as American corporations and their subsidiaries are 
    concerned.
        Title I of the 1975 tax bill dealt with the refund for 1974 
    taxes. Title II dealt with reductions in individual income taxes. 
    Title III dealt with certain changes in business taxes, the title 
    which dealt with the investment tax credit or income tax total, 
    particularly as related to small businesses.

        This particular provision, Mr. Speaker, in no way deals with a 
    matter that was covered, mentioned, or dealt with by the bill that 
    is presented to the House, or voted upon by the House. . . .
        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Speaker, the bill that 
    the House passed had a great many diverse sections in it; it had 
    credits. The matter that has been raised is an amendment to the 
    Internal Revenue Code very clearly, and much of it is in the way of 
    a credit. We have dealt with credits here both for individuals and 
    for corporations in the bill that the House passed.
        It seems to me that in a bill of this scope and in a bill that 
    deals as broadly with tax credits and matters such as this that 
    does involve an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code, it is very 
    clearly within the province of the bill, and should be ruled 
    germane.

[[Page 8889]]

        The Speaker: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons stated in the opinion of the Chair on a similar 
    point of order made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conable) 
    and for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Oregon, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Qualifications for Entering Armed Forces--Amendment To Allow 
    Noncitizens To Volunteer

Sec. 35.55 To a proposition that within certain limits persons of 
    prescribed ages be given an opportunity to enter the armed forces, 
    an amendment providing that within certain limits any person, 
    whether a citizen of the United States or of any friendly nation, 
    be given an opportunity to enter the armed forces was held to be 
    germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (20) was under consideration 
comprising amendments to the Universal Military Training and Service 
Act. The following amendment was offered to the bill: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. S. 1-1951 (Committee on Armed Services).
 1. 97 Cong. Rec. 3889, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Poage: Page 30, strike out all of line 
    10 through 17, inclusive, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

            (2) Within the limits of the overall military manpower 
        needs of the United States and notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law any person whether a citizen of the United 
        States or of any friendly nation and any national of Western 
        Germany or Japan who meets all the other qualifications for 
        service in the Armed Forces of the United States . . . shall be 
        afforded an opportunity to volunteer for induction for service 
        in the Armed Forces of the United States. . . .

        A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas upon the ground that it indirectly affects the naturalization 
    laws of the country which are not a part of the pending measure.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    simply changes the provisions under which persons may be taken into 
    the armed services of the United States. The bill now provides that 
    within certain limits persons of prescribed ages shall be given an 
    opportunity to come into the service of the United States. We 
    change those conditions and one of the limitations we impose is to 
    say that no one shall become a citizen of the United States simply 
    by virtue of this act. That in no wise changes or any manner 
    affects the present immigration laws of the United States because 
    there is no immigration law of the

[[Page 8890]]

    United States that says that anyone who serves under the terms of 
    this bill shall or shall not become a citizen of the United States. 
    . .

    The Chairman (2) ruled: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 3890, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is inclined to think that on the face of the 
    amendment, as it appears, it would be germane to the pending bill, 
    and overrules the point of order.

Bill To Amend Selective Service Act To Provide for Induction of Medical 
    Specialists--Amendment Relating to Induction of Aliens

Sec. 35.56 To a bill to amend the Selective Service Act of 1948 to 
    provide for special registration, classification, and induction of 
    certain medical and dental and ``allied specialists,'' an amendment 
    relating to induction of aliens was held to be not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill (4) 
to amend the Selective Service Act of 1948, the following amendment was 
offered: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 9554 (Committee on Armed Services).
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 13866, 13867, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 30, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Mike] Mansfield [of Montana]: Page 8, 
    line 22, insert a new section 7 as follows:

            That the second sentence of section 4 (a) of the Selective 
        Service Act of 1948, as amended, is hereby amended to read as 
        follows:

        Any citizen of a foreign country, who is not . . . exempt from 
    . . . service under the provisions of this title . . . shall be 
    relieved from liability for . . . service . . . if . . . he has 
    made application to be relieved from such liability in the manner 
    prescribed by . . . rules and regulations prescribed by the 
    President; but any person who makes such application shall 
    thereafter be debarred from becoming a citizen of the United 
    States. . . .

    A point of order against the amendment was reserved, as follows: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 13867.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order on the amendment on the ground that the amendment is not 
    germane to the bill which is to provide for special registration of 
    certain medical, dental, and allied specialist categories and does 
    not embrace the subject matter which the gentleman is seeking to 
    add to the bill by his amendment.

    The Chairman (7) sustained the point of order. He 
stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Porter Hardy, Jr. (Va.).
 8. 96 Cong. Rec. 13867, 13868, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 30, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is true that the bill mentions the Selective Service Act of 
    1948; however, it amends it in a certain specific manner and in 
    certain specific categories.
        The Chair is inclined to believe that the amendment offered by 
    the gen

[[Page 8891]]

    tleman from Montana goes far beyond the scope of the bill now 
    before us and therefore sustains the point of order.

Bill Amending Various Education Acts--Amendment Making Principles of 
    Civil Rights Act Applicable in Administration of Programs

Sec. 35.57 To a bill amending various education acts and providing new 
    authorizations for education grants to states, an amendment 
    designed to insure that administration of programs authorized by 
    the bill or amended acts conform to principles established by the 
    Civil Rights Act of 1964 was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act Amendments of 1967,(9) the following 
amendment was offered: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 7819 (Committee on Education and Labor).
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 13582, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., May 23, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: On page 
    44, after line 8, insert the following:

                                 Administration

            Sec. 2. Rules . . . guidelines, or other published 
        interpretations or orders issued by the Department of Health, 
        Education, and Welfare or the United States Office of Education 
        . . . affecting . . . administration of programs authorized by 
        this Act or by any Act amended by this Act shall contain 
        immediately following each substantive provision of such rules 
        . . . citations to the . . . statutory law upon which such 
        provision is based. All such rules . . . guidelines, 
        interpretations, or orders shall be uniformly applied and 
        enforced throughout the fifty States.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment which has been offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. Green], based upon the proposition 
    that the gentlewoman makes references to rules and regulations 
    promulgated pursuant to titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act.
        And then she goes into a question of guidelines. . . . [T]he 
    reference to guidelines is not an amendment to any piece of 
    legislation that is being considered by us at this time, and 
    therefore is out of order and not germane.

    The Chairman,(11) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to point out that this amendment is 
    specifically, by the language contained therein, directed toward 
    the administration of programs authorized by this act, or by any 
    act amended by this act. The Chair therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

[[Page 8892]]

Bill Amending Higher Education Laws--Amendment To Prohibit Student 
    Admission Quotas in All Schools

Sec. 35.58 To a bill amending the General Education Provisions Act in 
    one narrow respect relating to higher education, an amendment to 
    that Act prohibiting the imposition of student admission quotas not 
    only in institutions of higher education but also in public 
    preschool, elementary and secondary programs was held more general 
    in scope and not germane.

    On May 12, 1976,(12) during consideration of H.R. 12851 
(13) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair, in sustaining 
a point of order against an amendment, held that to a bill amending and 
extending various laws relating to higher education, an amendment 
imposing restrictions on pre-school, elementary and secondary education 
policy broadened the scope of the bill and was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 122 Cong. Rec. 13529, 13530, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Eshleman: On page 86, line 25, insert 
    ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 202''.
        On page 87, immediately after line 7, insert the following new 
    subsection:
        (b) Section 440 of the General Education Provisions Act is 
    amended by inserting ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 440'' and 
    adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
        ``(b) It shall be unlawful for the Secretary to require the 
    imposition of quotas, goals, or any other numerical requirements on 
    the student admission practice of a State or local educational 
    agency or institution of higher education, community college 
    school, agency offering a pre-school program, or other educational 
    institution receiving Federal funds, whether directly or 
    indirectly, under any provision of law, and funds shall not be 
    deferred or limited on the basis of failure to comply with such 
    numerical requirements.'' . . .
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order--I respectfully regret that I must do so, I will 
    say to my friend from Pennsylvania--that the amendment is 
    nongermane.
        Mr. Chairman, this is a higher education bill. While a very few 
    of these provisions may have an impact on secondary schools, it is 
    entirely indirect. The great majority of the bill, more than 90 
    percent, is in higher education. As a matter of fact, 100 percent 
    of it is. This can only be characterized as a higher education 
    bill.
        The gentleman's amendment deals with the admissions practices 
    of elementary and secondary schools, and even preschools. That 
    subject matter is completely foreign to the subject matter of the 
    bill. I repeat, it is a higher education bill.

[[Page 8893]]

        The gentleman's amendment, by reaching out to admissions 
    policies of preschool, elementary and secondary schools, goes too 
    far and is, therefore, not germane. There is one amendment in the 
    bill, Mr. Chairman, of the General Education Provision Act which 
    the gentleman's amendment attempts to amend. Here too, however, the 
    committee bill is exclusively a higher education bill.
        The committee amendment to the General Education Provisions Act 
    proposes a 1-year extension of the ``fund for the improvement of 
    postsecondary education.'' This is the only way the committee bill 
    amends the general education provisions at all.
        Further, Mr. Chairman, the amendment deals with the institution 
    for receiving Federal funds directly or indirectly under any 
    provision of law. Mr. Chairman, I repeat that under any provision 
    of law, this is beyond the limited scope of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Edwin D.] Eshleman [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    would just point out to the Chair that I submitted this amendment 
    under section 202, which is opening section 404 of the General 
    Education Provisions Act, which I think we have amended on occasion 
    before in this House, because we are under the provision of general 
    education. . . .
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee amendment clearly refers to higher education and, 
    with only extremely narrow exceptions, contains no matter that 
    would substantially relate to other programs.
        On the other hand, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Eshleman) contains a prohibition against certain 
    requirements with respect to admission policies by the language of 
    the amendment, ``. . . a State or local educational agency,'' or 
    further by the language of the amendment, ``. . . agency offering a 
    pre-school program,'' or, in even broader language contained in the 
    amendment, ``. . . other educational institution receiving Federal 
    funds--under any provision of law.''
        Under the circumstances, the Chair is persuaded that the 
    amendment as drafted is not germane to the bill before the 
    committee and, therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

--Amendment To Prohibit Student Admission Quotas in Higher Education 
    Programs

Sec. 35.59 To a bill amending and extending various laws relating to 
    higher education, a further amendment to one of those laws 
    prohibiting the imposition of student admission quotas in 
    applicable higher education programs was held germane as within the 
    category of laws being amended by the bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 12851 (15) in the Committee 
of the Whole on May 12, 1976,(16) the Chair, in overruling a 
point of

[[Page 8894]]

order against an amendment to that bill, demonstrated that, to a bill 
comprehensively amending several laws within the same class, an 
amendment further amending one of those laws on a subject within that 
same class is germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965.
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 13530, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edwin D.] Eshleman [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eshleman: On page 86, line 25, 
        insert ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 202''.
            On page 87, immediately after line 7, insert the following 
        new subsection:
            (b) Section 440 of the General Education Provisions Act is 
        amended by inserting ``(a)'' immediately after ``Sec. 440'' and 
        adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(b) It shall be unlawful for the Secretary to require the 
        imposition of quotas, goals, or any other numerical 
        requirements on the student admission practice of an 
        institution of higher education, community college receiving 
        Federal funds, whether directly or indirectly, under any 
        applicable programs, and funds shall not be deferred or limited 
        on the basis of failure to comply with such numerical 
        requirements.''

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the fact is that there remains language in the 
    gentleman's amendment which says, ``. . .  under any provisions of 
    law, and funds shall not be deferred or limited on the basis of 
    failure to comply with such numerical requirements.''
        The fact that the entire scope of the act is quoted, and ``. . 
    . any provision of law'' still remains in, I would insist, Mr. 
    Chairman, makes it not germane to the legislation to which it is 
    addressed. . . .
        Mr. Eshleman: Mr. Chairman, I would first point out, 
    respectfully, that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson) is 
    incorrect. I did not leave in ``under any provision of law.'' I 
    changed it to ``under any applicable programs.'' And that original 
    terminology is not in there, as the gentleman stated. I have 
    attempted--maybe, let me say, in Pennsylvania Dutch--to limit this 
    to institutions of higher education. . . .

        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has very carefully reviewed the changes made by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Eshleman) in the language 
    contained in the amendment as originally offered. The Chair 
    observes that the amendment presently before the Committee is 
    limited in its scope to institutions of higher education or 
    community colleges, and that it applies only to those institutions 
    of higher education and community colleges which receive Federal 
    funds under any applicable program.
        The Chair believes that the amendment as presently drafted 
    before the Committee is germane to the bill, and the point of order 
    is overruled.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Eshleman) in support of his amendment.

[[Page 8895]]

Administration of Federally Funded Educational Programs--Remedies for 
    Denial of Equal Educational Opportunity

Sec. 35.60 To an Education and Labor Committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute extending and amending several laws relating to 
    federal assistance to state and local educational agencies and 
    prescribing standards to be followed by educational agencies in the 
    administration of federally funded educational programs, an 
    amendment proscribing educational agencies from denying equal 
    educational opportunity to public school students and providing 
    judicial and administrative remedies for denials of equal 
    educational opportunity and of equal protection of the laws was 
    held germane.

    The proceedings of Mar. 26, 1974, during consideration of H.R. 69, 
to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, are 
discussed in Sec. 3, supra.

Amendments to Diverse Educational Assistance Laws--Amendment Affecting 
    Type of Assistance Covered in Another Title .

Sec. 35.61 To a portion of a bill amending several miscellaneous laws 
    on a general subject, an amendment to another law relating to that 
    subject is germane; thus, to a title of an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute amending several diverse educational assistance 
    laws, an amendment affecting laws relating to federal impact school 
    assistance was held germane, even though that subject matter had 
    been contained in another title already passed in the reading for 
    amendment.

    On Mar. 27, 1974,(18) during consideration of H.R. 69 
(19) in the Committee of the Whole, the proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 8508, 8509, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
19. A bill to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (20) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 8896]]

                       TITLE X--MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

                     amendment of emergency school aid act

            Sec. 901. (a) Section 706(a) of the Emergency School Aid 
        Act is amended (1) by striking out paragraph (3), (2) by 
        striking out the period at the end of paragraph (1)(D) and 
        inserting, ``; or'' and (3) by adding at the end of such 
        paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(E) which will establish or maintain one or more 
        integrated schools as defined in section 720(7) and which--
            ``(i) has a sufficient number of minority group children to 
        comprise more than 50 per centum of the number of children in 
        attendance at the schools of such agency, and
            ``(ii) has agreed to apply for an equal amount of 
        assistance under subsection (b).''. . .
            Sec. 902. (a)(1) Sections 134(b) (as redesignated by 
        sections 109 and 110(h) of this Act), 202(a)(1), and 302(a)(1) 
        of the Act are each amended by striking out ``Puerto Rico,''. . 
        . .
            (b)(1) Section 612(a)(1) of the Education of the 
        Handicapped Act is amended by striking out ``Puerto Rico,''.
            (2) Sections 612(a)(2) and 613(a)(1) of the Education of 
        the Handicapped Act are each amended by striking out ``the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,''. . . .
            Mr. [Robert J.] Huber [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
        an amendment to the committee substitute.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Huber to the committee substitute: 
        Page 131, immediately after line 15, insert the following new 
        section:

                          amendment to public law 874

            Sec. 906. Section 403(3) of the Act of September 30, 1950 
        (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), is amended to read as 
        follows:
            ``(3) The term `parent' means any parent, stepparent, legal 
        guardian, or other individual standing in loco parentis, whose 
        income from employment on Federal property is more than 50 
        percent of the total combined income of such individual and the 
        spouse of such individual.''.

    Points of order against the amendment were reserved and 
subsequently discussed by Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, and Mr. 
Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan:

        Mr. Perkins: I insist on the point of order. This is an impact 
    amendment and we have already passed that title.
        The Chairman: Is that the position of the gentleman from 
    Michigan?
        Mr. Ford: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I insist on the point of order. I 
    did not press the point of order before the gentleman had an 
    opportunity to explain what he was trying to do. I think his 
    motives are fine, but I disagree with the result it would have. I 
    wanted him to have an opportunity to do that; but clearly his 
    amendment comes too late, since we have already concluded title III 
    of the act which dealt with impact aid.
        The amendment the gentleman now offers is not a peripheral or 
    general amendment. It is a substantive amendment of the definition 
    of a child qualifying for impact aid under the basic act covered in 
    title III of this bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair holds that while an examination of the amendment 
    shows it

[[Page 8897]]

    would have been more appropriately offered to another title of the 
    bill, the Chair does observe that the title which is under 
    consideration is referred to as Miscellaneous Amendments and it 
    amends several other acts, the Emergency School Aid Act, the 
    Education of the Handicapped Act and others; so in view of these 
    circumstances, the Chair is constrained to overrule the point of 
    order.

Amendment Not Confined to Law Under Consideration; Restrictions Imposed 
    Under ``This or Any Other Act''

Sec. 35.62 To a bill amending an existing law, an amendment prohibiting 
    assistance under that Act or under any other Act for a particular 
    purpose was held too general in scope, affecting laws not being 
    amended by the bill and was ruled out as not germane.

    On May 11, 1976,(1) during consideration of H.R. 12835 
(2) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 122 Cong. Rec. 13419, 13427, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The Vocational Education Act amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conlan: On page 190, between lines 
        3 and 4, add the following new subsection:
            ``Sec. 302. (g) The General Education Provisions Act is 
        amended by adding the following new section:
            `` `Sec. ( ). No grants, contracts, or support are 
        authorized under this or any other Act for any purpose in 
        connection with the Man: A Course of Study (MACOS) curriculum 
        program or materials, or in connection with the high school 
        sequel to MACOS, Exploring Human Nature.' ''. . . .

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment because it is not germane.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. B.F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Perkins: It is funded by the National Science Foundation, 
    Mr. Chairman. It affects the National Science Foundation; 
    therefore, it is not germane. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Conlan [of Arizona]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    National Institute for Education, which is a part of this bill, has 
    the educational resource information clearing houses--18 of them--
    across the Nation, including the one at the University of Indiana, 
    which is totally computerized and which disseminates information in 
    this area. So I do think the matter is germane.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Kentucky makes a point of order against the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona on the basis of 
    germaneness. The Chair in a quick examination of the amendment 
    notes that the amendment reads:

            No grants, contracts, or support are authorized under this 
        or any other Act. . . .

[[Page 8898]]

        And on that basis the Chair is going to sustain the point of 
    order because of the fact that the amendment goes beyond the scope 
    of this pending bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 35.63 To a title of a bill primarily amending the Foreign 
    Assistance Act reported from the Committee on Foreign Affairs to 
    authorize assistance for Africa (containing one reference to 
    another law, the Export-Import Bank Act, not directly amended and 
    also within the jurisdiction of another committee), an amendment 
    restricting the availability of funds in that bill ``or any other 
    Act'' to support the activities of the African National Congress 
    was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 3100 (4) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Dec. 9 and 10, 1987,(5) it was held that to 
a bill amending an existing law to authorize a program, an amendment 
restricting authorizations under that or any other Act is not germane. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1987.
 5. 133 Cong. Rec. 34592, 34595, 34675, 34676, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               title viii--africa

                 Part A--Africa Famine Recovery and Development
    sec. 801. short title.

            This part may be cited as the ``Africa Famine Recovery and 
        Development Act''. . . .
            Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by 
        adding after chapter 6 the following new chapter:

              ``CHAPTER 7--AFRICA FAMINE RECOVERY AND DEVELOPMENT
    ``sec. 476. other assistance programs.

            ``To the maximum extent practicable, resources allocated 
        for sub-Saharan Africa under chapter 4 of part II (relating to 
        the Economic Support Fund), title IV of chapter 2 of this part 
        (relating to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation), the 
        Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, the Peace Corps Act, and the 
        African Development Foundation Act shall be used to provide 
        assistance which meets the criteria specified in section 
        472(b). To the maximum extent practicable, the agency primarily 
        responsible for administering this part should use resources 
        and authorities available under the Agricultural Trade 
        Development and Assistance Act of 1954, section 416(b) of the 
        Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Food for Progress Act of 1985 
        to complement the assistance provided under section 472. . . .

        Mr. [Dan] Burton of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 201, after 
        line 5, insert the following:
    sec. 830. prohibition on assistance to the african national 
    congress.

[[Page 8899]]

            (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds authorized to be 
        appropriated by this or any other Act may be used to support, 
        directly or indirectly, activities of the African National 
        Congress.
            (b) Waiver.--Subsection (a) may be waived by the President 
        if he certifies to the Congress that--
            (1) the National Executive Committee of the African 
        National Congress has taken a stand publicly and officially 
        opposing the practice of ``necklacing'', the practice of 
        execution by fire, used against South African blacks. . . .
            (3) the African National Congress no longer receives its 
        primary financial, military, and training support from the 
        Soviet Union or other Communist countries listed in section 
        620(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. . . .

        Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        The point of order has to do with germaneness, Mr. Chairman. 
    The gentleman's amendment goes a lot farther beyond the purview of 
    the responsibility of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and thus also 
    the parameters of the bill itself that we are debating here. It 
    reaches the interest of other agencies that are not within the 
    jurisdiction of the consideration of this legislation at this time, 
    and therefore it is nongermane to the arguments that we pursue here 
    today.
        Also, Mr. Chairman, the amendment that the gentleman has 
    offered goes a lot farther than any other amendment that has been 
    offered here today. It is much broader, the scope of which is too 
    far reaching to be relevant to the discussions we have here today 
    under the foreign aid bill. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Les AuCoin (Ore.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would state that according to the Procedures of the 
    House, and quoting from section 8, chapter 28, the following:

            . . . a bill authorizing appropriations for a particular 
        program for 10 fiscal years, an amendment restricting 
        authorizations under any act of Congress for any fiscal year 
        contingent upon implementation of a plan to reduce spending 
        under the bill was held not germane as not confined to the bill 
        under consideration.

        The Chair would note in reading that amendment of the gentleman 
    from Indiana that the gentleman provides a prohibition on funds 
    appropriated by this or any other act, and the Chair can find in no 
    other instance in title VIII as amended where there is any similar 
    prohibition.
        For that reason, the Chair would rule that the gentleman's 
    amendment goes beyond the scope of title VIII and is not germane. 
    Therefore, the point of order is sustained.

Entities Subject to Penalties of Antidiscrimination Laws--Amendment To 
    Redefine Nature of Sex Discrimination

Sec. 35.64 To a bill amending existing law in several particulars but 
    relating to a single subject affected thereby, an amendment 
    proposing to modify the law but not related to the single subject 
    of the bill is not germane; thus, to a bill narrowly amending an 
    anti-discrimination provision in the Education

[[Page 8900]]

    Amendments of 1972 only to clarify the definition of a 
    discriminating entity subject to the statutory penalties, an 
    amendment redefining one class of discrimination (sex 
    discrimination) was ruled non-germane as beyond the scope of the 
    bill.

    On June 26, 1984,(7) during consideration of H.R. 5490 
(the Civil Rights Act of 1984), the Chair sustained a point of order 
against an amendment as described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 130 Cong. Rec. 18842, 18846, 18847, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. (a) The matter preceding clause (1) of section 
        901(a) of the Education Amendments of 1972 (hereafter in this 
        section referred to as the ``Act'') is amended--
            (1) by striking out ``in'' the second time it appears;
            (2) by striking out ``the benefits of'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``benefits''; and
            (3) by striking out ``under any education program or 
        activity receiving'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``by any 
        education recipient of''.
            (b) Section 901(c) of the Act is amended by inserting 
        ``(1)'' after the subsection designation and by adding at the 
        end thereof the following new paragraph:
            ``(2) For the purpose of this title, the term `recipient' 
        means--
            ``(A) any State or political subdivision thereof, or any 
        instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, or 
        any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or 
        other entity (including any subunit of any such State, 
        subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity), and
            ``(B) any successor, assignee, or transferee of any such 
        State, subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity or of any such subunit,
        to which Federal financial assistance is extended (directly or 
        through another entity or a person), or which receives support 
        from the extension of Federal financial assistance to any of 
        its subunits.''. . . .

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: On page 3, line 10, 
        strike out ``paragraph'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``paragraphs''.
            On page 3, line 25, strike out the close quotation marks 
        and the period at the end thereof.
            On page 3, after line 25, insert the following:
            ``(3) For the purpose of this title, the term `sex' does 
        not include sexual preference or orientation.''.

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: . . . The point of order is 
    that this is not germane to this bill. The classifications that 
    historically have been considered and have been considered under 
    this bill are race, national origin, sex, handicapped, and aged.
        The gentleman from California is attempting to add a new 
    clarification here that is not germane to the legislation pending 
    before this body. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . I am not seeking to add a new term. The 
    term ``sex'' is in the law.
        All I am seeking to do by this amendment is to make clear that 
    we

[[Page 8901]]

    do not, as the policymaking body of this country, in terms of law, 
    choose to take our society down the road where someone sooner or 
    later is going to argue that the term ``sex'' in the law includes 
    sexual preference or orientation. I am not adding anything. I am 
    just clarifying what that term means today as it is used in the 
    law.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Committee's report indicates that the purpose of this 
    legislation is to reaffirm the scope and the application of four 
    civil rights laws to an interpretation which was generally accepted 
    before the Grove City College decision. It does not seek to define 
    what is a discriminatory act.
        In other words, the bill deals with the definition of 
    ``potential discriminators,'' in this instance, recipients of 
    Federal financial assistance. It does not deal with the definition 
    of ``discrimination.''
        Because the gentleman's amendment would address the definition 
    of what constitutes discrimination, his amendment would not be in 
    order.
        The Chair would cite Deschler's Procedure, 28.2:

            To the proposition amending existing law in several 
        particulars but relating to a single subject affected thereby, 
        an amendment proposing to modify the law but not related to the 
        subject of the pending proposition is not germane.
        And in 28.4, Deschler continues:

            Similarly, if a bill seeks only to modify the penalty 
        provisions of a law prescribing specific conduct, an amendment 
        is not germane if it seeks to broaden the scope or alter the 
        applicability of such law.

        Therefore, the Chair finds the gentleman's amendment not in 
    order.

--Amendment To Expand Definition of Persons Who Are Subjects of 
    Discrimination

Sec. 35.65 To a bill amending a general law but only with respect to a 
    specific issue, an amendment relating to terms of the law not 
    amended by the bill, rather than to the issues contained in the 
    bill, is not germane; thus, to a section of a bill amending the Age 
    Discrimination Act only to clarify the definition of a 
    discriminating entity subject to the penalties under that statute, 
    an amendment to expand the definition of persons who are the 
    subject of discrimination (to include the unborn) was ruled 
    nongermane as beyond the scope of the bill.

    During consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 1984 (H.R. 5490) in 
the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 1984,(9) the Chair 
sustained a point of order against the amendment described

[[Page 8902]]

above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 18856, 18857, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            (e) Section 309 of the Act is amended by-- . . .
            (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
            ``(4) the term `recipient' means--
            ``(A) any State or political subdivision thereof, or any 
        instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, or 
        any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or 
        other entity (including any subunit of any such State, 
        subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity), and
            ``(B) any successor, assignee, or transferee of any such 
        State, subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity or of any such subunit,
        to which Federal financial assistance is extended (directly or 
        through another entity or a person), or which receives support 
        from the extension of Federal financial assistance to any of 
        its subunits.''. . . .

        Mr. [Mark] Siljander [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Siljander: Page 6, after line 18, 
        insert the following:
            (1) by inserting after ``person'', ``(including unborn 
        children, from the moment of conception)''. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        Again it is the same point of order that I made earlier. It is 
    an attempt to add a totally new definition. Again we are dealing 
    with the traditional definitions of race, national origin, sex, 
    handicapped, and aged.
        This is a very legitimate issue to be brought before this body, 
    but this is not the vehicle by which to do it. This is not the 
    intent of it, and it does not fall within the germaneness of this 
    particular bill. . . .
        Mr. Siljander: Mr. Chairman, one of the differences is that the 
    word, ``person,'' is mentioned in the bill several times, whereas 
    in the other point of order the word, ``sex,'' was not at all 
    mentioned in the specific bill.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is prepared to rule on 
    the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This amendment amends a part of the Age Discrimination Act of 
    1975 that is not before the committee. The bill has a very narrow 
    purpose, and the gentleman's amendment does not fall within that 
    purpose.
        The Chair would refer the gentleman to clause 7, rule XVI, the 
    annotation of which reads:

            To a bill amending a general law on a specific point an 
        amendment relating to the terms of the law rather than to those 
        of the bill was ruled not to be germane; thus a bill amending 
        several sections of one title of the United States Code does 
        not necessarily bring the entire title under consideration so 
        as to permit an amendment to any portion thereof, and where a 
        bill amends existing law in one narrow particular, an amendment 
        proposing to modify such existing law in other particulars will 
        generally be ruled out as not germane. Unless a bill so 
        extensively amends existing law as to open up the entire law to 
        amendment, the germaneness of an amendment to the bill depends 
        on its relationship to the subject of the bill and not to the 
        entire law being amended.

        The Chair finds the amendment not germane and, therefore, not 
    in order.

[[Page 8903]]

--Amendment To Extend Coverage of Laws to Members of Congress

Sec. 35.66 To a bill narrowly amending several civil rights statutes 
    only to clarify the circumstances under which any institution 
    currently receiving federal financial assistance may have such 
    assistance terminated because of discrimination by such 
    institution, an amendment to deem Members of Congress as recipients 
    of federal financial assistance for the purpose of those statutes 
    was held not germane, since the amendment required no showing that 
    Members of Congress do in fact receive federal financial assistance 
    as defined in those statutes, and thus expanded the scope of 
    coverage of the laws amended to a class unrelated to the group of 
    institutions addressed in the bill and the laws amended.

    On June 26, 1984,(11) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole, in holding the amendment described above as not being 
germane demonstrated that, to a bill having as its fundamental purpose 
the clarification of eligibility of existing recipients for federal 
financial assistance under several statutes, an amendment deeming a 
specified entity to be a recipient of federal financial assistance for 
the purposes of those laws was not germane since it expanded the scope 
of the coverage of the laws being amended to a class not necessarily 
covered by the class of recipients in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 130 Cong. Rec. 18857-62, 18864, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 5. (a) Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
        (hereafter in this section referred to as the ``Act'') is 
        amended-- . . .
            (3) by striking out ``under any program or activity 
        receiving'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``by any recipient 
        of''. . . .
            (c) Title VI of the Act is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new section: . . .
            ``Sec. 606. For the purpose of this title, the term 
        `recipient' means--
            ``(1) any State or political subdivision thereof, or any 
        instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, or 
        any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or 
        other entity (including any subunit of any such State, 
        subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity), and
            ``(2) any successor, assignee, or transferee of any such 
        State, subdivision, instrumentality, agency, institution, 
        organization, or entity or of any such subunit,
        to which Federal financial assistance is extended (directly or 
        through another entity or a person), or which receives support 
        from the extension of Federal financial assistance to any of 
        its subunits.''. . . .

[[Page 8904]]

        Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk labeled amendment No. 1 which I offer at this 
    time.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bartlett: Page 10, after line 22, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 6. With respect to matters relating to the performance 
        of their official duties, Members of Congress shall be deemed 
        to be recipients of Federal financial assistance for purposes 
        of section 901 of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 
        of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, section 303 of the Age 
        Discrimination Act of 1975, and section 601 of the Civil Rights 
        Act of 1964. . . .

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I renew my point 
    of order, and let me say in renewing it that in theory I am in 
    agreement with the gentleman from Texas. I am a cosponsor of a bill 
    to cover Members of Congress under separate legislation.
        This, however, this legislation covers Federal executive 
    agencies. It does not cover the U.S. Congress. . . .
        What the gentleman is attempting to do is to go beyond the 
    scope, beyond the germaneness of this particular legislation, and I 
    believe the amendment is not in order. . . .
        Mr. Bartlett: . . . Several points. No. 1, section 504 does 
    apply to executive agencies, and that is the General Accounting 
    Office.
        Congress may already--and let us take it point by point--the 
    Congress may already be covered in the bill's definition of 
    recipient, which is, in part, ``any public or private agency, 
    institution, or organization to which Federal financial assistance 
    is extended.'' . . .

        Congress is also, obviously a recipient and, therefore, if 
    Congress receives ``Federal financial assistance'' it would be 
    covered under H.R. 5490. Nowhere in any of the covered acts is 
    there a specific definition of ``Federal financial assistance,'' 
    but Mr. Chairman, Congress obviously must pay its bills from 
    somewhere and that somewhere is the Federal Government, so that 
    means that there is assistance. Federal financial assistance. . . .
        Mr. Simon: . . . The question is whether the law up to this 
    point has covered the legislative branch. The answer is clearly 
    that it has not.
        So what the gentleman from Texas is doing is going appreciably 
    beyond the present law and the law has not covered Congress for a 
    perfectly sound reason, and that is the separation of powers. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: It seems to me that the 
    point of order rests upon the well-established rule that an 
    amendment is not germane if it extends the law to cover an entirely 
    separate and distinctly different class of people than those whom 
    the law in its initial presentation in the bill would be made 
    applicable.
        It seems clear to me that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman would indeed extend the application of that statute to an 
    entirely separate and different class of people. . . .
        Mr. [John] Conyers [Jr., of Michigan]: . . . The amendment is 
    not germane. The separation of powers doctrine, if we do not 
    recognize it even here in this sensitive area, we would be inviting 
    the Department of Justice to come in to enforce the civil rights 
    laws. We tried many times to deal with

[[Page 8905]]

    this problem in other ways. For example, the House fair employment 
    practices agreement is one way of creating the mechanism. . . .
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the bill the term ``recipient'' means those entities to 
    which Federal assistance is extended.
        The gentleman's amendment deems Congress to be a recipient of 
    Federal financial assistance. That does not mean that there may not 
    be some instances in which Congress may in fact receive Federal 
    financial assistance, but it deems Congress to receive Federal 
    financial assistance even without any showing whatever that in fact 
    it has that financial assistance extended to it.
        Doing that expands the bill from defined group in the 
    legislation and in the law today to a much different group and in 
    that sense goes beyond the scope of the legislation, and the 
    gentleman's amendment is not in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On a roll call vote of 277 yeas to 125 
nays, the Committee of the Whole sustained on appeal the ruling of the 
Chair on the question of germaneness of the amendment.

--Amendment To Define ``Person'' as Used in Bill To Include Unborn

Sec. 35.67 An amendment defining a term in a bill may be germane so 
    long as it relates to the bill and not to portions of laws being 
    amended which are not the subject of the bill; thus, to a bill 
    clarifying the definition of persons or institutions which may have 
    federal financial assistance terminated under several civil rights 
    statutes because of discrimination, an amendment providing that the 
    term ``person'' for the purpose of the bill shall include unborn 
    children was held germane.

    On June 26, 1984,(13) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 5490, the Civil Rights Act of 1984. The bill 
amended several laws for purposes of clarifying the definition of 
recipients of federal financial assistance (including persons) who 
engage in discrimination so as to become subject to the penalties of 
those laws. The amendment expanded the definition of recipient persons 
to include unborn children from the moment of conception, but did not 
effectively expand the definition of persons who are the objects of 
discrimination, whatever its intent may have been, a point which was 
noted in the remarks of Mr. Williams of Montana, below. Had the amend

[[Page 8906]]

ment effectively defined the unborn as possible objects of 
discrimination and thus changed existing laws in a manner not 
contemplated by the bill, the amendment would not have been germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 130 Cong. Rec. 18865, 18866, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mark] Siljander [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Siljander: Page 10, after line 22, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 6. For the purposes of this act, the term ``person'' 
        shall include unborn children from the moment of conception.

        Mr. [Paul] Simon [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . .
        It is an attempt to expand with a new definition beyond the 
    scope of this act. It is not germane as the previous amendment was 
    not germane. . . .
        Mr. Siljander: Chapter 28 of the procedures of the House, 
    section 9.12, says ``. . . to a bill containing definitions of 
    several of the terms used therein, an amendment modifying one of 
    the definitions and adding another may be germane.
        On page 3, on page 6 and page 8 and page 10 the word ``person'' 
    is used, which is substantially different from the former 
    amendment.
        I yield to the chairman.
        The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On page 8, line 24, the bill uses the term ``person.''
        In the gentleman's amendment he says for the purposes of this 
    bill the term ``person'' shall, and defines the term ``person'' 
    and, therefore, the amendment is germane. . . .
        Mr. [Pat] Williams of Montana: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
    the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to the 
    amendment.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If my information is correct, the term 
    ``person'' appears four times in this act and each time it appears, 
    it refers to a person receiving or distributing Federal funds.
        Now, if I understand the gentleman's amendment, he is including 
    children at the moment of conception as those receiving or 
    distributing Federal funds. What is the purpose of the amendment? 
    The amendment is moot. Unborn children do not receive or distribute 
    Federal funds. The amendment has no meaning.

Bill Authorizing Programs To Increase Understanding of Foreign 
    Languages and Cultures--Amendment To Prohibit Programs Promoting 
    Secular Humanism

Sec. 35.68 To a bill narrowly amending the National Defense Education 
    Act of 1958 to authorize programs to increase understanding of 
    foreign languages and cultures, an amendment prohibiting any 
    assistance under that Act to any education program offering the 
    ``religion of secular humanism'' was con

[[Page 8907]]

    strued as a restriction on other programs under that Act not 
    amended by the pending bill and was held to be not germane.

    On May 12, 1976,(15) during consideration of H.R. 12851 
(16) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order against an amendment holding that to a bill amending 
various laws relating primarily to higher education, an amendment to a 
law being amended by the bill, but affecting programs under that law 
dealing with other levels of education was beyond the scope of the 
pending bill and in violation of Rule XVI clause 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 122 Cong. Rec. 13531, 13532, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Conlan [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conlan: On page 86, between lines 
        6 and 7, add the following new subsection:
            ``(d) No grant, contract, or support is authorized under 
        this Act for any educational program, curriculum research and 
        development, administrator-teacher orientation, or any project 
        involving one or more students or teacher-administrator 
        involving any aspect of the religion of secular humanism. . . .

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: . . . The amendment as 
    offered says, ``grant, contract, or support is authorized under 
    this act,'' and in the context in which it is offered the gentleman 
    from Arizona would apply it to all of the parts of the National 
    Defense Education Act because he inserts it on page 86 between 
    lines 6 and 7, which is all of it, as an amendment of section 603 
    of the National Defense Education Act. So he goes very considerably 
    beyond the scope of the provisions of the section he offers to 
    amend or, for that matter, he goes beyond the scope of the higher 
    education laws that are amended by this particular bill. Therefore, 
    his amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Conlan: . . . I think the gentleman is construing it in a 
    very unnecessary and narrow area, Mr. Chairman. We are dealing here 
    with the National Defense Education Act. We are dealing with an 
    enlargement of it. We are dealing with a whole broadened area of 
    financing as part of that whole act. I think the amendment is quite 
    germane, and legal counsel has advised us that it is.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona appears in 
    section 201, all of which consists of an amendment to the National 
    Defense Education Act of 1958. The material contained in the bill 
    amends that act very narrowly only to the extent of providing for 
    specialists and persons trained in languages and foreign cultures. 
    By contrast, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
    would appear to amend the totality of the National Defense 
    Education Act of 1958 and impose its restrictions upon

[[Page 8908]]

    any grant or contract or funds under that act which under other 
    titles of that law could go to schools of secondary and other 
    levels of education.
        For this reason the Chair believes that the amendment as 
    drafted and offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Conlan) 
    expressly making reference to ``no grant, contract, or support as 
    authorized under this act'', thereby referring to the National 
    Defense Education Act of 1958 and not to the pending bill, is 
    beyond the scope of the bill and, therefore, not germane to the 
    language of the bill.

Fair Prices for Housing--Amendment To Prohibit Discrimination

Sec. 35.69 To a bill adding a new title to the National Housing Act to 
    insure availability of housing at fair prices, amendments to add a 
    section to the act to prohibit, in the administration of the act, 
    any discrimination on account of race, creed, or the like were held 
    not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(18) relating to housing stabilization, the following 
amendment was offered: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 4761 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
19. 92 Cong. Rec. 1990, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dirksen: On page 17, after line 6, 
    insert a new section, as follows:

            Sec. 711. In the administration of the National Housing Act 
        as amended and the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended 
        and in making available the benefits of said acts as amended, 
        there shall be no discrimination on account of race, creed, 
        color, or national origin, and in addition thereto maximum 
        preferences and priorities shall be secured to veterans of 
        World War II and their immediate families.

    Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(20) in 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Obviously, the gentleman's amendment is much too broad to 
    come within the purview of the pending bill. The amendment relates 
    to the National Housing Act as amended, the United States Housing 
    Act of 1937, as amended. The point of order is sustained.

    Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, then offered the amendment, 
deleting the reference to the United States Housing Act of 
1937.(1) Mr. Spence again raised a point of order. In 
defense of the amendment, Mr. Dirksen stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 92 Cong. Rec. 1991, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is nothing more than 
    an additional developing of the National Housing Act, it amends the 
    entire act in many particulars. So the amendment before us now 
    relates only to the Housing Act which is presently covered by

[[Page 8909]]

    the bill and is very definitely before the Committee of the Whole.

    The Chairman then stated:

        The gentleman's amendment would take in entirely different 
    provisions of the Housing Act than that contained in the pending 
    bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Amendment and Amendment Thereto Modifying Same Section of Law

Sec. 35.70 Where an amendment to a bill proposes modification of a 
    section of existing law in some respects, an amendment to the 
    amendment may properly propose modification of the same section of 
    the law in similar respects.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
to extend and amend laws relating to improvement of housing, an 
amendment was offered (3) which in part related to 
authorization of payments to parties in lieu of those moving expenses 
occasioned by certain urban projects. The amendment stated in part: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 6659 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 3. See the Talle amendment at 103 Cong. Rec. 6621-23, 85th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., May 8, 1957.
 4. Id. at p. 6622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 302. Section 106(f)(2) of the Housing Act of 1949 is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: 
    ``Such rules and regulations may include provisions authorizing 
    payment to individuals and families of fixed amounts (not to exceed 
    $100 in any case) in lieu of their respective reasonable and 
    necessary moving expenses.''

    An amendment offered to such amendment stated as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 6629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Barratt] O'Hara of Illinois to the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Talle: Amend section 302 to read as 
    follows:

            Sec. 302. Section 106(f)(2) of the Housing Act of 1949 is 
        amended (1) by striking out $2,000 and inserting in lieu 
        thereof $3,000; and (2) by adding at the end thereof the 
        following sentence: Such rules and regulations may include 
        provisions authorizing the payment to individuals, families, 
        and business concerns of fixed amounts not to exceed $100 in 
        the case of an individual or family, or $3,000 in the case of 
        any business concern in lieu of the respective reasonable and 
        necessary moving expenses.

    The purpose of the amendment was explained as follows:

        Mr. O'Hara [of Illinois]: . . . It happens that in the district 
    that I represent we have in the operation of the urban-renewal 
    program the displacement of many long-established merchants. . . . 
    It is not right that these small-business tenants should be forced 
    to assume this burden when their moving is not for their own profit 
    or convenience, but to the contrary. . . . The present law calls 
    for moving expenses up to $2,000. In some cases

[[Page 8910]]

    that is ruinously inadequate. We are asking that the amount be 
    increased to $3,000 to be paid only in cases where the 
    circumstances warrant. . . .

    The following point of order was raised by Mr. Henry O. Talle, of 
Iowa, against the amendment:

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    O'Hara] is not germane to my amendment. As I understand his 
    amendment . . . it refers to basic law. His amendment, in order to 
    be germane, would have to be germane to my amendment which is under 
    consideration.

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Section 302 is an amendment of existing law contained in 
    section 106(f)(2) of the Housing Act of 1949. That language 
    presumably is germane to section 106(f)(2). That being the case, 
    the amendment opens the entire section of the basic law, section 
    106(f)(2), to amendment, which is the purpose, in part, of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'Hara].
        Therefore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois is germane. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. For a similar ruling during proceedings relating to H.R. 6659, see 
        Sec. 35.71, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 35.71 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute, proposing, in 
    part, modification of a section of the Housing Act of 1949 relating 
    to payments for certain expenses occasioned by urban renewal 
    projects, a proposition to further amend such section by limiting 
    specified construction to that needed for relocation of families 
    displaced by urban renewal projects was held to be germane.

    In the 85th Congress, during proceedings relating to a bill 
(8) to extend and amend laws concerned with the improvement 
of housing, an amendment in the nature of a substitute was under 
consideration which contained the following provision: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 6659 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 9. 103 Cong. Rec. 6703, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., May 9, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 302. Section 106(f)(2) of the Housing Act of 1949 is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: 
    ``Such rules and regulations may include provisions authorizing 
    payment to individuals and families of fixed amounts (not to exceed 
    $100 in any case) in lieu of their respective reasonable and 
    necessary moving expenses.''

    The following amendment was offered to such amendment: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 6706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [O. Clark] Fisher [of Texas] to the 
    substitute offered by Mr. [Edmond A.]

[[Page 8911]]

    Edmondson [of Oklahoma]: Page 11, in line 12 insert ``(a)'' after 
    ``sec. 302.'' and after line 18 insert the following:

            (b) Section 106 of such act is further amended by adding at 
        the end thereof the following new subsection:
            ``(g) No new contract . . . or other arrangement regarding 
        low-rent housing provided for under section 305 of the Housing 
        Act of 1949 shall be entered into . . . except with respect to 
        low-rent housing projects to be undertaken in a community in 
        which the local governing body certifies that such low-rent 
        housing project is needed for the relocation of families to be 
        displaced as a result of Federal, State, or local governmental 
        action in such community: And provided further, That no such 
        new contracts . . . or other arrangements shall be entered into 
        . . . for additional dwelling units in excess of the total 
        number of such units which the Housing and Home Finance 
        Administrator determines to be needed for the relocation of 
        families to be displaced as a result of Federal, State, or 
        local governmental action in the communities where such units 
        are to be located.''

    A point of order was raised against the Fisher amendment, as 
follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 6706, 6707.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment, that it is not germane to the 
    amendment before the House or the bill before the House or any part 
    of the bill or the pending amendment. . . .
        The amendment deals with public housing. There is no public 
    housing in any part of this bill or in any part of the amendment to 
    the bill.

    The Chairman (12) overruled the point of order, citing 
the principle that, ``an amendment to a particular section may perhaps 
make in order another amendment to the section.'' (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
13. 103 Cong. Rec. 6707, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., May 9, 1957. For a 
        similar ruling during proceedings relating to H.R. 6659, see 
        Sec. 35.70, supra. It should be noted that in both rulings the 
        text being amended was a comprehensive amendment of one or more 
        sections of existing law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Jurisdiction as Test Where Amendments to Law Are Within 
    Jurisdiction of Different Committees

Sec. 35.72 Committee jurisdiction is a relevant test of germaneness 
    where the pending portion of the bill amends a law entirely within 
    one committee's jurisdiction and the proposed amendment amends a 
    law within another committee's jurisdiction; thus, to a title of an 
    omnibus housing bill amending a law within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs to reauthorize 
    rural housing loan and grant programs, an amendment to another law 
    within the jurisdiction of the

[[Page 8912]]

    Committee on Agriculture authorizing the pooling of federally 
    guaranteed rural housing loans was held not germane as amending a 
    law not amended by the pending title and within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee.

    The proceedings of July 31, 1990, relating to H.R. 1180, the 
Housing and Community Development Act, are discussed in Sec. 4.58, 
supra.

Amendment Modifying Same Section of National Housing Act in Unrelated 
    Respects

Sec. 35.73 To that part of a bill amending a section of the National 
    Housing Act by adding a paragraph relating to the power of the 
    administrator to dispose of securities held by him, an amendment 
    proposing to modify such section of the act in other respects was 
    held not germane.

    In the 74th Congress, a bill (14) was under 
consideration to amend a title of the National Housing Act. The bill 
stated in part: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 11689 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
15. See 80 Cong. Rec. 4439, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 26, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That title I of the National Housing Act, 
    as amended, be further amended as follows:

            Section 1 of title I is amended by adding at the end of 
        said section the following paragraph:
            ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        Administrator shall have the power, under and subject to 
        regulations prescribed by him and approved by the Secretary of 
        the Treasury, to assign or sell at public or private sale, or 
        otherwise dispose of, any evidence of debt, contract claim, 
        property, or security assigned to or held by him, and to 
        collect or compromise all obligations assigned to or held by 
        him and all legal or equitable rights accruing to him in 
        connection with the payment of insurance under section 2 of 
        this title, until such time as such obligations may be referred 
        to the Attorney General for suit or collection.''

    The following amendment was offered: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 4444.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Page 1, 
    after line 4, strike out after the word ``compensation'', in the 
    second sentence of section 1 of title I, the rest of the sentence 
    and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``said officers and 
    employees to be appointed in accordance with the civil-service laws 
    and rules thereunder and their compensation fixed as provided in 
    the Classification Act of 1923, as amended''. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [T. Alan] Goldsborough [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment that it is not germane. . . 
    .
        Mr. Chairman, the matter desired to be inserted by the 
    gentleman from

[[Page 8913]]

    Michigan does not refer in any way to the subject matter of the 
    legislation. It has no possible reference to the subject matter of 
    the legislation.

    The Chairman (17) stated, ``section 1 of this bill deals 
with the sale and handling of securities.'' Mr. Mapes responded that, 
``[S]ection 1 of the law relates to appointment of employees and the 
fixing of their compensation, which is the section I am trying to 
amend.'' The Chairman then cited a prior ruling by Speaker Frederick H. 
Gillett, of Massachusetts, that, ``to a bill amendatory of an act in 
several particulars an amendment proposing to modify the act, but not 
relating to the bill (is not) germane,'' and held as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It seems very clear to the Chair that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Michigan does attempt to modify a section of the 
    existing law, but it is not germane to this particular section of 
    the bill. The point of order, therefore, is sustained.

Bill Amending National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities Act--
    Amendment To Establish Office of Poet Laureate

Sec. 35.74 To a bill amending several sections of the National 
    Foundation for the Arts and Humanities Act to extend the 
    authorization for appropriations and redefine certain powers of the 
    Foundation, an amendment proposing to further amend the act to 
    establish an office of Poet Laureate of the United States was held 
    to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(18) amending the National Foundation for the Arts and 
Humanities Act of 1965, the following amendment was offered: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 11308 (Committee on Education and Labor).
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 4348, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: . . 
    .
        Sec. 7. The National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities 
    Act of 1965 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
    new section:

                       Poet Laureate of the United States

            Sec. 15. (a) There is hereby established the Office of Poet 
        Laureate of the United States. . . .
            (b) The Poet Laureate . . . who shall be appointed by the 
        President after consideration of the recommendations of the 
        National Council on the Arts, shall be a poet whose works 
        reflect those qualities . . . associated with the historical 
        heritage, present achievement, and future potential of these 
        United States.

    Mr. Frank Thompson, Jr., of New Jersey, made the point of

[[Page 8914]]

order that the amendment was not germane to the bill. The 
Chairman,(20) without elaboration, sustained the point of 
order.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John A. Young (Tex.).
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 4349, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill To Amend Federal Aid Road Act--Amendment To Create Corporation 
    With Authority Affecting Road Construction

Sec. 35.75 To a bill to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, 
    an amendment proposing the creation of a corporation with authority 
    to issue bonds to finance road construction was held not germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (2) 
to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, the following 
amendment was offered: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 7474 (Committee on Public Works).
 3. 101 Cong. Rec. 11709, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: 
    Page 8, after line 6 insert:

            Sec. 2 (G) (a) There is hereby created, subject to the 
        direction and supervision of the President, a body corporate to 
        be known as the Interstate and Defense Highway Finance 
        Corporation. . . .
            (c) It shall be the duty of the Corporation (a) to receive 
        and borrow funds, (b) to provide and make available to the 
        Secretary such sums as are necessary to permit him to make the 
        payments or advances to the States, through the established 
        channels of the Bureau of Public Roads of the Federal share of 
        the cost of construction of projects on the Interstate System, 
        and such other costs or expenses as are permitted or required 
        to be paid or advanced by him in connection with the Interstate 
        System under the terms of this act, and (c) to perform such 
        other duties as may be required in the performance of its 
        functions and the exercise of its powers under this act. . . .

    Mr. Robert E. Jones, Jr., of Alabama, made the point of order 
against the amendment that it was not germane to the bill. The 
Chairman,(4) in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 11710, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is . . . the opinion of the Chair that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Indiana, seeking as it does to create an 
    entirely different body, a body corporate, is not germane to the 
    provisions of the pending bill.

--Amendment To Prohibit Funds for States Where Segregation is Practiced

Sec. 35.76 To a bill to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, 
    an amendment providing that no funds col

[[Page 8915]]

    lected under the act may be available to any state or locality in 
    which segregation is practiced in restaurants, restrooms, or in 
    road construction was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (6) 
to amend and supplement the Federal Aid Road Act, an amendment was 
offered as described above.(7) Mr. Robert E. Jones, Jr., of 
Alabama, made the point of order against the amendment that it was not 
germane. In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Earl Wilson, of 
Indiana, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 7474 (Committee on Public Works).
 7. See 101 Cong. Rec. 11710, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Court has ruled against segregation. Here we are 
    authorizing this great appropriation, under which we are going to 
    spend billions of dollars in every State in the Union. Yet, there 
    are some States in which the Negroes are not going to have a chance 
    to work and earn part of this money to pay the taxes to build the 
    highways. . . .
        . . . I think these Negroes should be given the opportunity to 
    help build the highways because they are going to help to pay the 
    taxes. I think they should be able to use the facilities, the 
    restaurants, and the comfort stations, and so forth, that appear 
    along the highways.

    The Chairman,(8) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is the opinion of the Chair that since the amendment refers 
    to and touches upon the funds collected under this act, limiting 
    their use, the amendment is germane, therefore, the Chair overrules 
    the point of order.

Funds for Alaska and Hawaii Under Federal Airport Act--Funds for Puerto 
    Rico and Virgin Islands

Sec. 35.77 To a bill amending one section of the Federal Airport Act to 
    provide that the new States Alaska and Hawaii be eligible for 
    certain funds under the act, an amendment to make Puerto Rico and 
    the Virgin Islands similarly eligible and to amend other provisions 
    of the Act was held to be not germane.

    In the 86th Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
to provide that Alaska and Hawaii be eligible for participation in the 
distribution of discretionary funds under a particular section of the 
Federal Airport Act. An amendment was offered by Mr. John B. Bennett, 
of Michigan. The bill with a committee amendment,

[[Page 8916]]

and Mr. Bennett's amendment in the form of a substitute for the 
committee amendment, were as follows: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. S. 2208 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 18840, 18841, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 9, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        paragraph (2) of section 6(b) of the Federal Airport Act (69 
        Stat. 442, 49 U.S.C. 1105) is amended to read as follows:

            ``(2) Such discretionary fund shall be available for such 
        approved projects in the several States, Alaska, and Hawaii as 
        the Administrator may deem most appropriate. . . .''

        With the following committee amendment:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: ``That 
        paragraph (2) of section 6(b) of the Federal Airport Act (49 
        U.S.C. sec. 1105(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:

            `` `(2) Such discretionary fund shall be available for such 
        approved projects in the several States, Alaska, and Hawaii as 
        the Administrator may deem most appropriate for carrying out 
        the national airport plan, regardless of the location of such 
        projects. The Administrator shall give consideration, in 
        determining the projects for which such fund is to be so used, 
        to the existing airport facilities in the several States, 
        Alaska, and Hawaii, and to the need for or lack of development 
        of airport facilities in the several States, Alaska, and 
        Hawaii.' ''

        Mr. Bennett of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute 
    amendment, which is at the Clerk's desk.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bennett of Michigan as a 
        substitute for the committee amendment: Page 2, strike out 
        lines 6 through 18, inclusive, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following: ``That section 2(a) of the Federal Airport Act, as 
        amended (49 U.S.C., sec. 1101(a)), is amended as follows:

            ``(1) In paragraph (7), strike out `Alaska, Hawaii, or 
        Puerto Rico and' and insert in lieu thereof `Puerto Rico, or'. 
        . . .

            ``Sec. 3. Section 5 of such Act, as amended (49 U.S.C., 
        sec. 1104), is amended as follows: . . .

            ``(2) In subsection (b), insert `(1)' immediately after 
        `(b)'. . . .

            ``(5) At the end of such subsection (b), add the following 
        new paragraph:

            `` `(2) For the purpose of carrying out this Act with 
        respect to projects in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, 
        there are hereby authorized to be obligated by the execution of 
        grant agreements pursuant to section 12 the sum of $900,000 for 
        each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1960, and June 30, 
        1961. Each such authorized amount shall become available for 
        obligation beginning July 1 of the fiscal year for which it is 
        authorized and shall continue to be so available until so 
        obligated. Of the sum of $900,000 authorized by this paragraph 
        for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1960, and June 30, 
        1961, the sum of $600,000 shall be available for projects in 
        Puerto Rico and the sum of $300,000 shall be available for 
        projects in the Virgin Islands.' ''

    A point of order against the amendment having been raised by Mr. 
Oren Harris, of Arkansas, the following ruling was made by Chairman 
John A. Blatnik, of Minnesota:

[[Page 8917]]

        The bill before the House deals with paragraph 2 of section 
    6(b). The substitute deals with other portions of the act and also 
    deals with Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which are not in the 
    present act. The point of order is well taken, and the Chair 
    sustains the point of order.

Diverse Amendments to Airport and Airway Development Act--Amendment 
    Adding New Title to Bill

Sec. 35.78 A bill comprehensively amending several sections of existing 
    law may be sufficiently broad in scope to admit as germane an 
    amendment which is germane to another section of that law not 
    amended by the bill; thus, to a bill containing several titles 
    amending the Airport and Airway Development Act in diverse 
    respects, including provisions relating to aircraft noise reduction 
    grants, regulation and funding, general airport development 
    projects, and general research, development and demonstration 
    grants, an amendment adding a new title amending the Act to extend 
    the authorization for State Airport Demonstration Grants was held 
    germane.

    On Sept. 14, 1978,(11) during consideration of H.R. 8729 
(12) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Gerry E. 
Studds, of Massachusetts, overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 29487, 29488, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. The Aircraft Noise Reduction Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harsha: At the end of the bill, 
        add the following new title:

                                    title vi

            Sec. 601. Paragraph (4) of section 28(c) of the Airport and 
        Airway Development Act of 1970 is amended by striking out 
        ``September 30, 1978'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``September 30, 1980''. . . .

        Mr. [M. G.] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I just heard 
    about this amendment a few minutes ago. While I support what they 
    want to do in this, it is a different program that comes out of 
    different legislation. It is an innovative program that we started 
    last year for demonstration projects for, I believe it was, four 
    States to handle the State money themselves rather than going 
    through FAA with a direct funding to the States. They make all the 
    decisions. They set all the criteria. It is a program that is not 
    dealt with in this bill in any way, shape, or form, and in my 
    opinion is not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. Harsha: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is germane to the issue. 
    It is a

[[Page 8918]]

    section that is in the Airport and Airway Development Act. We 
    already have other titles in this bill dealing with the Airport and 
    Airway Development Act, the so-called AADA. This deals with that 
    part of the program and I think it is germane to the title of the 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The bill before us amends the Airport and Airway Development 
    Act in several respects and with some depth and breadth. It deals 
    not only with noise control, but planning, grants and research, and 
    in other ways.
        Therefore, the Chair feels the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Harsha) is germane to the bill as a whole and the point 
    of order is overruled.

Tax Consequences of Sale of Property by Air Carriers--Determination of 
    Subsidies for Air Carriers

Sec. 35.79 To a bill amending the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 in part 
    to exclude from specified tax computations those gains from the 
    sale of property of an air carrier that are subsequently reinvested 
    in similar property, an amendment was held to be not germane which 
    sought to relate such accounting procedures to the determination of 
    certain subsidies for air carriers.

    In the 84th Congress, the following proposition (13) was 
under consideration: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Committee amendment to H.R. 8902 (Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce).
14. See 102 Cong. Rec. 14868, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 26, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . That section 406(b) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 
    as amended (49 U.S.C. 486), is amended by inserting ``(1)'' after 
    ``(b)'' and by adding at the end thereof the following:

            (2) In determining ``all other revenue'' of an air carrier 
        for the purposes of paragraph (1), the Board--
            (A) shall not take into account any loss on the sale or 
        other disposition of property, and
            (B) shall not take into account any gain on the sale or 
        other disposition of property, if the net gain (after 
        applicable taxes) is (within a reasonable time to be fixed and 
        determined by the Board) reinvested in other property similar 
        or related in service or use.
            For the purposes of this paragraph, the term ``property'' 
        means depreciable property used or useful in the carrier's 
        normal operations. . . .

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [John W.] Heselton [of Massachusetts]: 
    Page 2, line 11, strike out all of lines 11 through 22, inclusive, 
    and insert in place thereof the following: . . .

            (3) Hereafter in determining that portion of the carrier's 
        mail rate which is payable by the Board (which portion is 
        hereinafter referred to as ``subsidy'') the Board shall com

[[Page 8919]]

        pute such carrier's depreciation expense and return on 
        investment after first deducting the net gains not taken into 
        account in determining all other revenue of such carrier from 
        the original cost to such carrier of the flight equipment in 
        which such net gains have been reinvested. . . .

    Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, in making a point of order against 
the amendment, stated, ``The amendment . . . goes far beyond the scope 
of this bill.'' In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Heselton 
stated:

        . . . I would like to refer . . . to a ruling . . . found in 
    Cannon's Precedents, section 2993. . . . It is as follows:

            An amendment to a section which is relevant to the subject 
        matter and which may be said to be properly and logically 
        suggested in the perfecting of the section and the carrying out 
        of the intent of the bill would be germane to the bill and thus 
        is in order.

    The Chairman,(15) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    extends beyond the scope of the language contained in section 
    406(a) at lines 13 and 14 of the committee amendment.
        The language therein contained is very narrow in its scope and 
    applies to one specific phase of the operation.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    extends beyond loss on the sale of property, the matter contained 
    in the amendment; therefore, the entire amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts is not germane and the Chair sustains 
    the point of order. . . .

Federal Funding of Railroads--Amendment Affecting Freight Rate 
    Regulations

Sec. 35.80 A proposal which may amend existing law in several respects 
    but which is confined to the issue of federal financial assistance 
    does not necessarily permit, as germane, amendments to other 
    sections of that law which involve federal regulations governing 
    the entities being financed by the bill; thus, to a proposition 
    amending existing laws in several respects but limited in scope to 
    the issue of federal funding of railroads, an amendment to one of 
    those laws to require any railroad to maintain certain freight rate 
    practices and waiving provisions of antitrust laws to permit 
    enforcement of those rate practices was held not germane as 
    addressing regulatory authorities in law and not confined to the 
    issue of federal financial assistance.

    During consideration of H.R. 12161 (16) in the Committee 
of the

[[Page 8920]]

Whole on Oct. 14, 1978,(17) the Chair sustained a point of 
order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The ConRail Authorization Act.
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 38671, 38672, 38677, 38678, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fred B.] Rooney [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Rooney: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
    That this Act may be cited as the ``United States Railway 
    Association Amendments Act of 1978''.

            Sec. 2. (a) Section 216(a) of the Regional Rail 
        Reorganization Act of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 726(a)) is amended by 
        striking out ``$1,100,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``$2,300,000,000''.
            (b) Section 216(b)(2) of such Act (45 U.S.C. 716(b)(2)) is 
        amended by striking out ``$1,100,000,000'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``$2,300,000,000''.
            (c) Section 216(f) of such Act (45 U.S.C. 726(f)) is 
        amended by striking out ``$2,100,000,000'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``$3,300,000,000''.
            Sec. 3. Section 216 of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act 
        of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 726) is further amended by redesignating 
        subsection (f) thereof as subsection (g) and by inserting 
        immediately after subsection (e) thereof a new subsection as 
        follows:

            ``(g)(1) The Association shall not invest the final 
        $345,000,000 of the additional investment in the Corporation 
        authorized by the Regional Rail Reorganization Act Amendments 
        of 1978 unless and until (A) the Corporation has in effect an 
        employee stock ownership plan which satisfies the requirements 
        of paragraphs (2) and (3), and (B) the requirements of the 
        other paragraphs of this subsection have been satisfied. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York: Page 2, after 
        line 6 insert the following and renumber the remaining 
        paragraphs as appropriate.
            ``Sec. II. Section 3 of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 
        U.S.C. 3) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
        new paragraph:
            ``(6)(a) It shall be the duty of any Class I of common 
        carrier by railroad which handles or controls more than 75 per 
        centum of the rail freight traffic to and from a port to 
        establish and maintain equal rates, charges, tariffs, and 
        classifications to and from all points served by rail within 
        such port, and to establish and maintain equal joint routes, 
        rates, charges, tariffs, and classifications for all types of 
        rail freight traffic with all connecting rail carriers to and 
        from all points served by rail within the port. It shall be the 
        duty of each such Class I common carrier by railroad 
        establishing through routes to provide reasonable facilities 
        for operating such routes and to make reasonable rules and 
        regulations with respect to their operation and providing for 
        reasonable compensation to those entitled thereto, and, in case 
        of joint rates, charges, or tariffs, to establish just, 
        reasonable, and equitable divisions thereof, which shall not 
        unduly prefer or prejudice any participating carrier. . . .

[[Page 8921]]

        Ms. [Barbara A.] Mikulski [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the bill on the grounds that the amendment 
    is not germane because the amendment amends the Interstate Commerce 
    Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    basically an authorization; it authorizes USRA to purchase ConRail 
    securities. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Murphy) not only amends these two statutes, but also makes new 
    policy concerning intraport equalization. The bill is not a policy 
    oriented bill dealing with the Interstate Commerce Act, but is 
    rather essentially an authorization bill, by far, and I think it is 
    not germane. . . .
        Mr. Murphy [of New York:] Mr. Chairman, this amendment was 
    adopted by this House, passed into law, and incorporated in the 4R 
    Act of 1976.
        What this amendment does is just restate the fact of the matter 
    because the Interstate Commerce Commission and, of course, ConRail 
    itself have failed to implement the law.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment certainly is germane. It has 
    already been part of this act, and it is a restatement of the 
    original amendment of 3 years ago. . . .
        Mr. Robert E. Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I point out 
    that the substitute amendment to which the amendment is proposed 
    amends the Regional Rail Reorganization Act. The amendment itself, 
    however, amends the Interstate Commerce Act, an entirely different 
    statute; and as has been pointed out by the gentlewoman from 
    Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], the Clayton Act, which is not, I 
    understand, under the jurisdiction of this committee, but under the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, which is a test of 
    germaneness.
        Mr. Chairman, the entire thrust of the gentleman's amendment 
    deals with the establishment and maintenance of rates, charges, and 
    tariffs and their classifications and divisions, whereas the bill 
    itself deals with nothing like that, but, rather, with the funding, 
    debentures, and stocks and other related matters dealing with 
    ConRail. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlewoman from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] makes a point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Murphy) is not germane to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute in that the Rooney amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute amends the Regional Rail Transportation Act and provides 
    for financial assistance to railroads in the ConRail system, while 
    the amendment offered thereto amends the Interstate Commerce Act 
    and also provides changes in the Clayton Act which deal with the 
    issue of antitrust matters and railroad rates applicable not only 
    to ConRail but to other rail systems.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Bill Amending Several Sections of Law--Amendment Affecting Sections Not 
    Mentioned in Bill

Sec. 35.81 A bill amending several sections of an existing law

[[Page 8922]]

    may be sufficiently comprehensive to permit amendments which are 
    germane to other sections of that law; thus, to a bill amending 
    several sections of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, 
    an amendment to a section of that Act not mentioned in the bill, 
    relating to congressional disapproval of reorganization plans, and 
    germane to that section, was held germane to the bill (where the 
    argument was not made that the amendment changed the rules of the 
    House).

    During consideration of a bill to amend H.R. 2051 on Feb. 19, 
1975,(19) the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 3596, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 7 after line 24 
        insert a new section 5 (and number the succeeding Sections 
        accordingly).
            Sec. 5. (a) Section 208(a) of the Regional Rail 
        Reorganization Act of 1973. The sentence ``The final system 
        plan shall be deemed approved at the end of the first period of 
        60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after such 
        date of transmittal unless either the House of Representatives 
        or the Senate passes a resolution during such period stating 
        that it does not favor the final system.'' is amended by 
        deleting the language after ``shall' and inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``be voted by each House of Congress within the period 
        of 60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after 
        such date of transmittal.''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order on two bases. . . .
        The second point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that the amendment 
    goes beyond the scope of the legislation before us. It deals with 
    sections of the statute not currently before the House, and as such 
    it seeks to go to matters on which Members of this body could not, 
    in the exercise of reasonable prudence and care, have been 
    forewarned as to the existence of the pendency of this particular 
    amendment, and that therefore the amendment is violative of the 
    rule of germaneness and is not properly before the body at this 
    time. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: . . . [I]t is very clear that the entire matter 
    is before us. We are talking about the bill as it now stands, 
    referring to a prospective date of 60 days, when the plan would go 
    into operation. All my amendment does is to change that, to make it 
    affirmative action rather than negative action of the House that is 
    required. I think it is consistent with the precedents and the 
    point of order should be overruled.

        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule. . 
    . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As to the second point made by the gentleman from Michigan, the 
    Chair has examined the amendment as well as the ``Ramseyer'' in the 
    report on the

[[Page 8923]]

    bill under consideration and, in the opinion of the Chair, the bill 
    under consideration amends several sections of the act, and is so 
    comprehensive an amendment as to permit germane amendments to any 
    portion of the law. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio is germane to the section 208 of the act which provides for 
    review by Congress. Therefore the Chair overrules the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Michigan.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had the argument been made that the 
Ashbrook amendment constituted a change in House and Senate rules by 
requiring a vote in each House within a certain time period, the Chair 
would have been advised to sustain the germaneness point of order.

Urban Mass Transportation Act--``Buy American'' Provisions

Sec. 35.82 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    comprehensively amending the Urban Mass Transportation Act and 
    authorizing the appropriation of funds to carry out that Act, an 
    amendment further amending the Act to prohibit the obligation of 
    funds authorized to be appropriated thereunder for certain 
    contracts unless American-made goods be used, in pursuance of such 
    contracts, to the extent specified in the amendment, was held 
    germane as a restriction on the broad authorities granted in the 
    bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 6417 (1) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Dec. 4, 1980,(2) it was held that, to a bill 
granting authorities to the federal government or authorizing the 
appropriation of funds, an amendment denying the use of those 
authorities or funds to purchase foreign-made goods or equipment is 
germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The Surface Transportation Act of 1980.
 2. 126 Cong. Rec. 32169, 32170, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Howard, as amended: Page 
        44, after line 7, insert the following:

                                  buy america

            Sec. 225. (a) Section 12 of the Urban Mass Transportation 
        Act of 1964 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(h)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        Secretary of Transportation shall not obligate any funds 
        authorized to be appropriated by this Act for any project 
        contract whose total cost exceeds $500,000 unless only such 
        unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been 
        mined or produced in the

[[Page 8924]]

        United States, and only such manufactured articles, materials, 
        and supplies as have been manufactured in the United States at 
        least 50 per centum from articles, materials, and supplies 
        mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the 
        United States, will be used in such project contract. . . .
            (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall not apply to 
        project contracts entered into on or before the date of 
        enactment of this Act or options exercised pursuant to such 
        contracts. Section 401 of the Surface Transportation Assistance 
        Act of 1978 shall not apply to any project contract entered 
        into after the date of enactment of this Act for a project to 
        which section 12(h) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 
        1964 applies. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). This proposed amendment violates rule 
    XVI, clause 7. . . .
        Hinds' volume V, section 5825, states that while a committee 
    may report a bill embracing different subjects, it is not in order 
    during consideration in the House to introduce a new subject by way 
    of amendment.
        Cannon's, chapter 8, section 2995, states that the burden of 
    proof is on the proponent of an amendment to establish germaneness, 
    and where an amendment is equally susceptible to more than one 
    interpretation, one of which renders it not germane, the Chair will 
    rule it out of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the Oberstar amendment seeks to introduce a new 
    subject which is part neither of this bill nor of the statute which 
    this bill seeks to amend. The Oberstar amendment would introduce a 
    Buy America requirement, through which funds will be limited, into 
    the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964, where none now exists, and in 
    so doing, it repeals the similar provision that currently exists in 
    the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978. It is an attempt 
    to amend the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 by 
    adding to the statute which this bill amends and repealing it where 
    it currently exists.
        It may be argued that the amendments made by this bill are 
    sufficiently broad to open the entire 1964 act for amendment. But 
    the 1964 act contains no such domestic content provision.
        The Oberstar amendment introduces a new subject, and couching 
    it in language that tacks the provision on at the end of the 
    existing section of the 1964 act is not enough to make it germane.
        The Oberstar amendment really amends the Surface Transportation 
    Act of 1978, an act which itself amended the 1964 act.
        I submit that regardless of whether H.R. 6417 is broad enough 
    to open the entire 1964 act for amendment, it is not broad enough 
    to open other acts . . . for amendments as well, and neither is it 
    broad enough to render germane any new subject. . . .
        Mr. [James L.] Oberstar [of Minnesota]: . . . I rise in 
    opposition to the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering is to the Howard 
    substitute, which is substantially broad enough to admit an 
    amendment dealing with the Buy America Act, which is a part of the 
    original Urban Mass Transit Act. There was a Buy America

[[Page 8925]]

    provision in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, 
    which provided that a final manufactured article should be 
    substantially all-American produced and established the 10-percent 
    price differential between foreign and domestic bids.
        My amendment would broaden that language, which is existing law 
    somewhat, and is perfectly in order because it is an amendment to 
    the Howard substitute and is restricted entirely to the language of 
    the Urban Mass Transportation Act and does not, as the gentleman 
    from Minnesota suggested, go beyond the provisions of the Urban 
    Mass Transportation Act. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has heard the arguments of both the maker of the 
    point of order and the opponent of it, and the Chair is constrained 
    to agree with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the 
    amendment amends only the Urban Mass Transportation Act. That law 
    in 1978 was in effect amended by the Buy America title contained in 
    the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, and the pending 
    amendment only alters the effect of the 1978 law as it relates to 
    authorities under UMTA. On two previous occasions, Buy America 
    amendments have been held germane when offered to bills, 
    comprehensively amending existing laws and drafted as restrictions 
    on authorities contained in those laws.
        The first was on May 7, 1959, when Chairman Bass held germane 
    to a bill permitting the Tennessee Valley Authority to raise 
    capital by issuance of bonds, an amendment prohibiting use of such 
    funds to purchase foreign-made equipment. On another occasion 
    perhaps the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) will recall, 
    when he made a similar point of order to the Outer Continental 
    Shelf Lands Act amendments; and the chairman of the committee at 
    that time, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher), on July 21, 
    1976, held the amendment to be in order. These precedents are 
    contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, sections 4.27 and 
    23.7.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order and 
    recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) in support 
    of his amendment for 5 minutes.

Energy Research and Development Programs--Amendment to Define 
    ``Research and Development''

Sec. 35.83 To a bill not only containing authorizations for one fiscal 
    year but also amending permanent laws in several respects, an 
    amendment further amending one of those laws in a related way may 
    be germane; thus, to a bill, open to amendment at any point, which 
    not only authorized civilian research and development programs for 
    the Department of Energy for a fiscal year but also amended in 
    diverse ways several permanent laws relating to energy research and

[[Page 8926]]

    development programs, an amendment adding a new title to further 
    amend one of those laws to define the term ``research and 
    development'' for purposes of laws authorizing energy research and 
    development was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 12163 in the Committee of the Whole on 
July 14 (4) and July 17,(5) 1978, the Chair 
overruled a point of order in the circumstances described above. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec.20994, 20995, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Id. at pp. 21194-96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS . . .

            Sec. 504. (a) Section 111 of the Energy Reorganization Act 
        of 1974 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
        new subsection:
            ``(j)(1) Beginning with fiscal year 1980 with respect to 
        Department of Energy civilian research and development 
        programs, for purposes of the President's annual budget 
        submission and of related reports submitted by the Secretary of 
        Energy to the House Committee on Science and Technology and to 
        the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources each plant 
        and capital equipment construction project shall be assigned or 
        reassigned to one of the following categories. . . .

        Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fuqua: At the end of the bill, add 
        the following new title:

               TITLE VII--DEFINITION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

            Sec. 701. Section 304 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 
        1974 (42 U.S.C. 5874) is amended by inserting ``(a)'' after 
        ``Sec. 304.'', and by adding at the end thereof the following 
        new subsection:
            ``(b)(1) For purposes of this Act and the Atomic Energy Act 
        of 1954, the Federal Non-nuclear Energy Research and 
        Development Act of 1974, and the Department of Energy 
        Organization Act, the term ``research and development'' means--
            ``(A) basic and applied research . . .
            ``(D) concept and demonstration development; and
            ``(E) operational systems development.
            ``(2) As used in paragraph (1)--
            ``(A) the term ``basic research'' means systematic and 
        intensive study directed toward greater knowledge or 
        understanding of a specific subject, and toward the expansion 
        of man's fundamental knowledge of nature (with or without 
        immediate relevance to specific technology programs). . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Madam Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill which 
    lies before us.
        I would point out, first of all, that the burden is upon the 
    offeror of the amendment to establish the germaneness thereof.
        Furthermore, Madam Chairman, under the traditions and practices 
    of the House as well as under the rules of

[[Page 8927]]

    the House, it is well settled that the Energy Reorganization Act of 
    1974 referred to is a statute relating to the reorganization of 
    government and does not lie under the jurisdiction of the Committee 
    on Science and Technology.
        I would point out that the amendment clearly seeks to amend a 
    statute lying under the jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
        I would point out that the amendment here offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida seeks to change permanent law, as opposed to 
    simply laying forth for the House the basis upon which 
    appropriations may be made, which is the basic purpose on which 
    this particular legislation is before the House. The amendment 
    affects the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
        I point out again that this amendment, which is offered to a 1-
    year authorization, is permanent legislation, defining a rather 
    sweeping responsibility of the Department of Energy of which I am 
    not able to advise the Chair of all the consequences, nor is the 
    author.
        In reiteration, I point out that this is an authorization bill, 
    and it includes limitations and procedural changes. Of course, 
    adoption of this amendment does not affect jurisdiction of any 
    committee or affect the rules of the House. Other permanent 
    provisions of the amendment go much beyond the provisions of an 
    annual authorization, and deal with what is essentially permanent 
    and lasting legislation, not only of the Atomic Energy Act, but 
    also again, I reiterate, another statute not under the jurisdiction 
    of this committee at all, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 
    which was referred to the Committee on Government Operations. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I would 
    only point out to the Chair that in the bill the gentleman from 
    Michigan is going to bring to the floor immediately upon the 
    conclusion of the bill we are now considering, he amends the 
    Department of Energy Act in many places, and I would be hard 
    pressed to understand how he is going to defend that action when he 
    is contending that doing this is a violation of the rules of the 
    House. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) raises a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Fuqua) on the basis that the amendment is not germane to the 
    legislation. The Chair would state to the gentleman from Michigan 
    that this amendment does not amend the rules of the House. Under 
    the rule which provides for consideration of this legislation a 
    substitute was made in order as an original bill, the substitute 
    which was an amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua) 
    printed in the Record on the 23d of June.
        In the substitute which was made in order as an original bill, 
    the energy Reorganization Act is substantively amended in a 
    permanent way. The gentleman from Florida now seeks to add a new 
    title following the ``general provisions'' portion of the bill to 
    provide a definition of research and development under the aegis of 
    the Energy Reorganization Act. That is clearly ger

[[Page 8928]]

    mane because of the provisions of this bill and under the the 
    precedents that have been established in interpreting and applying 
    the rules of the House related to the question of germaneness.
        The amendment obviously relates to the question of energy 
    research and development, the subject of the pending bill. 
    Consequently the Chair overrules the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Michigan.

Rationing Under Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act--User Charges for 
    Allocations

Sec. 35.84 To a section of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    which amended section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act 
    of 1973 to authorize the President to establish priorities, 
    including rationing of gasoline, among users of petroleum products, 
    an amendment providing that any rationing proposal for individual 
    users of gasoline should include payment of a user charge to 
    qualify for additional allocations was held to constitute a tax 
    which was not within the category of rationing authority in the 
    substitute and was ruled out as not germane.

    During consideration of the Energy Emergency Act (H.R. 11450) in 
the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 14, 1973,(7) the Chair 
ruled that an amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 119 Cong. Rec. 41750, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 103. Amendments to the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 
    1973.

        (a) Section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 
    is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsections:
        ``(h)(1) If the President finds that, without such action, the 
    objectives of subsection (b) cannot be attained, he may promulgate 
    a rule which shall be deemed a part of the regulation under 
    subsection (a) and which shall provide, consistent with the 
    objectives of subsection (b), an ordering of priorities among users 
    of crude oil, residual fuel oil, or any refined petroleum product, 
    and for the assignment to such users of rights entitling them to 
    obtain any such oil or product in precedence to other users not 
    similarly entitled. A top priority in such ordering shall be the 
    maintenance of vital services (including, but not limited to new 
    housing construction, education, health care, hospitals, public 
    safety, energy production, agriculture, and transportation 
    services, which are necessary to the preservation of health, 
    safety, and the public welfare). . . .
        ``(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `allocation' 
    shall not be construed to exclude the end-use allocation of 
    gasoline to individual consumers.
        Mr. [James G.] Martin [of North Carolina:] Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an

[[Page 8929]]

    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).

            The Clerk read as follows:
            Amendment offered by Mr. Martin of North Carolina to the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Staggers: On page 6, at line 6, strike the period, and add: ``; 
        Provided, however, That any proposal by the President for the 
        rationing of fuel for personal automobiles and recreational 
        vehicles should, in addition to the basic non-discriminatory 
        ration, include provisions under which the individual consumer 
        may qualify for additional allocations of fuel upon payment of 
        a free or user charge on a per unit basis to the Federal Energy 
        Administration.''

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it 
    is not germane. . . .
        I make the point of order on the amendment on the ground that 
    it authorizes a user's fee in the nature of a tax and that is not 
    supposed to come within the jurisdiction of our committee. That 
    authority is delegated to the Ways and Means Committee.
        Mr. Martin of [North Carolina:] Mr. Chairman, I believe that 
    the amendment is germane and pertinent to the section dealing with 
    gasoline rationing. . . .
        This amendment does not propose a tax as such and so does not 
    run afoul of the prerogatives of the honorable Committee on Ways 
    and Means. Instead it proposes an administrative fee to be charged, 
    much as fees are charged by the National Park Service under the 
    Golden Eagle plan for use of our park resources. This fee as I 
    propose it would be charged for preferential use of any extra 
    limited fuel resources.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order on the ground that this amendment in 
    effect would result in a tax not directly related to the rationing 
    authority conferred by the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provisions Modifying Standards Imposed by Clean Air Act--Amendment 
    Suspending Authority of Administrator To Control Automobile 
    Emissions

Sec. 35.85 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    comprehensively amending several sections of the Clean Air Act with 
    respect to the impact of the shortage of energy resources upon 
    standards imposed under that Act, an amendment to another section 
    of that Act suspending for a temporary period the authority of the 
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to control 
    automobile emissions was held germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 11450 (9) on Dec. 14, 
1973,(10) the

[[Page 8930]]

Chair overruled a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. The Emergency Energy Act.
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 41688, 41689, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Wyman [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wyman to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers: On page 59, 
        after line 23, insert the following:
            (1) Section 202(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857) is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(6)(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        authority of the Administrator to require emissions controls on 
        automobiles is hereby suspended except for automobiles 
        registered to residents of those areas of the United States as 
        specified by subsection (b) of this section, until January 1, 
        1977, or the day on which the President declares that shortage 
        of petroleum is at an end, whichever occurs later.
            (b) Within 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
        paragraph, and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall 
        designate, subject to the limitations set forth herein, 
        geographic areas of the United States in which there is 
        significant auto emissions related air pollution. The 
        Administrator shall not designate as such area any part of the 
        United States outside the following Air Quality Control Regions 
        as defined by the Administrator as of the date of enactment of 
        this paragraph without justification to and prior approval of 
        the Congress. . . .
            (3) Section 203(a)(3) of such Act is amended to read as 
        follows:
            ``(3) for any person to register, on or after 60 days after 
        the date of enactment of this paragraph, a motor vehicle or 
        motor vehicle engine for which the regulations prescribed under 
        section 202(a)(1) do not apply under section 202(a)(3) if such 
        person resides in a geographic area designated by the 
        Administrator to be a geographic area in which there is 
        significant air pollution; or''. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . The second ground on 
    which I make a point of order is that at no point in the bill 
    before us appears an amendment to section 203 of the Clean Air Act. 
    In fact, the gentleman's amendment deals with section 203 and not 
    with the sections which are before us.
        As the Chair will observe from the reading of the Clean Air 
    Act, section 203 is the penalty section and relates to 
    certifications. Section 202(b) mandates the EPA to establish 
    emission limitations for automobiles, and it is to section 202(b) 
    which the bill itself now does apply. The amendment goes much 
    further than that and it restricts the authority of automobile 
    owners to register automobiles in States, and this matter is not 
    spoken to otherwise or elsewhere in the legislation before us.
        It is, therefore, my strong view, Mr. Chairman, that the 
    amendment before us is not germane to the legislation in dealing 
    with subjects not in the bill and not presently before the House.
        Obviously the germaneness rules are here to protect Members 
    from being surprised by amendments which relate to matters 
    different than those before us. Obviously the amendment relates to 
    sections of the Clean Air Act and to matters that are not before 
    us. For that reason the point of order against the amendment should 
    be sustained. . . .

[[Page 8931]]

        Mr. Wyman: . . . [The amendment] simply suspends . . . the 
    authority of the Administrator to impose [requirements for emission 
    controls] for a definite period during the energy crisis.
        This is so plainly in order that I submit the Chair should 
    overrule the point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The second aspect of the point of order is the question of 
    nongermaneness in connection with the Clean Air Act. The Chair has 
    simply looked at the Ramseyer on the bill before us and it is very 
    clear that the Clean Air Act is comprehensively amended by the bill 
    and by the pending amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order of the gentleman 
    from Michigan.

Regulations Affecting Rationing of Petroleum Products--Amending Rules 
    To Establish Congressional Disapproval Procedure

Sec. 35.86 While an amendment amending the rules of the House to 
    establish a special disapproval procedure would not ordinarily be 
    germane to a proposition which granted certain authority to the 
    executive but did not contain a provision affecting congressional 
    procedure, such an amendment is in order where the section of law 
    being amended by that proposition contains a comparable provision.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(12) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a section of an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute which amended section 4 of the Emergency Petroleum 
Allocation Act of 1973 to authorize the president to establish 
priorities, including rationing procedures, among users of petroleum 
products. An amendment was offered which conditioned the effectiveness 
of those regulations upon subsequent congressional disapproval 
(amending the rules of both Houses to provide for the privileged 
consideration of disapproval resolutions). The amendment was held 
germane, where the section of law being amended already contained a 
provision permitting either House to disapprove regulations exempting 
certain petroleum products from allocations under that section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 119 Cong. Rec. 41716-18, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (proceedings 
        relating to H.R. 11450, the Energy Emergency Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. [H. John] Heinz [III, of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the

[[Page 8932]]

    gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers). . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Heinz to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers. Page 8, after 
        line 18, insert the following new subsection: (e) Section 4 of 
        the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 is amended by 
        inserting at the end thereof the following new subsections:
            ``(l)(1) The President shall transmit any rule (other than 
        any technical or clerical amendments) which amends the 
        regulation (promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) of this 
        section) with respect to end-use allocation authorized under 
        subsection (h) of this section.
            ``(2) Any such rule with respect to end-use allocation 
        shall, for purposes of subsections (m) and (n) of this section, 
        be treated as an energy action and shall take effect only if 
        such actions are not disapproved by either House of Congress as 
        provided in subsections (m) and (n) of this section.
            ``(m) Disapproval of Congress. . . .
            ``(3) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (4) of this 
        subsection, an energy action shall take effect at the end of 
        the first period of 15 calendar days of continuous session of 
        Congress after the date on which the plan is transmitted to it 
        unless, between the date of transmittal and the end of the 15-
        day period, either House passes a resolution stating in 
        substance that that House not favor the energy action. . . .
            ``(n) Disapproval Procedure.--
            ``(1) This subsection is enacted by Congress--
            ``(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
        and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such 
        they are deemed a part of the rules of each House, 
        respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure 
        to be followed in that House in the case of resolutions 
        described by paragraph (2) of this subsection; and they 
        supersede other rules only to the extent that they are 
        inconsistent therewith; and
            ``(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
        either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
        procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner and to 
        the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House. 
        . . .
            ``(4)(A) If the committee to which a resolution with 
        respect to an energy action has been referred has not reported 
        it at the end of 5 calendar days after its introduction, it is 
        in order to move either to discharge the committee from further 
        consideration of the resolution or to discharge the committee 
        from further consideration of any other resolution with respect 
        to the energy action which has been referred to the committee.
            ``(B) A motion to discharge may be made only by an 
        individual favoring the resolution, is highly privileged 
        (except that it may not be made after the committee has 
        reported a resolution with respect to the same energy action), 
        and debate thereon shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to 
        be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing 
        the resolution. An amendment to the motion is not in order, and 
        it is not in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the 
        motion is agreed to or disagreed to. . . .

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, my point of order 
    is that the amendment is not germane to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute. Further, the amendment is not germane to the 
    material of the bill. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, what the amendment purports to do is create 
    additional ma

[[Page 8933]]

    chinery with respect to the allocation section of the bill which is 
    covered in section 103 of that bill so as to provide that the 
    powers which are to be exercised in allocation, including end use 
    allocation, shall be subject to presentation to the Congress during 
    a 15-day period in which, if they are not vetoed by one or the 
    other House, such provisions may be canceled by having been denied 
    by the two Houses.
        There is nothing in the original bill or in the amendment that 
    provides for any procedure by which the matter shall be resubmitted 
    to the Congress. There is nothing in the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute that has any such procedure in it.
        The amendment offered here provides an extensive amendment of 
    the procedures of both the House and Senate with respect to the 
    manner in which this is accomplished.
        I should like to point out to the Chair that this is not a 
    small change in policy or in law but an extremely large one. What 
    it purports to do, in effect, is to change the role of the 
    Presidency and that of the Congress and to afford a special 
    procedure by which this bill reserves to the Congress the 
    administrative position, a position in which as a condition 
    subsequent to the passage of this bill this bill may require a 
    second look at the entire question and a determination on the 
    question of policy by the Congress.
        The major thrust of my point of order does not go to any 
    question of constitutionality.
        It indicates too the fact that the matter contained herein so 
    sweepingly alters the procedures of the House, and the work to 
    accommodate itself to this peculiar and unusual problem, that it is 
    far beyond the scope of any provision in the bill. It does not in a 
    minor manner change the bill, but it changes it in an extremely 
    substantial manner because it calls upon the House to make a deep 
    and complete policy determination with respect to the question of 
    allocation at a time subsequent to the passage of the bill, and 
    give that policy determination the effect of law as a condition 
    subsequent to its particular enactment. . . .
        Mr. Heinz: . . . Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas 
    contends on the one hand that my amendment is not constitutional, 
    and on the other that it is not germane to the bill.
        On the first point I would like to indicate, Mr. Chairman, that 
    there are already on the statute books two laws, the War Powers 
    Act, and the Procedure for Approving Executive Reorganizations. 
    They use the same procedure for the two items I mentioned. 
    Therefore I do not feel that the point of constitutionality can 
    stand the test.
        Second, the gentleman from Texas argues that my amendment and 
    the disapproval portion thereof is not germane to the bill. Were 
    this the case it would seem to me inconsistent, Mr. Chairman, 
    because we would not have had, as we did 2 days ago, a vote on the 
    Broyhill amendment which included the exact same procedures as 
    exist in my amendment.

        Admittedly, section 105 is not section 103 but, nonetheless, 
    both amendments were offered to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, H.R. 11882. I do not believe, therefore, Mr. Chairman, 
    that the point of order has merit.

[[Page 8934]]

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to urge one other 
    point aside from the germaneness question, and that is that the 
    amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend the Rules of 
    the House.
        Mr. Heinz: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, I just do 
    not think that the gentleman from Texas is correct. What is in this 
    amendment is simply no different from writing into the bill, which 
    we could do at any time, for any section, a provision which might 
    say ``notwithstanding anything in Section 103 or any other section, 
    the Executive Branch has to come back to the Congress for enactment 
    or approval or determination, or anything.''
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) makes a very 
    interesting and strong argument. The Chair in its ruling is 
    persuaded that the question is a narrow question. The Chair does 
    not rule on the constitutional questions raised in this argument; 
    but there are two aspects of the matter that the Chair takes into 
    consideration in its decision. One, which the Chair believes to be 
    the lesser one, is the fact that in the original bill there is a 
    similar provision which in turn was offered as an amendment to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. But the Chair relies 
    primarily on the fact that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Heinz) is in fact an amendment to section 4 
    of Public Law 93-159, the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act which, 
    in a different manner, does provide for a procedure whereby the 
    President shall make submissions to the Congress. And whereby 
    either House may disapprove of such submissions.
        Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order.

Indirectly Superseding Other Law

Sec. 35.87 To a section of a bill amending the Defense Production Act 
    providing financial assistance for synthetic fuel development to 
    meet national defense needs, an amendment providing expedited 
    review and approval of certain designated priority projects to be 
    financed by the bill, thereby indirectly affecting time periods for 
    procedural review specified in other laws, but not specifically 
    waiving provisions of substantive law which might prohibit 
    completion of such projects, was held germane as not directly 
    amending substantive environmental or energy laws within the 
    jurisdiction of other committees.

    On June 26, 1979,(14) during consideration of H.R. 3930 
(15) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Gerry E. 
Studds, of

[[Page 8935]]

Massachusetts, overruled a point of order and held the following 
amendment to be germane:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681-83, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The Defense Production Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add the 
    following new subsection and renumber the subsequent sections 
    accordingly:
        (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
    designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
    priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and criteria 
    provided in this section. . . .
        (h)(1) Any person planning or proposing a synthetic fuel or 
    feedstock facility may apply to the Secretary of Energy for an 
    order designating such facility as a priority synthetic project. . 
    . .
        (i) Not later than forty-five days after receipt of an 
    application authorized under the previous section, the Secretary 
    shall determine whether the proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock 
    facility is of sufficient national interest to be designated a 
    priority synthetic project. Upon reaching a determination the 
    Secretary shall publish his decision in the Federal Register and 
    shall notify the applicant and the agencies identified in 
    subsection (h)(3). In making such a determination the Secretary 
    shall consider--
        (1) the extent to which the facility would reduce the Nation's 
    dependence upon imported oil;
        (2) the magnitude of any adverse environmental impacts 
    associated with the facility and the existence of alternatives that 
    would have fewer adverse impacts; . . .
        (7) the extent to which the applicant is prepared to complete 
    or has already completed the significant actions which the 
    applicant in consultation with the Deputy Secretary anticipate will 
    be identified under subsection (1) as required from the applicant; 
    and
        (8) the public comments received concerning such facility. . . 
    .
        (l) Not later than thirty days after notice appears in the 
    Federal Register of an order designating a proposed synthetic fuel 
    or feedstock facility as a priority synthetic project, any Federal 
    agency with authority to grant or deny any approval or to perform 
    any action necessary to the completion of such project or any part 
    thereof, shall transmit to the Secretary of Energy and to the 
    priority energy project--
        (1) a compilation of all significant actions required by such 
    agency before a final decision or any necessary approval(s) can be 
    rendered;
        (2) a compilation of all significant actions and information 
    required of the applicant before a final decision by such agency 
    can be made;
        (3) a tentative schedule for completing actions and obtaining 
    the information listed in subsections (1) and (2) of this 
    subsection;
        (4) all necessary application forms that must be completed by 
    the priority energy project before such approval can be granted; 
    and
        (5) the amounts of funds and personnel available to such agency 
    to conduct such actions and the impact of such schedule on other 
    applications pending before such agency.
        (m)(1) Not later than sixty days after notice appears in the 
    Federal Register of an order designating a synthetic fuel or 
    feedstock facility as a priority synthetic project, the Secretary, 
    in con

[[Page 8936]]

    sultation with the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies 
    shall publish in the Federal Register a Project Decision Schedule 
    containing deadlines for all Federal actions relating to such 
    project. . . .
        (3) All deadlines in the Project Decision Schedule shall be 
    consistent with the statutory obligations of Federal agencies 
    governed by such Schedule.
        (4) Except as provided in subparagraph (3) above and in 
    subsection (p) no deadline established under this section or 
    extension granted under subparagraph (5) of the section may result 
    in the total time for agency action exceeding nine months beginning 
    from the date on which notice appears in the Federal Register of an 
    order designating the proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility 
    as a priority synthetic project.
        (5) Notwithstanding any deadline or other provision of Federal 
    law, the deadlines imposed by the Project Decision Schedule shall 
    constitute the lawful decisionmaking deadlines for reviewing 
    applications filed by the priority synthetic project. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that the amendment offered by my good friend from 
    Arizona is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, it is well settled the amendment must be germane 
    not only to the section but also to the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the bill relates to the Defense Production Act.
        Mr. Chairman, under the amendment, a lengthy process is 
    established whereunder the Secretary of Energy, who is not 
    mentioned elsewhere in the bill, is authorized to designate 
    synthetic fuel or feedstocks facilities as priority synthetic 
    projects, pursuant to lengthy criteria which are set forth at the 
    first and second pages and following.
        So, Mr. Chairman, there is a whole range of broad new 
    responsibilities imposed on the Secretary of Energy not found 
    elsewhere, either in the Defense Production Act or in the bill 
    before us, which are quite complex, very obvious, and which involve 
    a lengthy amount of work and which involve amendment either 
    directly or indirectly of a large number of Federal, State, and 
    local statutes dealing with the project and permitting the project.
        There is also an extensive procedural responsibility on both 
    the Secretary and one which is imposed on the Governor of the State 
    in which the action would occur.
        For that reason, Mr. Chairman, a Member of this body could not 
    very well anticipate as would be required by the rules of 
    germaneness that an amendment of this sweep and breadth could be 
    visited upon us. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    point of order. . . .
        I make a point of order against the amendment for the following 
    reasons: The bill before us, H.R. 3930, amends the Defense 
    Production Act of 1950 and it does so by extending the authority of 
    the act and also providing for the purchase of synthetic fuels and 
    synthetic chemical feed stock and for other purposes. An 
    examination of the other purposes reveals nothing akin to the 
    amendment before us. The amendment before us in effect seeks to 
    apply the National Environmental and Policy Act

[[Page 8937]]

    of 1969, specifically on page 5 in subparagraph (d) to the 
    facilities that would contract with the Government.
        It appears to me that by attempting to do this, this is beyond 
    the scope of the jurisdiction of this committee. It is within the 
    scope of other committees' jurisdictions and certainly beyond the 
    scope of the bill, which simply deals with contracts and purchases 
    and not the environmental qualities or activities of the people who 
    seek to contract with the Government.
        Therefore, the amendment is not germane and beyond the scope of 
    the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . The pending bill 
    creates authority to finance directly and indirectly synthetic fuel 
    and chemical feed stocks, feedstock projects. . . .
        What my amendment does is not to change any of the existing 
    laws. It does not change any environmental protection laws or 
    anything else, but it says we are going to have decisions. Within 
    nine months after this is put on the fast track, we are going to 
    get a yes or no decision on it. . . .
        This amendment simply supplements the existing statutory 
    procedures to achieve expedited approval or disapproval of various 
    authorities necessary for the completion of synfuel projects 
    created under the authority of the legislation; so the subject 
    matter of the amendment is germane to the subject of the pending 
    legislation. The point of order ought to be rejected, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.

        The bill before the committee bestows authority for loan 
    guarantees to finance synthetic fuel or feedstock facility 
    construction. The amendment of the gentleman from Arizona 
    establishes a complex mechanism for expediting procedures for 
    projects financed by loan guarantees under the bill.
        The Chair is unable in response to the gentleman from Maryland 
    to find any respect in which the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Arizona would amend the National Environmental Protection Act, but 
    merely provides that determinations made as to priority of 
    synthetic projects eligible for expeditious review shall not be 
    considered major Federal actions under that law.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the totality of the Udall 
    amendment constitutes essentially an expediting of procedures under 
    authorities provided for in the bill and is, therefore, germane.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Specific Project Deemed To Satisfy Requirements of Law Being Amended

Sec. 35.88 To a bill amending an existing law (the Endangered Species 
    Act) which had been interpreted to prohibit completion of certain 
    federally funded construction projects where species of wildlife 
    would be adversely affected, an amendment providing that a specific 
    federal project permit be deemed to satisfy the requirements of 
    that law was held germane as not spe

[[Page 8938]]

    cifically broadening authorities of federal agencies not 
    administering that law.

    On Oct. 14, 1978,(16) during consideration of H.R. 14014 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order 
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 38143, 38144, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roncalio: On page 32, after line 
        21, add new section (No. 12) as follows:
            ``The Department of the Army Permit to Basin Electric Power 
        Cooperative for the Missouri Basin Power Project, issued on 
        March 23, 1978, as amended October 10, 1978, is hereby deemed 
        to satisfy the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (16 
        U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). . . .

        Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. The amendment is not germane 
    to the section of the bill to which it is offered, and in addition 
    it imposes duties upon the Secretary of Commerce that are nowhere 
    else mentioned in the bill.
        Mr. [Mark] Andrews of North Dakota: . . . If a project of this 
    type is stopped because of an interpretation of an act of the 
    Congress, how then can the rules of the Congress prohibit the same 
    Congress from amending the action so that it does not affect a 
    certain type of project? This is basically what the argument is all 
    about. And to tie up projects which would prevent the homeowners 
    from getting their electricity at a sensible cost because of the 
    interpretation of the law--if it cannot be fixed in this body where 
    can it be fixed? . . .
        Mr. [Frank E.] Evans of Colorado: . . . I think the amendment 
    now pending offered by the gentleman from Wyoming is clearly in 
    order. The simple thing this amendment does is declare a 
    legislative funding of fact relative to the Endangered Species Act. 
    Thus it is clearly germane.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair is ready to rule. This 
    occupant of the Chair had, as indicated, to make a rather rapid 
    analysis of the previous amendment, not having been aware of the 
    questions at issue. The present amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Wyoming would appear, based on the information that the Chair 
    has available and on the precedents available to him including the 
    precedent cited by the gentleman from Wyoming, to be germane and 
    completely in the proper form, and therefore overrules the point of 
    order in connection with the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Procedures: Content of Committee Reports--Amendment To Require 
    Statements as to Effect of Appropriations on Existing Law

Sec. 35.89 To an amendment in the nature of a substitute amending Rules 
    X and XI and making conforming and miscellaneous changes in other 
    rules to reorganize House committees, and including requirements as 
    to content and filing of com

[[Page 8939]]

    mittee reports, an amendment to Rule XXI (which relates to 
    appropriation bills and reports) to require the committee report 
    accompanying any bill containing an appropriation to state the 
    direct or indirect changes in law made by the bill and to prohibit 
    such report from containing any directive or limitation affecting 
    the appropriation that was not also contained in the bill was held 
    germane, since the issue of the content of committee reports was 
    within the purview of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

    The proceedings of Oct. 8, 1974, relating to House Resolution 988, 
to reform the structure, jurisdiction and procedures of House 
committees, are discussed in Sec. 3.37, supra.

House Procedures: Committee Stage of Legislative Process--Amendment 
    Relating to Voting Procedures in Committee of Whole

Sec. 35.90 To a proposition reorganizing House committees and dealing 
    with the committee stage of the legislative process, amended to 
    delete reference to consideration of legislation in Committee of 
    the Whole, an amendment relating to voting procedures in the 
    Committee of the Whole was held to be not germane.

    On Oct. 8, 1974,(18) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration House Resolution 988, to reform the structure, 
jurisdiction and procedures of House committees. Pending was an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute amending Rules X and XI and 
making conforming changes in other rules to reform the structure, 
jurisdiction and procedures of committees, and containing miscellaneous 
provisions reorganizing certain institutional facilities of the House. 
The amendment had been perfected by amendment to eliminate a revision 
of Rule XVI which had proposed changes in Committee of the Whole 
procedure. Pursuant to a point of order, the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute was held not to be sufficiently broad in scope to admit as 
germane an amendment to Rule VIII to permit pairs on recorded votes in 
Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 120 Cong. Rec. 34415, 34416, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[[Page 8940]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bingham to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Hansen of Washington: On 
        page 53, after line 2, insert the following:

                       ``pairs in committee of the whole

            ``Sec. 209. The first sentence of clause 2 of rule VIII of 
        the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
        inserting `by the House or Committee of the Whole' immediately 
        before the first comma.''. . .

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment for the reason that it is an amendment to 
    rule VIII, whereas the principal resolution under consideration 
    here, House Resolution 988, attempts to amend rules X and XI only. 
    Therefore, the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Bingham: . . . This would amend title II of the resolution, 
    which is headed, ``Miscellaneous and Conforming Provisions.'' That 
    title of the resolution is not limited to changes in rules X and 
    XI. It affects other rules, section 207, for example, amendment to 
    rule XVI, and under the heading of ``Miscellaneous and Conforming 
    Provisions,'' it would seem to me that a simple amendment to rule 
    VIII would clearly be in order.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On hearing the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) and the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham), the Chair is of the opinion 
    that there is nothing in the Hansen amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as perfected, relating to voting procedures in the 
    Committee of the Whole. The miscellaneous provisions in the Hansen 
    amendment, as perfected by the Waggonner amendment, do not broaden 
    the Hansen amendment to the extent suggested by the gentleman from 
    New York.
        Therefore, the point of order must be sustained, and the point 
    of order is sustained.

Proposal To Amend House Rules With Regard to Open Hearings--Amendment 
    Affecting Investigative Funds for Minority Staff

Sec. 35.91 To a proposition amending existing law in several 
    particulars but only with regard to a single subject affected 
    thereby, an amendment proposing to modify the law in a manner not 
    related to the subject of the pending proposition is not germane; 
    this principle was applied during consideration of a resolution 
    amending clauses 26 and 27 of Rule XI to require House committee 
    and subcommittee meetings and hearings to be open to the public 
    except where the committee determined by open rollcall vote that 
    the remainder of that meeting or hearing be closed, where an 
    amendment to clause 32(c) of that rule to

[[Page 8941]]

    provide that one-third of each standing committee's investigative 
    funds be available for minority staff was held to be not germane.

    On Mar. 7, 1973,(20) during consideration of a 
resolution amending several clauses of a rule of the House but confined 
in its scope to the issue of access to committee meetings and hearings, 
an amendment to another clause of that rule relating to committee 
staffing was held to be not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 6714, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of Illinois: On page 2, 
        line 24, add a new section 4, to read as follows:
            Clause 32(c) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended to read as follows:
            ``(c) The minority party on any such standing committee is 
        entitled, upon request of a majority of such minority, to up to 
        one-third of the funds provided for the appointment of 
        committee staff pursuant to each primary or additional expense 
        resolution. The committee shall appoint any persons so selected 
        whose character and qualifications are acceptable to a majority 
        of the committee. If the committee determines that the 
        character and qualifications of any person so selected are 
        unacceptable to the committee, a majority of the minority party 
        members may select other persons for appointment by the 
        committee to the staff until such appointment is made. Each 
        staff member appointed under this subparagraph shall be 
        assigned to such committee business as the minority party 
        members of the committee consider advisable.''. . .

        Mr. [John J.] McFall [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the matter that we are considering. The matter that we 
    are considering has to do with access to committee meetings, and 
    the amendment has to do with staff make-ups, and they are entirely 
    two different subject matters. . . .
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, House Resolution 259, 
    the resolution we are considering today amends two clauses in rule 
    XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. I am proposing 
    another amendment to rule XI namely the provision dealing with 
    minority staffing of committees.
        I contend this amendment is germane and in order. Having only 
    Cannon's Procedure of the 87th Congress available to me, I quote 
    from page 201 of that volume dealing with germaneness:

            But where the bill proposes to amend existing law in 
        several particulars, no arbitrary rule can be laid down either 
        admitting or excluding further amendments to the law not 
        proposed in the pending bill, but the question of the 
        germaneness of such additional amendments must be determined in 
        each instance on the merits of the case presented (VIII, 2938).

        This ruling was made by Chairman Sydney Anderson of Minnesota 
    on June 10, 1921. I quote from volume VIII of the Precedents:

[[Page 8942]]

            The Chair does not think that the general rule can be laid 
        down that where several portions of a law are amended by a bill 
        reported by a committee, it is not in any case in order to 
        amend another section of the bill not included in the bill 
        reported by the committee, nor does the Chair think that the 
        opposite rule can be laid down and rigidly applied in every 
        instance. The Chair thinks that a question of this kind must be 
        determined in every instance in the light of the facts which 
        are presented in the case. In the particular case under 
        consideration it appears that the committee has reported a bill 
        which amends several sections of Title IV of the bill in 
        various particulars. The Chair does not feel that he can hold 
        that no amendment to a section not dealt with by the committee 
        is not in order.

        Mr. Chairman, I feel my amendment would clearly be in order.
        Mr. Chairman, the substitute rule would not make it possible 
    for any other amendments to be made to rule XI.
        It seems to me this further argues in favor of the germaneness 
    of this particular amendment. I ask that the point of order be 
    overruled.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Joe D. Waggoner, Jr. (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        House Resolution 259, while it technically amends two different 
    clauses of rule XI, relates solely to the single subject of public 
    access to House committee meetings and hearings. Thus, amendments 
    to other portions of rule XI pertaining to committee jurisdiction 
    such as staffing, and procedures other than access to hearings and 
    meetings would not be germane.
        Under the precedents, the fact that a bill amends several 
    sections of a law does not necessarily open the whole law to 
    amendment. The purpose and scope of the bill must be considered. In 
    the 89th Congress, the Committee of the Whole had under 
    consideration a bill amending the National Labor Relations Act to 
    repeal section 14(b) of that law. On that occasion, in several 
    rulings by Chairman O'Brien of New York, the principal was 
    reiterated that where a bill is amendatory of existing law in 
    several particulars, but relates to a single subject affected 
    thereby, amendments proposing to modify the law but not related to 
    the bill are not germane (July 28, 1965, Rec. p. 18631-18645).
        For this reason, the Chair holds that the amendment is not 
    germane and sustains the point of order.

Law Amended in Two Respects--Amendment To Add Postal Service Property 
    to Definition of Federal Property in Assessing ``Impact''

Sec. 35.92 To a title of a bill amending an existing law in two diverse 
    respects, an amendment further amending one section of the law 
    being amended by the bill may be germane; thus, an amendment 
    expanding the definition of federal property to include United 
    States Postal Service property under an educational assistance 
    program subsidizing school districts where there is a federal 
    ``impact'', was

[[Page 8943]]

    held germane (but was ruled out as in violation of Rule XXI, clause 
    5, since permitting a new use of funds already appropriated).

    During consideration of H.R. 12835 (2) in the Committee 
of the Whole on May 11, 1976,(3) the Chair sustained a point 
of order against an amendment, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The Vocational Education Act amendments.
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 13409-11, 13417, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

             TITLE III--TECHNICAL AID AND MISCELLANEOUS EDUCATION 
             AMENDMENTS; REPEALERS, EXTENSIONS, AND EFFECTIVE DATES

                              Technical Amendments

            Sec. 301. (a) The Education Amendments of 1974 is amended
        . . .
            (n) Section 403(17) of the Act of September 30, 1950 
        (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), is amended by striking 
        out ``(but not including'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``; 
        but at the option of a local educational agency, such term need 
        not include''; and such section is further amended by striking 
        out ``residing in nonproject areas)'' and inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``residing in noproject areas''. . . .
            (e)(1) Section 5(c)(1) of the Act of September 30, 1950 
        (Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress), as amended by the 
        Education Amendments of 1974, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) He shall first allocate to each local educational 
        agency which is entitled to a payment under section 2 an amount 
        equal to 100 per centum of the amount to which it is entitled 
        as computed under that section for such fiscal year and he 
        shall further allocate to each local educational agency which 
        is entitled to a payment under section 3 an amount equal to 25 
        per centum of the amount to which it is entitled as computed 
        under section 3(d) for such fiscal year.''.
            (2) Section 5(c)(2) of such Act, as so amended, is amended 
        (A) by striking out ``; and'' at the end of clause (F) and 
        substituting a period, and (B) by striking out clause (G). . . 
        .

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan: Page 190, 
        immediately after line 3, insert the following:
            (g) The fourth sentence of section 403(1) (20 U.S.C. 
        244(1)) of the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st 
        Congress), is amended by inserting immediately before the 
        period at the end thereof the following: ``, except that such 
        term shall include all real property owned by the United States 
        Postal Service which is not subject to any State or local real 
        property tax'' used for the support of education. . . .

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Ford) on the grounds that it is not germane to the 
    bill under consideration.
        The gentleman's amendment seeks to amend the definitions title 
    of impact aid, Public Law 874 of the 81st Congress. The bill before 
    us contains only two technical amendments to impact aid. The 
    amendment offered by the

[[Page 8944]]

    gentleman from Michigan seeks to make a major change in the impact 
    aid law by substantially increasing payments under the program. The 
    gentleman seeks to include his amendment in title III, which 
    relates to technical and miscellaneous amendments. Clearly, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman is not technical and is 
    substantial in nature.
        It is my view that the amendment is in violation of clause 7 of 
    rule XVI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. I cite as 
    precedent for my position the ruling of the Chair on November 29, 
    1971, when the Chair ruled that an amendment to regulate a broad 
    scope of activities is not germane to a proposition imposing 
    restrictions within a limited area of activities.
        I would also cite as a precedent the ruling of the Chair on 
    April 28, 1971, to the effect that an amendment proposing changes 
    in another section of a law is not germane to a bill amending one 
    section of existing law to accomplish a particular purpose. . . .
        The amendment is also in violation of clause 5 of rule XXI, 
    relating to appropriations since the amendment is effective 
    immediately and thereby affects already appropriated funds. . . .
        The Chairman: (4) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In connection with the point of order the gentleman from 
    Minnesota makes regarding the question of germaneness, the Chair 
    has examined the amendment and the legislation to which the 
    amendment is offered. Upon an examination of title III, which is a 
    very diverse title and is open to amendment at any point, that 
    title actually amends Public Law 81-874 in two diverse respects, as 
    indicated on pages 214 to 217 of the Ramseyer rule in the committee 
    report, section 403 of that act is amended in the bill on page 186. 
    This amendment would make a further change in that section of the 
    law.
        Therefore, on the basis of germaneness, it is the opinion of 
    the Chair that the amendment is germane; however, with respect to 
    the point of order that the amendment violates clause 5, rule XXI, 
    it appears to the Chair, recalling the debate on the rule of 
    yesterday where points of order were waived against the committee 
    amendment, that there are in existence appropriated funds for 
    impact aid purposes which this amendment would permit to be used 
    for a new category of recipients. Since the amendment permits a new 
    use of funds already appropriated, the Chair would have to hold 
    that that amendment is a violation of clause 5, rule XXI and, 
    therefore, would sustain that portion of the point of order.
        Now, the Chair would state, of course, that we are dealing here 
    with a point of order dealing exclusively with the reuse of funds 
    already appropriated.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order in connection 
    with clause 5 of rule XXI.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the bill was primarily a vocational 
Education Act amendment and extension, title III amended miscellaneous 
education laws, including diverse laws on elementary and secondary 
education, and thus greatly broadened the scope of the bill.

[[Page 8945]]

Postal Reorganization Act Amended in Diverse Respects--Amendment to 
    Another Subsection of Act

Sec. 35.93 A proposition amending the Postal Reorganization Act in 
    several diverse respects, considered as read and open to amendment 
    at any point by unanimous consent, was considered sufficiently 
    comprehensive in scope to admit as germane an amendment to another 
    subsection of that Act to render the entire Postal Service 
    operation subject to the annual appropriation process, although the 
    section of the proposition to which offered contained an annual 
    authorization only for a limited (public service) aspect of the 
    Postal Service operation.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(5) it was demonstrated that the test 
of the germaneness of an amendment is its relationship to the pending 
portion of a bill to which offered, and where a bill is by unanimous 
consent considered as read and open to amendment at any point, the 
germaneness of an amendment thereto is determined by its relationship 
to the entire bill rather than to the particular section to which 
offered. The proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 30761, 30764, 30767, 30768, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk 
    will now read the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    printed in the reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Postal Reorganization Act Amendments 
        of 1975''.
            Sec. 2. Section 2401(b) of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``(b)(1) There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, and 
        for each of the fiscal years ending September 30, 1977, 1978, 
        and 1979, an amount equal to $35 multiplied by the number of 
        delivery addresses estimated by the Postal Service to be served 
        during the fiscal year involved. There is authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Postal Service for the period commencing 
        July 1, 1976, and ending September 30, 1976, an amount equal to 
        one-fourth the amount authorized under this subsection for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1976. . . .

        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute be considered as read, printed in the 
    Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?

[[Page 8946]]

        There was no objection. . . .

        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Alexander: Page 12, strike out 
        line 20 and all that follows through page 13, line 6, and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 2. (a)(1) Section 2401(a) of title 39, United States 
        Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(a)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, such 
        sums as may be necessary to enable the Postal Service to carry 
        out the purposes, functions, and powers authorized by this 
        title. . . .
            (b) Section 2401(b) of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended to read as follows:
            ``(b)(1) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Postal Service such sums as may be necessary as reimbursement 
        to the Postal Service for public service costs incurred by it 
        in providing a maximum degree of effective and regular postal 
        service nationwide, in communities where post offices may not 
        be deemed self-sustaining, as elsewhere.''. . .

        Mr. Hanley: Mr. Chairman, I raise [a] point of order on the 
    grounds that the matter contained in the amendment is in violation 
    of clause 7, rule XVI of the rules of the House, which provides in 
    part that--

            No motion or proposition on a subject different from that 
        under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

        The bill under consideration, H.R. 8603, is narrow in scope 
    since it relates only to the following specific subject matters.
        First, it provides authorization for increased public service 
    appropriations by changing the statutory formula currently in 
    existence.
        Second, it would limit the amount of the next temporary rate 
    increase and would establish new procedures and limitations for the 
    implementation of other future temporary postal rates.
        Third, it would amend the law with respect to the Postal Rate 
    Commission by changing its procedures to expedite rate and 
    classification cases; by subjecting the Commissioners to Senate 
    confirmation; and by expanding the powers of the Chairman in 
    administering the Commission. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) has made a point of 
    order to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander) to section 2 of the bill. The gentleman's point of order 
    relates, in the Chair's judgment, primarily to the germaneness 
    based upon the scope of the gentleman's amendment and as it relates 
    to the scope of the bill, which bill is open to amendment at any 
    point.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander) actually amends section 2(a) of the bill, although 
    section 2(a) of the Postal Act is not amended in the bill before 
    the Committee here this afternoon.
        The Chair notes, however, as conceded by the chairman of the 
    subcommittee, there are several enumerated purposes which touch 
    upon many different ramifications and aspects of the postal law. 
    These purposes are diverse in nature.
        Since all of the bill is before the Committee at this point, 
    the Chair re

[[Page 8947]]

    luctantly comes to the conclusion that the position of the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) in his point of order is not 
    well founded and, therefore, the Chair must overrule the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from New York.

Bill Affecting Salaries and Number of Grades in Postal Field Service--
    Amendment Relating to Annual and Sick Leave

Sec. 35.94 To a bill relating to the number of grades and positions in 
    the postal field service and providing salary increases for 
    personnel in such service, an amendment relating to annual and sick 
    leave of such personnel was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
which sought to amend the act of July 6, 1945, as amended, so as to 
reduce the number of grades for the various positions under such act. 
The following amendment was offered to the bill: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 244 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
 8. 97 Cong. Rec. 11773, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 20, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Victor L.] Anfuso [of New York]:
        Page 10, after line 10, insert the following:

            Sec. 4. (a) So much of section 6 of the act entitled 'An 
        act to reclassify the salaries of postmasters, officers, and 
        employees of the postal service . . . '' approved July 6, 1945, 
        as amended, as precedes the second paragraph thereof is hereby 
        amended to read as follows:

                            ``Annual and Sick Leave

            ``Sec. 6. Postmasters, officers, and employees shall be 
        granted 26 days' leave of absence with pay . . . each fiscal 
        year and sick leave with pay at the rate of 15 days a year. . . 
        .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
    York is not germane to the pending bill. It does not pertain to any 
    provision of the bill now under consideration which relates only to 
    salary and to reassignment of the first three grades of Public Law 
    134.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Clinton D. McKinnon (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the Chair stated before, this bill provides for the number 
    of grades and positions in the postal field service and also 
    provides salary increases for personnel in such service.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York deals 
    neither with the number of grades or positions in the postal 
    service nor with salary increases as such. It concerns an entirely 
    different matter, namely, annual and sick leave.

[[Page 8948]]

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Rights of Executive Branch Employees--Amendment Affecting Legislative 
    Branch Employees

Sec. 35.95 Unless a bill so extensively amends existing law as to open 
    up the entire law to amendment, the germaneness of an amendment to 
    the bill depends upon its relationship to the subject of the bill 
    and not to the entire law being amended; thus, to a bill amending a 
    section of title 5, United States Code, granting certain rights to 
    employees of executive agencies of the federal government, an 
    amendment extending those rights to legislative branch employees, 
    as defined in a different section of that title, was held to be 
    beyond the scope of the bill and was ruled out as not germane.

    On Oct. 28, 1975,(10) during consideration of a bill 
(11) dealing with the right to representation for federal 
executive employees during questioning, the Chair, in ruling that the 
amendment described above was not germane to that bill, reiterated the 
principle that one individual proposition is not germane to another 
individual proposition, even though the two belong to the same class:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 34031, 34036, 34037, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. H.R. 6227.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
        chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
        at the end thereof the following new subchapter:

                       ``SUBCHAPTER III--EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
        ``Sec. 7171. Right to representation during questioning

            ``(a) Any employee of an Executive agency under 
        investigation for misconduct which could lead to suspension, 
        removal, or reduction in rank or pay of such employee shall not 
        be required to answer questions relating to the misconduct 
        under investigation unless--
            ``(1) the employee is advised in writing of--
            ``(A) the fact that such employee is under investigation 
        for misconduct,
            ``(B) the specific nature of such alleged misconduct, and
            ``(C) the rights such employee has under paragraph (2) of 
        this subsection, and
            ``(2) the employee has been provided reasonable time, not 
        to exceed 5 working days, to obtain a representative of his 
        choice, and is allowed to have such representative present 
        during such questioning, if he so elects. . . .

        Mr. [Robin L.] Beard of Tennessee: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Beard of Tennessee: on page 1, 
        line 8 insert

[[Page 8949]]

        immediately following the word ``agency'' the following: ``, or 
        any employee as defined under section 2107 of this Title.''.

        Mr. Charles H. Wilson of California: Madam Chairman, I have a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Madam Chairman, under rule XVI, clause 7, of the Rules of the 
    House, any amendment to a bill concerning a subject different from 
    those contained in the bill is not germane and is subject to a 
    point of order. The instant amendment proposes to make the bill 
    applicable to a completely new class of employees other than what 
    is covered under the bill, namely, congressional employees. 
    However, the reported bill applies only to employees of executive 
    agencies as defined under section 105.
        In my opinion, the subject of the amendment is not similar to 
    any of the subject matters involved in H.R. 6227 which I have just 
    outlined and is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Beard of Tennessee: . . . Madam Chairman, I feel the 
    amendment is germane to this particular bill inasmuch as the people 
    we are including in this bill are Federal employees and those 
    concerning whom we are legislating today are Federal employees. . . 
    .
        Madam Chairman, if I may be heard further on the point of 
    order, all this does is to remove an exemption rather than add a 
    group of employees. It is just removing an exemption, and I believe 
    that is the fair thing to do.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill before us is very explicit as to its scope. It 
    includes any employee of an executive agency. The bill itself, by 
    its own terms, affects the class of civil servants known as 
    executive agency employees.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
    Beard) would seek to amend the bill by adding a totally different 
    individual class of employees to the bill beyond the scope of the 
    bill, namely, congressional employees as defined in section 2107.
        The rule of germaneness, in terms of amendments of this kind, 
    states as follows: One individual proposition may not be amended by 
    another individual proposition, even though the two belong to the 
    same class.
        In light of that principle and in light of the scope of this 
    bill, the Chair rules that this amendment is not germane and is, 
    therefore, out of order. . . .
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Madam Chairman, 
    respecting the chairperson's ruling, in regard to title V to which 
    this bill addresses itself, an amendment to title V includes all 
    employees, including the President, Members of Congress, and 
    members of the uniformed services, even though this bill has 
    application, as the gentlewoman has said, only to Federal 
    employees. Therefore, this title V does apply to all Federal 
    employees. . . .
        The Chairman: To the gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) 
    the Chair would only state that the germaneness of the amendment 
    must be weighed against the content and scope of the bill and not 
    title V of the United States Code, as the gentleman would interpret 
    it.

[[Page 8950]]

Census and Apportionment: Amendment To Modify Law in Manner Not Related 
    to Bill

Sec. 35.96 To a bill proposing to amend an act in several particulars 
    an amendment proposing to modify the act but not related to the 
    bill is not germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration proposing to amend an act relating to the decennial 
census and the apportionment of Representatives in Congress. The 
following proceedings took place on Apr. 11, 1940: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. S. 2505 (Committee on the Census).
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 4382, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) . . . The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Marvin Jones (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            That an act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent 
        decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of 
        Representatives in Congress, approved June 18, 1929, is hereby 
        amended in the first sentence of section 22(a) by striking out 
        the words ``second regular session of the Seventy-first 
        Congress'' and substituting the following words: ``first 
        regular session of the Seventy-seventh Congress'', and by 
        striking out ``fifteenth'' and inserting ``sixteenth.''

        Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer the 
    following amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            The said act is further amended in the first sentence of 
        section 22(a) by striking out the words, ``the then existing 
        number of Representatives'' and substituting the following 
        words, ``300 Representatives.''

        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order against the amendment that it is not 
    germane. . . .

    In ruling on the point of order, the Chairman, stated: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 4383, 4384, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There is no question that the amendment would have been germane 
    to the act of 1929. The precedents, however, seem to be very 
    definite on the proposition that when a bill proposes to amend an 
    act in several particulars an amendment proposing to modify the act 
    but not related to the bill is not germane. . . .
        The pending section of the bill does not in any way affect the 
    total number of Members of the House but only proposes to change 
    the time when the statement of the President must be transmitted to 
    Congress. The Chair is of the opinion therefore that the amendment 
    is not germane and sustains the point of order.

District of Columbia: Bill Conferring Broad Powers on New Community 
    Development and Finance Corporation--Amendment Limiting Authority 
    of District of Columbia Council Over Parking

Sec. 35.97 To a bill conferring broad powers on a new Com

[[Page 8951]]

    munity Development and Finance Corporation for the District of 
    Columbia and narrowly affecting the powers of the District of 
    Columbia Council to the extent that it would only be preempted from 
    interfering with congressional approval authority over projects 
    proposed by the Corporation, an amendment limiting the authority of 
    the Council (and not the Corporation) over all parking in the 
    District of Columbia and not confined to the Corporation's 
    authority over parking and the Council's relation thereto was held 
    to go beyond the scope of the bill and was held to be not germane.

    On Oct. 10, 1974,(17) during consideration of H.R. 15888 
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order in 
the circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 35216-19, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman:(18) The Clerk will report the 
    committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sidney R. Yates (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments: On page 2, in the table of contents, 
        insert ``Sec. 309. Audits.'' immediately following ``Sec. 308. 
        Annual report.''. . .

                            ``powers of the council

            ``Sec. 313. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, or 
        any rule of law, nothing in this Act shall be construed as 
        limiting the authority of the District of Columbia Council to 
        enact any act, resolution, or regulation, after January 2, 
        1975, pursuant to the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
        Governmental Reorganization Act with respect to any matter 
        covered by this Act.''

        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendments.
        The committee amendments were agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Walter E.] Fauntroy [Delegate from the District of 
    Columbia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a series of amendments and ask 
    unanimous consent that they may be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the Delegate 
    from the District of Columbia?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Fauntroy: Page 33, after line 21, 
        insert the following:

                     reservation of congressional authority

            Sec. 303. (a) The corporation shall not undertake any 
        project unless such project, including a cost estimate, has 
        been submitted by the corporation to, and has been approved by, 
        the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
        Representatives and the Senate.
            (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as amending or 
        modifying the financing, appropriation, or budget process of 
        the government of the District of Columbia, as established in 
        parts D and E of title IV,

[[Page 8952]]

        and section 603 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
        Governmental Reorganization Act.
            Page 41, immediately after line 26, insert the following:
            (b) Notwithstanding any provision of the District of 
        Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, 
        the District of Columbia Council shall have no authority to 
        modify or amend the provisions of section 303 of this Act. . . 
        .

        The amendments were agreed to.
        Mr. [Stanford E.] Parris [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments and ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Virginia?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Parris: Page 41, at the end of 
        section 313, insert the following:
            ``(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
        District of Columbia Council (established under Reorganization 
        Plan Numbered 3 of 1967) and, after January 2, 1975, the 
        Council of the District of Columbia established under the 
        District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
        Reorganization Act, shall have no authority to adopt any rule 
        or regulation with respect to the utilization of parking 
        facilities (including on-street and off-street parking) within 
        the District of Columbia which is more restrictive upon 
        nonresidents of the District of Columbia than residents of the 
        District of Columbia. Notwithstanding any provision of the 
        District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
        Reorganization Act, the Council of the District of Columbia 
        shall have no authority to modify or amend the provisions of 
        this subsection.''

        Mr. [Charles C.] Diggs [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is 
    nongermane. The purpose of H.R. 15888 is to accomplish several 
    specific goals, including the development of low- and moderate-
    income housing, increase employment opportunities for District 
    residents, and the development of substandard and blighted 
    residential, commercial, and industrial areas in our National 
    Capital in time for our Nation's Bicentennial. Clearly, the powers 
    conferred on the proposed Corporation are specifically subject to 
    the limited and circumscribed purpose in the provisions of the 
    bill. Accordingly, we must read the powers of the bill contained in 
    section 201 in the context of the purposes and findings contained 
    in section 102. Nowhere do we find a statement that the Corporation 
    may engage in establishing parking facilities or the regulation 
    thereof. To argue that the powers are so broad as to allow an 
    amendment which purpose is to restrict the overall powers of the 
    Council is, in my view, outside of the purposes of H.R. 15888 and 
    therefore nongermane. . . .
        Any amendment which seeks to deal with Council authority over 
    parking in areas under the control of the United States or the 
    District of Columbia government, which would include the streets of 
    the District, clearly goes beyond the limited powers granted the 
    Corporation under this act. Accordingly, it would be nongermane. . 
    . .
        Mr. Parris: . . . Section 313 of H.R. 15888, as amended by my 
    colleague, Mr. Fauntroy, providing for a subsection b to section 
    313, directly and expressly limits and thereby amends the District 
    of Columbia Self-Govern

[[Page 8953]]

    ment and Governmental Reorganization Act, as it relates to 
    provisions of H.R. 15888.
        My amendment does no more and goes no further than does the 
    amendment submitted by Mr. Fauntroy.
        With respect to the developmental powers that may be exercised 
    by the District of Columbia Community Development and Finance 
    Corporation and according to the provisions of the act and as 
    stated in the report on page 7, that corporation which is an 
    instrumentality of the District government may:

            18. Construct, manage or operate public facilities for the 
        District government or any other public body, at its request.

        As I read this and as any responsible man would read this, the 
    District government, if it wishes, could by enactment or regulation 
    permit this instrumentality of the District of Columbia, the 
    District of Columbia Development and Finance Corporation, to manage 
    and operate parking facilities in the District of Columbia, be they 
    on public property such as those where meters now exist or other 
    public property in residential areas where a ban on nonresidential 
    parking could be imposed.
        Item 17 on page 7 of the report indicated that the corporation 
    may:

            Manage its own property, or to enter into agreement with 
        the District of Columbia government or a private entity for the 
        management of property.

        Here again, this would certainly permit this corporation to 
    engage in the management of on-street parking in the District of 
    Columbia in either commercial or residential areas at the direction 
    and discretion of the District of Columbia government and this 
    corporation which is its instrumentality. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I submit that title II of H.R. 15888 is so broad 
    and so general that it permits this corporation, which it 
    establishes, to perform nearly any function that the District of 
    Columbia government itself could perform, because by and large such 
    powers and authority could be delegated to it if, in fact, title II 
    of the bill does not directly and expressly give those powers to 
    that corporation. . . .

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia directly 
    limits the powers of the present District of Columbia Council, and 
    of the Council to be established under the Home Rule Act, to 
    regulate all parking facilities within the District of Columbia. 
    The bill H.R. 15888, which the gentleman's amendment seeks to 
    amend, establishes a Community Development and Finance Corporation 
    and gives such corporation certain powers. It does not appear to 
    the Chair that the scope of the bill extends to regulation, either 
    by the Corporation or by the City Council, of all parking within 
    the District of Columbia.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia does not 
    even mention the powers of the Corporation which is the primary 
    subject of H.R. 15888, but limits instead the powers of the City 
    Council. While a narrowly drawn amendment limiting the power of the 
    Corporation to institute parking

[[Page 8954]]

    regulations over lands within its jurisdiction might be germane, 
    the issue of the overall powers of the District of Columbia 
    Council, as to all areas of regulation, is not comprehended in the 
    bill.
        The gentleman from Virginia has argued that the amendment 
    already incorporated into the bill is similar to his amendment, and 
    that his amendment no more limits the powers of the Council or 
    amends the Home Rule Act than does the adopted amendment. The new 
    section 303, added by amendment of the gentleman from the District 
    of Columbia, only limits the powers of the Council as to the 
    requirement that projects which the Corporation is authorized to 
    undertake be submitted for approval to congressional committees. 
    The new section 303 directly relates to the financing of projects 
    authorized in the bill, and the section further states that the 
    Council may not change the requirement of submission for 
    congressional approval. It does not appear to the Chair that that 
    provision in any way amends the powers of the Council under the 
    Home Rule Act or that it touches on any subject not in the bill 
    H.R. 15888.
        Section 313, added by committee amendment to specify that the 
    bill does not preempt the legislative authority conferred on the 
    City Council under the Home Rule Act, does not bring the subject of 
    the general powers of the City Council under the Home Rule Act 
    within the purview of the bill, except to the extent that the 
    Council may or may not control the activities of the Corporation.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Restrictions on Funds for Legal Services Corporation--Amendment Making 
    Criminal and Civil Laws Applicable to Corporation

Sec. 35.98 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill 
    subjecting funds for the Legal Services Corporation to a 
    comprehensive series of restrictions on its activities for that 
    fiscal year and reconstituting its board of directors, a proposed 
    amendment also applying to that corporation ``with respect to the 
    use of funds in the bill'' certain substantive provisions of 
    Federal criminal and civil law not otherwise applicable to it was 
    held not germane.

    The proceedings of Oct. 26, 1989, relating to the conference report 
on H.R. 2991, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990, are discussed 
in Sec. 34.37, supra.

Laws Governing Handguns Made Applicable to Rifles--Amendment Requiring 
    Firearm Registration

Sec. 35.99 To a bill which sought, as part of a comprehensive scheme 
    for the regulation of

[[Page 8955]]

    transfers of firearms, to extend the provisions of existing law 
    governing handguns to transactions involving rifles and shotguns 
    and to specify regulations for the identification of firearms by 
    importers and manufacturers, an amendment requiring registration of 
    firearms by the purchasers thereof was held to be an extension of 
    matter already carried in the bill and therefore germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the State Firearms 
Control Assistance Act of 1968,(19) an amendment was offered 
which stated in part: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 17735 (Committee on the Judiciary).
20. See 114 Cong. Rec. 22248, 22249, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 
        1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: . . . 
    On page 32, after line 11, insert the following:

                     Chapter 44a--Registration of Handguns
        Sec.
        931. Definitions
        932. Registration . . .

            Sec. 932. Registration.--(a) It is unlawful for a person 
        knowingly to possess a firearm not registered in accordance 
        with the provisions of this section. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 22249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    fundamental purpose of the amendment must be germane to the bill. 
    Here the amendment goes far beyond the purposes of the bill and 
    imposes a whole new series of responsibilities on the Secretary, 
    including registration of firearms. . . .
        I submit, in conclusion, the [amendment] offered by my friend 
    goes far beyond the matter before the House, compels entirely new 
    duties and responsibilities, adds entirely new classes of persons, 
    creates entirely new regulatory problems, and, indeed, advances and 
    enhances in enormous manner the scope of the bill, far beyond that 
    which was submitted to this body and far beyond that which was 
    contemplated by the committee.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 22249, 22250, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he bill which the Committee of the Whole is now 
    considering seeks to regulate the various transactions involving 
    rifles, shotguns, and handguns. It provides for the identification 
    of such firearms by manufacturers and importers and, as amended by 
    the Committee on the Judiciary and by this committee earlier this 
    afternoon, specifies that this identification shall include serial 
    numbers. Licensed importers, dealers, and manufacturers are 
    required to retain descriptions of the firearms with which they 
    deal.
        The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    McClory] is drafted as a further amendment to

[[Page 8956]]

    title 18, United States Code, the same portion of the Code amended 
    by the pending bill. It carries the concept of registration or 
    identification to the persons having handguns in their possession. 
    The system of registration established by the amendment would be 
    under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury, the same 
    officer designated for this purpose by the bill.
        The Chair notes that the bill makes at least three major 
    innovations in the existing law concerning gun control: it extends 
    that law with respect to transactions in rifles and shotguns; it 
    brings ammunition within the scheme of the law; and it modifies the 
    law regarding shipment and sale of destructive devices. Since 
    present law is modified in the foregoing ways, an additional change 
    in the law and the bill--a change that is an extension of a subject 
    already carried in the bill--is germane.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Disposal of Surplus Military Equipment--Amendment Prohibiting Transfer 
    of Surplus Guns

Sec. 35.100 To a bill authorizing appropriations for military 
    procurement and containing provisions modifying existing law with 
    respect to the disposal of surplus military equipment, an amendment 
    proposing a further modification of that law to prohibit the 
    transfer of surplus guns and ammunition to individuals, clubs or 
    organizations was held to be germane.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
relating to military procurement authorization for fiscal 1969. The 
bill stated in part as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. S. 3293 (Committee on Armed Services).
 5. See 114 Cong. Rec. 20761, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 11, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

        Sec. 201. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated during 
    the fiscal year 1969 for the use of the Armed Forces of the United 
    States for research, development, test, and evaluation, as 
    authorized by law in amounts as follows:
        For the Army, $1,641,900,000. . . .

                        Title IV--General Provisions

        Sec. 404. (a) Chapter 163 of title 10, United States Code, is 
    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

            Sec. 2576. Obsolete and surplus military equipment: sale to 
        State, local law enforcement, and firefighting agencies
            (a) The Secretary of Defense . . . shall sell to State, 
        local law enforcement and firefighting agencies, at fair market 
        value, obsolete and surplus military equipment. . . .
            (b) Obsolete and surplus military equipment shall not be 
        sold under the provisions of this section to a State, local law 
        enforcement or fire

[[Page 8957]]

        fighting agency unless request therefor is made by such agency, 
        in such form and manner as the Secretary of Defense shall 
        prescribe. . . . Such equipment may not be sold, or otherwise 
        transferred, by such agency to any individual or public or 
        private organization or agency.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 20767.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: On 
    page 11, line 17, strike out the period and substitute a comma and 
    insert the following: ``Provided, however, That no surplus or 
    obsolete military guns or ammunition shall be sold or loaned or 
    otherwise transferred to any private individual, association, 
    board, club, or organization.''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: . . . [T]he amendment is 
    out of order because this is an amendment pertaining to the 
    domestic distribution of firearms and firefighting equipment. It is 
    not consistent with the essence of the bill as prescribed under 
    section 2576 and the actions of the Secretary of Defense.

    The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The whole section . . . deals with obsolete and surplus 
    military equipment. This is a further limitation on that. The Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

Penalties for Inciting Riot--Gun Control Amendment

Sec. 35.101 To a bill amending a title of the United States Code to 
    provide penalties for travel in or use of interstate facilities 
    with intent to incite a riot, an amendment which sought to control 
    and regulate the shipment of firearms in interstate commerce was 
    held to be not germane.

    In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill (8) 
amending Title 18 of the United States Code and making it a crime to 
travel in or use interstate facilities with the intent to incite a 
riot, an amendment was offered which sought to add to Title 18 a 
comprehensive gun control law and to repeal the Federal Firearms Act, 
found in Title 15.(9) Mr. Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana, 
reserved a point of order against the amendment.(10) The 
following exchange ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.R. 421 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 9. See the amendment at 113 Cong. Rec. 19408-12, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 19, 1967.
10. Id. at p. 19412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment on the grounds that the amendment is 
    not germane to the pending legislation.

[[Page 8958]]

        Mr. Willis: That is the reservation that I had in mind.
        Mr. Gross: I have no reservation, I am making the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Willis: All right.

    The proponent of the amendment, Mr. Richard D. McCarthy, of New 
York, stated in response to the point of order:

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is germane because the pattern of 
    these riots is clear. Guerrilla warfare in the streets with snipers 
    pouring deadly gunfire from roofs. . . . 

    After some further remarks, and in response to objections of Mr. 
Gross, the Chairman (11) made the request that Mr. McCarthy 
``confine his remarks to the point of order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaking in support of the point of order, Mr. Willis stated: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 19413, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill before the Committee is one which proscribes travel by 
    people across State lines in furtherance of rioting.
        The amendment would add a new chapter, chapter 102, to title 18 
    of the Code under the subject of ``Riots.'' The words ``Chapter 102 
    of the Code'' are not even mentioned in this strange and completely 
    disassociated amendment. . . . 

    The following exchange, directed to the point of order, concerned 
the meaning of the terms of the bill:

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: . . . If a rifle, which 
    is an integral part of effective and deadly riot, is shipped in 
    interstate commerce, it seems to me that it does relate to a 
    facility in interstate or foreign commerce, the shipment of which 
    is with the intent to incite a riot or other violent disturbance, 
    and that therefore the amendment . . . is germane. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: . . . [T]he use of 
    ``facility'' in the bill before the committee is designed to mean a 
    facility of transportation or communication and not a facility such 
    as an instrument of firearms. . . . 

    The Chairman, in ruling on the point of order, stated:

        The committee has before it H.R. 421, a bill which adds a new 
    chapter entitled ``Riots'' to title 18, United States Code, and it 
    makes certain activities in interstate commerce unlawful, and 
    specific penalties are provided.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    McCarthy] makes unlawful certain actions and deals in sale and 
    transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of firearms or 
    ammunition. The amendment provides a comprehensive legislative 
    scheme for control for interstate shipment of firearms.
        The Chair feels that the amendment comes within the rule of 
    germaneness, wherein it is said that one individual proposition may 
    not be amended by another individual proposition even though the 
    two belong to the same class. . . .
        . . . [T]he Chair feels that while [the bill and the amendment] 
    are simi

[[Page 8959]]

    lar, there are differences . . . and the Chair sustains the point 
    of order.

Diverse Amendments to Laws Relating to Intelligence Community--
    Amendments Relating to Accountability for Intelligence Activities

Sec. 35.102 To a proposition dealing with a subject matter by diverse 
    changes in existing laws, an amendment relating to that same 
    general subject matter may be germane although including additional 
    changes in law not contained in the bill; thus, to a bill 
    authorizing funding for the intelligence community for one fiscal 
    year and making diverse changes in permanent laws relating to the 
    intelligence community (including laws concerning congressional 
    oversight of certain intelligence activities), an amendment 
    changing another permanent law to address accountability for 
    intelligence activities was held germane.

    On Oct. 17, 1990,(13) during consideration of the 
Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991 (14) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 136 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
14. H.R. 5422.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The text of the bill is as follows: . . . 

                        TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
        Sec. 101. Authorization of Appropriations.

            Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
        year 1991 for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-
        related activities of the following elements of the United 
        States Government:
            (1) The Central Intelligence Agency.
            (2) The Department of Defense.
            (3) The Defense Intelligence Agency. . . . 

                     TITLE II--INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY STAFF
        Sec. 201. Authorization of Appropriations.

            There are authorized to be appropriated for the 
        Intelligence Community Staff for fiscal year 1991 $27,900,000.
        Sec. 202. Authorization of Personnel End Strength

             TITLE III--CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND 
                    DISABILITY SYSTEM AND RELATED PROVISIONS
        Sec. 301 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

            There are authorized to be appropriated for the Central 
        Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund for fiscal 
        year 1991 $164,600,000. . . . 

[[Page 8960]]

                          TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
        Sec. 401. Increase in Employee Compensation and Benefits 
        Authorized By Law.

            Appropriations authorized by this Act for salary, pay, 
        retirement, and other benefits for federal employees may be 
        increased by such additional or supplemental amounts as may be 
        necessary for increases in such compensation or benefits 
        authorized by law. . . . 

             TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE PROVISIONS
        Sec. 501. Reimbursement Rate For Certain Airlift Service.

            (a) The Secretary of Defense is authorized to grant the use 
        of the Department of Defense reimbursement rate for military 
        airlift services provided by the Department of Defense to the 
        Central Intelligence Agency if the Secretary of Defense 
        determines that such services are provided in support of 
        authorized intelligence activities. . . .
        Sec. 502. Public Availability of Maps, Etc., Produced By 
        Defense Mapping Agency.

            (A) In General.--(1) Chapter 167 of title 10, United States 
        Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
        section:
        ``Sec. 2796. Maps, charts, and geodetic data: public 
        availability; exceptions

            ``(a) The Defense Mapping Agency shall offer for sale maps 
        and charts at scales of 1:500,000 and smaller, except those 
        withheld in accordance with subsection (b) or those 
        specifically authorized under criteria established by Executive 
        order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or 
        foreign policy and in fact properly classified pursuant to such 
        Executive order.
        Sec. 503. use of commercial activities as cover support for 
        intelligence collection activities of the department of 
        defense.

            (a) In General.--Chapter 21 of title 10, United States 
        Code, is amended . . . 
            (2) by adding at the end the following:

              ``SUBCHAPTER II--INTELLIGENCE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

            ``431. Authority to engage in commercial activities as 
        security for defense intelligence collection activities . . . 
        ``Sec. 437. Congressional oversight

            ``(a) Proposed Regulations.--Copies of regulations proposed 
        to be prescribed under section 436 of this title (including any 
        proposed revision to such regulations) shall be submitted to 
        the intelligence committees not less than 30 days before they 
        take effect. . . .
            ``(c) Annual Report.--Not later than January 15 of each 
        year, the Secretary shall submit to the intelligence committees 
        a report on all commercial activities authorized under this 
        subchapter that were undertaken during the previous fiscal 
        year. . . .
        Sec. 504. disclosure to members of congress of classified 
        defense intelligence agency report relating to military 
        personnel listed as prisoner, missing, or unaccounted for.

            The Secretary of Defense shall provide to any Member of 
        Congress, upon request, full and complete access to the 
        classified report of the Defense Intelligence Agency commonly 
        known as the Tighe Report, relating to efforts by the Special 
        Office for Prisoners of War/Missing in Action of the Defense 
        Intelligence Agency to fully account for United

[[Page 8961]]

        States military personnel listed as prisoner, missing, or 
        unaccounted for in military actions. . . .

        Mrs. [Barbara] Boxer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Boxer: Page 25, after line 18, 
        insert the following new title:

                 TITLE VI--OVERSIGHT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
        Sec. 601. congressional oversight.

            (a) In General.--Section 501 of the National Security Act 
        of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413) is amended to read as follows:

                           ``congressional oversight

            ``Sec. 501. (a) The President shall ensure that the Select 
        Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent 
        Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
        Representatives (hereinafter in this title referred to as the 
        ``intelligence committees'') are kept fully and currently 
        informed of the intelligence activities of the United States 
        including any significant anticipated intelligence activities, 
        as required by this title, except that--
            ``(1) nothing contained in this title shall be construed as 
        requiring the approval of the intelligence committees as a 
        condition precedent to the initiation of intelligence gathering 
        activities. . . .
            ``(b) The President, upon being made aware of any 
        allegations of illegal intelligence activity, shall immediately 
        report such allegations to the intelligence committees and keep 
        the intelligence committees informed of the ongoing 
        investigations into such activities, such reports to encompass 
        any measures taken to prevent a recurrence of such illegal 
        activity, including the reporting of such activity to the 
        Department of Justice for prosecution.
            ``(c) The President and the intelligence committees shall 
        each establish procedures as may be necessary to carry out the 
        provisions of this title, including procedures to ensure that 
        each is kept fully and currently informed of intelligence 
        activities.
            ``(d) The House of Representatives and the Senate, in 
        consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, shall 
        each establish, by rule or resolution of such House, procedures 
        to ensure that all members of the Congress are informed 
        regarding intelligence activities to the extent consistent with 
        the need to protect from unauthorized disclosure classified 
        information and information relating to intelligence sources 
        and methods furnished to the intelligence committees or to 
        Members of Congress under this title. In accordance with such 
        procedures, each of the intelligence committees shall promptly 
        call to the attention of its respective House, or to any 
        appropriate committee or committees of its respective House, 
        any matter relating to intelligence activities requiring the 
        attention of such House or such committee or committees.
            ``(e) As used in this section, the term ``intelligence 
        activities'' includes `covert actions', as defined in section 
        503(e).''
            (b) Information Required To Be Disclosed; Findings.--The 
        National Security Act of 1947 is amended--
            (1) by redesignating sections 502 and 503 as sections 505 
        and 506, respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after section 501 the following:

                      ``reporting intelligence activities

            ``Sec. 502. To the extent consistent with due regard for 
        the protection from unauthorized disclosure of clas

[[Page 8962]]

        sified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources 
        and methods, the President shall--
            ``(1) keep the intelligence committees fully and currently 
        informed of all intelligence activities which are the 
        responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or 
        on behalf of the United States Government, including any 
        significant anticipated intelligence activity and significant 
        failures; and
            ``(2) furnish the intelligence committees any information 
        or material concerning intelligence activities which is within 
        their custody or control and which is requested by either of 
        the intelligence committees in order to carry out its 
        authorized responsibilities. . . .
            ``Sec. 503. (a) In setting forth the procedures regulating 
        covert actions, this title shall not be construed as 
        authorizing the use of covert operations as a routine means of 
        conducting foreign policy or achieving foreign policy 
        objectives.
            ``(b) The President may not conduct covert actions without 
        prior approval by the intelligence committees, except as set 
        forth in subsection (c)(6).
            ``(c) Approval of a covert action by the intelligence 
        committees shall be predicated on the following: . . . 
            ``(6) The approval by the intelligence committees of each 
        covert action must be obtained in writing before the covert 
        action can commence, except that the President may under 
        extraordinary and emergency conditions, when time is of the 
        essence, initiate a covert action prior to receiving approval 
        from the intelligence committees, but such covert action shall 
        cease within 48 hours of initiation unless express written 
        approval of the covert action is given by the intelligence 
        committees pursuant to such procedures as the intelligence 
        committees may adopt to ensure a prompt response in such 
        circumstances.
            ``(d) The President shall--
            ``(1) keep the intelligence committees fully and currently 
        informed of the status of all covert actions which are carried 
        out for or on behalf of the United States Government, including 
        significant failures;
            ``(2) furnish to the intelligence committees any 
        information or material concerning covert actions which is in 
        the possession, custody, or control of the executive branch and 
        which is requested by either of the intelligence committees; . 
        . .
            ``Sec. 504. Any person who knowingly initiates or 
        participates in a covert action in violation of this title 
        shall be guilty of a felony punishable by up to 20 years in 
        Federal prison, a fine of $100,000, or both.''. . . 

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order that the amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI. . . . 
    The proposed amendment is not germane to the bill because it deals 
    with matters beyond the scope of the bill's provisions and the 
    amendment includes matters within the jurisdiction of committees of 
    the House not reporting the bill under consideration.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not germane, and consequently 
    violates clause 7 of rule XVI in the following specific respects:
        First, the bill authorizes funds for a limited number of 
    executive departments or their subcomponents specified in section 
    101 of the bill and makes a few very modest changes in the 
    statutory authorities of only a few of those agencies.
        The amendment would enact a comprehensive scheme of oversight 
    and reporting requirements for all U.S. intelligence activities 
    which are engaged in by any U.S. Government agency, not

[[Page 8963]]

    just those covered by the bill, as well as by third parties outside 
    of the U.S. Government. (Amndt: p. 4, lines 6-12.)
        In this regard, I call attention to a ruling by the Chair on 
    September 27, 1967 (113 Cong. Rec. page 26957) cited in section 
    798f of the Rules and Practice of the House of Representatives. 
    That ruling states that, ``To a bill limited in its applicability 
    to certain departments and agencies of government, an amendment 
    applicable to all departments and agencies is not germane.''

        Second, the only provision of the bill addressing congressional 
    oversight of intelligence is section 503. That provision is limited 
    to oversight related only to one specific and narrow class of 
    intelligence activities, and that is commercial cover activities to 
    provide security only for intelligence collection. Moreover, 
    section 503 of the bill applies only to elements of one executive 
    department, the Defense Department, and the provision expires at 
    the end of 5 years.
        The amendment goes far beyond that one new and specifically 
    limited oversight subject in the bill. The amendment provides for a 
    comprehensive oversight system for intelligence activities of the 
    U.S. Government in general, and in some cases the role of outside 
    third parties. The amendment is also not limited in duration, as is 
    section 503 of the bill, but is broader because it would enact a 
    permanent statutory change. In these regards, the amendment is not 
    germane because it is more general in nature than the only 
    provision of the bill which deals with one particular and narrow 
    class within the general subject of intelligence oversight 
    reporting.
        The amendment further requires, as part of its oversight 
    scheme, that the House and Senate establish certain procedures by 
    adopting internal rules or resolutions, matters not dealt with in 
    any form by the bill. (Amndt: page 3, lines 4-18.)
        Third, the amendment is not germane because its text consists 
    entirely of provisions repealing or amending sections of two 
    statutes not amended or addressed by the bill under consideration.
        The amendment extensively amends title V of the National 
    Security Act of 1947, codified in title 50 of the United States 
    Code, and repeals section 662 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961, codified in title 22 of the United States Code. The bill does 
    not amend either of those statutes, and indeed, does not amend any 
    part of title 22 of the United States Code.
        Section 799 of the Rules and Practice of the House of 
    Representatives cites a ruling by the Chair on May 11, 1976, that, 
    ``Generally to a bill amending one existing law, an amendment 
    changing the provisions of another law . . . is not germane.'' 
    Precedents cited in sections 33.1 and 33.3 of chapter 28 of 
    Procedures in the U.S. House of Representatives, 97th Congress, 4th 
    Edition (Deschler and Brown) support this principle with which the 
    proposed amendment is inconsistent.
        Furthermore, chapter 28, section 33.14 of Deschler and Brown's 
    Procedures in the U.S. House of Representatives, 97th Congress, 4th 
    Edition cites a precedent from a ruling of March 7, 1974 (120 Cong 
    Rec. 5653, 5654, 93rd Cong. 2nd Sess.) that, ``An amendment 
    repealing existing law has been held not germane to a bill not 
    amending that law.'' In proposing to repeal a sec

[[Page 8964]]

    tion of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, a statute not amended 
    by the bill, the proposed amendment is not germane. (Amndt: page 1, 
    lines 3-4.)
        Fourth, the amendment is not germane because it fails the test 
    of committee jurisdiction under section 798c of the Rules and 
    Practice of the House of Representatives by including matters 
    within the jurisdiction of committees not reporting the bill, the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs and Rules.
        The amendment would repeal section 662 of the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1961. That act is within the jurisdiction of the 
    Foreign Affairs Committee. (Amndt: page 1, lines 3-4.)
        The amendment also would require the House (and one of its 
    committees) to establish certain internal procedures by the 
    adoption of House rules or resolutions. Such matters are within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules. (Amndt: p. 3, lines 4-18.)
        Fifth, the amendment (at p. 8, lines 8-12) would create a penal 
    offense, whereas the pending bill does not deal with or create any 
    criminal offenses. In addition, the committees reporting the bill 
    do not have jurisdiction to consider such matters. In that regard, 
    I would call the attention of the Chair to a precedent of the 
    House, rulings by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Mr. 
    Forand on April 7, 1960. In those rulings, the Chair sustained 
    points of order against two amendments to a pending amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute to a bill relating to employment of 
    retired officers by Defense contractors reported from the Armed 
    Services Committee. Those points of order were sustained by the 
    Chair, which ruled that the substitutes dealt with the imposition 
    of criminal penalties, a matter not dealt with in the proposition 
    being amended. Further, the Chair ruled that the substitutes' 
    imposition of criminal penalties was a matter outside the 
    jurisdiction of the committee which had reported the pending bill 
    [Armed Services] and, if offered as a separate bill, would have to 
    be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        For all the reasons given and in light of the precedents cited, 
    the amendment is not germane, and therefore it violates clause 7 of 
    rule XVI. I insist upon my point of order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mrs. Boxer: . . . We feel it is absolutely germane. We feel 
    that there are other provisions in the bill, for example on page 26 
    and page 33 that talk about permanent changes in law, and we would 
    say that this is absolutely germane.
        My goodness, we are talking about covert activities, and 
    certainly the Intelligence Committee, and it is hard for me to 
    believe that someone could say that a discussion of covert 
    activities in this particular amendment would not be germane to the 
    intelligence authorization bill. . . .
        Mr. [Anthony C.] Beilenson [of California]: . . . I recognize 
    the right of the gentleman, of course, to make this point of order 
    and, in fact, I do not know how the Chair will rule on the 
    precedents which the gentleman from Illinois has cited. I would 
    only ask that in its ruling the Chair consider the fact that there 
    are already provisions in the bill which do broaden its scope. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: (15) . . . The Chair is prepared to 
    rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Bill Nelson (Fla.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 8965]]

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) makes the point of order 
    that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California is 
    not germane to the bill. The amendment adds a new title and must be 
    germane to the bill as a whole, as amended.
        The bill authorizes funding for the intelligence community for 
    1 fiscal year and makes several, diverse changes in permanent law 
    relating to sundry authorities of the Central Intelligence Agency 
    and the Department of Defense. For example, the bill makes changes 
    in the CIA retirement and disability system; it authorizes the 
    Secretary of Defense to permit components of DOD to charge the CIA 
    the same rate for airlift services that they would charge another 
    component of DOD; and it authorizes the Secretary of Defense to 
    withhold certain geodetic products from disclosure under the 
    Freedom of Information Act. In addition, the bill, as perfected, 
    includes the amendment recommended by the Committee on Armed 
    Services directing the Secretary of Defense to provide Members of 
    Congress access to a classified report of the Defense Intelligence 
    Agency assessing efforts to account for military personnel listed 
    as prisoners of war or missing in action.
        The amendment at the desk does not repeal the Hughes-Ryan law, 
    but does amend title V of the National Security Act of 1947--
    relating to accountability for intelligence activities. Among other 
    things, it assigns to the President several responsibilities of the 
    type that the existing act assigns to lower officials, such as the 
    Director of Central Intelligence.
        Although the bill does not amend the National Security Act of 
    1947, neither does it confine itself to authorities and activities 
    of the intelligence community. In addition to the changes in 
    permanent law already noted, at section 503 the bill inserts new 
    provisions in title 10 of the United States Code--relating to the 
    Armed Forces--to ensure congressional oversight of activities of 
    the Department of Defense in commercial cover of intelligence 
    operations.
        Thus, the subject matter of the amendment--the relationship 
    between the executive branch and the Congress with respect to the 
    authorities and activities of the intelligence community--is one of 
    the diverse topics already addressed in the bill.
        Accordingly, the point of order is overruled.
        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question?
        Mr. Chairman, I did not hear that part, what the Chair read 
    about the criminal penalties that she inserts in the law, and my 
    point that that should go to the Committee on the Judiciary, that 
    it is certainly beyond the scope of our bill.
        I must have missed that. How did the Chair rule on that, sir?
        The Chairman: The Chair thinks that the bill, as presented and 
    amended contains provisions within several committee jurisdictions. 
    Therefore the amendment need not meet a strict jurisdictional test. 
    Accordingly, the Chair rules that the point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Hyde's point of order anticipated 
inclusion in the Boxer amendment of a provision repealing the so-called 
``Hughes-Ryan'' amendment

[[Page 8966]]

to the Foreign Assistance Act (22 U.S.C. 2422), a law not amended by 
the bill and within the partial jurisdiction of another committee 
(Foreign Affairs). The offered amendment did not include that proposed 
repeal but did include the criminal provision cited in the point of 
order. As indicated in the Chair's follow-up response, it was only 
because of the diverse nature of the bill that the criminal provision 
was held germane. (Compare Apr. 7, 1960, rulings in sections 4.39 and 
4.40, supra, cited by Mr. Hyde.) In those cases the points of order 
were sustained that the criminal sanction provisions contained in the 
amendments attempted to attain a result by a method unrelated to the 
narrow purpose of the bill. The pending proposition in those cases was 
not diverse and therefore not susceptible to the amendments ruled out.

Bill Amending 1937 Flood Control Act--Amendment To Amend 1936 Act

Sec. 35.103 To a bill proposing to amend the Flood Control Act of 1937, 
    an amendment proposing to amend the Flood Control Act of 1936 was 
    held to be not germane, the act of 1936 having been enacted for 
    purposes not related to the bill.

    The ruling described above was made on July 6, 1939.(16) 
Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 8715, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6634 (Committee on Flood Control).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 6634) amending previous flood-
    control acts and authorizing certain preliminary examinations and 
    surveys for flood control, and for other purposes.
        There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That section 2 of the Flood Control 
        Act of August 28, 1937, is hereby amended to read as follows:
            ``That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to allot 
        not to exceed $300,000 from any appropriations heretofore or 
        hereafter made for any one fiscal year for flood control, for 
        removing accumulated snags and other debris and clearing 
        channels in navigable streams and tributaries thereof when in 
        the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such work is advisable in 
        the interest of flood control: Provided, That not more than 
        $25,000 shall be allotted for this purpose for any single 
        tributary from the appropriations for any one fiscal year.''
            Sec. 2. Funds heretofore or hereafter appropriated for 
        construction and maintenance of flood-control works by the War 
        Department shall be available for expenditure by the War 
        Department in making examinations and surveys for flood control 
        heretofore or hereafter authorized, or in preparing reports in 
        review thereof as authorized by law, in addition to funds 
        heretofore authorized to be expended for such purposes by the 
        War Department.

            Sec. 3. That section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of June 
        20, 1938, is

[[Page 8967]]

        hereby made applicable to authorized works of flood control. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Louis L.] Ludlow [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ludlow: On page 2, after the word 
        ``department'' in line 12, insert a new section, as follows:
            ``Sec. 3. Section 3 of the act entitled `An act authorizing 
        the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 
        for flood control, and for other purposes', approved June 22, 
        1936, as amended, is amended by adding before the period at the 
        end thereof a colon and the following: `And provided further, 
        That if, after investigation, the President finds that any city 
        or town is, by reason of its financial condition, unable to 
        comply with the requirements of this section as to local 
        cooperation, he is hereby authorized to waive such requirements 
        on any individual levee or flood-wall project not to exceed 50 
        percent of the estimated costs of the lands, easements, and 
        rights-of-way.' ''
            ``The first paragraph of section 2 of the act entitled `An 
        act authorizing the construction of certain public works on 
        rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes, 
        approved June 28, 1938, is amended to read as follows:
            `` `That section 3 of the act of June 22, 1936 (Public, No. 
        738, 74th Cong.), as heretofore amended, as herein further 
        modified, and as amended after June 28, 1938, shall apply to 
        all flood-control projects, except as otherwise specifically 
        provided by law.' ''

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    make the point of order that, as I said, this amendment is not 
    germane to the bill. The bill undertakes to amend the Flood Control 
    Act of 1937 and the Flood Control Act of 1938. They are perfecting 
    amendments. The gentleman's amendment is an amendment to the act of 
    1936, that is in no way involved in this bill, as it relates to 
    local contributions for levees and flood walls.
        So I make the point of order that the amendment is not germane 
    to the bill under consideration or any section thereof.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Chair is 
    ready to rule.
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, the amendment 
    submitted by the gentleman from Indiana merely asks to relieve the 
    city from the payment of what is due under the law and is in no way 
    germane to the question before the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The bill before the House is a bill to amend the Flood Control 
    Act of 1937. That act had one purpose. The Flood Control Act of 
    1936 had another purpose. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ludlow) 
    offers an amendment as an amendment to the Flood Control Act of 
    1936. The amendment clearly is not germane to this bill, and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.

Endangered Species Act--Amendment Giving Responsibilities to Parties 
    Not Within Coverage of Bill

Sec. 35.104 To a bill amending the Endangered Species Act, an amendment 
    providing that a Corps of Engineers permit

[[Page 8968]]

    for a power project, and Rural Electrification loan guarantee 
    commitments and approvals be deemed to satisfy the requirements of 
    the Endangered Species Act and of other environmental acts, and 
    directing the Corps and the Administration, after the rendering of 
    an opinion by the Fish and Wildlife Service and in consultation 
    with the Secretary of the Interior, to require modifications in the 
    project to protect endangered species and their habitats, and a 
    similar amendment only omitting the references to other 
    environmental acts, were held not germane since broadening the 
    responsibilities and authorities of agencies not covered by the 
    bill.

    During consideration of H.R. 14014 in the Committee of the Whole on 
Oct. 14, 1978,(17) the Chair sustained a point of order in 
the circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 38134, 38140, 38141, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Endangered Species Act Amendments of 
        1978''.
            Sec. 2. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
        U.S.C. 1533) is amended--
            (1) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(1) the following 
        new sentence: ``At the time any such regulation is proposed, 
        the Secretary shall also by regulation, to the maximum extent 
        prudent, specify any habitat of such species which is then 
        considered to be critical habitat. The requirement of the 
        preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to any species 
        which was listed prior to enactment of the Endangered Species 
        Act Amendments of 1978.''. . .

        Mr. [Teno] Roncalio [of Wyoming]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Roncalio: On page 32, after line 
        21, add new section (No. 12) as follows:
            ``The Department of the Army Permit to Basin Electric Power 
        Cooperative for the Missouri Basin Power Project, issued on 
        March 23, 1978, as amended October 10, 1978, is hereby ratified 
        and shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of the 
        Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) as amended, and 
        the Rural Electrification Administration loan guarantee 
        commitments and approvals associated therewith relating to the 
        Missouri Basin Power Project are deemed to satisfy the 
        requirements of the Endangered Species Act; Provided, That 
        following the rendering of a biological opinion by the United 
        States Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the effect, if any, 
        of the operation of the Missouri Basin Power Project on 
        endangered species or their critical habitat, the responsible 
        officers of the Rural Electrification Administration and of the 
        Army Corps of Engineers shall require such modifications in the 
        operation of the Project as they and the Sec

[[Page 8969]]

        retary of Interior may determine are required to insure that 
        actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them, relating to 
        the Missouri Basin Power Project do not jeopardize the 
        continued existence of such endangered species and threatened 
        species or result in the destruction or modification of habitat 
        of such species which is or has been determined to be critical, 
        by the Secretary of the Interior, after consultation as 
        appropriate with the affected States.''. . .

        Mr. Roncalio: Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine how a point of 
    order could be reserved on the amendment at this point.
        The precise objections to the last amendment (18) 
    were stricken from this amendment, and this amendment is left with 
    a citation of only one statute, and that is the Endangered Species 
    Act, which is precisely the statute before us at this time. I 
    cannot imagine an attack on the germaneness provision at this 
    point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 42.32, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I have stricken from my first amendment all reference to the 
    Army Corps of Engineers, all reference to the National 
    Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and all reference to the Federal 
    Water Pollution Control Act. There is only one act cited in the 
    amendment, and that is precisely the one before us. . . .
        Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the basis that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill. The differences between this 
    amendment and the amendment previously offered are that the 
    gentleman from Wyoming has stricken specific references in the 
    first portion of his amendment to the National Environmental Policy 
    Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Rural 
    Electrification Act, but the gentleman's amendment has not stricken 
    new responsibilities imposed upon the Rural Electrification 
    Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife 
    Service, and the Secretary of the Interior.
        The amendment would continue to require biological opinion by 
    the Fish and Wildlife Service, and require additional duties of 
    responsible officers of the REA, the Corps of Engineers; to require 
    modifications of the project.
        In addition, it requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
    consult with the appropriate affected states, which would also be a 
    new obligation not envisioned in the act imposed upon agencies of 
    Government. In addition to that, the amendment is not germane to 
    the section. It appears as a new section following section 32, a 
    section dealing with certain antique articles.
        So, I would renew my point of order as to germaneness both to 
    the bill and to the section.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Actually, the amendment adds a new section, let the Chair say 
    to the gentleman from Nebraska, which in the opinion of the Chair 
    would need only be germane to the bill as a whole.
        However, the earlier matter cited by the gentleman from 
    Nebraska in his point of order dealing with the expanded authority 
    and responsibilities and obligations of the Rural Electrification 
    Administration and Army

[[Page 8970]]

    Corps of Engineers is still a part of the amendment as the Chair 
    views it.
        Therefore, the Chair would have to sustain the point of order 
    on the basis that it would still expand authorities which are not 
    within the coverage of the bill.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
            E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW
 
Sec. 36. Amendment Repealing Existing Law to Bill Amending That Law

    To a bill amending existing law in one particular,(20) 
or in a limited respect,(1) an amendment repealing the law 
is not germane. Thus, to a bill establishing a new office within a 
government department, an amendment to abolish the department is not 
germane.(2) Similarly, to an amendment proposing to amend 
existing law in some particulars, an amendment proposing to repeal the 
law in its entirety is not germane,(3) unless the 
proposition being amended changes law in a comprehensive and diverse 
way, in which case an amendment proposing repeal of the law may be 
germane.(4) And to a bill referring to certain provisions of 
existing law, an amendment repealing a portion of that law has been 
held not to be germane.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 36.2, infra.
 1. See Sec. 42.43, infra.
 2. Id.
 3. See Sec. 36.3, infra.
 4. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5824.
 5. See Sec. 41.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuing Tax Exemptions for Property Used by Government--Amendment 
    Repealing Other Exemptions

Sec. 36.1 To a bill to continue the tax-exempt status of certain 
    property owned by others but used and occupied by government 
    agencies or by the Red Cross, an amendment seeking to repeal the 
    law granting tax exemptions with respect to property occupied by 
    the Daughters of the American Revolution was held not to be 
    germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (6) was under consideration 
which stated in part as follows: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.J. Res. 236 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 9911, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 22, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas in times of national stress it is necessary for the 
    United States of America and its various instrumentalities to use 
    and occupy additional space necessary for the proper execution of 
    their enlarged functions: Therefore be it

        Resolved, etc., That the use and occupancy of real property in 
    the District of Columbia by any department, agency, or 
    instrumentality of the United States of America, or by the American 
    Red

[[Page 8971]]

    Cross, on a basis which does not result in the receipt of rent or 
    income to the owner thereof within the meaning of section 2 of the 
    act of December 24, 1942 (56 Stat. 1089), shall not operate to 
    terminate the tax exempt status of such property if exempted from 
    taxation prior to such use and occupancy. . . .

    The purpose of the bill was indicated as follows:

        Mr. [Jennings] Randolph [of West Virginia]: . . . This is 
    merely to correct a technicality. Although the District of Columbia 
    Code exempts . . . property belonging to various institutions, 
    associations, societies, etc., when the latter use and occupy their 
    respective properties, the Commissioners of the District have held 
    that when such institutions furnish space to the Government 
    gratuitously the exemption ceases since such property is not then 
    ``used and occupied'' by the owner to whom the exemption is 
    granted. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 9912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Biemiller: On page 2, following line 
    17, add a new section as follows:

            That the property situated in square one hundred and 
        seventy-three in the city of Washington, District of Columbia . 
        . . occupied by the Daughters of the American Revolution, shall 
        no longer be exempt from taxation, as heretofore provided [by 
        law] and that the said exemption . . . is . . . repealed.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. Randolph: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane to this legislation. We are only concerned 
    in providing for the Red Cross in connection with conditions that 
    arose during the war while a Government agency used the facilities 
    rent free. Frankly, the gentleman from West Virginia will not allow 
    this District of Columbia legislation to become involved in the 
    subject matter of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated, as follows:

        Mr. [Andrew J.] Biemiller [of Wisconsin]: On the point of 
    order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the bill deals with the question 
    of tax-exempt property in the District of Columbia and furthermore 
    deals with an organization which has been chartered by the 
    Congress, the American Red Cross. My amendment deals with those 
    same categories, tax-exempt property and an organization that has 
    been chartered by the Congress of the United States.

    The Speaker,(9) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This bill provides only for Government-chartered organizations 
    that have given their facilities to the Government of the United 
    States during the war period. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin would make an absolute repeal of law on 
    the statute books and therefore is not germane. The Chair sustains 
    the point of order.

[[Page 8972]]

Bill Amending Law as to Transfer of Rice Acreage Allotments--Amendment 
    To Repeal Law

Sec. 36.2 To a bill amending a single aspect of that agricultural law 
    relating to the transfer of rice acreage allotments, an amendment 
    to repeal the entire provision of law regulating such transfers was 
    ruled out as not germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration relating to the transfer of rice acreage allotments. An 
amendment as described above was offered by Mr. Paul Findley, of 
Illinois: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 3742 (Committee on Agriculture).
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 423, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 14, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, having raised the point of order 
that the amendment was not germane to the bill, Mr. Findley stated:

        Mr. Chairman, the title of the bill makes it clear that it is 
    to amend the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 
    as amended, relating to the transfer of producer rice allotments. 
    The amendment that I have offered simply changes the subsection 
    which is a part of the section dealing with the transfer of 
    producer rice acreage allotments.

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Clifford Davis (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        According to section 2949, volume 8, Cannon's Precedents of the 
    House of Representatives, I read:

            To a bill amending a law in one particular, an amendment 
        repealing the law is not germane.

        The Chair rules that the amendment is not germane.

Bill To Amend Reclamation Act: Amendment Striking Part of Section of 
    Bill--Substitute Repealing Law

Sec. 36.3 To an amendment proposing to strike out part of a section of 
    a bill, thereby amending existing law, a substitute proposing to 
    strike out the entire section and to repeal the existing law is not 
    germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration amending certain provisions of the Reclamation Act of 
1939. An amendment striking a specified part of the bill was offered by 
Mr. Ben F. Jensen, of Iowa,(14) who indicated that the 
purpose of the amendment was to insure that the Secretary of the 
Interior not be given

[[Page 8973]]

excessive authority with respect to undertaking certain construction 
projects. Mr. Gordon L. McDonough, of California, speaking in support 
of the amendment, discussed its purpose as follows: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 2873 (Committee on Public Lands).
14. See 94 Cong. Rec. 403, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 21, 1948.
15. Id. at p. 404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I want to read the section of the bill that this 
    amendment will strike out, so that those who have any doubts about 
    the authority that the Secretary of the Interior now has under the 
    present Reclamation Act may understand what this amendment would do 
    to correct that. The section that this amendment strikes out begins 
    on line 11, page 6, and reads as follows:

            If the proposed construction is found by the Secretary to 
        have engineering feasibility and if the repayable and 
        returnable allocations to irrigation, power, and municipal 
        water supply or other miscellaneous purposes found by the 
        Secretary to be proper pursuant to subdivisions (3), (4), (5), 
        and (6) hereof, together with any allocation to flood control 
        or navigation made under subsection (b) of this section, and 
        together with any allocation made pursuant to subdivision (7) 
        hereof, which shall be nonreimbursable and nonreturnable, equal 
        the total estimated cost of construction as determined by the 
        Secretary, then the new project, new division of a project, or 
        supplemental works on a project, covered by his findings, shall 
        be deemed authorized and may be undertaken by the Secretary.

        Evidently that is a repetition of what is now in the 1939 
    Reclamation Act as far as authority is concerned. This amendment 
    amends that out and gives to the Congress the power to determine 
    whether these projects shall be feasible and shall be initiated. . 
    . .

    The following exchange occurred with respect to the precise effect 
of the Jensen amendment: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jensen: This amendment takes nothing away from the weight 
    and effect of the present law, specifically referring to section 9 
    of the Reclamation Act. It leaves that intact but simply provides 
    and assures us that no additional authorization and power will be 
    given to the Secretary of the Interior to authorize more projects.
        Mr. [Frank A.] Barrett [of Wyoming]: I am very much afraid that 
    the gentleman is entirely mistaken because existing law provides 
    for all of the elements that are outlined on page 6, from line 11 
    to the bottom of the page. That is in existing law at the present 
    time and you are repealing it.

    A substitute amendment was then offered, as follows:

        Mr. [Forest A.] Harness of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute for the pending amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Substitute amendment offered by Mr. Harness of Indiana to 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Jensen: On page 4, line 15, to 
        page 7, line 15, delete all and substitute ``Section 9 (a) of 
        the Reclamation Act of 1939 is hereby repealed.''

    The following proceedings then took place with respect to a 
question as to the propriety of the Harness amendment:

[[Page 8974]]

        The Chairman: (17) I will say to the gentleman from 
    Indiana that is not a substitute for the Jensen amendment. The 
    Jensen amendment applied only to the section at the bottom of page 
    6 of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. George A. Dondero (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harness of Indiana: It is the same section that I am 
    striking out by my amendment.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may offer his amendment after the 
    Jensen amendment is disposed of. . . .
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, the Jensen amendment 
    proposes to strike out, beginning on page 6, line 11, all of that 
    section down to line 25 and add the word ``a.'' My amendment 
    strikes out that same section and also provides for the repeal of 
    the same section which is in the 1939 act.
        The Chairman: The Chair must hold that the amendment is not 
    germane to the Jensen amendment. The gentleman's amendment can be 
    offered after the Jensen amendment is disposed of.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
            E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW
 
Sec. 37. Amendments to Bills Which Repeal Existing Law

    To a bill repealing several sections of an existing law, an 
amendment proposing to repeal the entire law may be 
germane.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 37.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a bill repeals a provision of law, an amendment modifying 
that provision rather than repealing it may be germane; but the 
modification must relate to the provision of law being 
repealed.(19) Thus, where a bill seeks to repeal a provision 
of existing law, an amendment proposing modification of that law may be 
held germane (20) or not germane,(1) depending on 
whether the amendment relates specifically to the fundamental purpose 
of the bill and to the provision of law being repealed by the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 37.8, infra.
20. See Sec. 37.13, infra.
 1. See Sec. Sec. 37.1, 37.2, 41.1-41.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a bill consisting of two sections, the first stating the title 
of the bill, the second repealing a narrow provision of an existing 
act, an amendment inserting a statement of congressional policy 
applicable not only to the pending bill but to the administration of 
the whole act is not germane.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 37.9, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Labor Relations Act

Sec. 37.1 To a bill repealing a provision of existing labor law, 
    thereby depriving the states of the power to prohibit ``closed shop 
    contracts,'' an amendment modifying the provision of law, to permit

[[Page 8975]]

    states to retain the power to bar the application of ``closed 
    shop'' agreements to veterans of military service, was ruled out as 
    not germane.

    The following proceedings took place on July 28, 
1965,(3) during consideration of a bill (4) 
repealing portions of the National Labor Relations Act as described 
above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See 111 Cong. Rec. 18636, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For other important rulings on the germaneness of 
        amendments offered during consideration of this bill, see 
        Sec. Sec. 41.1-41.4, infra.
 4. H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: Page 1, line 4 strike the 
    word ``repealed'' and insert the following: ``amended to read as 
    follows:

            ``With respect to any individual who has served the United 
        States on active military duty during wartime or during the 
        Korean or Vietnam conflicts, nothing in this act shall be 
        construed as authorizing the execution or application of 
        agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a 
        condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such 
        execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial 
        law.''

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment that it is not germane.
        The Chairman (Mr. Leo O'Brien [of New York]): The gentleman 
    from New York makes the point of order that the amendment is not 
    germane, and the Chair must rule that it is not germane.
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: May I be heard on the point 
    of order? . . . I was on my feet seeking recognition.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, the amendment just read deals only 
    with the language of 14(b); in fact, the amendment contains the 
    exact language of 14(b) with a very simple but clear limitation. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has ruled that the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Illinois is not germane.

Sec. 37.2 To a bill repealing a provision of existing labor law, 
    thereby depriving the states of the power to prohibit ``closed 
    shops,'' an amendment permitting the states to retain the power to 
    prohibit such shops but authorizing labor organizations to enter 
    into agreements requiring nonunion members to pay an agency fee for 
    collective bargaining representation, was held not to be germane.

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
repealing portions of the National Labor Relations Act as described 
above.

[[Page 8976]]

The following amendment was offered to the bill: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 18637, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
            For other important rulings on the germaneness of 
        amendments offered during consideration of this bill, see 
        Sec. Sec. 41.1-41.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Charles McC.] Mathias [Jr., of 
    Maryland]: On page 1, lines 3 and 4, strike out lines 3 and 4 and 
    in lieu thereof insert: ``Subsection (b) of Section 14 of the 
    National Labor Relations Act is amended to read as follows:

            ``(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing 
        the execution or application of agreements requiring membership 
        in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any 
        State or territory in which such execution or application is 
        prohibited by State or Territorial law. The Act, however, does 
        authorize the execution or application of agreements requiring 
        all members of a collective bargaining unit to pay in equal 
        proportion for the services rendered by a certified collective 
        bargaining agent.''

    Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, made a point of order against 
the amendment as not germane. In defense of the amendment, the 
proponent stated:

        . . . [The amendment] is so intimately connected with the 
    right-to-work issue that it meets the objections to the repeal of 
    14(b) and yet obtains the objectives of the repeal of 14(b). . . .

    Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, also speaking on the point of 
order, stated:

        . . . The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
    attempts to amend the section that deals with right-to-work laws by 
    adding an amendment having to do with what the gentleman termed 
    ``the agency shop.'' Agency shop arrangements or provisions are in 
    nowise affected by H.R. 77, the bill before us. I contend, 
    therefore, that the amendment is not germane to the bill.

    The Chairman (7) ruled without elaboration that the 
amendment was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair ruled on the germaneness of six 
amendments to this bill. In four of the rulings, carried in 
Sec. Sec. 41.1 through 41.4, infra, the amendments ruled nongermane 
clearly raised issues beyond the narrow purpose of the bill and 
affected other portions of the law in question. In the two rulings 
cited above, the amendments were drafted as limitations or exceptions 
from the repeal in question, in order to preserve to the states 
authorities to ban certain closed shop agreements involving particular 
employees or permit alternative ``agency'' shop agreements under 
certain circumstances. Because the fundamental purpose of the bill was 
to achieve a uniform federal law prohibiting the states from barring 
``closed shops,'' amendments which deviated from

[[Page 8977]]

that purpose and related instead to the coverage of certain classes of 
employees under that and other sections of the law were held not 
germane.

Neutrality Act

Sec. 37.3 To a bill seeking to repeal a portion of the Neutrality Act 
    for purposes of permitting the President to arm American vessels, 
    an amendment relating to insurance for certain persons on military 
    duty was held not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration 
which stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H.J. Res. 237 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 9. See 87 Cong. Rec. 8026, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 17, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That section 6 of the Neutrality Act of 1939 
    (relating to the arming of American vessels) is hereby repealed; 
    and, during the unlimited national emergency proclaimed by the 
    President on May 27, 1941, the President is authorized, through 
    such agency as he may designate, to arm, or to permit or cause to 
    be armed, any American vessel as defined in such act. . . .

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Edouard V.M.] Izac [of California]: 
    In line 11, after period, add the following: ``For life insurance 
    protection to the families of armed guard detachments detailed as 
    guns' crews on American vessels so armed, all personnel on active 
    duty in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard . . . shall be 
    granted insurance under sections 602 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the 
    National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940. . . .''

    The Chairman,(10) ruling on a point of order raised by 
Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 8027, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 17, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment. It relates to a provision 
    for insurance for men who arm these vessels, a provision fairly 
    within the jurisdiction of committees other than the Foreign 
    Affairs Committee. Unquestionably the amendment is not germane to 
    this resolution and the Chair, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 37.4 To a joint resolution repealing several sections of an 
    existing neutrality law, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    proposing to repeal the entire law was held germane.

    In the 76th Congress, a joint resolution (12) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.J. Res. 306 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
13. See 84 Cong. Rec. 8282, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1939.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 8978]]

           Proclamation of a State of War Between Foreign States

        Section 1. (a) That whenever the President shall find that 
    there exists a state of war between foreign states, and that such 
    war endangers the lives of citizens of the United States and 
    threatens the peace of the United States, the President shall issue 
    a proclamation naming the states involved; and he shall, from time 
    to time, by proclamation, name other states as and when they may 
    become involved in the war.
        (b) Whenever the conditions which have caused the President to 
    issue any proclamation under the authority of this section have 
    ceased to exist, he shall revoke the same.

    A later section of the bill, Section 15, referred to by Mr. Fish in 
his point of order against the amendment offered here, stated:

        Sec. 15. The act of August 31, 1935 (Public Res. No. 67, 74th 
    Cong.), as amended by the act of February 29, 1936 (Public Res. No. 
    74, 74th Cong.), and the act of May 1, 1937 (Public Res. No. 27, 
    75th Cong.), and the act of January 8, 1937 (Public Res. No. 1, 
    75th Cong.), are hereby repealed.
Section 15 was modified by a committee amendment subsequently agreed to 
on June 30.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 84 Cong. Rec. 8501, 8502, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 8288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert G.] Allen of Pennsylvania: 
    Page 2, line 1, strike out all of section 1 and insert in lieu 
    thereof the following as a substitute for the joint resolution:

                 Repeal of Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, 1937

            The act of August 31, 1935 (Public Res. No. 67, 74th 
        Cong.), as amended by the act of February 29, 1936 (Public Res. 
        No. 74, 74th Cong.), and the act of May 1, 1937 (Public Res. 
        No. 27, 75th Cong.), and the act of January 8, 1937 (Public 
        Res. No. 1, 75th Cong.), are hereby repealed.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, it seems 
    to me this amendment is not germane to section 1 but would be 
    germane to section 15, now called section 16, on page 15, the 
    repeal of the acts of 1935, 1936, 1937 . . . . It seems to me there 
    is but one place for [the amendment] and that would be that section 
    of the bill where reference is made to the specific laws that are 
    repealed. There is no reference to any of these laws in the first 
    section of the bill.

    The Chairman,16 in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is clearly 
    germane to the pending resolution, because the pending resolution 
    contains a section repealing certain provisions of existing 
    neutrality laws. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania seeks to repeal the neutrality law. The amendment is, 
    therefore, germane. As to the point of order made by

[[Page 8979]]

    the gentleman from New York that it is not germane to the section 
    the Chair invites attention to section 2905 of volume VIII of 
    Cannon's Precedents of the House which state:

            A substitute for an entire bill may be offered only after 
        the first paragraph has been read or after the reading of the 
        bill for amendment has been concluded.

        The Chair is of opinion, in keeping with the precedent to which 
    attention has been invited, that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania is in order at this point.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair properly treated the Allen 
amendment as ``in the nature of a substitute'' for the entire joint 
resolution, since it substituted language for the entire text, although 
not drafted to ``strike out all after the resolving clause and insert. 
. . .''

Sec. 37.5 To a proposition to repeal the neutrality laws, a substitute 
    amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the world ``be put 
    on notice'' that Congress would not declare war except in certain 
    situations involving the safety of the United States was held not 
    to be germane.

    In the 76th Congress, during consideration of the Neutrality Act of 
1939,17 an amendment was offered, as follows: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.J. Res. 306 (Committee on Foreign Affairs). For further 
        description of the joint resolution, see Sec. 37.4, supra.
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 8294, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Martin J.] Kennedy [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Martin J. Kennedy: On page 2, line 1, 
    after the enacting clause strike out all of the language of the 
    resolution down through and including section 14, and insert the 
    following: . . .

            Whereas under the Constitution the Congress of the United 
        States has the sole power to declare war; and
            Whereas the neutrality law has come to a termination: 
        Therefore be it
            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress . . . that 
        the entire world be put on notice that the Congress . . . will 
        not declare war on any country unless our own safety is 
        directly . . . involved by a hostile force or by an actual 
        violation of international law which endangers the safety of 
        our country. . . .

    Mr. Luther A. Johnson, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane. The Chairman (19) sustained the 
point of order, relying in part on the rule that a preamble can

[[Page 8980]]

be in order only after the body of a bill or joint resolution has been 
perfected. The Chairman further stated that, ``the resolving clause 
contained in the amendment offered by [Mr. Kennedy] is not germane to 
the [pending amendment to the] joint resolution. . . .'' 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 8295, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chinese Exclusion Acts

Sec. 37.6 To a bill seeking the repeal of Chinese Exclusion Acts, an 
    amendment relating to immigration generally was held not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill (1) 
to repeal the Chinese Exclusion Acts, the following amendment was 
offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 3070 (Committee on Immigration and Naturalization).
 2. 89 Cong. Rec. 8633, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 21, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [A. Leonard] Allen of Louisiana: Page 
    4, after line 4, add a new section, to read as follows:

            Sec. 4. That, beginning with the end of hostilities of the 
        present war, no immigrant (as defined in sec. 203, title 8, 
        U.S.C.) shall be admitted into the United States during any 
        calendar year until the number of unemployed persons, including 
        United States war veterans, within the United States, is less 
        than 1,000,000. . . .

    Mr. Thomas E. Scanlon, of Pennsylvania, made a point of order 
against the amendment on the ground that it was not germane to the 
bill. The point of order having been conceded,(3) the 
Chairman (4) sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 8635.
 4. Emmet O'Neal (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Repealing Narrow Subsection of Selective Service Act--Amendment 
    Proposing Comprehensive Revision of Law

Sec. 37.7 To a bill repealing one narrow subsection of existing law, an 
    amendment proposing a comprehensive revision of the whole law in 
    question was conceded not to be germane and was ruled out on a 
    point of order.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (5) was under consideration 
which stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 14001 (Committee on Armed Services), amending the Selective 
        Service Act.
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 32464, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 ``Selective Service Amendment Act of 1969.''

[[Page 8981]]

        Sec. 2, Section 5(a)(2) of the Military Selective Service Act 
    of 1967 (50 App. U.S.C. 455(a)(2)) is hereby repealed.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [II, of Missouri]: 
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 
    . . .

            Sec. 2. (a) Section 5 of the Military Selective Service Act 
        of 1967 (50 App. U.S.C. 455) is amended by striking out 
        subsection (a), by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as 
        subsections (g) and (h), respectively, and by inserting 
        immediately before subsection (g) (as so redesignated) the 
        following new subsections: . . .
            (b) The order of induction of registrants found qualified 
        for induction shall be determined as follows:
            (1) Selection of persons for induction to meet the military 
        manpower needs shall be made from persons in the prime 
        selection group, after the selection of delinquents and 
        volunteers.
            (2) The term ``prime selection group'' means persons who 
        are liable for training and service under this title, and who 
        at the time of selection are registered and classified and are 
        nineteen years of age and not deferred or exempted. . . .
            Sec. 3. (a) Subsection (h)(1) of section 6 of the Military 
        Selective Service Act of 1967 (50 App. U.S.C. 456) is amended 
        to read as follows:
            (h)(1) The President is authorized under such rules, and 
        regulations as he may prescribe, to provide for the deferment 
        from training and service in the Armed Forces of persons [under 
        specified conditions]. . . .

    A point of order having been raised by Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of 
Louisiana, Mr. Ichord conceded that the amendment was not germane, and 
the Chairman (7) thereupon sustained the point of 
order.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Robert L.F. Sikes (Fla.).
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 32465, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment Modifying Subsection in Manner Not Relating to Subject of 
    Bill

Sec. 37.8 To a bill repealing a narrow subsection of law relating to 
    the order of induction of selective service registrants, amendments 
    modifying that subsection of law for the purpose of placing 
    restrictions on the assignment of personnel to Vietnam without 
    their consent was ruled out as not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a bill (9) 
amending the Selective Service Act, an amendment was offered which 
provided that, subject to certain limitations, ``[N]o person inducted 
under this title on or after such date of enactment may be assigned, 
without his express consent, to active duty in Vietnam. . . .'' 
(10) Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York, the proponent

[[Page 8982]]

of the amendment, stated as follows in response to a point of order 
raised by Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 14001 (Committee on Armed Services). See Sec. 37.7, supra, for 
        further discussion of the bill.
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 32466, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Mr. Chairman, I submit the amendment which I have offered 
    is germane to the bill in that my amendment would permit the 
    President to institute a random selection method, it does repeal 
    the section 5(a)(2)) of the Military Selective Service Act which is 
    the same section the bill before us repeals.
        At the same time, it says that no one inducted under the 
    Selective Service Act of 1967, regardless of how he is inducted, 
    shall be sent to Vietnam without his consent unless there is a 
    declaration of war.
        It seems to me that nothing could be more germane to the 
    question of the draft than where and under what conditions one is 
    going to be asked to give his life. (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 32467.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Robert L.F. Sikes (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Section 5(a)(2)) deals only with the order of the induction for 
    registrants within the various age groups found to qualify for 
    induction. . . .
        The amendment . . . refers to the assignment of personnel after 
    their induction. . . .
        The Chair does not believe that, because this bill provides for 
    the induction of personnel, that it opens up for general 
    consideration the subsequent military service and careers of those 
    inducted. The assignment of personnel . . . (is) not within the 
    contemplation of the present bill.
        The Chair therefore holds that the amendment is not germane, 
    and sustains the point of order.

    Mr. Ryan then offered a modified version of the amendment. Such 
version contained the following language: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 32467, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [N]o person inducted pursuant to any such change as may 
    be made under the authority of the preceding provisions of this 
    paragraph may be assigned, without his express consent, to active 
    duty in Vietnam. . . .

    Mr. Hebert again made a point of order against the amendment, and 
Mr. Ryan stated:

        . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment which I have offered is 
    considerably more restrictive than the previous amendment. I submit 
    it is germane because it deals, as does the pending bill, H.R. 
    14001, only with the order of induction of various age groups which 
    would be changed under the proposed repeal.
        The bill . . . repeals section 5(a)(2)) of the Military 
    Selective Service Act of 1967. In other words, it repeals the 1967 
    prohibition upon the President effecting a change in the method of 
    determining the relative order of induction of registrants from the 
    method in effect upon the date of enactment of the 1967 act. . . .
        . . . [T]he bill . . . repeals the prohibition. My amendment 
    repeals it in part. Certainly, it is germane, to limit

[[Page 8983]]

    the repeal in that fashion, and I submit it is very much germane 
    because it is on the very subject of the method of selection, and 
    under the rules of the House an amendment is germane if it is on 
    the subject under consideration.

    The Chairman again sustained the point of order. He stated in part:

        The Chair must hold that the language of the amendment would 
    open up for present consideration a broader field than that which 
    is contained in the language of the bill. The situation is four-
    square with that of the amendment offered immediately prior by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan). The Chair therefore holds that 
    the amendment is not germane. . . .

--Amendment Stating Congressional Policy as to Application of Whole Act

Sec. 37.9 To a bill repealing one subsection of the Selective Service 
    Act relating to the President's authority to determine the relative 
    order of induction for selective service registrants within certain 
    age groups, an amendment inserting in the bill a statement of 
    congressional policy concerning the application of the whole of the 
    Selective Service Act was ruled out as not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) amending the Selective Service Act, the following 
amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 14001 (Committee on Armed Services). See Sec. Sec. 37.7, 37.8, 
        supra, for further discussion of the bill.
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 32465, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Leonard] Farbstein [of New York]: On 
    page 1, insert between lines 4 and 5 the following:

            Sec. 2. The Congress declares that . . . although the 
        implementation of . . . a random system of selection would be a 
        significant step toward achieving fairness in the existing 
        conscription system, it would be still more equitable to 
        suspend such system as soon as possible. . . .

    The Chairman,(16) ruling on a point of order raised by 
Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, stated: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Robert L.F. Sikes (Fla.).
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 32466, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill is aimed at the accomplishment of a single, narrow 
    objective: the repeal of one subsection of the Military Selective 
    Service Act, which it relates only to the President's authority to 
    determine the relative order of induction for selective service 
    registrants within age groups.
        Since the amendment is of more general application and goes to 
    the whole subject of the existing selective service system, the 
    Chair holds that it is not germane. The point of order . . . is, 
    therefore, sustained.

[[Page 8984]]

Federal Judgeship in Missouri--Amendment Affecting Jurisdiction of 
    Federal Courts

Sec. 37.10 To a bill relating to the permanency of a federal judgeship 
    in Missouri, an amendment relating to requirements for jurisdiction 
    of federal courts was held not germane.

    In the 81st Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration which provided: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 7009 (Committee on the Judiciary).
19. See 96 Cong. Rec. 12018, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 8, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That the judgeship for the eastern and western districts of 
    Missouri provided for by the act entitled ``An act to provide for 
    the appointment of an additional district judge for the eastern and 
    western districts of Missouri,'' approved December 24, 1942 (Public 
    Law 837, 56 Stat. 1083), shall hereafter be a permanent judgeship. 
    Accordingly, in order to incorporate the permanent provisions of 
    the said act into the United States Code, as a continuation of 
    existing law and not as a new enactment, title 28, United States 
    Code, section 133, is amended to read as follows, with respect to 
    the eastern and western districts of Missouri:
        [Missouri, eastern and western districts--2 judges]
        Sec. 2. The act entitled ``An act to provide for the 
    appointment of an additional district judge for the eastern and 
    western districts of Missouri,'' approved December 24, 1942 (50 
    Stat. 1083), is hereby repealed, but its repeal shall not affect 
    the tenure of office of the incumbent of the judgeship created by 
    such act who shall henceforth hold his position under title 28, 
    United States Code, section 133, as amended by this Act.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: 
    Page 3, line 10, add a new section:

            Sec. 3. That sections 1331 and 1332 of title 28, United 
        States Code, are amended to read as follows: . . .
            Sec. 1332. Diversity of citizenship;

                             Amount in Controversy

            ``(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction 
        of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds 
        the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, 
        and is between--
            ``(1) citizens of different States. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Walter) to the bill to repeal the proviso against 
    the filling of the vacancy in the office of district judge for the 
    eastern and western districts of Missouri is not germane to the 
    main purposes of the bill. . . . [The amendment] increases 
    jurisdiction, lifting the present minimum amount from $3,000

[[Page 8985]]

    to a higher amount, and it certainly has no relation whatever to a 
    judgeship in the State of Missouri. It is general legislation on a 
    specific bill for a specific purpose.

    The Chairman,(20) without elaboration, ruled that the 
amendment was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.  Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Termination of Powers of President Relating to Issuance of United 
    States Note--Amendment Affecting Powers of Federal Reserve and 
    Treasury as to Limitations on Credit Expansion

Sec. 37.11 To that section of a bill terminating the powers of the 
    President regarding the issuance of United States notes, an 
    amendment was held not germane which sought to enable the President 
    to establish a parity between gold and silver and to enable the 
    Federal Reserve in connection with the Treasury Department to issue 
    directions to the Federal Reserve banks to limit credit expansion.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (1) was under consideration 
which sought to amend the Federal Reserve Act and which stated in part: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 3000 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 2. See 91 Cong. Rec. 5289, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., May 29, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 4. All power and authority of the President and the 
    Secretary of the Treasury under section 43(b)(1) of the act 
    approved May 12, 1933 (48 Stat. 31, 52), with respect to the 
    issuance of United States notes, shall cease and terminate on the 
    date of enactment of this act.

    The following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan] Page 
    4, line 15, strike out all of section 4 and insert in lieu thereof 
    the following:

            Sec. 4. Section 43 of the act approved May 12, 1933 (48 
        Stat. 3152) is hereby repealed.

    The effect of the amendment was described as follows by Mr. Brent 
Spence, of Kentucky, who raised the point of order that the amendment 
was not germane:

        Mr. Chairman, that amendment repeals the Thomas amendment. The 
    gentleman's amendment goes very much further than the bill, and 
    provides that the President may establish a parity between gold and 
    silver and it also provides that the Federal Reserve in connection 
    with the Treasury Department may issue directions to the Federal 
    Reserve banks to limit credit expansion. It makes legal tender the 
    Federal Reserve notes; and if you strike out this amendment, there 
    will be no legal tender or money except sil

[[Page 8986]]

    ver certificates and the small coins to the extent of $10. It does 
    not do any thing to silver, because those who are interested in 
    silver rely on the Silver Purchase Act, which provides that one-
    fourth of the monetary stock of the United States shall be in 
    silver bullion.
        I do not think that the amendment is germane in any respect. It 
    is a most far-reaching amendment--one that if adopted, I am sure, 
    would delay the passage of this bill and might cause a delay which 
    would be very injurious to the activities of the Federal Reserve 
    System in regard to our public-debt transactions. . . .

    The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, it 
    appears clearly, goes beyond the language of section 4 and 
    therefore is not germane to the bill. The Chair, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order made by the gentleman from Kentucky.

District of Columbia Changes in Zoning

Sec. 37.12 To a bill relating to dwellings situated in alleys in the 
    District of Columbia, a committee amendment proposing to change 
    zoning provisions in the District by authorizing improvements to be 
    made on specified property so as to facilitate the operation of a 
    gasoline station thereon was held not to be germane.

    In the 83d Congress, a bill (4) was under consideration 
which read in part as follows: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. S. 3506 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
 5. See 100 Cong. Rec. 13807, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 9, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the act entitled ``An act to provide, 
    in the interest of public health, comfort, morals, and safety, for 
    the discontinuance of the use as dwellings of buildings situated in 
    the alleys in the District of Columbia,'' approved September 25, 
    1914 (38 Stat. 716), as amended (secs. 5-101, 102, D.C. Code, 1951 
    edition), is hereby repealed.
        Sec. 2. Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 4 of the act 
    entitled ``An act to provide for the discontinuance of the use of 
    dwellings of buildings situated in alleys in the District of 
    Columbia, and for the replatting and development of squares 
    containing inhabited alleys, in the interest of public health, 
    comfort, morals, safety, and welfare, and for other purposes,' 
    approved June 12, 1934 (48 Stat. 932), as amended (sec. 5-106, D.C. 
    Code, 1951 edition), are hereby repealed. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        The Clerk read the committee amendment as follows:
        On page 2, line 8, insert a new section as follows:
        Sec. 3. The Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia 
    are authorized to permit the erection, construction, alteration, 
    conversion, maintenance, and use of such buildings and

[[Page 8987]]

    other improvements on square 1928, lot numbered 800 (southeast 
    corner of the intersection of Wisconsin and Massachusetts Avenues 
    Northwest), situated in the District of Columbia, as the 
    Commissioners may deem appropriate for the purpose of conducting 
    the business which is being conducted on such land on the date of 
    enactment of this act.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Joseph P.] O'Hara of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill as passed by the Senate. That bill related only 
    to the amendment of the Alley Dwelling Act of the District of 
    Columbia on June 12, 1934, so as to remove therefrom provisions 
    which would make it unlawful after June 30, 1955, to use or occupy 
    any alley building or structure as a dwelling in the District of 
    Columbia. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia Committee of the House 
    amended S. 3506 so as to add thereto a provision which would permit 
    the reconstruction of nonconforming gasoline filling stations 
    located in an area of the District which has been zoned as 
    residential (A). This amendment to the bill is in effect an 
    amendment to the Zoning Act of 1935 and not in any way related to 
    the matter of alley dwellings. . . . In other words, the bill as 
    passed by the Senate referred to alley dwellings and the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from South Carolina dealt with an entirely 
    different subject--zoning law and zoning regulations. . . .

    Mr. John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, in support of the 
amendment, stated:

        Mr. Speaker, I contend the amendment is germane to the bill, S. 
    3506, on the ground the purposes of the amendment and the purposes 
    of the bill, S. 3506, relate to alley improvement. I also contend 
    it is germane on the ground that both the bill S. 3506 and the 
    amendment is for the purpose of granting permission to repair and 
    improve property here in the District of Columbia.

    The Speaker,(6) both responding to a parliamentary 
inquiry and ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In response to the parliamentary inquiry propounded by the 
    gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Miller] the Chair may say that the 
    committee amendment assumes the same status in the House as any 
    other amendment that might be offered from the floor. That is why 
    the Committee on Rules is sometimes asked to report special rules 
    waiving points of order against committee amendments. Those points 
    of order usually involve questions of germaneness.
        The Chair has examined the bill and the committee amendment.
        The bill itself relates solely to the use of alley dwellings 
    and the prohibition against the erection of structures in alleys 
    for dwelling purposes. The proposed committee amendment has for its 
    purpose a change in the zoning provisions in the District of 
    Columbia.

[[Page 8988]]

    It does not seem to the Chair that the committee amendment has any 
    direct relationship to the purpose of the bill.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is not germane 
    and, therefore, sustains the point of order.

--School Appropriations: Amendment To Modify Rather Than Repeal 
    Provisions Relating to Teaching or Advocating Communism

Sec. 37.13 To a bill seeking to repeal a provision of existing law, an 
    amendment proposing a modification in such provision of the law was 
    held to be germane as an alternative exception from the prohibition 
    contained in the law sought to be repealed.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
which stated: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 148 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
 8. See 81 Cong. Rec. 998, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the proviso appearing in the 
    fourteenth paragraph, under the subheading ``Miscellaneous'', under 
    the heading ``Public Schools'', in the District of Columbia 
    Appropriation Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, 
    approved June 14, 1935 (49 Stat. 356), and reading as follows: 
    ``Provided That hereafter no part of any appropriation for the 
    public schools shall be available for the payment of the salary of 
    any person teaching or advocating communism'' is hereby repealed.

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. McCormack: On page 1, line 11, after 
    the word ``communism'', strike out ``is hereby repealed'' and 
    insert in lieu thereof ``is hereby amended to read as follows: 
    `Provided, That hereafter no part of any appropriation for the 
    public schools shall be available for the payment of the salary of 
    any person advocating . . . but no official or teacher shall be 
    required to make any special declaration of nonviolation hereof as 
    a condition for payment of salary.' ''

    Mr. Maury Maverick, of Texas, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill. The Chairman,(10) in 
ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks that the test of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts is whether it would have been germane 
    to the so-called ``red rider'' amendment. If it would have been 
    germane to that amendment, it is germane to this bill. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts simply 
    deletes from the so-called ``red rider'' the inhibition against 
    teaching but retains the advocacy of such doctrine, and the Chair 
    thinks it would have been germane to the original amendment, and, 
    therefore, is germane to the pending bill. The Chair overrules the 
    point of order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. But see Sec. 37.8, supra, and Sec. Sec. 41.1-41.4, infra, for 
        discussion of instances where an amendment modifying a 
        provision of law was held not to be germane to a bill repealing 
        such provision. Such a proposed modification of law must, to be 
        germane, bear sufficient relationship to the provision of law 
        being repealed and to the fundamental purpose of the bill.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 8989]]


 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
            E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW

Sec. 38. Amendments to Bills Which Incorporate Other Law or 
    Matter                          -------------------

Bill and Amendment as Applying Making Different Provisions of Same Law 
    Applicable to Terms of Emergency Assistance to India

Sec. 38.1 To a bill authorizing emergency food relief assistance to 
    India on credit terms as provided in one designated section of 
    another act, an amendment making such assistance subject to all 
    provisions of that act ``applicable to and consistent with the 
    purposes'' of the bill was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (12) was under consideration 
to furnish emergency food relief assistance to India. The following 
amendment was offered to the bill: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 3791 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
13. 97 Cong. Rec. 5832, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., May 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Shelley: On page 2, after line 20, 
    insert a new section:
        Sec. 3. Assistance provided under this act shall be provided 
    under the provision of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as 
    amended, applicable to and consistent with the purposes of this 
    act.
        And amend this title.

    Mr. John F. Shelley, of California, explaining the purpose of the 
amendment, stated:

        . . . The purpose I have in offering this amendment at this 
    time is to protect (the) principle . . . that the cargoes carried 
    shall be carried at least 50 percent in vessels of American 
    registry. . . .

    Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane.(14) He pointed out that the 
section of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948 referred to in the bill 
related to credit terms, whereas the amendment sought to incorporate 
provisions of such act relating to shipping. The Chairman 
(15) sustained the point of order,(16) observing 
that while shipping was a subject covered by the bill, the bill's 
provisions did not relate to shipping or other operations under the 
Economic Cooperation

[[Page 8990]]

Administration Act of 1948. He further stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at pp. 5832, 5833.
15. Albert A. Gore (Tenn.).
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 5833, 5834, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., May 24, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Upon close examination, the Chair finds that the amendment 
    proposes the injection of new subject matter, not now within the 
    text of the pending bill, by making the assistance which the 
    pending bill would provide subject to the provisions of the 
    Economic Cooperation Act of 1948 which differ from subsection (c), 
    paragraph (2), of section 111 of said act, specifically referred to 
    by the pending bill.
        The fundamental test of germaneness being whether a proposed 
    amendment would inject new and different subject matter, though not 
    necessarily unrelated matter, into the legislation, the Chair is 
    constrained to feel that the proposed amendment, even though it 
    proposes to subject the pending bill to certain provisions of an 
    act, a limited part of which act is referred to by the pending 
    bill, does not meet the test of germaneness. . . .

Provision Making Law Inapplicable to One Activity--Amendment (In Form 
    of Motion To Strike) Making Law Inapplicable to Other Activities

Sec. 38.2 For a perfecting amendment to a subsection striking out one 
    activity from those covered by a provision of existing law, a 
    substitute striking out the entire subsection, thereby eliminating 
    the applicability of existing law to a number of activities, was 
    held more general in scope and not germane.

    On Aug. 18, 1982,(17) during consideration of H.R. 5540, 
the Defense Industrial Base Revitalization Act, in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 21967, 21968, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs now printed in the 
    reported bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment in 
    lieu of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 5540

            . . . Sec. 2. Title III of the Defense Production Act of 
        1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2091 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
        after section 303 the following:
            ``Sec. 303A. (a) It is the purpose of this section to 
        strengthen the domestic capability and capacity of the Nation's 
        defense industrial base. The actions specified in this section 
        are intended to facilitate the carrying out of such purpose.
            ``(b)(1) The President, utilizing the types of financial 
        assistance specified in sections 301, 302, and 303, and any 
        other authority contained in this Act, shall take immediate 
        action to

[[Page 8991]]

        assist in the modernization of industries in the United States 
        which are necessary to the manufacture or supply of national 
        defense materials which are required for the national security 
        or are likely to be required in a time of emergency or war. . . 
        .
            ``(c) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
        Secretary of Commerce, shall--
            ``(1) determine immediately, and semiannually thereafter, 
        those industries which should be given priority in the awarding 
        of financial assistance under subsection (b);
            ``(2) determine the type and extent of financial assistance 
        which should be made available to each such industry; and
            ``(3) with respect to the industries specified pursuant to 
        paragraph (1), indicate those proposals, received under 
        subsection (e), which should be given preference in the 
        awarding of financial assistance under subsection (b) based on 
        a determination that such proposals offer the greatest prospect 
        for improving productivity and quality, and for providing 
        materials which will reduce the Nation's reliance on imports. . 
        . .
            ``(m)(1) All laborers and mechanics employed for the 
        construction, repair, or alteration of any project, or the 
        installation of equipment, funded, in whole or in part, by a 
        guarantee, loan, or grant entered into pursuant to this section 
        shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on 
        projects of similar character in the locality as determined by 
        the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Act entitled `An 
        Act relating to the rate of wages for laborers and mechanics 
        employed on public buildings of the United States and the 
        District of Columbia by contractors and subcontractors, and for 
        other purposes', approved March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a et 
        seq.), and commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act.

    When consideration of H.R. 5540 resumed on Sept. 23, 
1982,(19) an amendment was offered by Mr. Bruce F. Vento, of 
Minnesota, and proceedings ensued as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 128 Cong. Rec. 24963, 24964, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:
            Page 41, line 24, strike out ``, or the installation of 
        equipment,''.
            Page 42, beginning on line 15, strike out ``, or the 
        installation of equipment,''. . . .

        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Erlenborn as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Beginning on page 41, line 22, 
        strike all of subsection (m) through page 43, line 2.

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn). . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the substitute offered by the gentleman is 
    clearly not in order. Under rule 19, Cannon's Procedure VIII, 
    section 2879, the precedents provide that ``to qualify as a 
    substitute an amendment must treat in the same manner the same 
    subject carried by the amendment for which it is offered.''
        My amendment would remove language from the committee bill and

[[Page 8992]]

    limit the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act in terms of one type 
    of activity. The gentleman's substitute would strike the entire 
    section of the committee bill which my amendment seeks to perfect 
    and thereby eliminate the Davis-Bacon provisions of this 
    legislation.
        In this case, the amendment offered by the gentleman clearly 
    does not treat the subject in the same manner which my amendment 
    does. Also, under Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.1, 
    decisions made by the Chair on August 12, 1963, December 16, 1963, 
    and June 5, 1974, a motion to strike out a section or paragraph is 
    not in order while a perfecting amendment is pending. In addition, 
    the decisions of the Chair of December 16, 1963, and June 5, 1974, 
    and contained in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 27, section 14.4, 
    provides that a provision must be perfected before the question is 
    put on striking it out. A motion to strike out a paragraph or 
    section may not be offered as a substitute for pending motion to 
    perfect a paragraph or section by a motion to strike and insert. 
    The gentleman's amendment attempts to accomplish indirectly 
    something that he is precluded from doing directly. . . .
        Mr. Erlenborn: . . . It does appear to me from what the 
    gentleman has said in support of his point of order that he is 
    claiming that my substitute would treat a different matter or in a 
    different manner the same matter as the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman.
        The language to which both amendments are directed is language 
    in the bill that is applying the Davis-Bacon Act to activities 
    under the bill in question. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
    is reducing the extent of that coverage by taking out the 
    installation of equipment.
        My substitute also reduces that by eliminating the language so 
    there would be no extension of Davis-Bacon to the activities beyond 
    the present coverage of Davis-Bacon.
        So the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) is affecting Davis-Bacon by reducing its 
    coverage. Mine also would affect the reduction of Davis-Bacon, only 
    in a broader manner; and I, therefore, believe the amendment is in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for the reasons advocated by the gentleman 
    from Minnesota that the substitute is too broad in its scope in its 
    striking the whole of subsection (m).
        The Chair would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) it would be appropriate as a separate amendment but it 
    is not in order as a substitute because of the scope of the 
    amendment.
        The point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota is 
    sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As the above proceedings indicate, a motion 
to strike out an entire subsection of a bill is not, in any event, a 
proper substitute for a perfecting amendment to the subsection, since 
it is broader in scope, but may be offered after disposition of the 
perfecting amendment.

[[Page 8993]]



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
            E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW
 
Sec. 39. Amendments to Bills Extending Existing Law or Authority Under 
    Existing Law

    To a bill extending an existing law, an amendment modifying the law 
may be germane.(20) It has been held, for example, that, to 
a bill extending an existing law in modified form, an amendment 
proposing further modification of the law is germane.(1) Of 
course, an amendment must be germane not only to the act sought to be 
extended but also to the bill providing for such extension, where the 
bill extends only a portion of an existing law and does not open up 
other unrelated portions of that law to amendment.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. Sec. 39.14, 39.28, infra.
 1. See Sec. 39.19, infra.
 2. See Sec. 39.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While a bill ``extending existing law'' may open up the law being 
extended to germane amendments, a proposition which extends, not the 
law, but an official's authority under that law, does not open up the 
basic law to amendment.(3) Therefore it is held that, to a 
bill temporarily extending an official's authority under existing law, 
an amendment permanently amending that law is not 
germane.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 39.27, infra.
 4. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, where a bill has for its sole purpose merely the 
extension of the time when a certain authority under a law shall become 
or continue to be effective, or cease to be effective, no amendments 
which affect other authorities under other provisions of that 
substantive law are in order.(5) Thus, to a bill extending 
the provisions of a section of an existing law for an additional period 
of time, an amendment proposing to add a new section to such law has 
been held not to be germane.(6) Where a bill merely 
authorizes appropriations to an agency for a certain period but does 
not amend the organic law by extending the existence of that agency, 
the bill does not necessarily open up the law to permanent 
amendments,(7) and where a bill only authorizes 
appropriations for an existing program for one year, an amendment to 
extend the authorization for additional years is not 
germane.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 35.44, supra.
 6. See Sec. 39.23, infra.
 7. See Sec. Sec. 39.33, 39.35, 41.14, infra.
 8. See Sec. 39.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, to a bill continuing and expanding a law, an amendment 
may be ruled out as not germane even where the provisions contained in 
the amendment had formerly been an unrelated part of the law in 
question.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 39.11, infra.

[[Page 8994]]

                          -------------------

Price Control Act

Sec. 39.1 To a bill extending acts that were concerned with the 
    stabilization of prices and wages, an amendment relating to 
    contracts and agreements covering aspects of employee and employer 
    relationships beyond the scope of the bill and the acts sought to 
    be amended was held to be not germane.

    In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the bill 
(10) for extension of the Price Control Act of 1942, the 
following amendment was offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 4941 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
11. 90 Cong. Rec. 5650, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 9, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Cravens: Title I of the Emergency 
    Price Control Act of 1942 as amended, is hereby amended by adding 
    the following at the end of section 1 of said title.

            Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, order, or 
        regulation, the National War Labor Board, in the exercise of 
        its authority, may prescribe the terms and conditions of 
        employment (customarily included in collective bargaining 
        agreements) which the parties shall observe, but the Board 
        shall make no order requiring any person--
            (1) to sign any contract or agreement to which such person 
        does not voluntarily agree . . .
            (3) to agree to submit any dispute to arbitration . . .
            (5) to make any indirect wage or salary increase of any 
        kind whatsoever except under regulations promulgated by the 
        President and in strict conformity therewith. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    goes very much further than any of the provisions of the bill we 
    are considering. It not only includes wages but it includes working 
    conditions, the relationship of employer to employee and the 
    settlement of labor disputes, none of which are involved in this 
    bill and none of which, it seems to me, are germane or in the 
    contemplated purposes of any provision of the pending bill.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Fadjo Cravens, of 
Arkansas, stated: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 5650, 5651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, may I direct the attention of the Chair to the 
    fact that H.R. 4941, section 1, now under consideration, refers to 
    section 1 of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, 
    which in turn refers specifically to the National War Labor Board. 
    I am proceeding on the theory that the express reference to the 
    National War Labor Board would make germane any matter which might 
    control the action or conduct or jurisdiction of that Board.

    The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 5651, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 9, 1944.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 8995]]

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that in the Emergency 
    Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, reference is made to 
    stabilization of prices and wages. This act and the Emergency 
    Stabilization Act are amended by provisions of the pending bill.
        The Chair also invites attention to the fact that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cravens) seeks to 
    include provisions relating to contracts and agreements with 
    respect to employee and employer relationships which are beyond the 
    scope of the pending bill or the appropriate provisions of the acts 
    sought to be amended by the pending bill.
        The Chair [also invites] attention to the fact that during 
    discussion of the rule which was adopted for the consideration of 
    the pending bill it was pointed out that a waiver of points of 
    order would be necessary in order to make certain amendments in 
    order, one of which doubtlessly is the amendment here presented by 
    the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Cravens]. The rule adopted by the 
    House did not contain such a waiver.
        The Chair is therefore constrained to rule that the amendment 
    offered is not germane and sustains the point of order.

Sec. 39.2 To a bill extending the Price Control Act and containing 
    provisions relating to subsidies on meat and other commodities, an 
    amendment offered to such provisions in order to eliminate the 
    subsidies was held germane.

    In the 79th Congress, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the Emergency Price Control Act,(15) which 
stated in part as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 6042 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 3872, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 17, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Be it enacted, etc., That section 1 (b) of the Emergency 
        Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, is amended by striking 
        out ``June 30, 1946'' and substituting ``June 30, 1947.''
            Sec. 2. Section 6 of the Stabilization Act of 1942, is 
        amended by striking out ``June 30, 1946'' and substituting 
        ``June 30, 1947.''
            Sec. 3. Title I of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, 
        as amended, is amended by inserting after section 1 thereof a 
        new section as follows:

                      ``removal of price and wage controls

            ``Sec. 1A. (a) It is hereby declared to be the policy of 
        the Congress that the general control of prices and wages, and 
        the use of the subsidy powers conferred by section 2(e) of this 
        act, shall be terminated, without further extension, not later 
        than June 30, 1947, and that on that date the Office of Price 
        Administration shall be abolished. . . .
            Sec. 5. Subsection (e) of section 2 of the Emergency Price 
        Control Act of 1942, as amended by the Stabilization Extension 
        Act of 1944, is amended, effective as of July 1, 1946, by 
        inserting ``(1)'' after ``(e)'' at the beginning of such 
        subsection, and by striking out the last paragraph of such 
        subsection (e) and inserting in lieu thereof the following 
        paragraphs:
            ``(2) Subsidy operations, as hereinafter defined, for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, shall be limited as follows, 
        subject to the provisions of paragraph (3):

[[Page 8996]]

            ``(A) With respect to funds of the Commodity Credit 
        Corporation--
            (i) for the dairy production payment program, $515,000,000: 
        Provided, That in carrying out the dairy production payment 
        program the rate of payment per pound of butterfat delivered 
        shall not be less than 25 percent of the national weighted 
        average rate of payment per hundred pounds of whole milk 
        delivered;
            ``(ii) for other noncrop programs, $50,000,000; and
            ``(iii) for the 1946 crop-program operations, $160,000,000:
        ``Provided, That not to exceed 10 percent of each amount 
        specified in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of this subparagraph 
        (A) shall be available interchangeably for the operations 
        described in such clauses but in no case shall the total 
        subsidy operations under any one of such clauses be increased 
        by more than 10 percent. . . .

    The following amendment was offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 3904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Flannagan: . . .
        2. Amend section 5, page 8, line 2, by inserting a colon in 
    lieu of the period at the end of the sentence and adding the 
    following: ``Provided further, That no funds heretofore or 
    hereafter appropriated to, borrowed under congressional 
    authorization by, or in custody or control of any governmental 
    agency . . . shall be used after June 30, 1946, to continue any 
    existing program or to institute any new program for the payment of 
    subsidies on livestock or meat derived from livestock. . . .''

    The following exchange concerned a point of order raised against 
the amendment:

        Mr. [Frank E.] Hook [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground, first, that it is not 
    germane to the bill, and, second, that it goes far beyond the 
    authorization and scope of this bill. The bill only provides for 
    the extension of the Office of Price Administration and 
    Stabilization and this takes in many other acts and agencies. . . .

        Mr. [John W.] Flannagan [Jr., of Virginia]: The only purpose 
    this amendment would accomplish would be to eliminate entirely meat 
    subsidies.
        The Chairman: (18) . . . The section relates to the 
    question of subsidies. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Flannagan] likewise relates to the question of 
    subsidies. The Chair believes the amendment is germane and 
    overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 39.3 To a bill to extend the Price Control Act, an amendment 
    providing that notwithstanding any provisions of the act no 
    regulation, order, directive, or allocation shall be issued, made, 
    or maintained with respect to livestock or any edible product 
    processed from livestock was held germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of the Emergency Price 
Control Act,(19) an amendment was offered (20) as 
described

[[Page 8997]]

above. A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 6042 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 3909, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 17, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank E.] Hook [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground it goes beyond the 
    scope of the bill and is not germane to either the section or the 
    bill.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York offers an amendment which has been 
    reported, and the gentleman from Michigan has made a point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane and that 
    it goes beyond the scope of the pending bill. The Chair invites 
    attention to the fact that the amendment is confined to the 
    Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 which is sought here to be 
    amended, and the Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is 
    germane.

Sec. 39.4 To a bill to extend the effective period of the Emergency 
    Price Control Act of 1942 and the Stabilization Act of 1942, an 
    amendment authorizing the diversion of supplies of food from 
    military channels in order to meet critical civilian needs was held 
    germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration 
extending the Price Control and Stabilization Acts. An amendment 
previously agreed to (3) stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.J. Res. 101 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 6570, 6578, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., June 22, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Thomas A.] Jenkins [of Ohio]: 
        Page 1, after section 2, insert the following section:
            ``Sec. 3. All powers of the Price Administrator or the 
        Director of Economic Stabilization, with respect to food, 
        granted by or exercised pursuant to a delegation of authority 
        under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, the 
        Stabilization Act of 1942, or title III of the Second War 
        Powers Act, as such acts were originally enacted or as they 
        have been amended, except rationing, are hereby transferred to 
        the Secretary of Agriculture; and in any case where, under 
        authority of any such provision of law, powers with respect to 
        food are hereafter delegated, such powers, except rationing, 
        shall be delegated only to the Secretary of Agriculture.''

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 91 Cong. Rec. 6597, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., June 23, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: 
    Insert a new section after section 2 to read as follows:

            The Secretary of Agriculture shall confer with the 
        Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy from time to 
        time on the supplies of meat, sugar, poultry, dairy and 
        vegetable products available in continental United States for 
        military and civilian needs and said Secretary of Agriculture 
        is authorized and directed to

[[Page 8998]]

        borrow or divert from military channels for critical civilian 
        needs such stocks or supplies as he finds can be spared by the 
        military and in such amounts as he can certify to the Secretary 
        of War or the Secretary of the Navy can and will be restored by 
        the time they are needed.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill; that 
    it includes matters not contemplated by the bill, and it goes far 
    beyond the scope of the bill.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 6598, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., June 23, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         . . . The amendment confers certain discretionary authority on 
    the Secretary of Agriculture to make certain findings and to 
    receive certain information from the Secretary of War and the 
    Secretary of the Navy. The pending bill, especially since the 
    adoption of the amendment on yesterday which was offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jenkins], not only confers certain 
    discretionary authority upon the Secretary of Agriculture but 
    imposes certain definite duties and responsibilities upon the 
    Secretary of Agriculture to make certain findings. Therefore the 
    Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is in order especially 
    in view of the present form of the pending bill at this stage. The 
    Chair overrules the point of order.

--Amendment Waiving Other Laws

Sec. 39.5 To a bill to extend the Price Control Act and the 
    Stabilization Act of 1942, an amendment relating not only to these 
    acts but also to ``any other act or acts'' was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of the Emergency Price 
Control Act,(7) the following amendment was offered: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 6042 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 3885, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 17, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Page 
    1, line 5, after section 1, insert a new section, as follows:

            Sec. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of this act, the 
        Stabilization Act of 1942, or any other act or acts, no maximum 
        price shall be established or maintained for any commodity 
        below [a certain price] . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane 
    to the bill. It refers not only to this act but ``or any other act 
    or acts,'' which is far beyond the purview of the bill and is not 
    germane.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated:

[[Page 8999]]

        Mr. Chairman, the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and the 
    Stabilization Act of 1942 are being amended by the bill pending 
    before the committee. Any other act which might have a bearing or 
    might be incidental to the provisions of [these acts] are, of 
    course, clearly within the purview of the subject matter of the 
    extension acts.
        This amendment would apply only, of course, to such act as 
    would be affected by the amendment, acts which in turn, as I have 
    said, might be incidental to the Emergency Price Control Act and 
    the Stabilization Act. . . .

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the pending bill 
    seeks to extend for a definite period of time two acts, the 
    Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, and the Stabilization Act of 
    1942. The Chair also invites attention to the fact that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Wolcott) 
    seeks to deal not only with the two acts to which attention has 
    been invited, but also includes this language: ``or any other act 
    or acts'' which, in the opinion of the Chair, makes it too broad.
        It is conceivable that many acts might thus be affected that 
    would not even come under the jurisdiction of the committee having 
    charge of the bill now under consideration. The Chair is of the 
    opinion that the amendment as offered is not germane and, 
    therefore, sustains the point of order.

Sec. 39.6 To a bill to extend the Emergency Price Control Act and the 
    Stabilization Act of 1942, an amendment referring to ``this or any 
    other law'' was held to go beyond the scope of the pending bill and 
    therefore was not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, during consideration of the Emergency Price 
Control Act,(10) the following amendment was offered: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 6042 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 3931, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 17, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: On 
    page 1, after section 2, insert the following new section:

            Sec. 3. Subsection (e) of section 3 of the Emergency Price 
        Control Act of 1942, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(e) Notwithstanding any provision of this act or any 
        other law, no regulation, order . . . or allocation shall be 
        made or issued, or any other action taken . . . with respect to 
        any agricultural commodity . . . by the Administrator or by any 
        agency of the Government or the head thereof, without the prior 
        written and voluntary approval of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
        . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment that it is not germane to the bill. 
    The amendment provides for allocations under the Sec

[[Page 9000]]

    ond War Powers Act, and therefore, is not germane to the pending 
    bill.

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chairman invites attention to the fact that the 
    pending bill seeks to extend for a limited or definite time two 
    existing acts, the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and the 
    Stabilization Act of 1942. The Chair invites attention to the fact 
    that the gentleman's amendment relates to any other law which is 
    much broader than the pending bill and might affect many agencies 
    not at all affected by the pending bill. Therefore, the Chair is of 
    the opinion that the amendment is not germane. . . . 

--Amendment Affecting Issu- ance of Tokens as Authorized Under Another 
    Act

Sec. 39.7 To a bill extending the Emergency Price Control Act, an 
    amendment to prohibit the Office of Price Administration from 
    issuing any ration tokens of less than a certain diameter and to 
    require destruction of smaller tokens previously issued was held to 
    be germane, even though such prior issuance of tokens had occurred 
    under powers granted by the War Powers Act rather than the 
    Emergency Price Control Act.

    In the 78th Congress, a bill (13) was under 
consideration extending the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The 
following amendment was offered to the bill: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 4941 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
14. 90 Cong. Rec. 5816, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 12, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Page 
    13, after line 2, insert a new section:

            The Office of Price Administration shall not issue any 
        token or authorize the issuance of any token having a diameter 
        of less than 0.900 inch, and shall forthwith cause to be 
        withdrawn from circulation and destroyed any tokens of a lesser 
        diameter that may have been issued or authorized to be issued 
        heretofore.

    A point of order against the amendment was raised by Mr. Jesse P. 
Wolcott, of Michigan, who contended that the amendment was not germane 
to the bill.(15) The following exchange then occurred: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 5816, 5817.
16. Id. at p. 5817.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) May the Chair inquire of the 
    gentleman, has the Office of Price Administration issued tokens up 
    to this time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: They have under the powers which they receive 
    under the War Powers Act but not under the powers they received 
    under this act.
        The Chairman: But the Administration does issue tokens?

[[Page 9001]]

        Mr. Wolcott: Yes.
        The Chairman: This would be a restriction of that, in the 
    opinion of the Chair; therefore the Chair is constrained to 
    overrule the point of order.

Authority Respecting Price and Distribution of Sugar--Amendment 
    Affecting Other Commodities

Sec. 39.8 To a proposition extending the powers and authorities under 
    certain statutes with respect to the distribution and pricing of 
    sugar, an amendment adding a new section to one of those statutes 
    and relating to the sale of commodities other than sugar was held 
    not germane.

    The following proceedings took place in the 80th Congress: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 93 Cong. Rec. 2408, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 21, 1947. Under 
        consideration was H.J. Res. 146 (Committee on Banking and 
        Currency), extending powers and authorities under certain 
        statutes with respect to the distribution and pricing of sugar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) There being no further requests 
    for time, under the rule the Clerk will read the committee 
    amendment which will be considered as an original bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. W. Sterling Cole (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            That (a) notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
        Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (56 Stat. 23); the 
        Stabilization Act, 1942 (56 Stat. 765); title III of the Second 
        War Powers Act, 1942 (56 Stat. 177), and the amendment to 
        existing law made thereby; title XIV of the Second War Powers 
        Act, 1942 (56 Stat. 177); and section 6 of the act of July 2, 
        1940 (54 Stat. 714), all as amended and extended, shall 
        continue in effect with respect to sugar to and including 
        October 31, 1947. . . . 

    Subsequently, the following amendment was offered: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 2415, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 21, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dirksen: After line 7, on page 11, add 
    a new section reading as follows:
        Sec. 6. A new section is added to the Emergency Price Control 
        Act of 1942, as amended, to read as follows:

            ``Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this act, no 
        action shall be instituted or maintained under section 205(a) 
        or 205(e) by the Administrator, or on behalf of the United 
        States by any other officer or agency of the Government, if the 
        violation arose out of the sale of a commodity other than sugar 
        or rice or the payment or receipt of rent for defense area 
        housing accommodations.''

    The following exchange (1) concerned a point of order 
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at pp. 2415, 2416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [A.S. Mike] Monroney [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order against the amendment that it is not germane to 
    the bill under consideration. . . . 
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    with re

[[Page 9002]]

    spect to the point of order it did occur to me that because of the 
    general policy set out in the bill, and in view of the fact that it 
    relates to the whole OPA act, the Stabilization Act and the Second 
    War Powers Act, that it might be germane to the bill, 
    notwithstanding the fact that it deals broadly with OPA, whereas 
    the bill in question relates only to one commodity. . . . 
        Mr. Monroney: Mr. Chairman, since this bill deals exclusively 
    with sugar, and since the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois specifically exempts sugar from any consideration in the 
    amendment, I renew my point of order against the gentleman's 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: . . . As indicated by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma, the resolution before the Committee, both in its title 
    and in the provisions contained in the body of the bill, relates 
    solely and exclusively to the commodity of sugar.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois seeks to 
    amend the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 by adding a new 
    section. The effect of that amendment is to cover commodities of 
    all sorts, types, and descriptions, remedies, penalties, and 
    procedures covered by the Price Control Act of 1942, with the 
    exception of sugar; therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, it is 
    not germane to the resolution before the Committee of the Whole, 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order. . . .

Emergency Powers Continuation Act--Amendment Requesting President To 
    Invoke Emergency Powers Under Another Act

Sec. 39.9 To a joint resolution proposing to continue certain statutory 
    provisions in effect for a specified time, an amendment requesting 
    the President to invoke certain emergency provisions of a permanent 
    law not extended in the bill and within another committee's 
    jurisdiction was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a joint resolution (2) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The Emergency Powers Continuation Act, H.J. Res. 477 (Committee on 
        the Judiciary).
 3. 98 Cong. Rec. 7067, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved [That]--

            (a) The following statutory provisions . . . in addition to 
        coming into full force and effect in time of war or otherwise 
        where their terms so provide, shall remain in full force and 
        effect until 6 months after the termination of the national 
        emergency proclaimed by the President on December 16, 1950 
        (Proc. 2914, 3 CFR, 1950 Supp., p. 71), or until such earlier 
        date or dates as may be provided by the Congress by concurrent 
        resolution either generally or for a particular statutory 
        provision or by the President either generally by proclamation 
        or for a particular statutory provision, but in no event beyond 
        June 30, 1953 . . . :
            (1) Act of December 17, 1942 (ch. 739, sec. 1, 56 Stat. 
        1053), as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 1201). . . .
            (2) Act of March 27, 1942 (ch. 199, secs. 1301-1304, 56 
        Stat. 185-186; 50 U.S.C. App. 643, 643a, 643b, 643c). . . .

[[Page 9003]]

    An amendment was offered, as follows: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 7069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Georgia: Page 14, after line 
    2, insert the following:

            Sec. 8. The Congress hereby finds that, by reason of the 
        work stoppage now existing in the steel industry, the national 
        safety is imperiled, and therefore the Congress requests the 
        President to immediately invoke the national emergency 
        provisions (secs. 206 to 210, inclusive) of the Labor 
        Management Relations Act, 1947, for the purpose of terminating 
        such work stoppage.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order that the amendment is entirely new legislation and 
    not germane or relevant to the resolution under discussion, or any 
    of the 48 statutes included therein.

    In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. James C. Davis, of 
Georgia, stated:

        The immediate need of this country is not to initiate new 
    legislation which must be . . . brought to the floor of the House 
    through the various stages of parliamentary procedure involved in 
    the progress of every bill. The immediate need of the country is 
    for the production of steel to be resumed. The President on 
    yesterday emphasized that need. He told us that there are two 
    principal methods open to achieve that goal: Namely, first, 
    Government operation of the steel mills; and, second, the use of 
    the Taft-Hartley law. He specially asked Congress to make a choice 
    between these two methods. . . . 
        In my opinion, the use of the Taft-Hartley law in this present 
    emergency is the quickest method by which steel production can be 
    resumed.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
 6. 98 Cong. Rec. 7070, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Georgia offers an amendment to House Joint 
    Resolution 477. . . . The Chair finds that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Georgia pertains to the invoking of permanent law 
    under certain circumstances, whereas the joint resolution under 
    consideration refers to the extension of certain specified 
    temporary powers. The subject matter contained in the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Georgia is, under the rules of the 
    House, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and 
    Labor and not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary which reported the pending resolution. The Chair finds 
    therefore that the amendment is not germane to the pending joint 
    resolution.

Defense Production Act--Amendment Empowering President To Seize Plants 
    Threatened by Work Stoppages

Sec. 39.10 To a bill extending and amending a law containing

[[Page 9004]]

    provisions for settlement of labor disputes by reliance upon 
    negotiation by the parties to the disputes, an amendment empowering 
    the President to take possession of and operate certain plants 
    closed by or threatened with work stoppages was held to be not 
    germane as constituting a change of labor law.

    In the 82d Congress, during consideration of the Defense Production 
Act Amendments of 1952,(7) the following amendment was 
offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 8210 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 8. 98 Cong. Rec. 7654, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., June 19, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Richard W.] Bolling [of Missouri]: On 
    page 3, line 15, insert the following section:

            Sec. 103. Title II of the Defense Production Act of 1950, 
        as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 202. (a) Whenever the President of the United States 
        . . . shall find that the national defense is endangered by a 
        stoppage of production or a threatened stoppage of production 
        in any one or more plants, mines, or facilities, as a result of 
        the present management-labor dispute in the steel industry, the 
        President is empowered and authorized to take possession of and 
        to operate such plants, mines, or facilities. . . . 
            ``(b) During the period in which the United States is in 
        possession of any plant under this section, the duly designated 
        representatives of the employees and the management of the 
        plant shall be obliged to continue collective bargaining for 
        the purpose of settling the issues in dispute. . . . 
            ``(d)(1) When possession of any plant has been taken by the 
        United States . . . a compensation board of five members shall 
        be established. . . . The compensation board shall determine 
        (i) the amount to be paid as just compensation to the owner of 
        any plant of which possession is taken and (ii) fair terms and 
        conditions of employment of the employees in any such plant for 
        the period of operation by the United States, other than 
        changes relating to union shop, maintenance of membership, and 
        similar arrangements between employers and employees. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the amendment is out of order on the ground 
    that it is not germane to this section or to this bill; that it is 
    affirmative legislation not within the purview of the jurisdiction 
    covered by the language of this act.

    Subsequently, Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, stated: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 7655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, a point of order. . . . 
        Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that the amendment is not 
    germane to the pending bill, it involves labor legislation 
    exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education 
    and Labor.

[[Page 9005]]

    The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has had an opportunity to study the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bolling] and it is the opinion 
    of the Chair that the amendment proposes to make basic changes in 
    our labor legislation. The amendment proposes further to amend 
    title II of the Defense Production Act of 1950, which is the 
    authority to requisition property. The amendment goes beyond, as 
    the Chair understands the amendment, the mere requisition of 
    property and, as the Chair has stated, proposes to make changes in 
    our labor laws.
        In view of the fact that it goes beyond the scope of title II 
    of the Defense Production Act of 1950, the Chair is constrained to 
    sustain the point of order made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Fulton].

Economic Opportunity Act--Amendment Reactivating Program That Had 
    Expired

Sec. 39.11 To a bill expanding the war on poverty by amending and 
    increasing the authorizations contained in the Economic Opportunity 
    Act of 1964, an amendment reactivating a program, which had been 
    contained in the original act as a nongermane provision but had 
    expired, providing for certain indemnity payments to dairy farmers, 
    was held to be not germane.

    On July 22, 1965,(11) during consideration of the 
Economic Opportunity Act of 1965,(12) Mr. Carlton R. 
Sickles, of Maryland, offered an amendment relating to certain 
indemnity payments to dairy farmers. In describing the purposes of the 
amendment, he stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 17949, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H.R. 8283 (Committee on Education and Labor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, section 331 of the Economic Opportunity Act, 
    unless extended, will terminate on June 30, 1965. This section 
    authorizes indemnity payments to be made to dairy farmers who, 
    through no fault of their own, have had their milk barred from 
    commercial markets because the milk contained minute residues of 
    pesticides that were approved for use by the Federal Government at 
    the time of their use. It is imperative that the Congress not let 
    this pesticide indemnity law die on June 30 but act immediately to 
    extend it to June 30, 1967. . . .

    Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, having made the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane, the following exchange 
ensued: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 17950, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: I would like to point out 
    that this language is currently in the present law and is part of 
    the poverty program as now in existence. This is section 331(c)(1) 
    of the present Eco

[[Page 9006]]

    nomic Opportunity Act. It has been carried in the law for the last 
    12 months. It is a part of the poverty program as we know the 
    poverty program now. . . .
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Chairman, this law expired on June 30. It is 
    not part of the law now.
        Mr. Sickles: The whole law expired.

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman offers an amendment at page 7 after line 16 with 
    regard to the continuation of indemnity payments to dairy farmers. 
    . . . It would appear to the Chair that this bill does not have 
    anything to do with this particular subject with regard to 
    indemnity payments to dairy farmers. Therefore, the Chair is 
    constrained to rule that the amendment is subject to the 
    gentleman's point of order and the point of order is sustained.

Provisions Affecting Specific Agricultural Commodity Broadened by More 
    General Amendment

Sec. 39.12 To a bill extending those provisions that excluded ``boiled 
    peanuts'' from the definition of ``peanuts'' under the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act of 1938, an amendment proposing to exclude from the 
    Act's provisions ``all peanuts produced'' was held to be not 
    germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a bill (15) was under 
consideration to extend for two years the definition of ``peanuts'' in 
effect under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which was an act 
to establish acreage allotments and marketing quotas. An amendment was 
offered (16) as described above, and the following point of 
order was made: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 101 (Committee on Agriculture).
16. See 109 Cong. Rec. 12777, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1963.
17. Id. at pp. 12777, 12778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Watkins M.] Abbitt [of Virginia]: . . . I make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane. The bill simply deals 
    with a class of peanuts. The amendment deals with an entirely 
    different class, and is not in order, as it would change the entire 
    concept of the legislation, as well as wipe out the peanut program. 
    . . .

    The Chairman,(18) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John James Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 12778, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As a general rule, one individual proposition may not be 
    amended by any other individual proposition, even though the two 
    may belong to the same class.

    Also citing to an instance in which, ``To a bill amendatory of one 
section of an existing law an amendment proposing further

[[Page 9007]]

modification of the law was held not to be germane,'' the Chair 
sustained the point of order.

Sec. 39.13 To a bill extending those provisions that excluded ``boiled 
    peanuts'' from the definition of ``peanuts'' under the Agricultural 
    Adjustment Act of 1938, an amendment proposing to enlarge the 
    excluded class to ``any agricultural commodity, which prior to 
    being marketed as a foodstuff is boiled and dried,'' was held to be 
    not germane.

    In the 88th Congress, a bill (20) was under 
consideration to extend for two years the definition of ``peanuts'' in 
effect under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which was an act 
to establish acreage allotments and marketing quotas. An amendment was 
offered, as follows: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H.R. 101 (Committee on Agriculture).
 1. 109 Cong. Rec. 12778, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: On page 
    1, line 8, strike the period and insert the following: ``and the 
    first paragraph of such Act is amended by striking the period at 
    the end thereof and by adding the following: `Provided, That 
    notwithstanding any other provision of law, the exemption from 
    acreage allotments and marketing quotas as provided for herein for 
    boiled peanuts shall also apply to any agricultural commodity, 
    which prior to being marketed as a foodstuff is boiled and dried.' 
    ''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Watkins M.] Abbitt [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this amendment is not germane and it is 
    apparent on its face. This amendment deals not only with peanuts 
    but with all commodities, therefore, it is not in order.

    The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John James Flynt, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas would extend 
    the legislation to other commodities than those covered by the 
    pending legislation. While the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Kansas would amend the general law, the Chair rules that the 
    amendment is not germane to the pending bill and, therefore, 
    sustains the point of order.

Mexican Farm Labor Program

Sec. 39.14 To a bill continuing for one year the Mexican farm labor 
    program, an amendment modifying the program by requiring the 
    Secretary of Labor to determine that reasonable efforts have been 
    made to hire domestic work

[[Page 9008]]

    ers under working conditions comparable in specified instances to 
    those provided to foreign workers was held to be germane.

    In the 88th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
extending the Mexican farm labor program, an amendment was offered 
(4) as described above, specifying the areas respecting 
which the Secretary's determination would be made. The areas included 
workmen's compensation, housing, and transportation. A point of order 
was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 8195 (Committee on Agriculture).
 4. 100 Cong. Rec. 20728, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 31, 1963. For 
        discussion of another amendment held to be germane to the same 
        bill, even though such amendment modified terms of the program 
        being extended, see Sec. 29.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Watkins M.] Abbitt [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment for two reasons.
        Mr. Chairman, first, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment to section 503 of Public Law 78 is not germane to H.R. 
    8195, on the basis that the amendment being offered to section 503 
    deals not with a proposition providing for Mexican farm labor, but 
    rather with a proposition providing for domestic migratory labor, 
    and is within the purview of the precedents set forth in sections 
    2953, 2954, and 2955 of volume 8, Cannon's Precedents.
        Section 2953 states:

            To a proposition providing for a class, a proposition 
        providing for another related class is not germane. . . .

        Section 503 of the act deals with the conditions under which 
    the Mexican laborer will be allowed to work. This requires that the 
    imported labor not be allowed to work until the conditions of this 
    section are met.
        The proposed amendment should be considered in a separate bill 
    covering working conditions of American workers, and should be 
    considered by the Education and Labor Committee. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I also make the point of order that the amendment 
    to section 503 of the act is not germane to the bill, H.R. 8195.
        The bill simply extends a program which deals with a class of 
    farmworkers, in this case Mexican nationals. The amendment deals 
    with an entirely different class of workers--U.S. citizens who are 
    migratory farm laborers. . . .

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 20729, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 31, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule of germaneness, an act continuing and reenacting 
    an existing law is subject to amendment modifying the provisions of 
    the law carried in the act.
        The Chair rules that the amendment is germane, and the point of 
    order is overruled.

[[Page 9009]]

Sec. 39.15 To a bill extending that part of the Agricultural Act of 
    1949, as amended, authorizing the Secretary of Labor to assist in 
    supplying agricultural workers from Mexico, an amendment requiring 
    the Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation with the 
    Interstate Commerce Commission, to prescribe employer regulations 
    for the adequate safety, health and welfare of workers being 
    transported, was held to be germane.

    In the 84th Congress, during consideration of a bill (7) 
extending provisions of the Agricultural Act of 1949, the following 
amendment was offered: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 3822 (Committee on Agriculture).
 8. 101 Cong. Rec. 10019, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 6, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers of Colorado to the committee 
    amendment: Page 2, after line 18, insert the following:

            Sec. 4. Title V of such act, as amended, is further amended 
        by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 10. The Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation 
        with the Interstate Commerce Commission, shall prescribe such 
        regulations as may be necessary to require employers to provide 
        adequately for the safety, health, and welfare of workers while 
        they are being transported from reception centers to the places 
        of their employment and returned from such places to reception 
        centers after termination of employment. Any person who 
        violates any such regulation shall, for each violation, be 
        fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 6 months 
        or both.''

    The following exchange concerned a point of order raised against 
the amendment:

        Mr. [Ezekiel C.] Gathings [of Arkansas]: The amendment is not 
    germane inasmuch as it calls for consultation by the Secretary of 
    Agriculture with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the 
    Interstate Commerce Commission is not in anywise affected by this 
    legislation. Furthermore, the Secretary of Agriculture does not 
    administer this program; the program is administered by the 
    Secretary of Labor. I think therefore the amendment clearly is not 
    germane. . . .
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I think it is 
    very evident that the amendment itself only directs that the 
    Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with the Interstate 
    Commerce Commission shall prescribe such regulations as may be 
    necessary. The fact is that this legislation is given to the 
    Secretary of Agriculture for administration, and we leave it with 
    him for that purpose with consultation merely a factor so that he 
    may be assisted in proper regulations as far as they may be 
    enforced by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Therefore the 
    amendment is germane.
        The Chairman: (9) . . . From a reading of the 
    amendment it is apparent

[[Page 9010]]

    that all the actions are required of the Secretary of Agriculture; 
    no specific action is required of the Interstate Commerce 
    Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jamie L. Whitten (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment attempts to change the provisions of the bill 
    having to do with employee safety, health, and welfare; and it is 
    quite clearly, in the opinion of the Chair, germane to the bill.
        The point of order is overruled. . . .

Agricultural Price Support Program

Sec. 39.16 To a bill extending the agriculture price support program, 
    an amendment proposing to change the method of computing the parity 
    price of a commodity was held to be not germane.

    In the 80th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration whose basic purpose was to provide for continuation of 
agricultural price support programs. The bill stated in part: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 6248 (Committee on Agriculture).
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 7904, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Be it enacted, etc., That, notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized 
        and directed through any instrumentality or agency within or 
        under the direction of the Department of Agriculture, by loans, 
        purchases, or other operations--
            (a) to support prices received by producers of cotton, 
        wheat, corn, tobacco, rice, and peanuts harvested before 
        December 31, 1949, if producers have not disapproved marketing 
        quotas for such commodity for the marketing year beginning in 
        the calendar year in which the crop is harvested. The price 
        support authorized by this subsection shall be made available 
        as follows:
            (1) To cooperators (except cooperators outside the 
        commercial corn-producing area, in the case of corn) at the 
        rate of 90 percent of the parity price for the commodity as of 
        the beginning of the marketing year; . . .
            (3) To noncooperators (except noncooperators outside the 
        commercial corn-producing area, in the case of corn) at the 
        rate of 60 percent of the rate specified in (1) above and only 
        on so much of the commodity as would be subject to penalty if 
        marketed.
            All provisions of law applicable with respect to loans 
        under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, 
        shall, insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of 
        this section, be applicable with respect to loans or other 
        price-support operations authorized under this subsection.
            (b) To support until December 31, 1949, a price to 
        producers of commodities with respect to which the Secretary of 
        Agriculture by public announcement pursuant to the provisions 
        of the act of July 1, 1941, as amended, requested an expansion 
        of production of not less than 60 percent of the parity or 
        comparable price therefor nor more than the level at which any 
        such commodity was supported in 1948. The comparable price for 
        any such commodity shall be determined and used by the 
        Secretary for the purposes of this subsection if the production 
        or consumption of such commodity has so changed in extent or 
        character since the base period as to result in a price out of 
        line with parity prices for the commodities referred to in (a) 
        hereof.

[[Page 9011]]

            (c) Sections 1 and 3 of the act approved August 5, 1947 
        (Public Law 360, 80th Cong.), are amended by striking out in 
        each section the date ``1948'' wherever it appears and 
        inserting in lieu thereof the date ``1949.''
            (d) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress 
        that the lending and purchase operations of the Department of 
        Agriculture (other than those referred to in subsections (a), 
        (b), and (c) hereof) shall be carried out so as to bring the 
        price and income of the producers of other agricultural 
        commodities not covered by subsections (a), (b), and (c) to a 
        fair parity relationship with the commodities included under 
        subsections (a), (b), and (c), to the extent that funds for 
        such operations are available after taking into account the 
        operations with respect to the commodities covered by 
        subsections (a), (b), and (c), and the ability of producers to 
        bring supplies into line with demand.

    An amendment was offered (12) stating that, ``For the 
purpose of computing the parity price of Maryland tobacco, the base 
period shall be the period August 1936 to July 1941 in lieu of the 
period August 1919 to July 1929.'' The following exchange concerned a 
point of order raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 94 Cong. Rec. 8013, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 12, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this bill, and the section to which the amendment 
    is offered, merely extends the price-support program. It does not 
    in any way deal with the parity formula or with the base period 
    upon which parity may be computed. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Maryland deals with one subject only, and that is, 
    it sets up a new base period upon which to compute parity for 
    Maryland tobacco. It clearly does not have any place in this bill 
    which does not in any way deal with the subject of parity or the 
    parity formula.
        Mr. [Lansdale G.] Sasscer [of Maryland]: As I understand, the 
    bill relates to parity, and in order to get loans you have to have 
    a base to get the parity. This relates to the base, and my 
    contention is that the two are interlocked; that you cannot have 
    parity without a base. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) . . . The gentleman from Maryland 
    offers an amendment which has, as its principal purpose, a change 
    in computing the parity price for Maryland tobacco. The Chair feels 
    . . . that this is beyond the scope of the bill presently under 
    consideration and therefore sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John Z. Anderson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act--Amendment Providing 
    Food Stamp Program

Sec. 39.17 An amendment providing a new and comprehensive food stamp 
    plan for the distribution of surplus products was held to be 
    germane to a bill amending

[[Page 9012]]

    and extending the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
    of 1954, where the 1954 act had authorized the Commodity Credit 
    Corporation to make surplus agricultural products available for 
    needy persons in the United States.

    In the 86th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(14) amending the Agricultural Trade Development and 
Assistance Act of 1954, the following amendment was offered: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 8609 (Committee on Agriculture).
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 16567, 16568, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 20, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Leonor K.] Sullivan [of Missouri]: 
    On page 8, after line 23, insert the following new section 14 . . .

            Sec. 14. Title III of the Agricultural Trade Development 
        and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, is further amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following new section:
            ``Sec. 306. (a) In order to promote the general welfare, 
        raise the levels of health and of nourishment for persons whose 
        incomes prevent them from enjoying adequate diets, and dispose 
        in a beneficial manner of food commodities acquired by the 
        Commodity Credit Corporation or the Department of Agriculture 
        in carrying out price support operations or diverted from the 
        normal channels of trade and commmerce under section 32 of the 
        Act of August 24, 1935, as amended, the Secretary of 
        Agriculture . . . is hereby authorized to promulgate and put 
        into operation . . . a program to distribute to needy persons 
        in the United States through a food stamp system such surplus 
        food commodities. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 16568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles B.] Hoeven [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not germane to the extension 
    of Public Law 480, as incorporated in the bill H.R. 8609.
        The amendment proposes to establish a new distribution system 
    within the United States. H.R. 8609 contains no such provision to 
    which this proposed amendment is germane.
        In addition, the proposed amendment would suspend the operation 
    of section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, which 
    is not before us.
        The bill, H.R. 8609, contains only one reference to section 
    416, but this provision deals only with the labeling of surplus 
    foods, not with the system of distributing these commodities.
        This is an amendment which is entirely foreign to the 
    legislation now under discussion and as presented is not germane to 
    the bill.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        . . . H.R. 8609 is a bill to amend the Agricultural Trade 
    Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, extending 
    certain authorities provided for in that law, and for other 
    purposes. The Agricultural Trade Development

[[Page 9013]]

    and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, known as Public Law 480, 
    contains provisions not only for the foreign sale, barter and 
    donation of surplus food but it also contains the relevant 
    provisions of law authorizing domestic donations of surplus food to 
    our own needy. This is contained in titles II and III of the law.
        The bill before us amends titles II and III in several 
    respects. The bill before us furthermore contains language clearly 
    applicable to the domestic distribution of surplus foods. . . .
        I make one further point in contesting the point of order. 
    ``Cannon's Precedents,'' volume VIII, section 2941, states:

            An act continuing and reenacting an existing law is subject 
        to amendment modifying the provisions of the law carried in the 
        act.

        Mr. Chairman, we are enacting Public Law 480 programs. This 
    amendment is germane in that it would modify the terms of Public 
    Law 480 dealing with the distribution of surplus food to our own 
    needy, establishing an additional and effective means of 
    distributing such food to our needy.
        The Chairman,(17) in holding the amendment to be 
    germane and overruling the point of order, stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard W. Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill presently before the Committee provides in two 
    sections for amendments to title III, the general provisions title 
    of Public Law 480. . . .
        The language cited by the gentlewoman from Missouri of section 
    302 of the basic law, Public Law 480, is very much to the point, 
    and the Chair will repeat it for the purpose of the Record:
        Sec. 302. Section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 is 
    amended to read as follows:

            Sec. 416. In order to prevent the waste of commodities 
        acquired through price-support operations . . . the Commodity 
        Credit Corporation is authorized, on such terms and under such 
        regulations as the Secretary may deem in the public interest . 
        . . to donate such commodities . . . to such State, Federal, or 
        private agency or agencies as may be designated by the proper 
        State or Federal authority . . . [for] the assistance of needy 
        persons. . . .

School Milk Program

Sec. 39.18 To a bill extending the school milk program and establishing 
    a school breakfast program, and making ``preschool programs 
    operated as part of the school system'' eligible for benefits under 
    the programs, an amendment further extending such benefits to 
    programs operated by nonprofit institutions in depressed areas, was 
    held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 1, 1966,(18) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Child Nutrition Act of 1966,(19) 
which stated in part: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 21652, 21656, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. H.R. 13361 (Committee on Agriculture).
20. 112 Cong. Rec. 21652, 21653, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9014]]

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Child Nutrition Act of 1966.''

                             declaration of purpose

            Sec. 2. In recognition of the demonstrated relationship 
        between food and good nutrition and the capacity of children to 
        develop and learn . . . it is hereby declared to be the policy 
        of Congress that these efforts shall be extended, expanded, and 
        strengthened under the authority of the Secretary of 
        Agriculture as a measure to safeguard the health and well-being 
        of the Nation's children. . . .

                       special milk program authorization

            3. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, not to exceed $110,000,000; 
        for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, not to exceed 
        $115,000,000; and for each of the two succeeding fiscal years 
        not to exceed $120,000,000, to enable the Secretary of 
        Agriculture, under such rules and regulations as he may deem in 
        the public interest, to encourage consumption of fluid milk by 
        children in the United States in (1) nonprofit schools of high 
        school grade and under, and (2) nonprofit nursery schools, 
        child-care centers, settlement houses, summer camps, and 
        similar nonprofit institutions devoted to the care and training 
        of children. . . .

                               preschool programs

            13. The Secretary may extend the benefits of all school 
        feeding programs conducted and supervised by the Department of 
        Agriculture to include preschool programs operated as part of 
        the school system. . . .

    An amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 21656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: 
        On page 39, line 22, insert after ``system'' the following: ``, 
        or operated by nonprofit institutions or organizations and draw 
        attendance from areas in which poor economic conditions 
        exist''. . . .

        Mr. [Harlan F.] Hagen of California: . . . I make the point of 
    order that this amendment is not germane to the section sought to 
    be amended.
        Mr. Chairman, the entire thrust of this bill deals with 
    programs administered by the public schools of the United States.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York offers an amendment, 
    which if adopted, would extend these programs en masse into 
    operations by nonprofit institutions or organizations.
        Mr. Chairman, it has nothing to do with the substance of this 
    bill, which is to implement programs administered by the public 
    schools. . . .
        Mr. Ryan: . . . [T]he amendment . . . is quite relevant to 
    section 13 which it would amend.
        Mr. Chairman, section 13 provides that the Secretary may extend 
    the benefits of all school feeding programs conducted and 
    supervised by the Department of Agriculture to include preschool 
    programs operated as part of the school system.
        My amendment would extend that to include preschool programs 
    operated by nonprofit institutions or organizations which draw 
    attendance from areas in which poor economic conditions exist.

[[Page 9015]]

        In other words, Mr. Chairman, this would deal with those 
    children enrolled in those Headstart programs which are not a part 
    of the local school system. . . .
        I might also point out that other sections of the bill do cover 
    nonprofit institutions. . . . This bill is clearly not restricted 
    to school systems. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) In the opinion of the Chair, 
    section 13 on page 39 is confined to school feeding programs 
    including preschool programs as part of these school systems. 
    Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Arnold Olsen (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elementary and Secondary Education Act--Amendment To Restrict School 
    Busing

Sec. 39.19 To a bill amending and extending the Elementary and 
    Secondary Education Act, an amendment proposing further 
    modification of that act to provide that no funds appropriated 
    pursuant to the act be used for the transportation of students or 
    teachers ``in order to meet . . . provisions of'' the Civil Rights 
    Act of 1964 was held to be germane.

    In the 91st Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
extending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, an amendment was 
offered whose purpose was explained in these terms by the proponent: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 514 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 10067, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 23, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Collins [of Texas]: . . . [This amendment] 
    relates to neighborhood schools. It simply boils down to the fact 
    that there will be no Federal funds available for busing of 
    students. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, it appears 
    to me that this is an amendment to title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
    and its effect would be to amend title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 
    Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it would not be germane to the bill under 
    present consideration.

    The Chairman,(5) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment and the Chair finds that 
    they appear to be amendments to the bill under consideration and do 
    not appear to be specific amendments to the Civil Rights Act. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Foreign Trade Agreements--Amendment Affecting Period Prior to Extension

Sec. 39.20 To an amendment modifying a bill extending the period during 
    which the

[[Page 9016]]

    President is authorized to enter into foreign trade agreements 
    under certain provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, a substitute 
    amendment which did not modify those provisions of the Tariff Act 
    but which provided for suspension of trade agreement tariff 
    concessions where imports injure domestic producers was held to be 
    not germane, having retroactive application and not confined to the 
    extension of the law.

    On Feb. 7, 1951, during consideration of the Trade Agreements 
Extension Act of 1951,(6) the following proposition was 
being debated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 1612 (Committee on Ways and Means).
 7. See 97 Cong. Rec. 1070, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Carl T.] Curtis of Nebraska: Page 1, 
    after line 9, insert the following:

            Sec. 3. The act entitled ``An act to amend the Tariff Act 
        of 1930,'' approved June 12, 1934, is hereby amended by adding 
        after section 4 the following new subsection:
            ``Sec. 5. (a) If as the result of unforeseen developments 
        and of the effect of any obligation (including any tariff 
        concession) incurred by the United States under a foreign trade 
        agreement entered into under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 
        1930 any article is imported into the United States in such 
        relatively increased quantities and under such conditions as to 
        cause or threaten serious injury to the domestic industry in 
        the United States of like or directly competitive products, the 
        President shall suspend the obligation in whole or in part or 
        withdraw or modify the concession. . . .''

    An amendment was offered as follows: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 1073.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer a substitute amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Bailey as a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Add a new section to 
    be known as section 3, as follows:

            Sec. 3. (a) If in the course of a trade agreement entered 
        into by the United States under the provisions of section 350 
        of the Tariff Act of 1930 . . . any product on which a 
        concession has been granted is being imported into the 
        territory of one of the contracting parties . . . under such 
        conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic 
        producers in that territory of like or directly competitive 
        products, the contracting parties shall be free, in respect of 
        such product . . . to suspend . . . or modify the concession. . 
        . .
            (b) Upon the request of the President, upon its own motion, 
        or upon application of any interested party the United States 
        Tariff Commission shall make an investigation to determine 
        whether [an] article . . . is being imported . . . under such 
        conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to a domestic 
        industry. . . .
            Should the Tariff Commission find . . . that serious injury 
        is being

[[Page 9017]]

        caused or threatened through the importation of the article in 
        question, it shall recommend to the President the witdrawal or 
        modification of the concession. . . .

        In arriving at a determination in the foregoing procedure the 
    Tariff Commission shall deem a downward trend of production, 
    employment, and wages in the domestic industry concerned, or a 
    decline in sales and a higher or growing inventory attributable in 
    part to import competition, to be evidence of serious injury or a 
    threat thereof.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane to the bill before the House, H.R. 1612. The amendment is 
    retroactive in its effect as well as prospective. The bill before 
    the House has to do with an extension of the President's authority 
    to enter into trade agreement negotiations for a period in the 
    future.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
10. 97 Cong. Rec. 1074, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 7, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Of course, the distinction between the substitute amendment and 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Curtis] 
    is that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska is to 
    section 350 of the Tariff Act. The substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia is in effect an amendment to the bill 
    before us now, H.R. 1612. The Chair would like to point out to the 
    gentleman that casual examination of his amendment discloses that 
    the effect is, among other things, retroactive, and the point of 
    order is sustained.

Sec. 39.21 To a bill providing merely that the period during which the 
    President is authorized to enter into foreign trade agreements 
    under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is extended for a 
    further period of three years, an amendment directing the President 
    to prevent the application of reduced tariffs or other concessions 
    heretofore or hereafter entered to imports from Communist nations 
    was held to be not germane.

    In the 82d Congress, a bill (11) was under consideration 
which provided that the period during which the President was 
authorized to enter into foreign trade agreements under the Tariff Act 
of 1930 be extended for a further period of three years. The following 
amendment was offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 1612 (Committee on Ways and Means).
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 1037, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 7, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: After line 9, 
    insert a new section, as follows:

[[Page 9018]]

            Sec. 3. As soon as practicable, but not more than 90 days 
        after enactment of this act, the President shall take such 
        action as is necessary to withdraw or prevent the application 
        of reduced tariffs or other concessions . . . contained in any 
        trade agreement heretofore or hereafter entered into under 
        authority of section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930 . . . to 
        imports from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to 
        imports from any nation or area thereof which the President 
        deems to be dominated . . . by the foreign government or 
        foreign organization controlling the world Communist movement.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . . The purpose of the bill 
    before us, and the sole purpose, is to extend the authority of the 
    President to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements. The gentleman's 
    amendment goes far beyond that purpose. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. [John W.] Byrnes [of Wisconsin]: . . . One of the purposes 
    of the bill before us certainly, and its major purpose is to extend 
    the authority of the President under the Trade Agreements Act. 
    However, in keeping with that purpose and objective, the Congress 
    has the authority and right to either limit or extend the trade 
    agreements authority of the President. This amendment is directed 
    to that objective. . .  I think it is certainly germane to either 
    restrict or extend the authority of the President under the act. 
    This amendment goes to the scope of the authority granted to the 
    President.

    Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, also speaking with 
reference to the point of order, stated: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 1038.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The question here today is the extension of the 
    Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Congress in extending that 
    authority is well within its own rights to adopt restrictions in 
    its grants. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment is in order. If 
    Congress wants to bar Communist countries from special privileges 
    given to our friendly neighbors it should have that right. We must 
    not forget that to Congress was given the authority to regulate 
    tariffs and it should of course be able to restrict that grant if 
    it so desires.

    The Chairman,(14) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin seeks to 
    add language to the bill providing, among other things, ``that as 
    soon as practicable, but not more than 90 days after the enactment 
    of this act, the President shall take such action as is necessary 
    to withdraw or prevent the application of reduced tariffs, or other 
    concessions contained in any trade agreement heretofore or 
    hereafter entered into under the authority,'' and so on.

[[Page 9019]]

        The bill before the committee at this time provides merely that 
    the period during which the President is authorized to enter into 
    foreign trade agreements under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 
    1930, as amended and extended, is hereby extended for a further 
    period of 3 years, from June 12, 1951.
        The Chair rules that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin is not germane to the bill under consideration and 
    therefore sustains the point of order.

Transportation of Petroleum Products--Amendment Repealing Other Law

Sec. 39.22 To a bill extending certain provisions of law relating to 
    the transportation of petroleum products in the United States, an 
    amendment proposing to repeal all tariffs on crude oil and its 
    products in order to conserve domestic oil deposits by promoting 
    importation on oil and oil products was held to be not germane.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (15) was under 
consideration extending certain provisions of that act entitled, ``An 
act to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in petroleum and its 
products by prohibiting the shipment in such commerce of petroleum and 
its products produced in violation of State law. . . '' (16) 
The following amendment was offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H.R. 5366 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
16. See 81 Cong. Rec. 5329, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 3, 1937.
17. Id. at p. 5330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment by Mr. [Frederick E.] Biermann [of Iowa]: After 
    section 12 of Public, No. 14, Seventy-fourth Congress, insert the 
    following new section:

            Sec. 13. In order to further conserve deposits of crude oil 
        situated in the United States, all tariffs on crude oil and all 
        of its products are hereby repealed.

    Mr. William P. Cole, Jr., of Maryland, made a point of order 
against the amendment. The Chairman (18) ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment . . . seeks to deal with matters not only not 
    germane to this bill but over which this Committee has no 
    jurisdiction.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

--Amendment Adding New Section to Law and Broadening Application

Sec. 39.23 To a bill extending certain provisions of law relating to 
    the transportation of petroleum products in the United States, 
    amending only one section of such law, an amendment was held to be 
    not germane which sought to add a new section to such

[[Page 9020]]

    law and to prohibit marketing crude oil products if engaged in 
    production, refining, or transportation of oil.

    In the 75th Congress, a bill (19) was under 
consideration extending certain provisions of that act entitled, `An 
act to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in petroleum and its 
products by prohibiting the shipment in such commerce of petroleum and 
its products produced in violation of State law. . . .'' 
(20) The following amendment was offered: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 5366 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
20. See 81 Cong. Rec. 5329, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 3, 1937.
 1. Id. at p. 5330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Biermann: At the end of the bill 
    insert a new section as follows:

            Sec. 14. It shall be unlawful for any person or corporation 
        or affiliate thereof to engage, directly or indirectly in 
        interstate commerce, in marketing crude oil or any of the 
        products thereof if he is engaged in production, refining, and 
        transportation of oil or in any of these activities.

    Mr. William P. Cole, Jr., of Maryland, having made a point of order 
against the amendment, Mr. Frederick E. Biermann, of Iowa, responded:

        . . . The bill in its present form, dealing with the 
    production, refining, and distribution of oil, makes me believe 
    that an amendment dealing with the last operation, marketing, is 
    germane also.
        The Chairman,(2) in ruling on the point of order, 
    stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration amends only one section of 
    existing law in one particular. The amendment of the gentleman adds 
    a new section to existing law, and is, therefore, clearly not 
    germane.

Mutual Security Act--Modification of Statement of Policy in Act Being 
    Extended

Sec. 39.24 To a bill reenacting and amending the Mutual Security Act of 
    1954, an amendment was held to be germane which sought to modify a 
    statement of congressional policy contained in the act by further 
    stating it to be the sense of Congress that the President should 
    seek modification of certain agreements to enable the United States 
    to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over American military personnel 
    stationed within the boundaries of nations party to the agreements.

    In the 85th Congress, during consideration of a bill (3) 
to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1954,

[[Page 9021]]

the following amendment was offered: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. 2130 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 12007, 12008, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson [of Texas]: On page 
    1, after line 4, insert: ``Section 2 of the Mutual Security Act of 
    1954, as amended, which expresses a statement of policy, is amended 
    by the addition of the following paragraph at the end of the 
    statement:

            ``(d) It is the sense of the Congress that . . . the 
        President should forthwith address to the North Atlantic 
        Council . . . a request for revision of article VII of such 
        agreement for the purpose of eliminating or modifying article 
        VII so that the United States may exercise exclusive criminal 
        jurisdiction over American military personnel stationed within 
        the boundaries of parties to the 
        treaty. . . .''

        Mr. [Albert S.J.] Carnahan [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment, that it is not germane to 
    the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I shall reserve the point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The point of order has been 
    reserved and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Burleson] is recognized 
    on his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, the following remarks were made in support of the 
point of order: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 12008, 12009, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Carnahan: . . . This legislation does not provide for the 
    conduct, management, or regulation of American forces abroad.
        Consequently, the amendment is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Vorys: Mr. Chairman, on page 407 of the Rules of the House 
    of Representatives on the matter of germaneness appears the 
    statement that to a bill modifying an existing law as to one 
    specific particular an amendment relating to the terms of the law 
    other than those dealt with by the bill is not germane. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to amend the purpose 
    clause of the mutual security law, which is a part of the bill 
    which is not amended by the amendments contained in the bill, S. 
    2130, which is now before the House. In addition, this amendment 
    purports to deal with treaties which under the Constitution, are 
    the responsibility of the President and the Senate and with which 
    the House does not deal. . . . In addition, the amendment, if 
    carried out, would amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 
    Article 14 of the code provides that under such regulations as the 
    Secretary concerned may prescribe, a member of the Armed Forces 
    accused of an offense against civil authority may be delivered upon 
    request to the civil authority for 
    trial. . . .

    The Chairman, in ruling on the point of order, stated: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 12010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Attention is . . . invited to the fact that the amendment does 
    not seek to amend the treaty-making powers, it does not seek to 
    amend the Code of Military Justice. . . .
        After analysis of the pending amendment and the bill and the 
    reference

[[Page 9022]]

    made to the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, the Chair is 
    of the opinion that the amendment is an additional expression of 
    the sense of Congress in line with the expressions of the sense of 
    Congress contained in the Mutual Security Act of 1954, it is 
    germane to the pending bill, and, therefore, overrules the point of 
    order.

Loan of Aircraft Carrier to France--Limitation on Extension of 
    Authority

Sec. 39.25 To a bill extending existing authority for the loan of a 
    small aircraft carrier to France, an amendment requiring in part 
    that such carrier be immediately returned to the United States if 
    used for the transportation of troops or supplies to or from any 
    French colony was held to be germane as a limitation on the 
    extension of authority.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (8) as described above was 
being considered under Consent Calendar procedures. An amendment was 
offered (9) which provided that, ``such carrier shall be 
immediately returned to the Government of the United States if it is 
used at any time for the transportation of troops, supplies, or 
material to or from any French colony, or if it is used at any time in 
support of any of the activities of the French Armed Forces in any 
French colony.'' Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, having made 
the point of order that the amendment was not germane to the bill, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. S. 1139 (Committee on Armed Services).
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 10729, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair must say that the Chair thinks that is a proper 
    limitation to put upon the bill and therefore overrules the point 
    of order.

Veterans' Loans--Tax Treatment of Veterans' Loans

Sec. 39.26 To a bill continuing for one year the provisions of a law 
    authorizing home and farmhouse loans to veterans, an amendment 
    providing that interest on certain guaranteed veterans' loans 
    should, for income tax purposes, be excluded from income was held 
    not germane.

    In the 83d Congress, during consideration of the Veterans' Home and 
Farmhouse Loan Extension,(10) the following amendment was 
offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 8152 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
11. 100 Cong. Rec. 3799, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 24, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Multer: On page 2, after line 8, 
    insert a new

[[Page 9023]]

    section appropriately numbered to read:

            Interest on veterans' loans: Interest upon any loan which 
        bears interest at a rate of not exceeding 3\1/2\ percent per 
        annum, and any part of which is guaranteed under title III of 
        the Servicemen's Retirement Act of 1944 as amended, shall not 
        be included in gross income for income tax purposes and shall 
        be exempted therefrom.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order that the gentleman's amendment cannot be considered on a 
    bill involving direct home and farmhouse loan authority, that the 
    amendment would have to be considered by the appropriate committee 
    of the House. It is not germane to this bill.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the bill 
    now being considered is entitled ``to extend to June 30, 1955, the 
    direct home and farmhouse loan authority of the Administrator of 
    Veterans' Affairs under title III of the Servicemen's Readjustment 
    Act of 1944, as amended, to make additional funds available 
    therefor, and for other purposes.''
        . . . [My amendment] will make more funds available to the 
    program, it will extend the program to more veterans who can then 
    acquire the benefits thereof by the simple expedient of making this 
    low interest rate tax exempt.

    The Chairman,(12) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Antoni N. Sadlak (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is too 
    broad. It deals with a problem which comes within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means and goes entirely outside of the 
    purposes of this bill. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs does not 
    have jurisdiction over gross income for income tax purposes. For 
    the reasons stated, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point 
    of order.

Authority of Administrator of Veterans' Affairs

Sec. 39.27 To a bill extending the authority of the Administrator of 
    Veterans' Affairs to establish a maximum interest rate for insured 
    loans to veterans, an amendment materially altering provisions of 
    existing law and modifying the authority of the Administrator with 
    respect to management of the loan program was held to be not 
    germane.

    On Sept. 29, 1969, a bill (13) extending the authority 
of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to set 
interest.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H.R. 13369 (Committee on Veterans' Affairs).
14. See 115 Cong. Rec. 27341, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Strike out all that follows the enacting clause and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:

[[Page 9024]]

            That notwithstanding the provisions of section 1803(c)(1) 
        of title 38, United States Code, the Administrator of Veterans' 
        Affairs is authorized, until October 1, 1971, to establish a 
        maximum interest rate for guaranteed or insured loans to 
        veterans under chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code, not 
        in excess of such rate as he may from time to time find the 
        loan market demands.

    Thereafter, the following amendment was offered: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 27342, 27343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Patman to the committee amendment: On 
    page 2, line 9, immediately after the period, insert the following:

            . . . (C)hapter 37 is further amended by adding at the end 
        of subchapter III thereof the following new section:
            ``1828. Investment of funds of the national service life 
        insurance fund in first mortgage loans guaranteed under section 
        1810 of this chapter.
            ``(a) When issuing a commitment to guarantee a proposed 
        home mortgage loan under section 1810 of this chapter, the 
        Administrator is authorized and is hereby directed to issue, if 
        such is requested by the lender-mortgagee, a non-assignable 
        commitment to purchase the completed loan from such lender-
        mortgagee. . . .
            ``(b) There is hereby established in the Treasury of the 
        United States a revolving fund to be known as the National 
        Service Life Insurance Investment Fund. . . . The . . . Fund 
        shall be available to the Administrator for all operations 
        under this section. . . . To provide the Administrator with the 
        funds necessary to purchase loans as the consequence of 
        commitments issued . . . pursuant to subsection (a) of this 
        section, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer such 
        funds from the National Service Life Insurance 
        Fund . . . to the Investment Fund. . . .''

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: . . . The amendment offered 
    by the gentleman is a whole new scheme to take funds from the 
    national service life insurance trust fund and make them available 
    for housing loans. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is a subject 
    alien to the central purpose of H.R. 13369, and I insist upon my 
    point of order that the amendment of the gentleman is not germane 
    to the bill.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: 
    . . . Mr. Chairman, the plainly expressed legal purpose and effect 
    of the committee amendment is to extend and enlarge the authority 
    of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs to carry on programs of 
    guaranteed and insured loans to veterans under chapter 37 of title 
    38 of the United States Code. The committee amendment expressly 
    refers to chapter 37, and directly affects the powers of the 
    Administrator under that chapter. It enlarges those powers by 
    giving the Administrator authority over interest rates--authority 
    he would not otherwise possess under chapter 37. My amendment 
    relates directly to this interest rate authority by giving the 
    Administrator further power to control or influence the rates on 
    chapter 37 loans. . . .

    The Chairman,(16) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9025]]

        The proposition before the Committee has a narrow purpose: To 
    grant the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs authority, for a 2-
    year period, to establish a maximum interest rate for guaranteed or 
    insured veterans loans. . . .
        . . . [T]he precedents indicate that where a bill is drafted to 
    achieve a purpose by one method, an amendment to accomplish a 
    similar purpose by an unrelated method, not contemplated by the 
    bill, is not germane. . . .
        The committee amendment under consideration extends only the 
    authority of the Administrator. It does not ``extend existing law'' 
    in the sense that it reenacts it and could possibly open up the 
    basic law to modification. The Chair therefore holds that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] which 
    materially alters the provisions of chapter 37 of title 38, United 
    States Code, is not germane to the limited proposition under 
    consideration. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

    In response to points raised by Mr. Patman, the Chairman also 
stated:

        . . . [T]he provisions of this piece of legislation only relate 
    to the interest rates and not to title 38, United States Code, 
    chapter 37, as a whole.

Bill Extending Federal Energy Administration--Amendment Abolishing 
    Agency and Transferring Functions

Sec. 39.28 A bill continuing and reenacting an existing law may be 
    amended by a proposition modifying in a germane manner the 
    provisions of the law being extended; thus, to a bill reenacting a 
    law to extend the existence of the Federal Energy Administration 
    (which agency under that law would otherwise terminate with a 
    consequent transfer of its functions to other agencies), an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute abolishing the agency and 
    some of its functions and transferring other functions to existing 
    agencies was held germane as another reorganization proposal 
    closely related to that contained in the law being amended.

    On June 1, 1976,(17) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration a bill (H.R. 12169) reenacting a law, to extend the 
existence of the Federal Energy Administration. That law provided, in 
the absence of such extension, for termination of the agency and a 
consequent transfer of its functions to other agencies. An amendment in 
the nature of a substitute was offered which itself provided for 
termination of the agency and the transfer of certain of its functions 
to other agencies--

[[Page 9026]]

matters deemed to be within the jurisdiction of committees other than 
that which reported the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 16021-25, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. 
        Schroeder:
            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            That the Federal Energy Administration is abolished.

                             abolition of functions

            Sec. 2. The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be abolished: the functions 
        of the Office of Management and Administration (other than the 
        Office of Private Grievances and Redress); the functions of the 
        Office of Intergovernmental, Regional, and Special Programs; 
        the functions of the Office of Congressional Affairs. . .
            Sec. 3. (a) The functions of the following offices of the 
        Federal Energy Administration shall be transferred to other 
        agencies as directed in this section:
            The functions of the Offices of Energy Policy and Analysis, 
        Energy Conservation and Environment, and International Energy 
        Affairs shall be transferred to the Energy Research and 
        Development Administration.
            (2) The functions of the Office of Energy Resource 
        Development (including the Office of Strategic Petroleum 
        Reserve) shall be transferred to the Department of the 
        Interior.
            (3) The functions of the Office Regulatory Programs 
        (including the Office of Private Grievances and Redress) shall 
        be transferred to the Federal Power Commission. . . .

    Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, made a point of order against the 
amendment:

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House require that 
    the amendment be germane to the bill which is before the House both 
    as to the place in the bill to which the germaneness question 
    arises and the amendment is offered, and also as to the bill as a 
    whole.
        The first grounds for the point of order are that the amendment 
    goes beyond the requirements of the place in the bill to which the 
    amendment is offered; the second is that it fails to meet the test 
    of germaneness in several particulars. First, that it is a matter 
    which would have been referred to a diversity of committees other 
    than the committee which presently has the responsibility therefor. 
    . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there are several tests of 
    germaneness, the first being the test of committee jurisdiction. 
    Obviously, none of the matters referred to in the amendment are 
    properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce.
        The second test is that they must be pertinent to the matters 
    before the House. It is clearly obvious that such broad transfer of 
    responsibilities to diverse agencies and also the imposition of 
    responsibilities on the director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget, are far beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and that the responsibility for 
    the establishing of a savings clause with respect to litigation is 
    not within the jurisdiction of that committee.
        Another test of germaneness is the fact that the amendment 
    should give notice to the Members as to what they could reasonably 
    anticipate in the

[[Page 9027]]

    sense of amendments which might be presented to them. . . .
        Lastly, to meet the test of germaneness, it is required that 
    the subject matter relate to the subject matter of the bill, and 
    the amendment which is before us clearly seeks to transfer these 
    responsibilities broadly throughout the Federal Government; the 
    establishment of savings clauses and the oversight responsibilities 
    which are imposed go far beyond the requirements of the rules of 
    the House. So that for all of these reasons I respectfully insist 
    upon my point of order. . . .
        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: . . . Committee 
    jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment and the original bill 
    is not the exclusive test of germaneness--August 2, 1973.
        The bill H.R. 12169 incorporates by reference the entire 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, a bill which was 
    reported by the House Government Operations Committee. It does so 
    by, in essence, reenacting the entire act.
        Amendments to the entire act are in order and therefore the 
    substitute, which, if outside of Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
    Committee jurisdiction, strays no farther than into Government 
    Operations Committee jurisdiction, is undeniably germane. And the 
    germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a substitute is its 
    relationship to the bill as a whole, and is not necessarily 
    determined by the content of an incidental portion of the amendment 
    which, if considered separately might be within the jurisdiction of 
    another committee--August 2, 1973. Furthermore, to a bill 
    continuing and reenacting an existing law an amendment germane to 
    the existing act sought to be continued was held to be germane to 
    the pending bill--VIII, 2940, 2941, 2950, 3028; October 31, 1963. 
    To a bill extending an existing law in modified form, an amendment 
    proposing further modifications of that law may be germane--April 
    23, 1969; February 19, 1975.
        The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
    fundamental purpose of the bill--VIII, 2911--the purposes of both 
    H.R. 12169 and the substitute are to continue the functions of the 
    Federal Energy Administration. The differences are simply: First, 
    to what extent the functions will be continued; and second, what 
    bodies of Government will be responsible for continuing the 
    functions.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the rules of the 
    House under rule X(i)(3) give the Committee on Government 
    Operations jurisdiction over the reorganizations in the executive 
    branch of the Government. The bill we have before us is an 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce bill. Therefore, the Schroeder 
    amendment is nongermane because it involves matter not before the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        The title of the bill before us both as it was originally drawn 
    and as it is amended, does only two things, and as amended, it 
    reads:

            To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to 
        authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1977 to carry out the 
        functions of the Federal Agency Administration, and for other 
        purposes.

        The other purposes are not accomplished in the legislation or 
    the language of the bill. Therefore, the bill be

[[Page 9028]]

    fore the House is a bill to authorize funds for and extend the life 
    of the Federal Energy Administration. As such it merely extends 
    with some modification the authorities of the FEA.
        The Schroeder amendment on the other hand would completely 
    terminate those functions, and transfer them to many other 
    Government agencies, a matter within the jurisdiction of the 
    Government Operations Committee and not a matter within the 
    jurisdiction of the bill. Therefore, it necessarily involves 
    reorganization of the executive branch functions and as such is 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations. 
    . . .
        Again in 28, section 6.2 of Deschler's Precedents, it says:

            To a bill drafted to achieve a purpose by one method, an 
        amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated 
        method, not contemplated by the bill, is not germane.

        In other words, the effort to abolish and reorganize would not 
    be germane to a bill to merely authorize and modify certain 
    functions within the jurisdiction of the committee dealing with the 
    bill on the floor. . . .
        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: . . . The main point, Mr. 
    Chairman, is this: Are we or are we not in the Schroeder substitute 
    attempting to arrive at the disposition of this matter by carrying 
    out the functions of FEA in this authorization to appropriate and 
    carry out these functions by other means? Now, clearly, this is 
    brought out in rule XVI, section 789b, page 514 of the Rules of the 
    House of Representatives:

            . . . Thus to a proposition to accomplish a result through 
        regulation by a governmental agency, an amendment to accomplish 
        the same fundamental purpose through regulation by another 
        governmental agency [was held germane].

        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Several days ago the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Schroeder) 
    placed her amendment in the Record. The attention of the Chair was 
    called to the amendment at that time.
        Generally speaking, as far as germaneness is concerned, since 
    the committee proposal before the Committee at this time extends 
    the term of the original act, amendments that would be considered 
    as germane to the original act being reenacted would be considered 
    as germane at this time.
        This principle, in part, was the basis of the decision in 
    Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, section 2941, that a bill 
    continuing and reenacting the present law is subject to an 
    amendment modifying the provisions of the law carried in that bill.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) makes the point of 
    order that the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Schroeder) is not germane to the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 12169.
        The committee amendment extends the term of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act until September 30, 1979, and provides specific 
    authorizations for appropriations for that agency through fiscal 
    year 1977.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish the 
    Federal

[[Page 9029]]

    Energy Administration and some of its functions, and would transfer 
    other functions currently performed by the agency to other 
    Departments and agencies in the executive branch, and would 
    authorize appropriations for the next fiscal year for the 
    performance of those functions transferred by the amendment.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the committee bill, 
    the law--public law 93-275--being continued and reenacted by the 
    bill, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute against which 
    the point of order has been raised. While it is true that the basic 
    law which created the Federal Energy Administration was reported as 
    a reorganization proposal from the Committee on Government 
    Operations in the last Congress, and while it is also true that a 
    bill containing the substance of the amendment has been jointly 
    referred to that committee and to the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce in this Congress, the Chair would point out that 
    committee jurisdiction is not the sole or exclusive test of 
    germaneness.
        The Chair would call the attention of the Committee to 
    extensive precedent contained in Cannon's volume VIII, section 
    2941, which the Chair has already cited, where an amendment germane 
    to an existing law was held germane to a bill proposing its 
    reenactment. The Chair feels that this precedent is especially 
    pertinent in the limited context where, as here, the pending bill 
    proposes to extend the existence of an organizational entity which 
    would otherwise be terminated by failure to reenact the law.
        In such a situation, the proper test of germaneness is the 
    relationship between the basic law being reenacted and the 
    amendment, and not merely the relationship between the pending bill 
    and the amendment.
        It is important to note that the law being extended was itself 
    an extensive reorganization of various executive branch energy-
    related functions. Not only did Public Law 93-275 transfer several 
    functions from the Interior Department and the Cost of Living 
    Council to the FEA, but that law also authorized the Administrator 
    of FEA to perform all functions subsequently delegated to him by 
    Congress or by the President pursuant to other law. Section 28 of 
    that law provides that upon its termination, which would result if 
    the pending bill is not enacted, all functions exercised by FEA 
    would revert to the department or agency from which they were 
    originally transferred.
        It appears to the Chair, from an examination of the committee 
    report, that all of the functions which the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute proposes to abolish or to transfer are being 
    extended and authorized by the committee bill.
        Since the basic law which created the FEA is before the 
    committee for germane modification, since changes in that law 
    relating to the delegation of authority to perform functions from 
    or to the FEA are germane to that law, and since the pending 
    committee bill authorizes the FEA to perform all of the functions 
    which the amendment in the nature of a substitute would abolish or 
    transfer, the Chair holds that the amendment is germane to the 
    committee proposal and overrules the point of order.

[[Page 9030]]

--Amendment Providing Reorganization Plan Offered as Substitute for 
    Amendment Establishing Termination Date for Agency

Sec. 39.29 For an amendment establishing a termination date for the 
    Federal Energy Administration, a substitute not dealing with the 
    date of termination but providing instead a reorganization plan for 
    that agency was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 12169 in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 1, 1976,(19) the Chair sustained a point of order 
against a substitute for the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 16051-56, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fithian: Page 10, line 4, strike 
        out ``September 30, 1979'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``December 31, 1977''. . . .

        Mr. [Gary] Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Fithian). . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania as a 
        substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Fithian: On page 
        10, after line 4, add the following:
            Sec. 3. Section 28 of the Federal Energy Administration Act 
        of 1974 is amended by inserting the following, in lieu thereof,
            `` `Notwithstanding section 527 of the Energy Policy and 
        Conservation Act, upon termination of this Act, as provided for 
        in Section 30 of this Act, all functions of the Federal Energy 
        Administration shall be transferred to existing departments, 
        agencies or offices of the Federal Government, or their 
        successors. The President, through the Director of the Office 
        of Management and Budget, shall file, 12 months before the 
        termination of this Act, a plan and program with the Speaker of 
        the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, 
        to provide for the orderly transfer of the functions of the 
        Federal Energy Administration to such departments, agencies or 
        offices. Within 90 days after the submission of this plan and 
        program, either House of Congress may pass a resolution 
        disapproving such plan and program.' ''. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, my point of 
    order is in several parts: The first, Mr. Chairman, is that the 
    amendment must be germane to the Fithian amendment. I make the 
    point that it is not.
        Mr. Chairman, the Fithian amendment, if the Chair will note, 
    simply relates to the termination of the existence of the FEA as an 
    agency and sets a date for the expiration thereof.
        This amendment goes much further, and if the Chair will consult 
    the amendment, the Chair will find that it relates to the 
    compensation of executives, that it relates and fixes the levels at 
    which executives' salaries and compensation will be held. It deals

[[Page 9031]]

    with the administration being able to employ and fix the 
    compensation of officers and employees and it limits the number of 
    positions which may be at different GS levels.
        It goes much further. It deals with section 527 of the Energy 
    Policy and Conservation Act, which is not referred to in the 
    Fithian amendment and, indeed, which is not referred to elsewhere 
    in the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, it deals with the fixing of the compensation of 
    Federal employees. It deals with the powers of the President, the 
    duties and powers of the Director of the Office of Management and 
    Budget functioning through and under the President. It deals with 
    the filing of the plans for the termination of the act with the 
    Speaker of the House of Representatives and it provides a plan to 
    deal with the orderly transfer of functions to the Federal Energy 
    Administration to such Departments and so forth.
        It goes further and effectively amends the Reorganization Act 
    by providing that the plan may be approved or disapproved by either 
    House of Congress in a fashion in conformity with the requirements 
    of the Reorganization Act.
        This is a sweeping and very different amendment than that which 
    is before the House in the Fithian amendment.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a second ground on which the point 
    of order lies and that is that the amendment to the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute is not even germane to the bill. It is 
    my strong suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that the quick way to dispose 
    of this matter is by disposal of the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the 
    subcommittee chairman did not mean to mislead the Chairman on the 
    point of order. The subcommittee chairman has read in toto all the 
    amendments I read this afternoon, including the GS and ES 
    schedules, which are not included in this amendment.
        This amendment simply deals with the termination of the FEA 
    after 15 months. The only difference between my amendment and the 
    amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Fithian) would be that 
    it does indicate that the President should through OMB present to 
    the Congress a plan, which the gentleman from Texas would not yield 
    sufficient time during the previous amendment for me to present 
    even the issues in this respect.
        Mr. Chairman, I present that as my case on the point of order, 
    that it simply amends the termination of the act.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
    Fithian) goes solely to the question of the date of termination of 
    the FEA. The substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, now before the Committee, goes beyond that issue to 
    the question of reorganization of that agency. Therefore, it is not 
    germane as a substitute. The point of order would have to be 
    sustained; but the gentleman's amendment might be in order 
    following the Fithian amendment as a separate amendment to the 
    Committee proposal.

[[Page 9032]]

--Amendment Limiting Discretionary Authority Conferred in Law

Sec. 39.30 A bill continuing and reenacting an existing law may be 
    amended by a proposition modifying in a germane manner the 
    provisions of the law being extended; thus, to a bill reenacting a 
    law to extend the existence of the Federal Energy Administration, 
    including the authority under a section of that law for the 
    Administrator to conduct energy programs delegated to him, an 
    amendment to that section of the law restricting the method of 
    submitting energy action proposals to Congress was held germane to 
    the law being extended as a limitation on discretionary authority 
    conferred in that law, and therefore germane to the bill.

    On June 1, 1976,(1) during consideration of H.R. 12169, 
it was held that to a bill extending the Federal Energy Administration 
Act, including the Administrator's authority under that Act to conduct 
energy programs delegated to him, an amendment seeking to restrict the 
manner in which the Administrator was to submit energy action proposals 
to Congress was germane to the law being extended as a limitation on 
discretionary authority conferred in that law, and therefore germane to 
the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 122 Cong. Rec. 16045, 16046, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eckhardt: Page 10, after line 4, 
        insert the following:

         limitation on discretion of the administrator with respect to 
                          submission of energy actions

            Sec. 3. Section 5 of the Federal Energy Administration Act 
        of 1974 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(c) The Administrator shall not exercise the discretion 
        delegated to him pursuant to section 5(b) of the Emergency 
        Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 to submit to the Congress as 
        one energy action any amendment under section 12 of the 
        Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 which exempts crude 
        oil or any refined petroleum product or refined product 
        category from both the allocation provisions and the pricing 
        provisions of the regulation under section 4 of such Act''. . . 
        .

    Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I think at least 
two, and perhaps more, basic principles of germaneness make the 
Eckhardt amendment nongermane. The first one is this:

            The fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to 
        the fundamental purpose of the bill (Cannon's Precedents, page 
        199).

        Mr. Chairman, the Dingell bill's fundamental purpose is to 
    authorize ap

[[Page 9033]]

    propriations to the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974--
    section 1--and to extend the life of that Agency--section 2. These 
    are the only two sections of the bill and the only fundamental 
    purpose of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, a bill amending several sections of an act does 
    not necessarily bring the entire act under consideration so as to 
    permit amendment to any portion of the act sought to be amended by 
    the bill--Cannon's Precedents, page 201.
        The Dingell bill amends only two sections of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act, section 29, dealing with the authorization of 
    appropriations, and section 30, dealing with the termination date 
    of the act. The Eckhardt amendment does not apply to either one of 
    these sections.
        Mr. Chairman, I would also like to cite from Deschler's 
    Procedure 28, section 5.10 and section 5.11, as follows:

            An amendment repealing sections of existing law is not 
        germane to a bill citing but not amending another section of 
        that law, where the fundamental purposes of the bill and 
        amendment are not related.

        Then I cite section 5.11, Mr. Chairman, which says the 
    following:

            To a section of a committee amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute having as its fundamental purpose the funding of 
        urban highway transportation systems, an amendment broadening 
        that section to include rail transportation within its ambit is 
        not germane. . . .

        . . . [T]he amendment is, in effect, a modification of the 
    Energy Petroleum Allocation Act, as amended by the Federal Energy 
    Policy and Conservation Act, rather than an amendment of the 
    Federal Energy Administration Act, the only legislation touched by 
    H.R. 12169. . . .
        This is an amendment which directly modifies the provisions of 
    section 12 of EPAA--added by EPCA--which provides in subsection 
    (c)(1):

            Any such amendment which, with respect to a class of 
        persons or class of transactions (including transactions with 
        respect to any market level), exempts crude oil, residual fuel 
        oil, or any refined petroleum product or refined product 
        category from the provisions of the regulation under section 
        4(a) as such provisions pertain to either (A) the allocation of 
        amounts of any such oil or product, or (B) the specification of 
        price or the manner for determining the price of any such oil 
        or product, or both of the matters described in subparagraphs 
        (A) and (B), may take effect only pursuant to the provisions of 
        this subsection. . . .

        The effect of the Eckhardt amendment is to strike the words 
    ``or both'' from section 12(c)(1) of EPAA. As such it is, in 
    effect, an amendment to EPAA, not to the FEA Act under 
    consideration here, and is therefore, nongermane. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the 
    amendment is, as is stated, to limit the discretion of an 
    administrator with respect to submission of energy actions. The 
    Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 provided that subject to 
    the provisions of the procedures set forth in this act, the 
    administrator shall be responsible for such actions as are taken by 
    this office that adequate provision is made to meet the energy 
    needs of the nation. To that end, they shall make such plans and 
    direct and conduct such programs related to the

[[Page 9034]]

    production, conservation, use, control, distribution, rationing and 
    allocation of all forms of energy as are appropriate in connection 
    with only those authorities or functions--and then it lists them.
        What the amendment does, it limits the discretionary authority 
    of the administrator. The act itself creates the agency and gives 
    general authority to the administrator. It is true, of course, that 
    there are other acts that call for certain processes but these 
    processes are conducted under the authority of the administration 
    as described in the energy act.
        The effect of this amendment is simply to require that the FEA 
    submit to Congress, separate from other matters, the question of 
    price decontrol. That is, it may not package in a single proposal 
    to Congress both price decontrol and allocation decontrol. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) makes a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Eckhardt) on the ground that it is not germane to the bill.
        The amendment would amend section 5 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration act to restrict the discretion of the Administrator 
    in the method of submitting energy action proposals to Congress, a 
    function delegated to him by the President under the Petroleum 
    Allocation Act of 1973. Section 5 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act directs the Administrator to prepare for and 
    conduct programs for production, conservation, use, control, 
    distribution, rationing, and allocation of energy in connection 
    with authorities transferred to him by law or delegated to him by 
    the President.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Texas would place a 
    specific restriction on the exercise of that discretion to perform 
    functions under other laws.
        On March 6, 1974, when the original Federal Energy 
    Administration Act was being considered for amendment in the 
    Committee of the Whole, an amendment was offered to section 5 of 
    the bill, the section of the act presently in issue. The amendment 
    would have prohibited the Administrator from setting ceiling prices 
    on domestic crude oil above a certain level in the exercise of the 
    authority transferred to him in the bill, and Chairman Flynt ruled 
    that the amendment was germane as a limitation on the discretionary 
    authority conferred on the Administrator in that section and as a 
    limitation not directly amending another existing law.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair finds that the amendment is 
    germane to the bill under consideration and to the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act which it extends, and overrules the point of 
    order.

--Amendment Restricting Use of Funds

Sec. 39.31 To a bill extending the existence of the Federal Energy 
    Administration and authorizing appropriations for that agency, an 
    amendment requiring that agency to promulgate regulations to as

[[Page 9035]]

    sure that the agency hearings funded by the bill are conducted in 
    the areas to be affected by that agency's actions was held germane 
    as a restriction on the use of funds authorized by the bill.

    On June 1, 1976,(3) during consideration of H.R. 12169, 
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, overruled a point of order 
against an amendment to the bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 16057, 16058, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lagomarsino: Page 10, immediately 
        after line 4, insert the following:

           requirements for hearings in areas affected by rules and 
                        regulations of the administrator

            Sec. 3. Section 7(i)(1) is amended by adding after 
        subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph:
            (D)(i) The Administrator shall, not later than 60 days 
        after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, prescribe 
        and implement rules to assure that any hearing the expenses of 
        which are paid by any funds authorized to be appropriated under 
        this Act shall--
            ``(I) if such hearing concerns a single unit of local 
        government or the residents thereof, be held within the 
        boundaries of such unit; or
            ``(II) if such hearing concerns a single geographic area 
        within a State or the residents thereof, be held within the 
        boundaries of such area; or

            ``(III) if such hearing concerns a single State or the 
        residents thereof, be held within such State.''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        [T]he amendment is not germane. If my colleagues will observe, 
    we have a lengthy amendment here which embodies a number of things 
    including extensive requirements for hearings in different parts of 
    the country. But in addition to this it vests broad new discretion 
    in the Administrator of FEA by saying that he can have a hearing or 
    not have a hearing, or determine none is appropriate.
        It also provides new quasi-judicial powers to the Administrator 
    of the FEA to consolidate these hearings, raising great questions. 
    There is also a series of cross-references to a large number of 
    other parts of the Federal Energy Agency Act and of the EPCA, and 
    as a result it is impossible to discern very quickly just what 
    discretions and what authorities and what requirements are imposed 
    upon the Administrator. . . .
        Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino [of California]: Mr. Chairman, to 
    alleviate any doubts any of my colleagues may have regarding the 
    germaneness of this amendment, let me stress this is an amendment 
    dealing not with just any hearings but would be one specifically 
    tied to any hearing with respect to the disagreement over an 
    expenditure of FEA funds. My amendment would assure that in 
    connection with the administrative expenses paid out for FEA, the 
    hearings--and it does not require any hearings to be held which are 
    not now required to be held--will

[[Page 9036]]

    be held within the jurisdictions affected. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Lagomarsino) is limited to hearings paid for by the funds 
    authorized in this bill. The amendment restricts the uses to which 
    such funds may be used and is germane. The Chair therefore 
    overrules the point of order.

--Amendment Changing Date of Termination Offered to Substitute 
    Abolishing Agency

Sec. 39.32 Where the Committee of the Whole had under consideration a 
    bill extending the Federal Energy Administration Act and an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute abolishing the Federal 
    Energy Administration on a date certain and transferring some of 
    its functions to other agencies, an amendment offered to such 
    substitute changing the date for termination of such agency was 
    held to be germane.

    On June 1, 1976,(4) during consideration of H.R. 12169 
in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, overruled a point of order against an amendment as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 16025, 16026, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fithian to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mrs. Schroeder: Strike out 
        ``That the Federal Energy Administration is abolished'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following section:
            ``Sec. 1. Section 30 of the Federal Energy Administration 
        Act of 1974 is amended by striking out `June 30, 1976' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof `September 30, 1977'.''
            On line 3 of section 2 insert after ``shall be abolished'' 
        the words ``effective September 30, 1977''.
            On line 4 of section 3 strike the colon and insert the 
        words ``effective September 30, 1977:''. . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment must be not only germane to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute and to the bill but it must be germane to the 
    particular part of the bill to which it is addressed.
        Mr. Chairman, if we will read the bill, we will observe there 
    are two parts. There is a section 1 and a section 2. Section 1 
    relates to authorizations for appropriations, and section 2 relates 
    to the extension of the life of the agency. The provisions relating 
    to the extension of the agency itself, we will observe, are in 
    section 2, which appears at page 10 of the bill, and while it might 
    be desirable to have the amendment that the gentleman offers set 
    forth as a policy from his point of view, the fact of the matter is 
    that the amendment should be offered to the later part of the bill, 
    section 2, printed at page 10, and not to the Schroeder amendment 
    as offered. . . .

[[Page 9037]]

        Mr. [Floyd J.] Fithian [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I recognize 
    what the distinguished subcommittee chairman is speaking about, but 
    I would call to his attention the fact that the extension of the 
    life of the Federal Energy Administration affects both section 1 
    and section 2. Therefore, it seems to me that in the normal, 
    orderly process of the business of the House, we ought to offer 
    this amendment at the earlier time.
        We should note that the amendment that has been offered clearly 
    indicates that in section 1, section 30 of the Federal Energy 
    Administration Act of 1974 is amended by striking out ``June 30, 
    1976,'' which is in section 1, and extending it to another date 
    which is 15 months hence. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think what we 
    now have to decide is whether or not we can proceed to debate a 
    matter which we can alter and come out halfway between the 
    Schroeder position and the Dingell position. That, it seems to me, 
    is not altogether unreasonable, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. 
    Schroeder) is an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    entire bill and the Schroeder amendment is open to amendment at any 
    point. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
    Fithian) simply changes the date in the Schroeder amendment when 
    FEA is to be abolished. It simply provides for a change of date.
        The amendment is germane to the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. 
    Schroeder). The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Authorization Bill--Amendment to Permanent Law

Sec. 39.33 A bill authorizing appropriations to an agency for one year 
    but not amending the organic law by extending the existence of that 
    agency does not necessarily open up that law to amendments which 
    are not directly related to a subject contained in the bill; 
    accordingly, to a bill providing an annual authorization for the 
    Energy Research and Development Administration, but not amending 
    the basic law which created that agency, an amendment to such law, 
    extending the existence of the Energy Resources Council (an entity 
    not referred to in the pending bill), was held to be not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 13350 in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 20, 1976,(5) the

[[Page 9038]]

Chair sustained a point of order against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 122 Cong. Rec. 14912, 14913, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also Sec. Sec. 39.35 and 41.14, infra, for similar 
        instances in which a bill extended only an authorization. 
        Compare Sec. Sec. 39.28, 39.30-39.32, supra, in which the bill 
        sought to extend the existence of an agency, and amendments to 
        the organic law creating that agency were held to be germane to 
        the bill if germane to the basic law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Goldwater: On page 32, between 
        lines 6 and 7, insert a new section to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 405. Section 108(d) of the Energy Reorganization Act 
        of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5818(d)) is amended by striking the words 
        `two years' and inserting therein `four years', and at the end 
        thereof adding the following:
            `` `Beginning February 1, 1977, the Council shall annually 
        provide to Congress a detailed report of the actions it has 
        taken or not taken in the preceding fiscal year to carry out 
        the duties and functions referred to in subsection (b) of this 
        section, together with such recommendations, including 
        legislative recommendations, the Council may have concerning 
        the development and implementation of energy policy and the 
        management of energy resources. The report shall include such 
        other information as may be helpful to the Congress and the 
        public.' ''. . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane to H.R. 13350.
        The bill authorizes appropriations for 1 year for the programs 
    administered by the Energy Research and Development Administration.
        The amendment would have the effect of making permanent the 
    Energy Resources Council, a body established within the Executive 
    Office of the President. Such an amendment is clearly beyond the 
    scope of a 1-year authorization bill and is, therefore, not 
    germane.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the point of order be sustained, 
    and I specifically refer to rule XVI, clause 7. . . .
        Mr. Goldwater: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment is directly 
    related to subject matter of the bill--ERDA's programs and how they 
    are carried out under the Energy Reorganization Act.
        The Reorganization Act created ERDA and its programs and also 
    the Energy Resources Council to insure the full and complete 
    coordination of those programs and all other energy agencies and 
    programs. ERDA's programs and the ERC go hand and glove in a 
    programmatic sense.

                        Fundamental Purpose as Test

        The fundamental purpose of the amendment is to continue our 
    only statutory mechanism for coordinating our energy programs to 
    insure they are effective and not duplicative.
        Last year, section 309 of the Authorization Act stated:

            The administrator shall coordinate nonnuclear programs of 
        the Administration with the heads of relevant Federal agencies 
        in order to minimize unnecessary duplication.

        My amendment addresses that same goal--avoiding duplication and 
    maximizing effectiveness.

                           Committee Jurisdiction

        The Science Committee and JAEC have sole jurisdiction over 
    energy R. & D. programs.

[[Page 9039]]

        Once the ERC was established, it came under the jurisdiction of 
    the energy committees who must have responsibility for legislating 
    effective energy programs. If we do not have it, no one does.
        The ERC does not have a separate staff. It uses agency 
    personnel on assignment in the agency's area of responsibility. So 
    ERDA personnel can and do staff ERC functions. This bill provides 
    the funds in program support for those employees. Therefore, this 
    bill actually will fund the extended activities of ERC in fiscal 
    year 1977 under my amendment.

                          General Versus Specific

        This is specific amendment to the general provisions. It is an 
    ERDA program-wide provision, that is to have a continued, statutory 
    mechanism for coordination of all energy programs.

                         Amendment to Existing Law

        The amendment merely extends the ERC for 2 years by a minimal 
    change in the Energy Reorganization Act. The thrust is basically 
    programmatic in nature, not a substantive change.
        The bill is under the Reorganization Act, and further the 
    Reorganization Act requires in section 305 that there be an annual 
    authorization for ``appropriations made under this act.''
        The Reorganization Act, the ERDA program and the ERC--under 
    section 108--of the act are all tied together.

                                 Key Point

        The amendment is germane, because this bill includes program 
    support for the salaries of ERDA employees who staff parts of the 
    Energy Resources Council.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has examined the amendment and has listened to the 
    argument in support of the point of order and to the argument 
    presented by the gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) very 
    carefully and it, indeed, is an argument which deserves the careful 
    attention of the Chair.
        The Chair would call attention to the fact that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) seeks to 
    amend the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 by extending the life 
    of the Energy Resources Council.
        The point of order is made that the amendment is not germane 
    and that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill before us.
        The bill before the committee at this time is an annual 
    authorization bill. It is a bill to authorize appropriations for 
    the Energy Research and Development Administration and does not 
    amend the basic organic statute which established ERDA.
        The Chair is constrained to state that, in his opinion, the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) 
    goes beyond the scope of the bill which is pending before the 
    committee at this time in that that bill does not directly amend 
    the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 nor does it deal with the 
    Council as a separate entity.
        The Chair would refer to Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, 
    section 33, and the numerous precedents set out there concerning 
    amendments changing existing law to bills not citing that law.

[[Page 9040]]

        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Revenue-Sharing Program: Authorization for One Year--Amendment To 
    Extend Program for Three Years

Sec. 39.34 To a proposition to appropriate or to authorize 
    appropriations for only one year (and containing no provisions 
    extending beyond that year) an amendment to extend the 
    appropriation or authorization to another year is not germane; 
    thus, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute extending for 
    one year the entitlement authorization for revenue-sharing during 
    fiscal year 1981 and containing conforming changes in the law which 
    would not effectively extend beyond that year, an amendment 
    extending the revenue-sharing program for three years was held 
    broader in scope and not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 7112 (7) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Nov. 13, 1980,(8) it was demonstrated that 
the test of germaneness of a perfecting amendment to an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute for a bill is its relationship to said 
substitute, and not to the original bill. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act Amendments of 1980.
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 29523-28, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Horton: Strike out everything after the enacting clause and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following:

        Section 1. Short Title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Act Amendments of 1980''.

        Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 105(c)(1) of 
        the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 is amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following: ``In addition, there 
        are authorized to be appropriated to the Trust Fund 
        $4,566,700,000 to pay the entitlements of units of local 
        government hereinafter provided for the entitlement period 
        beginning October 1, 1980, and ending September 30, 1981.''. . 
        .

    An amendment was offered:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wydler to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Horton: On page 1 of the 
        amendment of the gentleman from New York, strike out section 2 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following:

        Sec. 2. Extension of Program.

            (a) Authorization of Appropriations for Local Share.--
        Section 105(c)(1) of the State and Local Fiscal Assist

[[Page 9041]]

        ance Act of 1972 is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following: ``In addition, there are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Trust Fund to pay the entitlements of units 
        of local government hereinafter provided $4,566,700,000 for 
        each of the entitlement periods beginning October 1 of 1980, 
        1981, and 1982.''. . .

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is 
    not germane to the Horton substitute. It is in violation of rule 
    XVI against nongermane amendments. The Horton substitute is limited 
    to an extension of this legislation in 1981 only. The amendment, 
    however, seeks to add language dealing with fiscal years 1982 and 
    1983. This is a different subject from that of the Horton 
    substitute and does not conform to the rule. The Horton substitute 
    was very carefully drafted and restricted to units of local 
    government for the entitlement period beginning October 1, 1980, 
    and ending September 30, 1981.
        The proposed amendment is a different subject matter, dealing 
    with State governments for a different period of time.
        The rule is quite clear on this matter. To admit such an 
    amendment would cause great confusion in the legislative process of 
    the House. It should be ruled out of order, Mr. Chair-
    man. . . .
        Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the amendment 
    to the amendment that I have offered deals with exactly the same 
    subject matter as in the amendment that has been offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton). It does deal with a longer 
    time period, but it is the same time period exactly that is 
    contained in the legislation. It deals with other matters which are 
    contained in the general legislation, so I feel it is well within 
    the parameters of the bill it is trying to be substituted for.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In the opinion of the Chair, the fundamental purpose of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton), in 
    the nature of a substitute, is to extend for 1 year the entitlement 
    authorization for revenue-sharing payments to local governments 
    during fiscal year 1981.
        Any amendment offered thereto must be germane to the Horton 
    amendment. It will not be sufficient that the amendment be germane 
    to the committee bill. Under the precedents, to a proposition to 
    appropriate for only 1 year, an amendment to extend the 
    appropriation to another year, is not germane; Cannon's Precedents, 
    volume 8, section 2913.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the Horton amendment and the 
    conforming changes therein have as their fundamental purpose the 
    extension of local entitlements for only 1 year and do not thereby 
    open up the amendment to permanent or multiyear changes in the 
    revenue-sharing law.
        For that reason, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act--Amendment Making 
    Permanent Changes in Organization

Sec. 39.35 An amendment making permanent changes in the

[[Page 9042]]

    law relating to the organization of an agency is not germane to a 
    title of a bill only authorizing annual appropriations for such 
    agency for one fiscal year.

    On Dec. 4, 1979,(10) during consideration of H.R. 2608 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Leon E. 
Panetta, of California, sustained a point of order against the 
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 125 Cong. Rec. 34083, 34089, 34090, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title I reads as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980

            Sec. 101. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated 
        to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with the 
        provisions of section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
        U.S.C. 2017), and section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act 
        of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5875), for the fiscal year 1980 the sum of 
        $374,785,000 to remain available until expended. Of the total 
        amount authorized to be appropriated: . . .

        Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lujan: On page 8, after line 11, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 107. Section 201 (a) of the Energy Reorganization Act 
        of 1974 as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841) is amended by adding 
        immediately after paragraph (5) of that section a new paragraph 
        to read as follows:
            (6) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1) 
        regarding decisions and actions of the Commission, the 
        Commission may delegate to an individual Commissioner, 
        including the Chairman, such authority concerning emergency 
        response management as the Commission deems appropriate. . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . [T]he amendment 
    amends section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act. Neither title 
    I we are now considering or the bill under consideration amends 
    that law. While the rule does waive germaneness with respect to 
    three amendments, nothing in that rule otherwise modifies the 
    germaneness requirement, and I urge the point of order be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Lujan: Mr. Chairman, let me point out that as to the 
    germaneness and the appropriateness of this amendment, the rule 
    makes out of order amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and not to 
    the Energy Reorganization Act. For that reason I believe that the 
    amendment is germane and in order.
        The Chairman: . . . [T]he Chair is prepared to rule.
        Title I of the bill before the Committee provides for a 1-year 
    authorization for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while this 
    amendment seeks to permanently amend the Energy Reorganization Act 
    of 1974. Title I does not in any way amend the Energy 
    Reorganization Act of 1974. Therefore, the

[[Page 9043]]

    Chair finds the amendment to be nongermane under general 
    germaneness rule, which is applicable to this bill, and the point 
    of order is sustained.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
            E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW
 
Sec. 40. Amendment Continuing Temporary Law to Bill Amending That Law

National Housing Act

Sec. 40.1 To that part of a bill making certain substantive changes in 
    a section of the National Housing Act solely to limit the aggregate 
    amount of liability for all insurance thereunder, an amendment was 
    held to be not germane which also proposed to extend for an 
    additional period the temporary operation of provisions of such 
    section of the act.

    In the 75th Congress a bill (12) was under consideration 
to amend the National Housing Act. The bill stated in part: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. S. 1228 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 3350, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 9, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 2. The third sentence of subsection (a) of section 2 of 
    the National Housing Act, as amended, is amended to read as 
    follows: ``The total liability incurred by the Administrator for 
    all insurance heretofore and hereafter granted under this section 
    and section 6, as amended, shall not exceed in the aggregate 
    $100,000,000.''
The following amendment was offered to the bill: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 3351.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Byron N.] Scott [of California]: Page 
    2, line 24, strike out all of lines 24 and 25 and insert:

            Sec. 2. Section 2(a) of the National Housing Act, as 
        amended, is amended by striking out ``April 1, 1936, and prior 
        to April 1, 1937'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``April 1, 
        1937, and prior to April 1, 1938'', by striking out ``April 1, 
        1936, exceed 10 percent'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``April 
        1, 1937, exceed 5 percent'', and by amending the third sentence 
        thereof to.

    Mr. Henry B. Steagall, of Alabama, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the section or to the bill, and The 
Chairman,(15) without elaboration, sustained the point of 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Paul R. Greever (Wyo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
            E. RELATION OF AMENDMENT OR BILL TO EXISTING LAW
 
Sec. 41. Amendment Changing Existing Law to Bill Citing or Making Minor 
    Revisions in That Law

    It has been noted above (16) that where a bill amends 
existing law,

[[Page 9044]]

the germaneness of an amendment that further amends such law may depend 
on the extent of the change in law contemplated by the bill. If a bill 
seeks only to modify the law in a limited respect, an amendment will 
not be germane if it seeks to broaden the scope or alter the 
applicability of such law.(17) A bill narrowly amending a 
law in one respect does not necessarily allow as germane other 
amendments to that law which are not related to the subject of the 
bill; (18) and a bill narrowly amending one subsection of 
existing law for a single purpose does not necessarily open the entire 
section of the law to amendment.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For more general discussion of the principles governing the 
        germaneness of amendments to bills which amend existing law, 
        see the introduction to Sec. 35, supra.
17. See Sec. 41.12, infra.
18. See Sec. 41.5, 41.23, infra.
19. See Sec. 41.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a bill proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment making 
other permanent changes in that law is not germane, (20) and 
a bill extending or increasing an authorization for an agency but not 
substantively amending the permanent law does not necessarily open up 
that law to amendments which are not directly related to a subject 
contained in the bill.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 41.15, infra.
 1. See Sec. 41.14, infra. See also Sec. 41.16, infra, in which an 
        amendment to limit the use of authorized funds was ruled out as 
        beyond the scope of an organizational bill transferring 
        existing programs to a new department in that the amendment 
        sought to affect substantively the laws governing 
        administration of the programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To a bill citing but not amending a law on another subject, an 
amendment incorporating that law by reference to broaden its 
application to the subject of the bill is not germane.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 41.21, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right To Enter into Union Shop Agreements--Amendment To Make Agreements 
    Inapplicable to Members of Certain Religious Organizations

Sec. 41.1 To a bill repealing a part of the National Labor Relations 
    Act and making conforming changes in two related sections of labor 
    law, but having as its sole purpose the enunciation of the right of 
    employers and labor unions to enter into union shop agreements 
    under certain conditions, an amendment was held to be not germane 
    which sought to make any such agreement inapplicable to members of 
    certain religious organizations.

[[Page 9045]]

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
which stated: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor). See also 
        Sec. Sec. 37.1, 37.2, supra, for further discussion of 
        amendments offered to this bill.
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 18631, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    H.R. 77

            A bill to repeal section 14(b) of the National Labor 
        Relations Act, as amended, and section 705(b) of the Labor-
        Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 and to amend 
        the first proviso of section 8(a)(3)) of the National Labor 
        Relations Act, as amended
            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
        subsection (b) of section 14 of the National Labor Relations 
        Act, as amended, is hereby repealed.

        (b) The first proviso of paragraph 3 of subsection (a) of 
    section 8 of such Act is amended to read as follows: Provided, That 
    nothing in this Act, or in any other statute of the United States 
    or in any constitution or law of any State or political subdivision 
    thereof, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a 
    labor organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any 
    action defined in section 8(a) of this Act as an unfair labor 
    practice) to require as a condition of employment membership 
    therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of 
    such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever 
    is the later, (i) if such labor organization is the representative 
    of the employees as provided in section 9(a), in the appropriate 
    collective-bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made, and 
    (ii) unless following an election held as provided in section 9(e) 
    within one year preceding the effective date of such agreement, the 
    Board shall have certified that at least a majority of the 
    employees eligible to vote in such election have voted to rescind 
    the authority of such labor organization to make such an agreement:

            (c) Subsection (b) of section 705 of the Labor-Management 
        Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 is hereby repealed.

    To such bill, the following amendment was offered:

        Amendment offered by Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Page 2 on 
    line 16 after the word ``agreement'' insert the following:

            . . . except that no agreement under this subsection 
        requiring membership in a labor organization will be applicable 
        to any employee who (i) is a bona fide member of a religious 
        sect . . . the established . . . teachings of which oppose a 
        requirement that a member of such sect . . . join or 
        financially support any labor organization.

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 18631, 18632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: [The amendment] is not 
    germane and it has language . . . that is not embodied in the bill 
    before us. . . .

    Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, asked to be heard on the

[[Page 9046]]

point of order, and, arguing on the basis of a number of precedents 
which he cited, he stated in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 18632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, it seems quite clear to me . . . that the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. Green] is 
    clearly an exception to, or a limitation upon, the provisions 
    contained in the bill before us. . . .
        . . . ``[T]o a provision delegating certain powers, a proposal 
    to limit such powers is germane.''
        Mr. Chairman, it seems obvious that the present bill would 
    delegate certain powers to employers and the amendment would limit 
    those powers. Therefore, in harmony with that principle, it would 
    appear to be germane.
        . . . ``[T]o a proposal to grant certain authority, an 
    amendment proposing to limit such authority is germane.''
        Mr. Chairman, the bill now before us grants certain authority 
    and the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon limits 
    that authority. . . .
        ``To a section dealing with a designated class, an amendment 
    exempting from the provisions of the section a certain portion of 
    that class may be germane.''
        Obviously, Mr. Chairman, the bill deals with a designated 
    class; namely, those workers engaged under a common employment by a 
    common employer.

        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon exempts 
    from the provision of the section one portion of that class; to 
    wit, those belonging to certain religious organizations and holding 
    certain religious convictions. . . .
        . . . [I]t is stated in Cannon's Precedents that provisions 
    restricting authority may be modified by amendments providing 
    exceptions. The bill before us today restricts authority, and the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. Green] 
    provides certain exceptions. . . .
        ``To a proposition extending certain benefits to a class, a 
    proposal to establish qualifications limiting the number of 
    individuals in that class . . . is germane.''. . .
        On the question of an amendment which acts as a limitation upon 
    the provisions of the section to which it is attached, or one which 
    excepts or exempts from those provisions a certain group or number 
    or specific portion of the general class, the precedents seem 
    clear.

    Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, arguing that the amendment was 
not germane, responded: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at pp. 18632, 18633.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, the bill, H.R. 77, deals with only one subject, 
    it has only one purpose, it deals with only one particular of the 
    law, and that is so-called right-to-work laws.
        . . . The bill repeals section 14(b) which deals only with 
    State right-to-work laws and makes only such other changes as are 
    required to effectuate that single purpose.
        Mr. Chairman, it is elementary that the fundamental purpose of 
    an amendment must be germane to the fundamental purpose of the bill 
    to which it is offered. . . .

[[Page 9047]]

        The fundamental purpose of the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Oregon has to do with a question of religious 
    conscience and not with State right-to-work laws in any sense. . . 
    .
        When a bill amends an existing law as to one particular, an 
    amendment relating to the terms of the law rather than to those of 
    the bill is not germane. . . .
        Nor does the fact that the amendment is in the nature of a 
    limitation free it from the requirements of the rule of 
    germaneness. While a nongermane limitation upon an appropriation 
    may sometimes be permitted, this is a legislative bill and 
    amendments in the nature of limitations are subject to the same 
    germaneness requirements as any other amendment. . . .

    The Chairman,(8) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 18633, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair anticipated that questions might arise with respect 
    to the germaneness of various amendments which were discussed 
    during the consideration of the rule and under general debate on 
    this bill and has reviewed the bill, the rules, and the precedents 
    appertaining to the question of germaneness. Language in the bill 
    and the provisions of existing law to which the bill refers have 
    been examined with great care. The Chair thinks that the matter 
    contained in the pending bill is very narrow in its scope.
        The bill refers solely to the establishment of a uniform 
    Federal rule governing union security agreements--the so-called 
    right-to-work issue; and although the pending bill repeals section 
    14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act and section 705(b) of the 
    Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and 
    affirmatively amends section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations 
    Act, it is but a single subject that is affected by the 
    aforementioned sections--the right-to-work issue.
        It seems to the Chair that the pending bill deals only with one 
    particular aspect of existing law and that an amendment relating to 
    the terms of either law, including section references not within 
    the pending bill or touching other aspects of section 14(b), 8(a), 
    or 705(b) not relating to the question of the right to work, would 
    be nongermane.
        The Chair desires to call the attention of the Committee to a 
    ruling made by Chairman McCormack on April 21, 1939. The then 
    pending bill amended the Gold Reserve Act in two specific 
    instances. He held that an amendment seeking to amend the act in a 
    third particular instance which was not related to the pending bill 
    was not germane.
        Again, on April 11, 1940, Chairman Jones, of Texas, was 
    presiding over the Committee during consideration of a bill 
    proposing to amend an act in several particulars. He held that an 
    amendment proposing to modify the act but not the bill was not 
    germane.
        The Chair would also like to direct the attention of the 
    Committee to volume VIII of ``Cannon's Precedents'' of the House; 
    sections 2946, 2947, and 2948.
        In section 2946 the Chair held: ``To a bill amending the 
    Federal Reserve Act

[[Page 9048]]

    in a number of particulars an amendment relating to the Federal 
    Reserve Act but to no portion provided for in the pending bill'' 
    was not germane.
        In section 2947 the ruling was:

            To a bill amendatory of an act in several particulars an 
        amendment proposing to modify the act but not related to the 
        bill was held not to be germane.

        In section 2948 there was a similar ruling:

            To a bill amendatory of one section of an existing law an 
        amendment proposing further modification of the law was held 
        not to be germane.

        The Chair might also call to the attention of the Committee an 
    even older precedent which goes back to the turn of the century. In 
    volume V of ``Hinds'' Precedents,'' section 5806, it was held that 
    ``to a bill amendatory of an existing law as to one specific 
    particular, an amendment relating to the terms of the law rather 
    than to those of the bill'' was not germane. Sections 5807 and 5808 
    are to similar effect.
        The Chair believes that the cases cited clearly demonstrate the 
    rule of germaneness stated in clause 7 of rule XVI. That rule 
    provides that no motion or proposition on a subject different from 
    that under consideration shall be admitted under color of 
    amendment.
        For the reasons heretofore stated the Chair holds the amendment 
    not germane and sustains the point of order.

--Amendment Relating to Union Elections

Sec. 41.2 To a bill repealing a part of the National Labor Relations 
    Act and making conforming changes in related laws in order to 
    permit employers and labor unions to enter into union shop 
    agreements under some conditions, an amendment affecting another 
    part of the act and pertaining to union elections and bargaining 
    representation was held to be not germane to the bill.

    In the 89th Congress, during consideration of a bill 
(10) relating to union shop agreements, the following 
amendment was offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor). See also Sec. 41.1, 
        supra, for further discussion of the bill. And see 
        Sec. Sec. 37.1, 37.2, supra, for further discussion of 
        amendments offered to this bill.
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 18633, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: On page 2, between lines 16 
    and 17, insert a new subsection (c) as follows:

            (c) That subsection (a) of section 9 of the National Labor 
        Relations Act, as amended, is amended as follows:
            By adding after the phrase ``conditions of employment:'' 
        the following: ``Provided, such bargaining representatives 
        shall have been certified by the Board as the result of an 
        election conducted in accordance with section 9(c) hereof. . . 
        .'' And further that subsection (c) of section 10 of the Labor 
        Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, is amended as 
        follows:

[[Page 9049]]

            By adding after the phrase ``The same regulations and rules 
        of decision shall apply irrespective of whether or not the 
        labor organization affected is affiliated with a labor 
        organization national or international in scope.'' the 
        following:
            ``Provided further, the Board shall not issue an order to 
        bargain in any case in which the bargaining representative 
        shall not have been certified as a result of an election 
        conducted in accordance with section 9(c) hereof. . . .''

    Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, made the point of order that 
the amendment was not germane. Speaking in response, Mr. John M. 
Ashbrook, of Ohio, stated: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 18633, 18634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The purpose of H.R. 77 is to prohibit a State government from 
    outlawing a union shop agreement under certain conditions. It would 
    therefore seem that any measure which is directed toward 
    prescribing the conditions which must exist as a prerequisite to 
    the prohibition of State action would be germane.
        By providing that the labor organization must be the 
    representative of the employees--I refer to page 2, lines 8 and 9--
    ``as provided in section 9(a)'' it says that H.R. 77 has 
    incorporated at least by reference the first clause of this key 
    section. Accordingly, it should be as much in order to offer 
    amendments to section 9(a) of the act as it would be if H.R. 77 had 
    repeated in full the language of the section. . . .
        . . . [T]he fundamental purpose of the amendment is germane and 
    pertinent to the fundamental purpose of the bill itself.

    The Chairman,(13) in sustaining the point of order, 
stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 18634, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair will say that precedents recited by the Chair 
    in connection with the point of order raised against the amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (15) are 
    persuasive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See the discussion of the Green amendment in Sec. 41.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons heretofore stated the Chair holds the amendment 
    not germane and sustains the point of order.

--Amendment To Require Secret Ballot in Selection of Bargaining Unit

Sec. 41.3 To a bill repealing parts of the National Labor Relations Act 
    and the Labor Management and Disclosure Act and amending a part of 
    the National Labor Relations Act for the purpose of establishing a 
    uniform federal rule governing union security agreements, an 
    amendment modifying one of the sections of law in question to 
    require that the selection of a labor organization bargaining unit 
    be by secret ballot was held to be not germane.

[[Page 9050]]

    The ruling of the Chair in this instance,(16) made in 
response to a point of order raised by Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New 
York, was based on a prior ruling made with respect to an amendment 
that had been offered by Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, to the same 
bill.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See 111 Cong. Rec. 18645, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965. The 
        Chairman was Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
17. See Sec. 41.1, supra, for further discussion of the bill under 
        consideration, H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor), and 
        the basis of the Chair's ruling with respect to the Green 
        amendment. See also Sec. Sec. 37.1, 37.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Amendment as Beyond Scope of Bill Although Modifying Same Sections of 
    Law

Sec. 41.4 To a bill repealing a part of one law and making conforming 
    changes in related laws for purposes of permitting employers and 
    labor unions to enter into union shop agreements under some 
    conditions, an amendment in the nature of a substitute proposing to 
    modify the same portions of existing law in respects beyond the 
    scope of the bill was held to be not germane.

    In the 89th Congress, a bill (18) was under 
consideration which sought to repeal or modify portions of existing law 
and which had as its objective to remove the power of states to 
prohibit closed shop agreements.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 77 (Committee on Education and Labor).
19. For further discussion of the bill and amendments thereto, see 
        Sec. 37.1, 37.2, and 41.1-41.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered to the bill 
by Mr. Robert P. Griffin, of Michigan.(20) Such amendment, 
while having the same general objective as the bill, provided further 
that any closed shop agreement would be illegal if the union involved 
had engaged in any of several specified ``unfair labor practices.'' 
Such practices included restricting memberhsip or privileges on racial 
or religious grounds; using dues for political purposes; ousting 
members for exercising civil rights; and requiring membership of 
persons having religious convictions against joining labor 
organizations. That portion of the National Labor Relations Act setting 
forth the law as to unfair labor practices was not within the purview 
of the bill. Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, made a point of 
order against the amendment,(1)

[[Page 9051]]

stating that it was not germane and noting the fact that the amendment 
embodied language (2) that had already been held not to be 
germane. Responding to the point of order, Mr. Griffin stated: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 18634, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
 1. Id. at p. 18635.
 2. See the Green amendment discussed in Sec. 41.1, supra.
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 18634, 18636, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The purpose of this bill H.R. 77, as indicated in the report, 
    is to establish a uniform Federal rule governing union security 
    agreements. I point out that my substitute bill would repeal 
    section 14(b), as the committee bill does, although my bill 
    attaches certain conditions and limitations. My substitute, like 
    H.R. 77, would provide for a uniform Federal rule governing union 
    security agreements.
        The report goes on to point out that the provisions of the 
    Committee bill be controlling as to the validity of union security 
    provisions. My provisions of my substitute bill go to the validity 
    of union security provisions. My substitute bill would not restrict 
    labor organizations generally. It would apply only to those labor 
    organizations which enter into union shop agreements.
        Mr. Chairman, if the House through the bill before us can pass 
    on the complete, outright repeal of section 14(b), we ought to be 
    able to do something less. . . .
        The Chairman (4) sustained the point of 
    order,(5) observing that the amendment included a 
    proposition previously held not to be germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Leo W. O'Brien (N.Y.).
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 18636, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 28, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Deposit Insurance Act--Amendment Affecting Amount of Deposit 
    Insurance Not Germane to Proposition Concerning Interest Rates

Sec. 41.5 To a substitute amendment proposing to modify several banking 
    acts with respect to interest rates, and to amend in a limited way 
    a part of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, an amendment proposing 
    further amendment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act on the 
    subject of amount of deposit insurance was held to be not germane 
    to the issue of interest rates.

    The following ruling, during consideration of a bill (6) 
relating to temporary interest rate controls, was made on Sept. 8, 
1966: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H.R. 14026 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 22043, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) . . . The amendment offered to the 
    substitute by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hanna) proposes to 
    amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the National Housing 
    Act to increase the

[[Page 9052]]

    amount of insurance on bank deposits and savings and loan accounts 
    from $10,000 to $20,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The substitute amendment before the Committee, proposed by the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Stephens), narrowly amends one of the 
    laws--the Federal Deposit Insurance Act--touched by the amendment. 
    The substitute amends section 18(g) of that act to permit the Board 
    of Directors of the FDIC some flexibility in the regulation of 
    interest rates on time and savings deposits. . . .
        The Chair feels that the amendment is not germane. It deals 
    with a different subject than that covered by the substitute. It 
    falls within the general rule that where it is proposed to amend 
    existing law in one particular, an amendment to further amend the 
    law in another respect not covered by the bill is not germane. 
    (Cannon's Precedents (VIII, sec. 2937).)
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Salaries of Government Employees--Amendment Relating to Salaries of 
    Other Classes of Employees

Sec. 41.6 To a bill establishing a commission to regulate salaries of 
    certain government employees, an amendment repealing existing law 
    and seeking to abolish a commission regulating salaries of other 
    classes of employees was held not germane.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (9) was under consideration 
which sought to establish a Federal Employee Salary Commission for 
purposes of achieving comparability of salary between government 
employees and employees in private industry. The bill sought to raise 
the salaries of certain groups of employees covered by the bill and by 
the Federal Salary Act of 1967. An amendment, offered as a new section 
to the bill,(10) sought to repeal certain portions of the 
Federal Salary Act of 1967, so as to abolish the Federal Commission on 
Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries. Mr. Morris K. Udall, of 
Arizona, raised the point of order that the amendment was not germane 
to the bill, stating that the pending bill did not seek to affect the 
Salary Act of 1967. The proponent of the amendment, Mr. Edward J. 
Derwinski, of Illinois, responding to the point of order, cited the 
rule that an amendment offered as a separate section to a bill need be 
germane only to the subject matter of the bill as a whole rather than 
to any particular section of the bill.(11) The Chairman 
(12) ruled that the

[[Page 9053]]

amendment was not germane, stating: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 13000 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
10. 15 Cong. Rec. 29972, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 14, 1969.
11. Id. at p. 29972.
12. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 29973, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 14, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will point out . . . that the purposes of the bill 
    under consideration are to set up a permanent method of adjusting 
    the pay of Federal employees who are paid under one of the . . . 
    statutory pay schedules--general schedule, postal field service 
    schedules, foreign service schedules, and the schedules relating to 
    physicians, dentists, and nurses in the Department of Medicine and 
    Surgery of the Veterans' Administration, and the elimination of the 
    long-standing inequity in relation to the pay schedule of postal 
    employees.
        The amendment . . . repeals section 225 of the Federal Pay 
    Schedule Act relating to the (commission charged with regulating 
    salaries of) Senators, Members of the House, cabinet officers, 
    Justices, and judges. This particular bill deals with the setting 
    up of a commission that has to do with the regulation of salaries 
    for employees, and does not relate to the commission established by 
    section 225. . . .

Bill Amending Agriculture Laws--Amendment Relating to Section Amended 
    by Bill

Sec. 41.7 To bills amending several laws concerning the general subject 
    of agriculture, including one section of the Soil Conservation and 
    Domestic Allotment Act, amendments further relating to that section 
    of the act was held to be germane.

    On July 27, 1961, a bill (14) was under consideration 
(15) which, in part, sought to amend the Soil Conservation 
and Domestic Allotment Act by, first, adding a new feed grains program, 
and, second, amending the Great Plains conservation program. An 
amendment offered by Mr. Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin,(16) 
sought by further amending such Act to prohibit drainage of wet lands 
upon a finding being made and reported by the Secretary of the Interior 
to the effect that wildlife preservation would be materially harmed by 
the proposed drainage. The nature of the bill and the proposed 
amendment are revealed in the following discussion, which concerned a 
point of order raised against the amendment by Mr. H. Carl Andersen, of 
Minnesota:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 8230 (Committee on Agriculture), the Agricultural Act of 1961.
15. See portions of the bill at 107 Cong. Rec. 13765, 13766, 87th Cong. 
        1st Sess.
16. Id. at p. 13770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to 
    the bill itself.
        Title II deals with the extension and amendment of Public Law 
    480 of the 83d Congress. Title II deals with the

[[Page 9054]]

    consolidation and simplification of the agricultural credit laws 
    administered by the Farmers Home Administration. In title IV, we 
    have the extension of the Great Plains conservation program, the 
    extension of the special milk programs for children, the Armed 
    Forces and veterans' dairy program, and the expansion of the food 
    donations to certain State penal institutions.
        Nowhere, Mr. Chairman, do we have anything in this bill to do 
    with the ACP payments or the manner in which they shall be paid. 
    The gentleman's amendment is clearly out of order and is not 
    germane to the subject under discussion. . . .
        Mr. Reuss: . . . Mr. Chairman, I submit the amendment is 
    germane to H.R. 8230, and to the page and line on which it is 
    offered.
        H.R. 8230 is an omnibus farm bill, known as the Agricultural 
    Act of 1961. Among the purposes listed in its declaration of policy 
    is ``to reduce the cost of farm programs by preventing the 
    accumulation of surpluses.''
        H.R. 8230 purports to amend section 16 of the Soil Conservation 
    and Domestic Allotment Act of 1938, as amended, in two particulars: 
    by setting up a special feed grains agricultural conservation 
    program for 1962--section 132--and by amending the Great Plains 
    conservation program--section 401. The Soil Conservation and 
    Domestic Allotment Act of 1938 is the basic legislation setting up 
    Federal cost-sharing for farm practices. Section 16, as amended, is 
    a catchall provision: subsection (a) limits the obligations that 
    may be incurred in any one calendar year, subsection (b) sets up 
    the Great Plains conservation program, and subsection (c) sets up a 
    special agricultural conservation program for the year 1961.
        The Reuss amendment would prevent misuse of the Soil 
    Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act by denying its benefits 
    where a proposed drainage of farm wet lands would materially harm 
    wildlife preservation.
        The Reuss amendment would amend not only the Soil Conservation 
    and Domestic Allotment Act of 1938 in general, but in the very 
    part--section 16--in which it is sought to be amended by two 
    provisions of H.R. 8230, pages 17 and 59.
        The precedents are clear that the proposed amendment is 
    germane. In 8 Cannon's Precedents, section 2942, it is stated:

            To a bill amending a law in several particulars, an 
        amendment proposing modification in another particular was held 
        to be germane. . . .

    The Chairman (17) overruled the point of order, stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would point out that the bill pending at this time 
    amends the Soil Conservation Act in several instances. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Reuss] 
    places a further restriction on the Soil Conservation Act. It is 
    therefore germane.

    A substantially similar amendment was offered to the Food and 
Agricultural Act of 1962 (18) in the second session of the 
87th Con

[[Page 9055]]

gress. The proceedings on June 20, 1962, were as follows: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 11222 (Committee on Agriculture).
19. 19. 108 Cong. Rec. 11211, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Reuss: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Reuss: Page 2, line 13, after line 12, 
    strike out lines 13, 14, and 15 and insert the following:

            (4) by adding the following new subsections at the end of 
        section 16 of said Act:
            ``(e) The Secretary of Agriculture shall not enter into an 
        agreement in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
        Minnesota to provide financial or technical assistance for 
        wetland drainage on a farm under authority of this Act, if the 
        Secretary of the Interior has made a finding that wildlife 
        preservation will be materially harmed on that farm by such 
        drainage. . . .''

        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: May I ask the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin if this is not the same amendment that has already been 
    passed on by the House and is now lying over in the Senate in the 
    form of a separate bill?
        Mr. Reuss: The language of this amendment is identical.
        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that this particular amendment has already cleared the House 
    and is awaiting action in the other body which does not care to act 
    upon the matter. It has no place in the bill.
        Mr. Reuss: A point of order against the amendment on July 23, 
    1961, was overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The question raised by the gentleman from Minnesota was raised 
    when the same question came up last year. The Chairman at that time 
    overruled the point of order holding that it was germane.
        The point of order is overruled.

Foreign Assistance Act--Amendment to Act Referred to in Foreign 
    Assistance Act

Sec. 41.8 Where a bill sought to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961, and such act had provided for amendment of, and authorized 
    use of funds generated under the Agricultural Trade Development and 
    Assistance Act of 1954, an amendment proposing to amend the latter 
    act was held to be germane.

    During consideration of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
1962,(1) an amendment was offered (2) which 
sought to amend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
of 1954 and which related to the power of the President to negotiate 
agreements with

[[Page 9056]]

foreign nations for sale of surplus commodities in exchange for foreign 
currencies. Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New York, the proponent, explained 
the purposes of the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H.R. 11921 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 2. See 108 Cong. Rec. 13431, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 12, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I am proposing is intended to 
    assure that our surplus farm commodities are sold on best possible 
    terms--specifically, at rates of exchange not less favorable than 
    the highest rates legally obtainable from the governments, or 
    government agencies, of the purchasing countries. . . .
        A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment here is to Public Law 480, which is the Agricultural Act, 
    and the particular section to which it is addressed is section 
    101(f) of Public Law 480. That is not now before the House. The 
    gentleman's amendment is not germane to any section of the bill. I 
    therefore insist on the point of order.

    The Chairman,(3) speaking with reference to an exchange 
between Mr. Barry and himself, stated that, ``The burden of proof is 
always on the person who proposes an amendment.'' The Chairman then 
overruled the point of order. He stated: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 13432, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 12, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill before the Committee, H.R. 11921, to amend further the 
    Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes, 
    refers, of course, to the act of 1961. In the act of 1961 itself 
    specific provision was made for amendment of the Agricultural Trade 
    Development and Assistance Act of 1954, to which the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York refers.
        The Chair believes that the subject matter of the Agricultural 
    Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 is included within the 
    purview of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which is the bill 
    before the Committee and, therefore, feels that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Barry] is germane to 
    the bill. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Bill Citing Neutrality Act--Amendment Affecting Provisions of 
    Neutrality Act

Sec. 41.9 To a proposition that, ``Nothing in this act . . . be 
    construed'' to authorize movements of American vessels in violation 
    of the Neutrality Act of 1939, an amendment offered as a substitute 
    which in effect amended the Neutrality Act by imposing certain 
    obligations upon the President was held to be not germane.

    In the 77th Congress, during proceedings related to a bill 
(5) promote the defense of the United

[[Page 9057]]

States, the following proposition came under consideration: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H.R. 1776 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
 6. 87 Cong. Rec. 753, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 7, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (e) Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or 
    permit the authorization of the entry of any American vessel into a 
    combat area in violation of section 3 of the Neutrality Act of 
    1939.

    Subsequently, a substitute for the above proposition was offered. 
Such substitute stated: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Nothing in this act shall be construed to repeal or suspend any 
    of the provisions of section 2 or 3 of the Neutrality Act approved 
    November 4, 1939. . . . Neither the President nor any governmental 
    agency under authority of this act or otherwise shall send or cause 
    to be sent any American merchant ship to any belligerent nation or 
    into or through any combat area, unless the President by 
    proclamation shall have declared that such nation has in fact 
    ceased to be a belligerent or that such area has in fact ceased to 
    be a combat area.

    A point of order against the amendment was made as follows:

        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that it is an amendment changing the 
    Neutrality Act and is not germane to this section.

    The following exchange ensued with respect to the point of order: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 758.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Luther A. Johnson [of Texas]: . . . (The objection) is that 
    the amendment . . . seeks to change the neutrality law. That is the 
    ground upon which the objection is made . . . that it does not 
    simply adhere to the neutrality law but goes beyond the neutrality 
    law and changes it. In other words, the gentleman seeks to change 
    another act of Congress by this amendment.
        Mr. [James W.] Mott [of Oregon]: By what language? . . .
        Mr. Luther A. Johnson: By this language. The amendment 
    arbitrarily states that certain things shall and shall not be done, 
    whereas the Neutrality Act leaves the question of danger zones to 
    the executive discretion of the President. . . .
        Mr. Mott: . . . There are in this language things that limit 
    the authority proposed to be granted under H.R. 1776, but, 
    certainly, nothing that changes the provisions of the Neutrality 
    Act; on the contrary, all of this language strengthens the 
    provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Neutrality Act.

    The Chairman,(9) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom] has offered an 
    amendment to the pending bill. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Mott] 
    has offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom]. . . . 
    [T]he amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom] 
    does not seek to amend or alter or change the existing law known as 
    the Neutrality Act. . . .

[[Page 9058]]

        . . . [T]he effect of the amendment is to make reference to and 
    recognize the Neutrality Act, whereas the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oregon, after providing certain language in the 
    first part of the amendment . . . goes further and imposes certain 
    restrictions or obligations upon the President that would be a 
    change of the so-called existing Neutrality Act. Therefore . . . 
    the scope of the substitute amendment is much broader than the 
    scope of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York and 
    would embrace sufficient additional provisions as to make the 
    substitute amendment not germane to the pending amendment. 
    Therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

Rescission of Appropriations and Contract Authorizations--Amendment To 
    Enact Provisions Affecting Demobilization

Sec. 41.10 To a bill providing for the rescission of certain 
    appropriations and contract authorizations, containing a provision 
    generally that the officer and enlisted personnel of the armed 
    services shall be demobilized at a rate not less than would be 
    necessary to keep within the amounts available for their pay, 
    unless the President otherwise shall direct, an amendment seeking 
    to enact into substantive law a proviso requiring the release of 
    such personnel under certain conditions therein set out, was held 
    not germane.

    In the 79th Congress, a bill (10) was under 
consideration which stated in part: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 4407 (Committee on Appropriations).
11. See 91 Cong. Rec. 9846, 9868, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Be it enacted, etc., That the appropriations and contractual 
    authorizations of the departments . . . available in the fiscal 
    year 1946, and prior year unreverted appropriations, are hereby 
    reduced in the sums hereinafter set forth. . . .
        The officer and enlisted personnel strengths of the Army, Navy, 
    Marine Corps, and Coast Guard shall be demobilized at a rate not 
    less than would be necessary to keep within the amounts available 
    for their pay in consequence of the provisions of this act, unless 
    the President otherwise shall direct. . . .

    The following amendment was offered to the bill:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rankin: On page 36, line 7, after the 
    word ``direct'', strike out the period, insert a colon and the 
    following:

            Provided, That (a) there shall be discharged from . . . 
        active duty . . . without delay, any person who requests such 
        discharge . . . and who--
            (1) has served on active duty 18 months or more since 
        September 16, 1940; or
            (2) has, at the time of making such request, a wife or a 
        child . . . or

[[Page 9059]]

            (3) has . . . a mother or father dependent upon him for 
        chief support; or
            (4) desires to resume his education or training by 
        enrolling in an educational or training institution. . . .

    Mr. Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky, made the point of order that the 
amendment was not germane to the bill.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 9869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following exchange then occurred: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 9869, 9870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: . . . As the Chairman 
    knows, the question of germaneness is one of procedure. . . . It is 
    whether or not the amendment proposed injects new or extraneous 
    matter into the bill or the provision to which it is offered. . . .
        Suppose I had added some other provision there for additional 
    money, or to take away a part of the appropriation, you would have 
    said it was germane. In other words, it would be germane for me to 
    cut off the soldier's supply of food, according to the argument of 
    the opposition but not germane for me to ask for his discharge. . . 
    .
        Mr. O'Neal: . . . If you will read the gentleman's amendment 
    offered to this paragraph, you will find that he goes into the 
    question of defining the various classes of men in the Army, and 
    writes a ticket going way beyond anything in the bill. This is a 
    rescission bill cutting off money from all the departments of the 
    Government, the Army included. The amendment attempts to define how 
    demobilization shall take place, how people shall be judged, 
    according to their families and how many children they have, and 
    whether the children are going to school or not. This is writing a 
    legislative bill in here. It is so far beyond anything in this 
    bill. . . .

    The Chairman,(14) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 9870, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 19, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi is 
    clearly a general legislative expression and proposes substantive 
    law, whereas the provision in the bill to which the amendment is 
    offered is merely the expression of a hope that within the amounts 
    available for their pay and in consequence of the provisions of 
    this act demobilization will be carried on as rapidly as possible.
        In the opinion of the Chair, clearly, under the limitations of 
    the general provision on page 36, this amendment, being a general 
    legislative provision with reference to demobilization and having 
    the effect of substantive law, and not being restrictive is not 
    germane. The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

    Mr. Rankin appealed from the ruling of the Chair, whereupon Mr. 
O'Neal moved to lay the appeal on the table. The Chairman having stated 
that, ``The motion to lay on the table is not in order in the 
Committee,'' the issue of the appeal was debated under the five-minute 
rule. The Chairman left the chair to permit Mr. Jere

[[Page 9060]]

Cooper, of Tennessee, to preside and to put the question: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 9870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is: Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as the judgment of the Committee of the Whole?
        The question was taken: and the Chair announced that the 
    ``ayes'' had it.
        So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the 
    Committee of the Whole.

Civil Rights--Amendment To Prohibit Discrimination in Membership of 
    Professional Organizations

Sec. 41.11 To a bill amending several laws relating to civil rights, 
    including one title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an amendment 
    further modifying such act was held to be germane.

    On Aug. 9, 1966, the Civil Rights Act of 1966,(17) a 
comprehensive civil rights bill prohibiting discrimination in the 
conduct of a number of public and private activities, was under 
consideration. The bill amended several laws in the civil rights field, 
including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which dealt in part with fair 
employment practices. An amendment was offered to the bill which 
proposed to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit 
discrimination in the membership of professional organizations and 
societies.(18) Explaining the purpose of the amendment, the 
proponent, Mr. Joseph Y. Resnick, of New York, stated: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 14765 (Committee on the Judiciary).
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 18728, 18729, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Id. at p. 18729.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bring professional societies 
    and associations--as defined in the amendment--under the broad 
    umbrella of employment rights in title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
    of 1964, the equal employment opportunity title. This would mean 
    that in addition to the numerous persons and groups listed in title 
    VII, professional associations would also be prohibited from 
    discriminating because of race, color, religion, sex, or national 
    origin.
        Specifically, the amendment would make it an unlawful 
    employment practice for a professional group to exclude or expel 
    from its membership or otherwise discriminate against any 
    individual because of his race, as is the current practice. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Jack] Edwards [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the amendment is not germane, that it seeks to inject 
    private organizations into the bill, the title of

[[Page 9061]]

    which makes it clear that public organizations only are involved. I 
    insist upon my point of order.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at pp. 18729, 18730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Resnick: . . . Mr. Chairman, this bill is an omnibus civil 
    rights bill. It covers a wide variety of activities in the civil 
    rights and human rights field. In addition, the bill in many places 
    would amend titles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It does not do 
    it in 1 place; it does not do it in 2 places; it does it in 17 
    places. The amendment, very simply, would amend it in still another 
    place. Therefore, I believe my amendment is germane and is not 
    subject to a point of order.

    The Chairman,(1) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 18730, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 9, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Resnick] offers an amendment 
    which proposes the addition of a new title VIII to the pending 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. The gentleman's proposal 
    would further extend the writ of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an 
    act which is elsewhere amended in the proposal before the 
    Committee, to prevent discrimination in the membership of certain 
    professional societies and organizations. The Chair has examined 
    the amendment and the provisions of existing law it amends. In view 
    of the fact that the pending bill amends several laws dealing with 
    the subject of civil rights, including the Civil Rights Act of 
    1964, and is comprehensive in its scope, touching on various 
    aspects of civil rights, the Chair feels the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York is germane. He therefore overrules the 
    point of order.

--Amendment Enlarging Scope of Law To Include Interference With Rights 
    by Actions of United Nations Not Germane to Bill Increasing 
    Penalties for Interference With Rights Under Existing Law

Sec. 41.12 To a bill proscribing interference with certain civil rights 
    and amending existing law to increase the penalty for depriving, 
    under color of law, an individual of constitutional rights, an 
    amendment was held to be not germane which sought to enlarge the 
    scope of existing law to include protection of individuals against 
    such deprivation of their rights as might result from actions of 
    the United Nations.

    In the 90th Congress, a bill (3) was under consideration 
prescribing penalties for interference

[[Page 9062]]

with certain civil rights. The bill stated in part: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H.R. 2516 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 22691, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 15, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
        chapter 13, Civil Rights, title 18, United States Code, is 
        amended by inserting immediately at the end thereof the 
        following new sections, to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 245. Interference with civil rights

            ``Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by 
        force or threat of force, knowingly--
            ``(a) injures, intimidates, or interferes with, or attempts 
        to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of 
        his race, color, religion, or national origin, while he is 
        lawfully engaging or seeking to engage in--
            ``(1) voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or 
        campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying 
        or acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized election 
        official, in any primary, special, or general election; . . .
            ``(3) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, 
        privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or 
        administered by the United States or by any State or 
        subdivision thereof; . . .
            ``(7) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any 
        program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or
            ``(8) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 
        advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or 
        other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests 
        or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda 
        fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which 
        is principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the 
        premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture 
        house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any 
        other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the 
        public, or of any other establishment which serves the public 
        and which is located within the premises of any of the 
        aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is 
        physically located any of the aforesaid establishments; or
            ``(b) injures, intimidates, or interferes with, or attempts 
        to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person (1) to 
        discourage such person or any other person or any class of 
        persons from lawfully participating or seeking to participate 
        in any such benefits or activities without discrimination on 
        account of race, color, religion, or national origin, or (2) 
        because he has so participated or sought to so participate, or 
        urged or aided others to so participate, or engaged in speech 
        or peaceful assembly opposing any denial of the opportunity to 
        so participate . . . shall be fined not more than $1,000 or 
        imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily 
        injury results shall be fined not more than $10,000 or 
        imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death 
        results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years 
        or for life.''
            ``(b) Title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding to 
        the analysis of chapter 13 at the end thereof the following:
        ``Sec. 245. Interference with civil rights.''

            Sec. 12. (a) Section 241 of title 18, United States Code, 
        is amended by striking out the final paragraph thereof and 
        substituting the following:
            ``They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned 
        not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they 
        shall be subject to impris

[[Page 9063]]

        onment for any term of years or for life.''
            (b) Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
        by striking out the period at the end thereof and adding the 
        following: ``; and if death results shall be subject to 
        imprisonment for any term of years or for life.''

    The following amendment was offered to the bill: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 22768, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 16, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Rarick: On page 9, line 19, after (b), 
    strike out lines 19, 20, 21, and 22, and insert:

            (b) Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
        to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

            ``Whoever, under color, of any law . . . regulation, or 
        custom [including measures related to giving effect to United 
        Nations decisions] willfully subjects any inhabitant of any 
        State . . . or possession of the United States to the 
        deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or 
        protected by the Constitution or laws . . . shall be fined . . 
        . or imprisoned. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane in that in the bill before us all we do with reference to 
    section 242 is to amend the penalties.
        But in the amendment as offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
    the entire section and substance of section 242 of title 18 of the 
    United States Code is added to the bill. . . .

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:

        Mr. [John R.] Rarick [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, the bill 
    before us today in subsection (b) does provide for amendment by 
    additional penalties under section 242 of title 18, United States 
    Code.
        In substance the amendment that I have offered only provides 
    that in addition to the penalties against States and State 
    officials acting under color of law, an American citizen may also 
    have his constitutional rights denied him by treaties and orders, 
    et cetera, emanating from the United Nations and from other 
    sources.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I certainly feel that the amendment is 
    germane. . . .

    The Chairman,(6) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [The amendment] goes well beyond the proposition before 
    the House and adds additional penalties to title 18, section 242, 
    which are not germane to the bill. . . .

Assistance to Localities in Control of Crime--Amendment To Make 
    Employment Benefits Applicable to ``Public Safety Officers''

Sec. 41.13 To a bill relating to assistance for localities in con

[[Page 9064]]

    trolling crime, which proposed to amend the Omnibus Crime Control 
    and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and to effect administrative changes 
    through amendment of the appropriate title of the United States 
    Code, an amendment was held to be not germane which proposed 
    through modification of another part of that title to extend 
    certain benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to 
    ``public safety officers'' and their survivors.

    In the 91st Congress, a bill (7) was under consideration 
which sought to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968. The following amendment was offered to the bill: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 17825 (Committee on the Judiciary).
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 21870, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 29, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Jacobs: On page 15, line 18 after 
    ``Sec. 9'' insert ``(a)''

    On page 15, after line 20, add the following new subsections:

            (b) Section 8191 of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
        to read as follows:
        ``Sec. 8191. Determination of eligibility

            The benefits of this subchapter are available . . . to 
        eligible public safety officers . . . and their survivors. For 
        the purposes of this Act, an eligible officer is any person who 
        is determined by the Secretary of Labor in his discretion to 
        have been on any given occasion--
            ``(1) employed as a law enforcement officer or fireman by a 
        State or a political subdivision. . . .''
            (c) The heading at the beginning of subchapter III of 
        chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, and the item 
        relating to such subchapter in the table of sections at the 
        beginning of such chapter are amended by striking out 'Law 
        Enforcement' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Public Safety''. . 
        . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not 
    germane. It refers to compensation and to personal liability and it 
    has no relation whatsoever to the bill under consideration, which 
    concerns law-enforcement assistance.

    In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 21870, 21871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    the amendment that is proposed would simply extend to any policeman 
    or fireman in the United States who is killed or totally disabled 
    in line of duty benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation 
    Act.
        The amendment is offered as an amendment to section 9 of the 
    pending legislation. Section 9 of the pending legislation deals 
    with title V of the

[[Page 9065]]

    United States Code, which contains the Employment Compensation Act. 
    . . .
        Under the rule . . . that the amendment must be ``clearly and 
    distinctly connected logically with the general scope and intent of 
    the bill,'' the policeman and fireman amendment would be germane in 
    the sense that it is offered as an amendment ultimately to the 
    Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
        This amendment, to provide survivor benefits to families of 
    police and firemen killed in the line of duty, would provide 
    essentially a form of additional compensation. Section 301, 
    subsection (b) of the Safe Streets Act allows that up to one-third 
    of any grant made under this section may be expended for 
    compensation of personnel, which shows a germaneness. . . .

    The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, 
stated: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 21871, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 29, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
    Streets Act of 1968 to assist States and local government to 
    control crime and violence. It authorizes appropriations for 3 
    additional years; changes management from the 3-member board to a 
    single administrator; sets up a new matching grant program relating 
    to correctional facilities; and provides for matching grants for 
    enforcement assistance and education.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana proposes upon a 
    determination by the Secretary of Labor to make State and local 
    policemen, as well as firemen, or their survivors, eligible for 
    benefits under the Federal employee compensation for work injuries 
    statutes.
        The Chair does not believe that the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Indiana is germane to the bill and therefore sustains the 
    point of order.

Bill Increasing Authorization for Commission on Marihuana and Drug 
    Abuse--Amendment To Increase Regulation of Amphetamines

Sec. 41.14 A bill extending or increasing an authorization for an 
    agency but not substantively amending the permanent law does not 
    necessarily open up that law to amendments which are not directly 
    related to a subject contained in the bill; thus, to a bill 
    amending one section of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act 
    to increase the authorization of appropriations for the Commission 
    on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, an amendment proposing to modify 
    another section of that law for purposes of facilitating increased 
    regulation of amphetamines was held to be not germane.

[[Page 9066]]

    In the 92d Congress, a bill (12) was under consideration 
to amend the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 
1970 to increase the appropriation authorization for the Commission on 
Marihuana and Drug Abuse. An amendment (13) offered by Mr. 
Glenn M. Anderson, of California, sought to transfer amphetamines from 
``schedule III'' to ``schedule II'' of the act, the effect of which was 
explained by Mr. Anderson as follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H.R. 5674 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce).
13. See 117 Cong. Rec. 12318, 12319, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 28, 
        1971.
14. Id. at p. 12319.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Under current law, amphetamines are under schedule III. 
    Under this schedule, all that a manufacturer, distributor, or 
    dispenser of amphetamines must do, is notify the Justice Department 
    that they are dealing in amphetamines. In order to obtain 
    amphetamines from a manufacturer, a dispenser has no order forms. 
    He simply writes a letter on his own stationery. In addition, there 
    is no limit on the production of amphetamines and, in order to 
    import or export amphetamines, a dispenser simply is required to 
    notify the Justice Department.
        Under schedule II, first, a manufacturer, distributor, or 
    dispenser of amphetamines would be required to register with the 
    Department of Justice and prove that he has a legitimate operation 
    and need for amphetamines. Second, in order to dispense 
    amphetamines, a physician would be required to order them with 
    Justice Department order forms. Thus, the Attorney General would be 
    aware of who ordered how much. Third, the Department of Justice 
    would give the manufacturer a production quota to coincide with the 
    medical needs of the United States. Fourth, in order to import or 
    export amphetamines, a dealer must obtain an authorization from the 
    Department of Justice.
        Thus, Mr. Chairman, under schedule III, we can readily see that 
    amphetamine production and distribution is very loosely controlled. 
    Whereas under schedule II, amphetamines would be limited to the 
    legitimate needs of the medical community, and its use would be 
    severely restricted. . . .

    A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 12320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: . . . I believe 
    the amendment is not germane to the bill. This amendment deals with 
    the existing law and this bill is simply for the authorization of 
    additional expenditures. Therefore it is not germane.

    Mr. Anderson responded to the point of order by citing the 
principle that an amendment offered as a separate section need not be 
germane to any particular section of the bill to which offered but 
merely should be germane to the subject matter of the bill as a whole, 
and pointing out that both

[[Page 9067]]

the bill and his amendment sought to amend the Drug Abuse Prevention 
and Control Act. The Chairman,(16) in ruling on the point of 
order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William S. Moorehead (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill under consideration amends section 601 of the 
    Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 1970 to increase the 
    authorization for the Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse from 1 
    to 4 million. No other section of the basic act is amended by the 
    bill.
        The amendment, which is the text of H.R. 6825, proposes to 
    amend section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act to move 
    amphetamines and certain other stimulant substances from schedule 
    III to schedule II of the act.
        Where a bill proposes to amend a law in one particular, it is 
    well established that amendments relating to the terms of the law 
    rather than to the bill are not germane. This bill contains only 
    one section.
        The Chair believes that the amendment goes to a subject not 
    under consideration in the pending bill and sustains the point of 
    order that the amendment is not germane.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See also Sec. 39.33, supra, for a similar 
ruling wherein the bill merely extended an authorization of 
appropriations, and an amendment permanently changing the law was held 
to be not germane.

Temporary Increase in Debt Ceiling--Amendment Proposing Permanent 
    Changes in Liberty Bond Act

Sec. 41.15 To a bill proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment 
    making other permanent changes in that law is not germane.

    On Nov. 7, 1973,(17) during consideration of a bill 
reported from the Committee on Ways and Means providing for a temporary 
increase in the public debt ceiling for the current fiscal year, but 
not directly amending the Second Liberty Bond Act, an amendment was 
offered proposing permanent changes in that Act and also affecting 
budget and appropriations procedures (matters within the jurisdiction 
of other House committees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 36240, 36241, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 2. Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
        section 101 of the Act of October 27, 1972, providing for a 
        temporary increase in the public debt limit for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1973 (Public Law 92-599), as amended by the 
        first section of Public Law 93-53, is hereby repealed.

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page 2, line 3, after 
        the period,

[[Page 9068]]

        insert the following: Provided further, that the expenditures 
        of the Government during each fiscal year, including reduction 
        of the public debt in accordance with the provisions of section 
        3, shall not exceed its revenues for such year except--
            (1) in time of war declared by the Congress . . .
            Sec. 3. Section 21 of the Second Liberty Bond Act, as 
        amended (31 U.S.C. 757b), is amended by inserting ``(a)'' after 
        ``Sec. 21.'' and by adding at the end thereof the following:
            ``(b) The public debt limit set forth in subsection (a) is 
        hereby reduced as follows:
            ``(1) Effective on July 1, 1974, by an amendment equal to 2 
        percent of the net revenue of the United States for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1973;
            ``(2) Effective on July 1, 1975, by an amount equal to 3 
        percent of the net revenue of the United States for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1974;
            ``(3) Effective on July 1, 1976, by an amount equal to 4 
        percent of the net revenue of the United States for the fiscal 
        year ending June 30, 1975;
            ``(4) Effective on July 1, 1977, and July 1 of each year 
        thereafter, by an amount equal to 5 percent of the net revenue 
        of the United States for the fiscal year ending on June 30, of 
        the preceding year.''
            Sec. 4. (a) The Budget submitted annually by the President 
        pursuant to section 201 of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, 
        as amended, shall be prepared, on the basis of the best 
        estimates then available, in such a manner as to insure 
        compliance with the first section of this Act.
            (b) Notwithstanding any obligational authority granted or 
        appropriations made except such with respect to the legislative 
        and judicial branches of the Government, the President shall 
        from time to time during each fiscal year take such action as 
        may be necessary (by placing funds in reserve, by apportionment 
        of funds, or otherwise) to insure compliance with the first 
        section of this Act.
            Sec. 5. The Congress shall not pass appropriations measures 
        which will result in expenditures by the Government during any 
        fiscal year in excess of its estimated revenues for such year 
        (as revenues have been estimated in the budget submitted by the 
        President), except--
            (1) to the extent of any additional revenues of the 
        Government for such fiscal year resulting from tax legislation 
        enacted after the submission of the budget for such fiscal 
        year; or
            (2) in time of war declared by the Congress; or
            (3) during a period of grave national emergency declared in 
        accordance with the first section of this Act; but, subject to 
        paragraph (1) of this section, appropriations measures which 
        will so result in expenditures in excess of estimated revenues 
        may be passed by the Congress only during such a period of 
        grave national emergency.
            Sec. 6. This Act shall apply only in respect of fiscal 
        years beginning after June 30, 1974.

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us provides for a 
    temporary change in the debt ceiling in conformity with the Second 
    Liberty Bond Act. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
    makes a permanent change in the Second Liberty Bond Act, and 
    therefore is not germane to this bill. . . .
        Mr. Gross: . . . Mr. Chairman, the entire thrust of the bill 
    before us is the

[[Page 9069]]

    national debt and the ceiling of that debt. The main thrust of this 
    amendment is to control the Federal debt and reduce the ceiling.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendment is in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The bill presently before the House provides for a temporary 
    change in the debt limit for this fiscal year, and the amendment 
    constitutes a permanent change in the law.
        In addition, the amendment also goes to the preparation of the 
    budget under the Budget and Accounting Act which is under the 
    jurisdiction of another committee. Volume 8 of the precedents of 
    the House provides under section 2914 the following:

            To a section proposing legislation for the current year, an 
        amendment rendering such legislation permanent was held to be 
        not germane.

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Administration of Existing Programs Transferred to New Department of 
    Education--Amendment To Prohibit Use of Authorized Funds for School 
    Busing

Sec. 41.16 Although it is ordinarily germane by way of amendment to 
    limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations carried 
    in a bill may be applied, that principle normally applies to annual 
    authorization bills reported by the committees having legislative 
    and oversight jurisdiction over the statutes for which the funds 
    are authorized; but where the Committee on Government Operations 
    has reported an organizational bill to create a new department in 
    the executive branch, which transfers the administration of 
    existing statutes and programs to that department without modifying 
    such statutes and programs, and which contains a general 
    authorization of appropriations for the department to carry out its 
    functions under the Act, such a bill is not necessarily open to 
    amendments which change the substantive laws to be administered.

    On June 19, 1979, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 2444, reported from the Committee on Government 
Operations, to establish a new Department of Education, and 
transferring to such Department the administration of federally funded 
programs within the jurisdiction of other committees. The bill 
contained an authorization of appropriations to carry out its 
provisions and to enable the Department to perform the func

[[Page 9070]]

tions transferred to it, subject to existing laws limiting 
appropriations applicable to any of those functions.(19) An 
amendment was offered (20) to prohibit the use of any funds 
appropriated under such authorization to provide for transportation of 
students or teachers for purposes of establishing racial or ethnic 
quotas in schools. The amendment was ruled out as not germane, on the 
grounds that the bill was merely organizational in nature and only 
transferred the administration of educational laws to the Department 
without modifying those laws; and because the amendment would impinge 
on the jurisdiction of other House committees having jurisdiction over 
those basic laws. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 14717, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1979.
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 15570, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      authorization of appropriations

        Sec. 436. Subject to any limitation on appropriations 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    Department or the Secretary, there are authorized to be 
    appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions 
    of this Act and to enable the Department and the Secretary to 
    perform any function or conduct any office that may be vested in 
    the Department or the Secretary. Funds appropriated in accordance 
    with this section shall remain available until expended.

        Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan: Page 90, after line 6, insert 
    the following new section and redesignate the following sections 
    accordingly:

        prohibition against the use of personnel funds to force racial/
                              ethnic quota busing

            Sec. 437. No funds appropriated under the authorization 
        contained in section 436 may be used to assign Department of 
        Education personnel to promote or to provide for the 
        transportation of students or teachers (or for the purchase of 
        equipment for such transportation) in order to establish racial 
        or ethnic school attendance quotas or guidelines in any school 
        or school system, or for the transportation of students or 
        teachers (or for the purchase of equipment for such 
        transportation) in order to carry out such a plan in any school 
        or school system.

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment. . . . (T)he language of section 436 
    that says that this authorization is subject to any limitation 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    department, was added to the bill to negate any inference that this 
    section authorizes any funds for programs so transferred.
        Now, the section is designed to authorize only those additional 
    appropriations which are necessary to establish and operate the 
    department. Funds provided to public and private entities under the 
    programs of the department are not authorized by this section, but 
    by legislation subject to the jurisdiction of other committees and 
    not now before the house.
        An amendment to limit or constrain the use of those funds is, 
    therefore, not germane to this bill. . . .

[[Page 9071]]

        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I 
    may be supporting the bill. I do not think this is a frivolous 
    amendment. I believe it is germane.
        So as not to waste the time of this body or of this committee, 
    I asked the parliamentarian last week to take an initial look at 
    this. He said that it might take some further study, but that it 
    looked germane at first view.
        What it attempts to do, if it appears slightly redundant, is to 
    make sure that the Department of Education is not crippled by the 
    burden of reverse discrimination dealing with quotas, busing or 
    teacher transfers. The teacher transfer problem is one to which my 
    own brother has been subjected after teaching in a Los Angeles 
    school system for 12 years.
        I will accept whatever ruling the Chair issues to this, since 
    they have already had a chance to look at it once.
        I just simply state that it is germane in more than one section 
    and not legislating in an appropriations bill, to point out areas 
    in which money cannot be spent and to allocate any personnel to 
    carry out someone else's school plan or to have a brand new 
    department of education suffering under the burden of coming up 
    with their own, I think would get the new department off to a bad 
    footing for this or what I expect to be a whole new administration 
    starting on January 20 of 1981. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes that amendments are ordinarily germane 
    which limit the uses to which an authorization of appropriations or 
    an appropriation for an existing program may be put; however, the 
    Chair knows of no precedent applying that principle to a bill which 
    is only organizational in nature. Ordinarily, bills authorizing or 
    making appropriations to carry out existing statutes emerge from 
    the committees which have reported such statutes and which during 
    the authorization and appropriation process have exercised 
    oversight over the manner in which those programs are and should be 
    carried out; but the fundamental issue involved with the pending 
    bill is not whether those programs should be carried out as it is 
    with annual authorizations or appropriations, but who should 
    administer them. . . .
        To allow as germane the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
    from California would be to impinge upon the jurisdiction of the 
    committees responsible for overseeing and authorizing the 
    administration of the laws transferred by the pending legislation, 
    and would broaden its scope beyond an organizational bill to one 
    also modifying and limiting the programs proposed to be transferred 
    intact to the new department.
        The Chair believes that it is important to understand the 
    impact which section 436 has upon the bill.
        In this regard, the Chair will focus upon the first clause in 
    that section, which on its face renders the authorization for 
    appropriations subject to any limitations on appropriations 
    applicable with respect to any function transferred to the 
    department or secretary. Since the basic purpose of this bill is to 
    create a new departmental entity to carry out existing educational 
    programs and policies, it is reasonable

[[Page 9072]]

    to infer that the thrust of section 436 is merely to assure under 
    the rules of the House that appropriations both for substantive 
    educational programs and for administrative expenses of the new 
    department as an organizational entity will continue to be 
    considered as authorized by and subject to provisions of existing 
    law.
        Thus, amendments to section 436 which attempt to restrict the 
    availability of funds authorized therein in ways which are not 
    addressed by existing law, such as the denial of funds to pay 
    salaries and expenses to persons who promulgate regulations 
    relating to some newly stated aspect of educational policy, are 
    beyond the scope of title IV. Title IV establishes an 
    administrative structure within the new department to carry out 
    presently enacted educational programs and policies. Such a title 
    should not, in an organizational bill, be open to amendments which 
    redirect the administration of educational programs in ways not 
    precisely contemplated by existing law.
        Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Annual Authorization--Amendment Changing Permanent Law Relating to 
    Organization of Agency

Sec. 41.17 An amendment making permanent changes in the law relating to 
    the organization of an agency is not germane to a title of a bill 
    only authorizing annual appropriations for such agency for one 
    fiscal year.

    On Dec. 4, 1979,(2) during consideration of H.R. 2608 
(3) in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Leon E. Panetta, 
of California, sustained a point of order against the amendment 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 34083, 34089, 34090, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title I reads as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

         TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980

            Sec. 101. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated 
        to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with the 
        provisions of section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
        U.S.C. 2017), and section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act 
        of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5875), for the fiscal year 1980 the sum of 
        $374,785,000 to remain available until expended. Of the total 
        amount authorized to be appropriated: . . .

        Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lujan: On page 8, after line 11, 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 107. Section 201 (a) of the Energy Reorganization Act 
        of 1974 as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841) is amended by adding 
        immediately after para

[[Page 9073]]

        graph (5) of that section a new paragraph to read as follows:
            (6) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1) 
        regarding decisions and actions of the Commission, the 
        Commission may delegate to an individual Commissioner, 
        including the Chairman, such authority concerning emergency 
        response management as the Commission deems appropriate. . . .

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: . . . (T)he amendment 
    amends section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act. Neither title 
    I we are now considering or the bill under consideration amends 
    that law. While the rule does waive germaneness with respect to 
    three amendments, nothing in that rule otherwise modifies the 
    germaneness requirement, and I urge the point of order be 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Lujan: Mr. Chairman, let me point out that as to the 
    germaneness and the appropriateness of this amendment, the rule 
    makes out of order amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and not to 
    the Energy Reorganization Act. For that reason I believe that the 
    amendment is germane and in order.
        The Chairman: . . . [T]he Chair is prepared to rule.
        Title I of the bill before the Committee provides for a 1-year 
    authorization for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while this 
    amendment seeks to permanently amend the Energy Reorganization Act 
    of 1974. Title I does not in any way amend the Energy 
    Reorganization Act of 1974. Therefore, the Chair finds the 
    amendment to be nongermane under general germaneness rule, which is 
    applicable to this bill, and the point of order is sustained.

Temporary Authorization Bill Restricting Agency's Use of Funds--Senate 
    Amendment Affecting Policy Over Several Years

Sec. 41.18 To a temporary authorization bill affecting existing law 
    only to the extent of restricting an agency's use of funds 
    authorized therein, a Senate amendment contained in a conference 
    report, which was not limited to that agency's use of funds but 
    rather proposed a multi-year change in policy under the organic law 
    governing that agency's operations, was conceded to be not germane.

    On Dec. 2, 1982,(4) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 2330, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
authorization for 1982 and 1983, a point of order was made, pursuant to 
Rule XXVIII, clause 4, against a Senate amendment contained in the 
conference report. The Senate amendment as modified in the conference 
report stated in part as follows, and the point of order was made by 
Mr. Bill Frenzel, of Minnesota, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 128 Cong. Rec. 28537, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               uranium supply

        Sec. 23. (a)(1) Not later than 12 months after the date of 
    enactment of

[[Page 9074]]

    this section, the President shall prepare and submit to the 
    Congress a comprehensive review of the status of the domestic 
    uranium mining and milling industry. This review shall be made 
    available to the appropriate committees of the United States Senate 
    and the House of Representatives. . . .
        (b)(1) Chapter 14 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended 
    by adding the following new section at the end thereof:
        ``Sec. 170B. Uranium Supply.
        ``a. The Secretary of Energy shall monitor and for the years 
    1983 to 1992 report annually to the Congress and to the President a 
    determination of the viability of the domestic uranium mining and 
    milling industry and shall establish by rule, after public notice 
    and in accordance with the requirements of section 181 of this Act, 
    within 9 months of enactment of this section, specific criteria 
    which shall be assessed in the annual reports on the domestic 
    uranium industry's viability. The Secretary of Energy is authorized 
    to issue regulations providing for the collection of such 
    information as the Secretary of Energy deems necessary to carry out 
    the monitoring and reporting requirements of this section. . . .
        ``e. (1) During the period 1982 to 1992, if the Secretary of 
    Energy determines that executed contracts or options for source 
    material or special nuclear material from foreign sources for use 
    in utilization facilities within or under the jurisdiction of the 
    United States represent greater than thirty-seven and one-half 
    percent of actual or projected domestic uranium requirements for 
    any two consecutive year period, then the Secretary shall 
    immediately revise criteria for services offered under paragraph 
    (A) of section 161 v. to enhance the use of source material of 
    domestic origin for use in utilization facilities licensed, or 
    required to be licensed, under section 103 or 104b. of this Act. . 
    . .
        ``f. In order to protect essential security interests of the 
    United States, upon the initiation of an investigation under 
    subsection e. to determine the effects on the national security of 
    imports of source material or special nuclear material pursuant to 
    section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it shall be 
    unlawful to execute a contract or option contract resulting in the 
    import of additional source material or special nuclear material 
    from foreign sources, which is intended to be used in domestic 
    utilization facilities licensed, or required to be licensed, under 
    section 103 or 104b. of this Act. This prohibition shall remain in 
    effect for a period of two years or until the President has taken 
    action to adjust the importation of source material and special 
    nuclear material so that such imports will not threaten to impair 
    the national security, whichever first occurs.''. . .
    Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order against section 
23 of the conference report substitute. . . .
    I make a point of order that the matter contained in section 23 of 
the conference report would not be germane to H.R. 2330 under clause 7 
of rule XVI if offered in the House and is, therefore, subject to a 
point of order under clause 4 of rule XXVIII.
    The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Does the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Udall) desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9075]]

    Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, we concede the 
substance of the point of order the gentleman is making.
    The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.
    Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of clause 4, 
rule XXVIII, I move that the House reject section 23 of the conference 
substitute recommended in the conference report.
    The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) 
is recognized for 20 minutes on his motion.

Authorization for Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Two Years--Senate 
    Amendment To Amend Atomic Energy Act

Sec. 41.19 To a House bill authorizing appropriations for two years for 
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission but not amending the Atomic 
    Energy Act with respect to nuclear energy policy, provisions in a 
    Senate amendment contained in a conference report amending several 
    sections of that Act making permanent changes in the law relating 
    to limitation on use of special nuclear material, disclosure of 
    Department of Energy information, and deadlines for promulgation of 
    environmental standards by EPA and NRC for uranium mill tailings 
    were conceded to be nongermane under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, 
    permitting a divisible motion to reject those portions of the 
    conference report.

    On Dec. 2, 1982,(6) a point of order was made against 
portions of a conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 4, 
which permits such points of order against nongermane matter contained 
in conference reports. The conference report stated in part as follows, 
and the point of order was made by Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 128 Cong. Rec. 28544, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               LIMITATION ON USE OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL

        Sec. 14. Section 57 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
    2077) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
    subsection:
        ``e. Special nuclear material, as defined in section 11, 
    produced in facilities licensed under section 103 or 104 may not be 
    transferred, reprocessed, used, or otherwise made available by any 
    instrumentality of the United States or any other person for 
    nuclear explosive purposes.''. . .
        18. (a) Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is 
    amended--
        (1) by striking in subsection a. ``one year after the date of 
    enactment of this section''
        (B) the Commission's requirements are modified to conform to 
    such standards.
        Such suspension shall terminate on the earlier of April 1, 1984 
    or the date

[[Page 9076]]

    on which the Commission amends the October 3 regulations to conform 
    to final standards promulgated by the Administrator under 
    subsection b. During the period of such suspension, the Commission 
    shall continue to regulate by product material (as defined in 
    section 11 e (2)) under this Act on a licensee-by-licensee basis as 
    the Commission deems necessary to protect public health, safety, 
    and the environment.
        ``(3) Not later than 6 months after the date on which the 
    Administrator promulgates final standards pursuant to subsection b. 
    of this section, the Commission shall, after notice and opportunity 
    for public comment, amend the October 3 regulations, and adopt such 
    modifications, as the Commission deems necessary to conform to such 
    final standards of the Administrator. . . .
        (b)(1) Section 108(a) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 
    Control Act of 1978 is amended by adding the following new 
    paragraph at the end thereof.
        ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 
    subsection, after October 31, 1982, if the Administrator has not 
    promulgated standards under section 275 a. of the Atomic Energy Act 
    of 1954 in final form by such date, remedial action taken by the 
    Secretary under this title shall comply with the standards proposed 
    by the Administrator under such section 275 a. until such time as 
    the Administrator promulgates the standards in final form.''.

        (2) The second sentence of section 108(a)(2) of the Uranium 
    Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 is repealed. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
    matter contained in sections 14, 17, and 18 of the substitute for 
    the Senate amendment in the conference report would not be germane 
    to H.R. 2330 if offered in the House and is, therefore, subject to 
    a point of order under the rules of the House.
        I make this point of order, Mr. Speaker, because sections 14, 
    17, and 18 would be permanent changes in law and this bill is a 2-
    year authorization bill; also, the three sections contain matters 
    that fall within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I concede the 
    point of order and wish to be heard in the regular order on the 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.

                       motion offered by mr. stratton

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Stratton moves that the House reject sections 14, 17, 
        and 18 of the substitute recommended in the conference report.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Arizona (Mr. Udall) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton).

[[Page 9077]]

    Mr. Stratton, in the ensuing debate, further addressed the issue of 
germaneness:

        Section 14 of the conference report . . . is nongermane as an 
    amendment to the House bill authorizing appropriations for the 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Section 14 was a Senate amendment 
    that deals with special nuclear material by amending the Atomic 
    Energy Act of 1954, but special nuclear material is material that 
    is used for the purpose of making nuclear weapons and is, 
    therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
    Services.
        The language of section 14, as adopted by the conferees, would 
    therefore have been nongermane had such an amendment been offered 
    in the House.
        Section 17, which was a Senate amendment to the House bill, is 
    also nongermane since it would revise permanent law through a 2-
    year authorization. This section would revise a statute dealing 
    with the release of information concerning security measures by the 
    Secretary of Energy, and other matters that involve the nuclear 
    weapons program of the Department of Energy.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to reject the nongermane 
portions of the conference report was substantively and grammatically 
divisible, so that a division of the question on any of the three 
sections could have been demanded by any Member prior to the Chair's 
putting the question on the motion to reject, in order to avoid a 
subsequent point of order against one of the sections just to obtain a 
separate subsequent vote on a motion to reject that one section.

Individual Proposition Not Germane to Another Individual Proposition--
    Amendment to Act Not Directly Amended by Bill

Sec. 41.20 To a portion of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    regulating the importation of liquefied natural gas, but not 
    directly amending the Natural Gas Act, an amendment to the Natural 
    Gas Act to prohibit the Federal Power Commission from regulating 
    the price of natural gas at the well-head was held to be not 
    germane.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(8) during consideration of H.R. 11450 
(9) in the Committee of the Whole, it was demonstrated that 
an amendment changing existing law in order to achieve one individual 
purpose is not germane to a proposition which does not amend that law 
and which seeks to accomplish another individual purpose. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 41723-25, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. The Energy Emergency Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert D.] Price of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to

[[Page 9078]]

    the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Texas to the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Staggers:
            Page 37, line 5 is amended to read as follows:
        Sec. 118. Deregulation of the Price of Natural Gas and 
        Importation of Liquefied Natural Gas.

            Page 37, line 6, insert ``(a)'' before ``The Emergency''.
            Page 37, after line 18, insert the following new 
        subsection:
            (b)(1) Section 2(6) of the Natural Gas Act is amended by 
        inserting before the period at the end thereof the following: 
        ``, except that such term does not include a person engaged in 
        the production or gathering and sale of natural gas whether or 
        not such person is affiliated with any person engaged in the 
        transmission of natural gas to consumer markets or the 
        distribution of natural gas to the ultimate consumer''.
            (2) Section 4(a) is amended by inserting before the period 
        at the end thereof the following: ``: Provided, however, That 
        the Commission shall have no power to deny, in whole or in 
        part, that portion of the rates and charges made, demanded, or 
        received by any natural-gas company for or in connection with 
        the purchase of natural gas from a person exempt under section 
        2(6)''. . . .

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: The amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute does not contain provisions governing 
    price regulations of natural gas. The gentleman's amendment 
    proposes a direct amendment to provisions of the Natural Gas Act.
        It is, therefore, not germane and out of order, because this 
    pricing authority is assigned to the Federal Power Commission under 
    that act and we do not deal with it in any way in our bill.
        Mr. Price of Texas: Mr. Chairman, in the report on page 5, 
    section 106, coal conversion and allocation, it deals with the 
    provision that is a primary energy source. . . .

            . . . To the extent coal supplies are limited to less than 
        the aggregate amount of coal supplies which may be necessary to 
        satisfy the requirements of those installations which can be 
        expected to use coal (including installations to which orders 
        may apply under this subsection), the Administrator shall 
        prohibit the use of natural gas and petroleum products for 
        those installations where the use of coal will have the least 
        adverse environmental impact. . . .

        It is further mentioned in section 118, importation of 
    liquefied natural gas. Section 9 says:

            Sec. 9. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of the 
        Natural Gas Act (or any other provisions of law) the President 
        may by order, on a finding that such action would be consistent 
        to the public interest, authorize on a shipment-by-shipment 
        basis the importation of liquefied natural gas from a foreign 
        country. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the 
    requirements of the rule of germaneness are that the amendment be 
    germane, first to the bill and second to the language of the 
    section to which it is offered.
        There is nothing in the bill dealing with deregulation of 
    natural gas. Therefore, the amendment fails with regard to that 
    point. Second, there is

[[Page 9079]]

    nothing in the section to which the amendment alludes which deals 
    with deregulation of natural gas.
        The amendment purports to amend section 118 and it changes the 
    title, deregulation of the price of natural gas and importation of 
    liquefied natural gas. The section to which it alludes, section 
    118, is a section relating to the importation of natural gas.
        By no distortion of the rules of the House or common logic or 
    the English language may it be construed that deregulation of 
    natural gas and importation are one and the same thing, or indeed 
    are even germane to each other.
        For those two reasons, Mr. Chairman, the amendment [violates] 
    the rule of germaneness. . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Kemp [of Texas]: . . . Mr. Chairman, the title of 
    the bill is as follows:

            To assure . . . that the essential energy needs of the 
        United States are met . . .

        I would suggest and submit that that certainly makes this 
    amendment in order, as well as the section the gentleman in the 
    well has alluded to in his remarks.
        The Chairman: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the reasons essentially given by the gentleman from 
    Michigan, which the Chair will repeat at least in part, very 
    briefly, the amendment is not germane.
        Those reasons are that the amendment which the committee is 
    considering does not amend the Natural Gas Act. It should also be 
    noted that the section deals with a single subject, and under the 
    germaneness rule an individual proposition is not germane to 
    another individual proposition.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Citing But Not Amending Clayton Act--Amendment Making Provisions 
    of Clayton Act Applicable to Subject of Bill

Sec. 41.21 To a bill citing but not amending a law on another subject, 
    an amendment incorporating that law by reference to broaden its 
    application to the subject of the bill is not germane; thus, to a 
    title of a bill regulating financial institutions, referring to but 
    not amending the Clayton Act, an amendment providing that the 
    provisions of that title (relating to interlocking directorates) 
    are deemed to be provisions of the Clayton Act, and authorizing the 
    Attorney General to prosecute violations of such provisions in the 
    same manner, and with the same authority, as under the Clayton Act, 
    was held not germane.

    During consideration of H.R. 13471 (11) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair sustained a

[[Page 9080]]

point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings 
of Oct. 5, 1978,(12) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The Financial Institutions Regulatory Act of 1978.
12. 24 Cong. Rec. 33814-18, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        TITLE II--INTERLOCKING DIRECTORS

            Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the ``Depository 
        Institution Management Interlocks Act''. . . .
            Sec. 206. A person whose service in a position as a 
        management official began prior to the date of enactment of 
        this title and was not immediately prior to the date of 
        enactment of this title in violation of section 8 of the 
        Clayton Act is not prohibited by section 203 or section 204 of 
        this title from continuing to serve in that position for a 
        period of ten years after the date of enactment of this title. 
        The appropriate Federal banking agency (as set forth in section 
        209) may provide a reasonable period of time for compliance 
        with this title, not exceeding fifteen months, after any change 
        in circumstances which makes such service prohibited by this 
        title. . . .

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. St Germain: . . .

        Page 90, immediately after line 23, insert the following:

            Sec. 205. Service as a management official of a depository 
        institution or a depository holding company and as a management 
        official of any other company not affiliated therewith shall be 
        prohibited if such depository holding company and other company 
        not affiliated therewith are or shall have been theretofore, by 
        virtue of their business and location of operation, 
        competitors, so that the elimination of competition by 
        agreement between them would constitute a violation of any of 
        the provisions of any of the antitrust laws. . . . For purposes 
        of this section, the term ``antitrust laws,'' shall have the 
        definition assigned that term in the Act entitled ``An Act to 
        supplement existing laws against unlawful restraint and 
        monopolies, and for other purposes,'' approved October 15, 1914 
        (Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 732, as amended). Renumber succeeding 
        sections accordingly. . . .
            Page 93, strike out lines 6 through 9, and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
            (6) the Attorney General with respect to any company. 
        Whenever this title is enforced by the Attorney General, the 
        provisions of this title shall be deemed provisions of the 
        Clayton Act and a violation of this title shall be deemed a 
        violation of the Clayton Act. All of the functions and powers 
        of the Attorney General under the Clayton Act are available to 
        the Attorney General to enforce compliance by any reason with 
        this title, irrespective of any jurisdiction tests in the 
        Clayton Act, including the power to enforce the provisions of 
        this title in the same manner as if the violation had been a 
        violation of the Clayton Act. All of the functions and powers 
        of the Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General in 
        charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice 
        are available to the Attorney General or to such Assistant 
        Attorney General to investigate possible violations of this 
        title in the same manner as if such possible violations were 
        possible violations of the Clayton Act. . . .

        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my 
    point of order. . . .

[[Page 9081]]

        Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the Chair that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island goes far beyond the 
    scope of the present legislation. It attempts circuitously to amend 
    the Clayton Act. It is not germane and, therefore, should not be 
    part of this legislation and, furthermore, it is within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. . . .
        Mr. St Germain: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply 
    expands the provisions of title II. It does not raise issues 
    outside the scope of the title. Title II, as adopted by the 
    committee, deals with interlocking directorates among financial 
    institutions and the anticompetitive effect of such interlocks.
        This amendment simply extends anticompetitive tests to 
    interlocks between banks and other types of financial institutions 
    and is clearly germane.
        It does not amend the Clayton Act and is not subject to 
    challenge on this point.
        The amendment does refer to the Clayton Act--but so does the 
    title II adopted by the committee. The amendment does refer to the 
    authority of the Attorney General--but again so does the title 
    adopted by the committee. Clearly the reference to the Clayton Act 
    and the Attorney General cannot be ruled nongermane when the bill 
    itself already contains reference to both. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Brown) has made a point of order against the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St Germain) on the ground that 
    the amendment is not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Mike McCormack (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment seeks to prohibit certain interlocking 
    directorates or other related functions between the management 
    official of the depository institution and any other company. This 
    includes any other company which might be in competition with a 
    depository holding company.
        The amendment would bring into play functions and powers of the 
    Attorney General under the Clayton Act and give the Attorney 
    General all the power he would have under that Act to enforce 
    certain anticompetitive practices.
        Based on the argument made by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Brown) and the Chair's reading of the amendment, that it shall be 
    deemed to be part of the provisions of the Clayton Act and that 
    violations of the amendment would be deemed violations of the 
    Clayton Act, and because title II of the bill does not in fact 
    amend the Clayton Act but merely refers to that law in a manner 
    which does not change that law's application, the Chair holds the 
    amendment not germane to title II.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Bill Relating to One Criminal Activity--Amendment Changing Effective 
    Date of Law Relating to Other Activities

Sec. 41.22 A bill narrowly amending one subsection of existing law for 
    a single purpose does not necessarily open the

[[Page 9082]]

    entire section of the law to amendment; thus, to a bill narrowly 
    amending one subsection of existing law relating to one specific 
    criminal activity, an amendment postponing the effective date of 
    the entire section, affecting other criminal provisions as well as 
    the one amended by the bill, and affecting other classes of 
    persons, was held not germane.

    During consideration of S. 869 (14) in the Committee of 
the Whole on May 16, 1979,(15) the Chair sustained a point 
of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. A bill relating to clarification of conflict of interest 
        restrictions on former government employees.
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 11466, 11467, 11470, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        subsection (b) of section 207 of title 18, United States Code, 
        as amended by the Act of October 26, 1978 (Public Law 95-521, 
        section 501(a); 92 Stat. 1864) is amended as follows: In clause 
        (ii), strike ``concerning'' and insert ``by personal presence 
        at''; and in subparagraph (3), before ``which was'' insert ``, 
        as to (i),'' and after ``responsibility, or'' insert ``, as to 
        (ii).'' . . .

        Mr. [Robert] McClory (of Illinois): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McClory: On page 2, following line 
        2, add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 2. Section 503 of Public Law 95-521 is amended by 
        striking ``July 1, 1979'' and inserting ``January 1, 1980'' in 
        lieu thereof.''. . .

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    make the point of order now.
        Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would add a section 2 
    to amend section 503 of Public Law 95-521 by striking ``July 1, 
    1979'' and inserting ``July 1, 1980'' in lieu thereof. I 
    respectfully point out that the bill before us does not deal with 
    section 503 of the bill Public Law 95-521. It does not deal with 
    that section and, therefore, the gentleman's amendment would not be 
    germane to the bill before us. . . .
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I have offered 
    relates to Public Law 95-521, which is the law which is referred to 
    in the legislation which we have under consideration at the present 
    time. The amendment which I have offered would delay the effective 
    date of the entire legislation, including the section to which the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Danielson) has made reference, and 
    which is referred to specifically in the measure, and would keep 
    that part and the rest of the legislation from becoming effective 
    until January 1, 1979.
        It is, in my view, entirely germane. It is precisely relevant 
    to the subject about which we are giving consideration now. 
    sInstead of papering over something with a so-called technical 
    amendment, what we are doing is to delay the effective date of the 
    entire

[[Page 9083]]

    act in order that we can handle the subject not only technically 
    but substantively as well. I urge that the Chairman overrule the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (16) . . . This act applies to 
    subsection (b) of section 207 of title 18, and it is a very 
    narrowly drafted and defined bill as amended at this point. The 
    amendment which the gentleman has offered seeks to extend the time 
    for the entire act covering categories of persons other than those 
    under subsection (b) of section 207, and under the precedents that 
    the Chair has examined, the Chair will sustain the point of order 
    accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. E de la Garza (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency's Regulatory Authority Regarding Certain Toxic Wastes--Amendment 
    Addressing Compensation to Those Affected by Wastes

Sec. 41.23 A bill narrowly amending a law in one respect does not 
    necessarily allow as germane other amendments to that law which are 
    not related to the subject of the bill; thus, to a bill amending 
    the Solid Waste Disposal Act relating to an agency's regulatory 
    authority to prevent improper disposal of solid wastes, and 
    containing one section amending another law only with respect to 
    reimbursement to states from the fund provided therein, an 
    amendment proposing another unrelated amendment to that law, 
    providing for payments from that fund for a new category of 
    assistance for community relocation, was held not germane, since 
    the bill did not address in a comprehensive way compensation for 
    damages caused by previous toxic waste disposals.

    On Oct. 6, 1983,(17) during consideration of H.R. 2867 
(18) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a 
point of order in the circumstances described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 129 Cong. Rec. 27690, 27692, 27693, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The Hazardous Waste Control and Enforcement Act of 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES OWNED BY STATES OR POLITICAL 
                                  SUBDIVISIONS

            Sec. 10. Section 104(c)(3) of the Comprehensive 
        Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
        is amended by--
            (1) striking out ``owned'' and substituting ``owned and 
        operated'' in subparagraph (C)(ii); and
            (2) adding the following at the end thereof: ``In the case 
        of any State which has paid, at any time after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, in excess of 10 per centum of the costs 
        of remedial action at a facility owned, but not operated by, 
        such State or by a political subdivision thereof, the President 
        shall use money in the Fund to provide reimbursement to such 
        State for the amount of such excess.'' . . .

[[Page 9084]]

        Mr. [Ike] Skelton (of Missouri): Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Skelton: Page 30, line 25, insert:

                              community relocation

            Sec. 10A. (a) The second sentence of paragraph (23) of 
        section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
        Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-510) is 
        amended by inserting after ``not otherwise provided for,'' the 
        phrase ``costs of permanent relocation of residents where it is 
        determined that such permanent relocation is cost effective or 
        may be necessary to protect health or welfare,'' and by 
        striking out the semicolon at the end thereof and inserting in 
        lieu thereof a period and the following: ``In the case of a 
        business located in an area of evacuation or relocation, the 
        term may also include the payment of those installments of 
        principal and interest on business debt which accrue between 
        the date of evacuation or temporary relocation and thirty days 
        following the date that permanent relocation is actually 
        accomplished or, if permanent relocation is formally rejected 
        as the appropriate response, the date on which evacuation or 
        temporary relocation ceases. In the case of an individual 
        unemployed as a result of such evacuation or relocation, it may 
        also include the provisions of the assistance authorized by 
        sections 407, 408, and 409 of the Disaster Relief Act of 
        1974;'' . . .
            (b) Section 104(c)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
        Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Public Law 
        96-510) is amended by inserting before ``authorized by section 
        (b) of this section,'' the phrase ``for permanent relocation 
        or''.
            (c) Nothing in the amendments made by this section shall be 
        construed to appropriate funds (or divert appropriated funds) 
        for any purpose for which such funds would not otherwise be 
        available. . . .

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    just say on my point of order that this amendment attempts to amend 
    a portion of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
    Compensation, and Liability act Superfund, which is not before this 
    committee and, accordingly, is not germane.
        On the merits of the proposal, I would just say that the 
    gentleman is attempting to expand the scope of Superfund. That may 
    very well be desirable, but it should be desirable at the 
    appropriate time when we are dealing with that. . . .
        Mr. Skelton: . . . The fact that section 10 deals with the 
    Superfund in and of itself opens the door.
        My colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, has indicated his 
    view that this money in the Superfund was intended for cleanup 
    alone and that my amendment takes it beyond that purpose or that we 
    should limit it to just that purpose.
        I would remind my colleague that the very title of the 
    Superfund law is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
    Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.
        Section 101, paragraph 23, which I seek to amend, clearly 
    provides for compensation as a result of actions taken by the 
    Administrator or the President to protect the health and welfare of 
    our citizens. That is the central purpose of the Superfund, to 
    protect people. . . .
        I would like to point out that this is not an entitlement, but 
    it is rather a useful tool which the Administrator can use if it is 
    appropriate.

[[Page 9085]]

        We do not direct him to take these actions, but merely make it 
    clear that they are there in case he needs them.
        Now, I also submit to the chairman that section 10 is far more 
    sweeping in its effect on the Superfund than my amendment is. The 
    previous section, section 10, changes the amount of the State's 
    contribution for State-owned sites from 50 percent to 10 percent, 
    because in some cases they cannot afford the expense.
        All my amendment would do is to clarify that the Administrator 
    can in his discretion in those rare instances where such action is 
    appropriate to take actions himself to help the residents of a 
    contaminated area.
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Doug Barnard, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Section 10 of this bill does amend subsection 104(c)(3) of the 
    Superfund law, Public Law 96-510, but only in a very narrow respect 
    regarding State contributions and reimbursements from the fund. The 
    bill does not so comprehensively amend the Superfund law as to 
    permit further amendments to the law which are unrelated to the 
    specific changes contained in the bill.
        The amendment from the gentleman from Missouri relates to 
    eligibility for certain community relocation assistance for the 
    Superfund and is not related to the issue contained in the bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.



 
                               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]]



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         F. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
 
Sec. 43. Generally; Point of Order and Debate Thereon


    The Chair will not ordinarily apply the rule of germaneness to bar 
an amendment unless a point of order is actually raised against the 
amendment. A nongermane amendment so permitted to remain may be further 
amended by amendments germane thereto. 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 which do not add 
further legislation.(17) 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.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 15.49, supra.
18. See Sec. 13.19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ordinary case, a point of order based on the rule of 
germaneness will state the grounds for asserting the nongermaneness of 
the amendment. The Chair may sustain the point of order but rely for 
his ruling upon a different basis from that urged by the proponent of 
the point of order. In one instance, in fact, an amendment was ruled 
out as not germane where the point of order raised against it was based 
on the contention that it was 'legislation on an appropriation 
bill.(19) But the Chair has not upheld points of order that 
were not clearly based on specific rules of the House.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 3.4, supra.
20. See Sec. 43.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If any part of an amendment is subject to a point of order, the 
entire amendment is subject to such point of order.(1) Thus, 
if one part of the amendment is deficient, the whole amendment is ruled 
out.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 5.8, 8.29, supra.
 2. See Sec. 4.95, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effect of a ruling by the Chair that an amendment is not 
germane is usually that the amendment is barred in its present form and 
at the place at which it is offered. Of course, the ruling of the Chair 
may be appealed, in which case the question is on the propriety of the 
Chair's ruling, and not on the substantive merits of the 
amendment.(3) And on one occasion, the Committee of the 
Whole by unanimous consent voted upon an amendment that had been ruled 
out of order as not germane.(4) Similarly, an amend

[[Page 9186]]

ment ruled out as not germane to that part of an appropriation bill to 
which offered has been permitted by unanimous consent to be offered to 
a previous paragraph to which it was germane but which had been passed 
in the reading.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See, for example, Sec. 41.10, supra.
 4. See 97 Cong. Rec. 3781, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1951.
 5. See Sec. 18.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that an amendment has been ruled out as not germane does 
not preclude amendments of a similar nature from being subsequently 
offered. Thus, an amendment of different form although of similar 
effect as one previously rejected is admissible if redrafted to be 
germane. It has been held that similarity of an amendment to one 
previously rejected will not render it inadmissible if sufficiently 
different in form to present another proposition.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See, for example, the ruling of Chairman Aime J. Forand (R.I.) at 
        103 Cong. Rec. 9365, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1957, with 
        respect to a point of order raised by Mr. Kenneth B. Keating 
        (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a motion to recommit with instructions is ruled out on a 
point of order because containing matter not germane to the bill, 
another motion to recommit may be offered.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 23.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a point of order is made, the Chair ordinarily permits debate 
thereon, consisting usually of a statement by the person making the 
point of order in support of his position, a statement by the proponent 
of the amendment in defense of the germaneness of the amendment, and 
arguments by any others who wish to speak on either side of the issue. 
Debate on a point of order is within the discretion of the 
Chair,(8) and Members recognized on the point of order do 
not yield to others to debate the germaneness of an 
amendment.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 42.37, supra.
 9. See, for example, the proceedings of Nov. 14, 1980, relating to S. 
        885, the Pacific Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act 
        of 1980, discussed in Sec. 31.1, supra.
            On occasion, a Member recognized to debate a point of order 
        has been permitted to yield to other Members speaking in 
        support of his argument. See, for example, 113 Cong. Rec. 
        28649-51, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 11, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The burden of proof of the germaneness of an amendment rests upon 
the proponent.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. Sec. 35.31, 41.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Debate on a point of order against an amendment is limited to the 
question of order and must be relevant thereto and may not go to the 
merits of the amendment.(11) On the other hand, if a point 
of order is reserved against

[[Page 9187]]

an amendment, the proponent may speak on the merits of the amendment 
and respond subsequently to the point of order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 3.31, 35.101, supra.
12. See Sec. 31.30, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman, of course, may decline to hear further debate with 
regard to a point of order on which he has ruled.(13) But 
the Chair, after sustaining a point of order against an amendment, has 
on occasion permitted a Member to state his position on the germaneness 
of the amendment.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 31.32, supra.
14. See Sec. 37.1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under clauses 4 and 5 of Rule XXVIII, the Speaker must first hear 
argument on and rule on a point of order that an identifiable portion 
of a Senate provision is not germane to the House provision to which it 
is attached. Decisions on such points of order are governed by the same 
procedures discussed under this heading. Once the Speaker rules a 
Senate provision nongermane, a motion, of high privilege, may be 
entertained that the House reject the nongermane matter. Debate and 
disposition of the conference report then proceed as specified in Rule 
XXVIII. Debate on a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a 
conference report under Rule XXVIII clause 4 is discussed briefly in 
Sec. 26, supra. For more comprehensive discussion of House-Senate 
relations, see Chapter 32, infra; and see Chapter 33, infra, for 
discussion of House-Senate 
conferences.                          -------------------

Amendment to Nongermane Amendment

Sec. 43.1 If the time for making a point of order against an amendment 
    has elapsed, such amendment, even though not itself germane, is 
    open to germane amendments.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See, for example, the ruling of Chairman Hale Boggs (La.), at 95 
        Cong. Rec. 8381, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., June 24, 1949, on a 
        point of order raised by Mr. Multer against a substitute for an 
        amendment under consideration. Since no timely objection had 
        been raised against the amendment for which the substitute was 
        offered, and since the substitute was germane to the amendment, 
        the point of order was overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entire Amendment Ruled Out

Sec. 43.2 If a point of order is sustained against an amendment, the 
    entire amendment is ruled out even though only a portion of the 
    amendment be improper.

    In the 84th Congress, a bill (16) was under 
consideration to amend

[[Page 9188]]

the Mutual Security Act of 1954. The bill, which had been reported from 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, provided for aid to foreign 
countries. A committee amendment was offered which related to exemption 
from duty of personal and household effects brought into the United 
States pursuant to government orders. The subject matter of the 
proposed amendment was thus within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Ways and Means. Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, made the point of 
order that the amendment was not germane to the bill.(17) 
The point of order having been conceded, the Chairman (18) 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. S. 2090 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
17. 101 Cong. Rec. 9662, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1955.
18. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order is conceded and the point of order 
    sustained. A point of order to a part of an amendment makes the 
    whole amendment subject to a point of order, so the whole amendment 
    goes out on the point of order.

Amendment, Ruled Out as Not Germane, Permitted To Be Offered to a 
    Different Paragraph

Sec. 43.3 An amendment, held to be not germane to that part of an 
    appropriation bill to which offered, has been permitted by 
    unanimous consent to be offered to a previous paragraph to which it 
    was germane but which had been passed in reading for 
    amendment.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 18.14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment, Ruled Out as Not Germane, Considered by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 43.4 On occasion, an amendment that has been ruled out as not 
    germane has been considered by unanimous consent.

    On Apr. 12, 1951, during consideration of S. 1-1951, a bill 
amending the Universal Military Training and Service Act, an amendment 
relating to the voting rights of persons within the scope of the bill 
was ruled out as not germane, but was considered pursuant to a 
unanimous consent request. The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 4.41, 
supra.

Burden of Proof

Sec. 43.5 The burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to 
    establish its germaneness, and where the proponent admits to an 
    interpretation which will render it nongermane, the

[[Page 9189]]

    Chair will rule it out of order.

    The proceedings of Dec. 11, 1979, relating to H.R. 4962 (the Child 
Health Assurance Act of 1979) are discussed in Sec. 9.26, supra.

Sec. 43.6 The burden of proof is on the proponent of an amendment to 
    establish its germaneness, and where an amendment is equally 
    susceptible to more than one interpretation, one of which will 
    render it not germane, the Chair will rule it out of order.

    The proceedings of June 20, 1975, relating to H.R. 3474, the Energy 
Research and Development Administration authorization for fiscal 1976, 
are discussed in Sec. 9.41, supra.

Point of Order Not Specifically Based on Rule of House

Sec. 43.7 The Chair will not interpret a point of order against a 
    substitute as ``narrowing the scope'' of a pending amendment to be 
    a point of order under a specific rule of the House upon which he 
    must rule, in the absence of some reference to the germaneness rule 
    or other rule which is stated or necessarily implied in the point 
    of order.

    On June 25, 1987,(20) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 2712, Department of the Interior 
appropriations for fiscal 1988. An amendment was pending which sought 
to reduce all discretionary accounts in the general appropriation bill 
by a specified percentage. A point of order that a substitute 
``narrowed the scope'' of the pending amendment by addressing only the 
availability of one account in the bill was held not to constitute a 
valid point of order under the rules of the House. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 133 Cong. Rec. 17403, 17414, 17415, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frederick S.] Upton [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Upton: Page 77, after line 10, 
        insert the following new section:
            Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
        each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
        Act that is not required to be appropriated or

[[Page 9190]]

        otherwise made available by a provision of law is reduced by 
        3.2 percent.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Yates as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Upton: On page 52, line 25, after 
        ``expended'', insert ``of which $50,000,000 shall not be 
        obligated unless future fiscal year 1988 pay cost increases for 
        accounts in this Act are provided within the allocations of the 
        fiscal year 1988 Congressional Budget Resolution''. . . .

        Mr. [Steven C.] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order that the substitute amendment significantly 
    narrows the scope of the amendment now before the House and 
    therefore is out of order.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman that he does not state a proper point of order; so the 
    point of order is not sustained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Frederick C. Boucher (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section in Committee Amendment Not Within Jurisdiction of Committee

Sec. 43.8 The point of order that a section in a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute was not within the jurisdiction of that 
    committee does not lie when that section is read for amendment, 
    where no question of germaneness is presented.

    During consideration of H.R. 15560 (a bill concerning emergency 
loans to livestock producers) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
held that a point of order against the pending section was not in 
order. The proceedings of July 16, 1974,(2) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 120 Cong. Rec. 23344, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 4. Loans guaranteed under this Act shall be secured by 
        security adequate to protect the Government's interests, as 
        determined by the Secretary.
            Sec. 5. Loan guarantees outstanding under this Act shall 
        not exceed $2,000,000,000 at any one time. Subject to the 
        provisions of section 2(c) of this Act, the fund created in 
        section 309 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
        shall be used by the Secretary for the discharge of the 
        obligations of the Secretary under contracts of guarantee made 
        pursuant to this Act.
            Sec. 6. Contracts of guarantee under this Act shall not be 
        included in the totals of the budget of the United States 
        Government and shall be exempt from any general limitation 
        imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
        outlays) of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against section 6. The language in section 6 removes any 
    expenditures under this act from the debt ceiling of the United 
    States. My point of order is

[[Page 9191]]

    based on the point that this language constitutes an appropriation 
    in a legislative bill, and second, invades the jurisdiction of 
    another committee which has jurisdiction under the rules of this 
    House, and with respect to those items it should be included in the 
    debt ceiling.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair would state to the gentleman, as to the argument with 
    respect to committee jurisdiction, that the provisions of section 6 
    of the committee substitute are also continued in section 7 of the 
    original bill, and the point of order of germaneness is not in 
    order. Section 6, while it provides that guarantees shall not be 
    included in budget totals and shall be exempt from limitations on 
    net lending, does not appropriate funds and does not violate clause 
    4 of rule XXI. The points of order are overruled.
        Does the gentleman wish to be heard further?
        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Chairman, what about the second point that I 
    made, that this is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Agriculture, to determine what should go into the debt ceiling?
        The Chairman: That is not a proper point of order. That is a 
    matter which should be resolved in another way.

Inconsistency of Amendment With Prior Amendment Not Basis for Point of 
    Order

Sec. 43.9 The test of germaneness of an amendment to a bill being read 
    for amendment by titles is its relationship to the title to which 
    offered; even where the amendment would also have been germane to a 
    previous title of a bill which has been passed in the reading, an 
    amendment germane to the pending title is not subject to a point of 
    order on the grounds that it indirectly affects, or is inconsistent 
    with, an amendment adopted to a previous title.

    The proceedings of Sept. 5, 1980, relating to H.R. 7235, the Rail 
Act of 1980, are discussed in Sec. 3.48, supra.

Conjecture as to Legislative or Administrative Actions That Might Be 
    Necessitated by Amendment

Sec. 43.10 In ruling on a question of germaneness, the Chair confines 
    his analysis to the text of the amendment and is not guided by 
    conjecture as to other legislation or administrative actions which 
    might--but are not required to--result from the amendment.

    On July 27, 1977,(4) it was held that to a title of a 
bill (5) reported

[[Page 9192]]

from the Committee on Agriculture providing for benefits under, and 
administration of, the food stamp program, an amendment which provided 
for recovery of benefits from persons whose income exceeded specified 
levels was germane, even though it required the Secretary of the 
Treasury and, impliedly, the Internal Revenue Service to collect any 
liability imposed by the amendment's provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 25249, 25252, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H.R. 7171, the Agriculture Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. Foley: In title XII, page 28, insert after line 8 the 
        following new section:

        ``recovery of benefits where individual's adjusted gross income 
                      for year exceeds twice poverty level

            Sec. 1210(a)(1) if--
            ``(A) any individual receives food stamps during any 
        calendar year and
            ``(B) such individual's adjusted gross income for such 
        calendar year exceeds the exempt amount,
        then such individual shall be liable to pay the United States 
        the amount determined under subsection (b) with respect to such 
        individual for such calendar year. Such amount shall be due and 
        payable on April 15 of the succeeding calendar year and shall 
        be collected in accordance with the procedures prescribed 
        pursuant to subsection (g). . . .

            ``(g) The Secretary of the Treasury shall collect any 
        liability imposed by this section in accordance with 
        regulations prescribed by him . . . .
            ``(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect 
        in any manner the application of any provision of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1954.''. . .(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Shown is the correct text of the amendment offered, subsequently 
        inserted in the Record by Mr. Jeffords.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order. I would like to engage the author of the 
    amendment in colloquy. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman 
    from Vermont who or what branch of Government the gentleman feels 
    would collect this money from the people?
        Mr. Jeffords: Under the amendment, the Department of the 
    Treasury would be required to collect the money.
        Mr. Stark: It would be the Treasury Department and in no way 
    did the gentleman intend that the Internal Revenue Service 
    participate in any of the collection or in collecting the forms or 
    collecting revenue?
        Mr. Jeffords: No, on the contrary, it is my understanding and 
    belief that the Internal Revenue Service would be charged with and 
    do the collecting. . . .
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the 
    jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service lies wholly within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        This amendment, as the gentleman has stated it, would be 
    counting on the Internal Revenue Service to perform the functions 
    as put down under this amendment. The amendment would

[[Page 9193]]

    not be in order and would not be within the jursidiction of this 
    committee. . . .

        Mr. Jeffords: . . . As I understand the rules here, I can ask 
    for an amendment that can be proposed, as can anybody, to the 
    collection. We could make the State Department or anyone else do 
    the collection, but we cannot do what I have not done, and very 
    specifically have not done in this amendment, which is to change 
    any statute of the way it is done, which is under the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means. If I am wrong on this, there 
    are so many places in this bill where the same thing is done that I 
    do not know why a number of Members have not raised points of 
    order.
        We have asked the Postal Service to do something; we have asked 
    the social security office to do things; we have mandated different 
    agencies all over the place. We do not interfere with any statutes 
    which are under committee jurisdiction of other committees. I have 
    not done so here. The question is, do we change any statute which 
    is under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, and we 
    do not. They are the guardian over those statutes, but they are not 
    the guardian over any agency which happens to be involved with 
    those statutes.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that the 
    gentleman, in terms of both the committee report and in his 
    response to questions here, in his statement on the floor that this 
    amendment, although it really says that the Secretary of the 
    Treasury shall collect any liability, clearly the intention is that 
    the Internal Revenue Service shall collect W-2 forms, match them 
    against income figures which are now under the law not to be given 
    even to the Secretary of Treasury, but are for collecting income 
    tax and Internal Revenue matters.
        Clearly, the intent of the amendment is to direct the Internal 
    Revenue Service to participate in that. The jurisdiction of the 
    Internal Revenue Service and all matters pertaining thereto is 
    under the Committee on Ways and Means. I would ask that this 
    amendment be ruled out of order on that basis.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is 
    not germane to the food stamp title of the pending bill. The thrust 
    of the gentleman's point of order is that the collection procedure 
    for overpayments of food stamp benefits to persons above the 
    poverty level involves responsibilities of the Treasury Department, 
    and in effect mandates the establishment of regulations which would 
    involve the disclosure of tax returns and tax information and 
    utilization of the Internal Revenue Service--all matters within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Chair notes that the amendment does contain the provision 
    that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to affect in any 
    manner the application of any provision of the Internal Revenue 
    Code of 1954,'' and it seems to the Chair to follow that, under the 
    explicit provisions of the amendment, Secretary of the Treasury 
    would therefore have to establish an independent col

[[Page 9194]]

    lection procedure separate and apart from the mandated use of the 
    Internal Revenue Service. The Chair does not have to judge the 
    germaneness of the amendment by contemplating possible future 
    legislative actions of the Congress not mandated by the amendment.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the authority of the Secretary of 
    the Treasury under the rules of the House as collector of 
    overpayments of any sort is not subject explicitly and exclusively 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means under 
    rule X, and even if this were true, committee jurisdiction is not 
    an exclusive test of germaneness where, as here, the basic thrust 
    of the amendment is to modify the food stamp program--a matter now 
    before the Committee of the Whole.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had the amendment altered the Internal 
Revenue Code or otherwise required the use of the Internal Revenue 
Service, in conjunction with the collection of federal income taxes, in 
recovering the value of benefits, the amendment would not have been 
germane. The Chair was persuaded that the Department of Treasury 
performs a variety of functions, including payments and collections, 
under laws and policies not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Ways and Means. As indicated in the Chair's ruling, the amendment 
disavowed any intent to affect any provision of the Internal Revenue 
Code.

Chair as Looking Behind Form of Amendment in Making Ruling

Sec. 43.11 Although the Chair will not ordinarily look behind the text 
    of a bill and consider the probable effects of its provisions, or 
    amendments thereto, in determining issues of 
    germaneness,(8) the Chair has ruled that an amendment 
    which in form amounted to a permanent change in law could in fact 
    be understood to be a temporary change in law, in light of its 
    fundamental purpose demonstrated by prior legislative treatment of 
    the subject in question (the statutory ceiling on public debt), and 
    thus could properly be offered to a bill whose fundamental purpose 
    was to provide a temporary increase in the statutory ceiling on the 
    debt.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See, generally, Sec. 46, infra; and see Sec. Sec. 3.15 and 34.2, 
        supra.
 9. The proceedings of May 13, 1987, relating to H.R. 2360, extension 
        of the public debt limit, are discussed in Sec. 46.7, infra.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9195]]

Special Rule Permitting Amendments That Have Been Printed in Record

Sec. 43.12 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 (10) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Oct. 5, 1977,(11) the Chair sustained a 
point of order against the following amendment under the circumstances 
described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
11. 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 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: (12) 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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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.


 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         F. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
 
Sec. 44. Timeliness of Point of Order

[[Page 9196]]

    A germaneness point of order must be made or reserved immediately 
after the reading of an amendment.(13) No business must 
intervene between the reading of the amendment and the raising of the 
point of order. The Member pressing the point of order must be diligent 
in seeking prompt recognition after the amendment is read or its 
reading dispensed with.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 44.1, 44.2, infra.
14. A point of order has been held dilatory if a parliamentary inquiry 
        intervenes between the reading of the amendment and the point 
        of order. See the ruling of Chairman Earl C. Michener (Mich.) 
        at 93 Cong. Rec. 11279, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 11, 1947. 
        Under consideration was H.R. 4604 (Committee on Foreign 
        Affairs), providing for aid to certain foreign countries.
            In this instance, Mr. Fulton, who raised the point of order 
        that a proffered amendment was not germane, stated that he had 
        been on his feet in time, but had yielded for a parliamentary 
        inquiry.
            The Chairman took the view that, by doing so, Mr. Fulton 
        had forfeited his right to make the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order against a proposed amendment comes too late after 
debate has begun. But mere recognition for debate does not preclude a 
point of order against an amendment before the Member recognized has 
begun his remarks.(15) Indeed, a point of order against an 
amendment is not precluded by the Chair's recognition of the Member 
offering the amendment if the Member raising the point of order was on 
his feet, seeking recognition, before debate on the amendment 
began.(16) It is held that a point of order as to the 
germaneness of a proposed amendment does not come too late if the 
Member was on his feet attempting to make the point of order when 
debate started.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 31.44, supra.
16. For discussion of when and in what manner a point of order must be 
        made, generally, see Ch. 31 on points of order. See also 
        Sec. 9.12, supra.
17. See Sec. 35.37, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fact, on one occasion, although the proponent of an amendment 
had been recognized and had begun his discussion, the Chair entertained 
a point of order against the amendment by a Member who stated he had 
been on his feet, seeking recognition for that purpose when the 
discussion began.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 30.34, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, a point of order against an amendment does not come too 
late where the Member raising the question was on his feet seeking 
recognition at the time the amendment was read.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 33.28, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where one point of order is made against an amendment and

[[Page 9197]]

overruled, another can be pressed although the proponent thereof was 
not on his feet at the time the first point of order was 
made.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For discussion of when and in what manner a point of order must be 
        made, generally, see Ch. 31 on points of order; see also 
        Sec. 33.28, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Points of order reserved on the question of the germaneness of an 
amendment should be made or withdrawn when the sponsor of the amendment 
ends his five-minute debate,(1) although the Chair may in 
its discretion permit additional debate on the amendment before ruling 
on the reserved point of order. The reservation of a point of order by 
one Member generally does not preclude another from pressing a point of 
order,(2) and the reservation of a point of order inures to 
all Members, so that if the point of order is not pressed by the Member 
reserving it, another may press it. But the Chair has also respected 
the reservation of a point of order and declined to rule on a point of 
order subsequently made without reservation.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See the remarks of Chairman Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.) at 92 Cong. 
        Rec. 3663, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 13, 1946, in response to a 
        parliamentary inquiry by Mr. May.
 2. See Sec. 35.101, supra.
 3. See Sec. 39.24, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be remembered that 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.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 13.19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order against a motion to recommit with instructions has 
been made prior to completion of the reading of such motion where the 
matter contained in the instructions had been ruled out as not germane 
when offered as an amendment in the Committee of the 
Whole.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 23.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the House, it is too late to interpose a germaneness point of 
order against an amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See the remarks of Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) at 102 Cong. Rec. 
        13857, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 21, 1956, in response to a 
        parliamentary inquiry by Mr. 
        Bow.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Point of Order Must Be Made or Reserved

Sec. 44.1 A point of order against the germaneness of an amendment must 
    be made or reserved immediately after the amendment is read and 
    comes too late after the pro

[[Page 9198]]

    ponent of the amendment has been recognized and permitted to revise 
    and extend his remarks.

    On Sept. 17, 1975,(7) during consideration of H.R. 7014 
(8) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair ruled that a 
point of order came too late and recognized the proponent of the 
amendment for 5 minutes in support of that amendment. The proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 28937, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. The Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Maine (Mr. Emery) for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. [David F.] Emery [of Maine] asked and was given permission 
    to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that his reservation comes too late. The 
    Chair had already recognized the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Emery), 
    and the point of order comes too late.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine for 5 minutes in 
    support of his amendment.

--Amendments to Amendment Which Has Been Made in Order by Waiver of 
    Points of Order

Sec. 44.2 A point of order against the germaneness of an amendment must 
    be made immediately following the reading and prior to 
    consideration, and 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.

    On July 22, 1975,(10) during consideration of H.R. 7014 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, it was held that 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

[[Page 9199]]

amended. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 23990, 23991, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. 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: (12) The gentleman from Texas reserves 
    a point of order, and the gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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.
        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

[[Page 9200]]

    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 amendment 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.

[[Page 9201]]

        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.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. This ruling is also discussed at Sec. 45.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Committee Amendment in Nature of Substitute Being Read for Amendment 
    by Title

Sec. 44.3 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    being read as an original bill for amendment by title, a point of 
    order that the committee amendment is not germane to the original 
    bill may be raised following the reading of the first title of the 
    committee amendment.

    The proceedings of Aug. 2, 1973, which related to H.R. 9130 (the 
trans-Alaska pipeline authorization) are discussed in Sec. 30.36, 
supra.



 
                               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.



 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         F. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
 
Sec. 46. Factors in Chair's Ruling; Refusal by Chair To Rule; 
    Anticipatory and Hypothetical Rulings

    The Chair ordinarily does not give anticipatory rulings and 
declines to prejudge the germaneness of any amendment not actually 
before the House. The Chair does not indicate in advance what his 
ruling would be as to the germaneness of an amendment if 
offered.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 8706, 8707, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 6, 1939 
        (remarks of Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.) in response to a 
        parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Costello).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, where there was pending to a bill both an amendment in 
the form of a new section and a substitute therefor, the Chair 
(4) declined to indicate, in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, whether the pending substitute, if defeated, would thereafter 
be germane and in order if subsequently offered as an amendment in the 
form of a new section.(5) In this instance, there

[[Page 9226]]

was pending, in addition to the above, an amendment to the substitute. 
The Chairman did indicate, in response to parliamentary inquiries, that 
defeat of the amendment to the substitute and of the substitute would 
not preclude the offering of another germane substitute; and that 
adoption of the amendment in the form of a new section would not 
preclude the offering of additional germane amendments as new sections 
to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
 5. See the proceedings at 116 Cong. Rec. 25811, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        July 27, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Chair does not anticipate the content of a motion 
to recommit and will not rule in advance as to whether particular 
instructions which might be offered as part of such a motion would be 
germane.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See the remarks of Speaker John W. McCormack (Mass.) at 109 Cong. 
        Rec. 25249, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 1963, in response to 
        a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Halleck. See also Sec. 45.7, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Chair on occasion has indicated that it is not 
within its province to advise Members as to where an amendment to a 
bill could properly be offered.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See the remarks of Chairman Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.) at 84 Cong. Rec. 
        7501, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair rules on points of order as raised and does not determine 
whether an amendment ruled out at one point as not germane may be 
offered at some later stage.
    The Chair, however, may sometimes be seen to depart from the above 
principles. Thus, the Chairman on infrequent occasion has expressed an 
opinion as to whether a proffered amendment might be germane to a 
different part of the bill.(8) For example, the Chairman, 
while ruling out an amendment as not germane to a particular part of a 
bill, has indicated that the amendment would be germane to a later 
section of the bill. On Mar. 23, 1933, during consideration of the 
District of Columbia Beer Bill,(9) the Chairman 
(10) first held that an amendment imposing general 
restrictions on the sale of beverages was not germane to that part of 
the bill which merely described types of beverage licenses to be 
issued; then he stated that the amendment was germane to a later 
section of the bill and could be offered during consideration of such 
section.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 21.8, supra.
 9. H.R. 3342 (Committee on the District of Columbia).
10. Ralph Fulton Lozier (Mo.).
11. 77 Cong. Rec. 835, 73d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, while ruling an amendment out of order, the

[[Page 9227]]

Chairman on occasion has indicated how the amendment could properly be 
offered.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 18.15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In other instances, the Chair may decline to rule. Thus, the 
Speaker does not rule on such questions of germaneness as may be the 
province of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 45.7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair does not rule on the question as to whether an amendment 
is ambiguous.(14) And the Chair has declined to pass upon 
constitutional questions.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 46.4, infra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 30.21, 33.8, 35.86, 
        supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair Decides Issue on Basis of Text, Not Speculation as to Motives 
    Behind Amendment

Sec. 46.1 The germaneness of an amendment is determined by the 
    relationship between its text and the portion of the bill to which 
    offered, and is not judged by motives for offering the amendment 
    which circumstances may suggest, nor by the fact that the 
    amendment, offered to a public bill, may in substance be 
    characterized as private legislation benefiting individuals.

    The proceedings of May 30, 1984, relating to H.R. 5167, the Defense 
Department authorization for fiscal 1985, are discussed in Sec. 3.45, 
supra.

Chair Decides Issue on Basis of Text, Not Conjecture as to Further 
    Legislation That Might Result From Amendment

Sec. 46.2 In ruling on a question of germaneness, the Chair confines 
    his analysis to the text of the amendment and is not guided by 
    conjecture as to other legislation or administrative actions which 
    might--but are not required to--result from the amendment.

    On July 27, 1977,(16) it was held that to a title of a 
bill (17) reported from the Committee on Agriculture 
providing for benefits under, and administration of, the food stamp 
program, an amendment which provided for recovery of benefits from 
persons whose income exceeded specified levels was germane even though 
it required the Secretary of the Treasury and, impliedly, the Internal 
Revenue

[[Page 9228]]

Service to collect any liability imposed by the amendment's provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 25249, 25252, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H.R. 7171, the Agriculture Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. Foley: In title XII, page 28, insert after line 8 the 
        following new section:

        ``recovery of benefits where individual's adjusted gross income 
                      for year exceeds twice poverty level

            ``Sec. 1210(a)(1) if--
            ``(A) any individual receives food stamps during any 
        calendar year and
            ``(B) such individual's adjusted gross income for such 
        calendar year exceeds the exempt amount,
        then such individual shall be liable to pay the United States 
        the amount determined under subsection (b) with respect to such 
        individual for such calendar year. Such amount shall be due and 
        payable on April 15 of the succeeding calendar year and shall 
        be collected in accordance with the procedures prescribed 
        pursuant to subsection (g). . . .

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order. I would like to engage the author of the 
    amendment in colloquy. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman 
    from Vermont who or what branch of Government the gentleman feels 
    would collect this money from the people?
        Mr. Jeffords: Under the amendment, the Department of the 
    Treasury would be required to collect the money.
        Mr. Stark: It would be the Treasury Department and in no way 
    did the gentleman intend that the Internal Revenue Service 
    participate in any of the collection or in collecting the forms or 
    collecting revenue?
        Mr. Jeffords: No, on the contrary, it is my understanding and 
    belief that the Internal Revenue Service would be charged with and 
    do the collecting. . . .
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the 
    jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service lies wholly within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        This amendment, as the gentleman has stated it, would be 
    counting on the Internal Revenue Service to perform the functions 
    as put down under this amendment. The amendment would not be in 
    order and would not be within the jurisdiction of this committee. . 
    . .
        Mr. Jeffords: . . . As I understand the rules here, I can ask 
    for an amendment that can be proposed, as can anybody, to the 
    collection. We could make the State Department or anyone else do 
    the collection, but we cannot do what I have not done, and very 
    specifically have not done in this amendment, which is to change 
    any statute of the way it is done, which is under the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means. If I am wrong on this, there 
    are so many places in this bill where the same thing is done that I 
    do not know why a number of Members have not raised points of 
    order.
        We have asked the Postal Service to do something; we have asked 
    the social security office to do things; we have mandated different 
    agencies all over

[[Page 9229]]

    the place. We do not interfere with any statutes which are under 
    committee jurisdiction of other committees. I have not done so 
    here. The question is, do we change any statute which is under the 
    jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, and we do not. They 
    are the guardian over those statutes, but they are not the guardian 
    over any agency which happens to be involved with those statutes.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that the 
    gentleman, in terms of both the committee report and in his 
    response to questions here, in his statement on the floor that this 
    amendment, although it really says that the Secretary of the 
    Treasury shall collect any liability, clearly the intention is that 
    the Internal Revenue Service shall collect W-2 forms, match them 
    against income figures which are now under the law not to be given 
    even to the Secretary of Treasury, but are for collecting income 
    tax and Internal Revenue matters.
        Clearly, the intent of the amendment is to direct the Internal 
    Revenue Service to participate in that. The jurisdiction of the 
    Internal Revenue Service and all matters pertaining thereto is 
    under the Committee on Ways and Means. I would ask that this 
    amendment be ruled out of order on that basis.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from California makes the point of order that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is 
    not germane to the food stamp title of the pending bill. The thrust 
    of the gentleman's point of order is that the collection procedure 
    for overpayments of food stamp benefits to persons above the 
    poverty level involves responsibilities of the Treasury Department, 
    and in effect mandates the establishment of regulations which would 
    involve the disclosure of tax returns and tax information and 
    utilization of the Internal Revenue Service--all matters within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Chair notes that the amendment does contain the provision 
    that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to affect in any 
    manner the application of any provision of the Internal Revenue 
    Code of 1954,'' and it seems to the Chair to follow that, under the 
    explicit provisions of the amendment. Secretary of the Treasury 
    would therefore have to establish an independent collection 
    procedure separate and apart from the mandated use of the Internal 
    Revenue Service. The Chair does not have to judge the germaneness 
    of the amendment by contemplating possible future legislative 
    actions of the Congress not mandated by the amendment.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the authority of the Secretary of 
    the Treasury under the rules of the House as collector of 
    overpayments of any sort is not subject explicitly and exclusively 
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means under 
    rule X, and even if this were true, committee jurisdiction is not 
    an exclusive test of germaneness where, as here, the basic thrust 
    of the amendment is to modify the food stamp program--a matter now 
    before the Committee of the Whole.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 9230]]

Anticipatory Rulings

Sec. 46.3 While the Chair will not ordinarily render anticipatory 
    rulings as to the propriety of amendments which have not been 
    offered, the Chair may respond to a parliamentary inquiry as to the 
    germaneness and form of an amendment (in the nature of a 
    substitute) which has been printed in the Record and is at the desk 
    and is manifestly not in order as a substitute for a pending 
    perfecting amendment.

    On May 9, 1979,(19) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 107 (20) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 10485, 10486, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. The first concurrent resolution on the Budget for fiscal 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Marjorie S.] Holt [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mrs. Holt: Strike out 
        sections 1 through 5 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
        section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
        for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979--

            (1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is 
        $508,200,000,000 and the amount by which the aggregate level of 
        Federal revenues should be decreased is $6,500,000,000. . . .
            Sec. 4. In 1979, each standing committee of the House of 
        Representatives shall report by July 1 to the House of 
        Representatives its recommendations and the status of its 
        actions with respect to new spending authority including all 
        legislative savings, and other reforms, targeted by the first 
        concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year ending 
        on September 30 of that same year. This report shall include 
        any additional legislative savings which the committee believes 
        should be considered by the House in the programs for which 
        such committee has responsibility.
            In 1980, each standing committee of the House of 
        Representatives shall include in its March 15 report to the 
        Budget Committee of the House of Representatives specific 
        recommendations as to all possible legislative savings for the 
        programs for which the committee has responsibility. . . .

        Mr. [Parren J.] Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, this 
    gentleman had planned to offer his amendment as a substitute for 
    the Holt-Regula amendment.
        It is my understanding that when the gentlewoman spoke to her 
    amendment, the gentlewoman called it a perfecting amendment. I do 
    not know whether that embraces fiscal year 1979 and 1980. My 
    amendment does.
        This inquiry is whether mine can be offered as a substitute to 
    the Holt-Regula amendment.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Maryland

[[Page 9231]]

    (Mr. Mitchell) that since the gentleman's amendment which is at the 
    desk would go to the fiscal years 1979 and 1980 and is in the 
    nature of a substitute for the entire resolution, it would not be 
    germane or otherwise in order, since the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Holt) is perfecting in nature and 
    only goes to the fiscal year 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question of Ambiguity: ``Provisions'' of Supreme Court

Sec. 46.4 To the proposition that specified funds shall not be allotted 
    to any state failing to comply with the ``provisions'' of the 
    Supreme Court, an amendment to strike ``provisions'' and insert 
    ``decisions'' was held to be germane without regard to possible 
    ambiguities in the terms.

    In the 84th Congress, during proceedings relating to a bill 
(2) to authorize federal aid to states and local communities 
in financing a program of school construction, the proposition and 
amendment thereto as described above came under 
consideration.(3) Mr. Ross Bass, of Tennessee, made the 
point of order that the proposed amendment was not germane to the 
bill.(4) Subsequently, after a ruling by The 
Chairman,(5) that the amendment was germane, Mr. Bass 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H.R. 7535 (Committee on Education and Labor).
 3. See 102 Cong. Rec. 11873, 11875, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 5, 1956.
 4. Id. at p. 11875.
 5. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I make the point of order that the word ``provisions'' is 
    ambiguous and has no meaning whatever and would make the amendment 
    not germane.

    The Chairman responded that,

        The Chair does not rule on the question of ambiguity. It is a 
    question of germaneness solely, and the Chair has ruled that the 
    amendment is germane.

Question of Consistency

Sec. 46.5 While the Chair must rule on points of order which call into 
    question the germaneness of an amendment to the proposition to 
    which offered, the Chair may decline to make a germaneness ruling 
    when the point of order as stated goes to the consistency (and not 
    the relevancy) of the amendment.

    On Oct. 5, 1977,(6) during consideration of H.R. 8410 
(7) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair, in holding 
that a proper point of order had not been raised, reiterated the 
principle that the

[[Page 9232]]

Chair does not rule on the consistency of an amendment with the 
proposition to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 32495, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The Labor Reform Act of 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gary A. Myers to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Ford of Michigan as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Ashbrook: Page 17, beginning on line 
        10, strike out ``during a period of time that employees are 
        seeking representation by a labor organization,'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``within the 7-day period prior to a 
        representation election.''.
            Page 17, line 15, insert immediately before the semicolon 
        the following: ``, except that no rule issued pursuant to the 
        requirements of this paragraph shall require an employer to 
        reimburse employees for time used to obtain such information 
        from such labor organization''. . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, my 
    point of order is that this amendment is inconsistent with the 
    substitute as we have just amended it. It expands the substitute to 
    include decertification and other matters which are not relevant. . 
    . .
        Mr. Gary A. Myers: Mr. Chairman, my opinion is that this simply 
    limits the provisions which the substitute would provide and that 
    it does not affect the language of the substitute. On the contrary, 
    it expands upon it. It simply makes an addition to the substitute 
    as a section of the bill.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from New Jersey 
    (Mr. Thompson) that the Chair cannot rule on the consistency of the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gary A. 
    Myers) to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Ford).
        Therefore, the Chair would have to state that the gentleman has 
    not raised a proper point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While Mr. Thompson's remarks did make 
reference to the relevance of the amendment, the Chair apparently did 
not take note of the reference, and understood the point of order to 
relate only to the consistency of the two propositions.

Question of ``Workability'' of Amendment

Sec. 46.6 In ruling on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair does 
    not consider the workability of an amendment which establishes as a 
    measure of availability of spending authority in the bill a 
    referenced level contained in another document relating to that 
    spending authority, so long as the amendment does not directly 
    affect other provisions of law or impose conditions predicated upon 
    other unrelated actions of Congress.

    The proceedings of June 11, 1987, relating to H.R. 4, the Hous

[[Page 9233]]

ing Authorization Act are discussed in Sec. 34.2, supra.

Probable Effect of Bill and Amendment--Change in Law, Permanent in 
    Form, Construed as Temporary

Sec. 46.7 Although the Chair will not ordinarily look behind the text 
    of a bill and consider the probable effect of its provisions, or 
    amendments thereto, in determining issues of germaneness, the Chair 
    has ruled that an amendment which in form amounted to a permanent 
    change in law could in fact be understood to be a temporary change 
    in law, in light of the fundamental purpose demonstrated by prior 
    legislative treatment of the subject in question (the statutory 
    ceiling on public debt), and thus could properly be offered to a 
    bill whose fundamental purpose was to provide a temporary increase 
    in the statutory ceiling on the debt.

    During consideration of H.R. 2360 (9) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order in the circumstances 
described above. The proceedings of May 13, 1987,(10) were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Extension of the Public Debt Limit.
10. 133 Cong. Rec. 12344, 12345, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) Pursuant to House Resolution 165, 
    the bill is considered as having been read for amendment under the 
    5-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Patricia Schroeder (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of H.R. 2360 is as follows:

                                   H.R. 2360

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
        during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
        this Act and ending on July 17, 1987 the public debt limit set 
        forth in subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United 
        States Code, shall be equal to $2,320,000,000,000.
            (b) Effective on and after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act, section 8201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
        of 1986 is hereby repealed. . . .

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Madam Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment. . . .

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rostenkowski: Strike out 
        subsection (a) of the first section of the bill and insert the 
        following: ``That (a) subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 
        31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar 
        limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu 
        thereof `$2,578,000,000,000'.''
            Amend the title to read as follows: ``A bill to increase 
        the statutory limit on the public debt.''. . . .

        Mr. [Connie] Mack [of Florida]: Madam Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment on the grounds that it violates 
    clause 7 of the

[[Page 9234]]

    rule XVI, the germaneness rule, and ask to be heard on my point of 
    order.
        Madam Chairman, subsection (a) of H.R. 2360, the reported bill, 
    makes a temporary and indirect change in the permanent public debt 
    limit through July 17, 1987.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski] makes a permanent and direct change in existing law. 
    It directly amends title 31, section 3101 of the United States 
    Code. The base does not.
        Let me cite three precedents in support of my position:
        Procedure in the House, 97th Congress, chapter 28, section 
    19.1:

            To a bill proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment 
        making permanent changes in that law is not germane.

        Chapter 28, section 19.3:

            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 was held not germane.

        Chapter 28, section 19.4:

            To a proposition authorizing appropriations for one fiscal 
        year, an amendment making permanent changes in law is not 
        germane. . . .

        Mr. Rostenkowski: Madam Chairman, in 1983 the rule providing 
    for the consideration of H.R. 2990, to increase the public debt 
    limit, provided for a waiver of clause 7 of rule XVI, the 
    germaneness rule, against an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
    germaneness waiver was necessary because the committee amendment to 
    repeal the temporary debt limit and to make the entire ceiling 
    permanent was not germane to the original bill which only provided 
    for an increase in the temporary debt limit.
        With the enactment of H.R. 2990 into law in 1983, the 
    distinction between the temporary and permanent public debt limit 
    was eliminated. It was only with the passage of the 1986 Budget 
    Reconciliation Act that we again temporarily increased the public 
    debt limit.
        I would argue that the committee amendment to the bill before 
    us is germane because, first of all, the fundamental purpose of the 
    committee amendment is consistent with that of the bill, namely a 
    temporary increase in the public debt. The bill before us provides 
    debt authority, which is estimated to be sufficient until July 17, 
    1987. The committee amendment provides debt authority until October 
    1, 1988. Both the bill and the amendment provide debt authority, 
    which eventually will prove to be insufficient and, therefore, both 
    are temporary in nature. In addition, the bill has the effect of 
    amending the same section of the United States Code as the 
    committee amendment. Finally, I would argue that the amendment is 
    germane because it passes the common sense test of not introducing 
    a subject matter which is ``different from that under 
    consideration.''
        The issue before us is how long to increase the public debt. 
    The amendment gives the House two choices on these issues. I urge 
    the Chair to rule the amendment germane.

[[Page 9235]]

        The Chairman: If there are no further speakers on the 
    germaneness issue, the Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mack] makes a point of order 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski] is not germane. The amendment would directly amend 
    existing law by striking the existing dollar limitation in section 
    3101 of title 31 of the United States Code and inserting a new 
    dollar figure, with the intention to increase the Government's 
    borrowing authority for an unspecified but necessarily temporary 
    period of time.
        However, the bill, H.R. 2360, in subsection (a), refers to, and 
    in the opinion of the Chair, is tantamount to, a change in the same 
    provision of the law as the amendment.
        Both the bill and the amendment are based upon estimates of 
    sufficiency of the total amount of borrowing authority over 
    different periods of time. For this reason, the Chair believes the 
    amendment to be closely related to the fundamental purpose of the 
    bill, and to accomplish that purpose by amending the same section 
    of law referenced in the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Speaker Declines To Decide Questions That Are Province of Chairman of 
    Committee of Whole; Hypothetical Questions

Sec. 46.8 The Chair may decline to give an opinion on hypothetical or 
    anticipatory questions; and the Speaker has declined to rule on 
    questions that are the province of, and must be decided by, the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

    For an illustration of circumstances in which the Speaker may 
decline to give an opinion on certain questions, see the proceedings 
discussed at Sec. 45.7, supra.

[[Page 9235]]




 
                               CHAPTER 28
 
                  Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
 
                         F. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
 
                          INDEX TO PRECEDENTS


Admission of states
    Hawaii, amendment relating to boundaries of, offered to bill for 
        admission, Sec. 3.59
Adoption of rules, application of germaneness rule prior to, Sec. 1.1
Agency, amendment extending life of, offered to appropriations bill, 
    Sec. 15.11
Agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions of 
    bill (see also Purpose of bill, amendment to accomplish, by 
    different method)
    appropriation bill, Sec. 7.9
    Bureau of Mines, amendment giving control of certain research to, 
        Sec. 7.8
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.6, 7.6

[[Page 9236]]

    Corps of Army Engineers, amendment proposing investigation by, of 
        water conservation projects, Sec. Sec. 4.6, 7.6
    District of Columbia Transportation Authority, bill relating to, 
        Sec. 6.27
    Economic Cooperation Administration, bill providing assistance 
        through, Sec. 7.3
    electrical power in Pacific northwest, bill granting powers to 
        government agency relating to use and conservation of, 
        amendment creating government corporation to perform similar 
        function offered to, Sec. 5.14
    energy programs administered by Department of Energy, appropriation 
        of funds for, amendment appropriating funds for program to be 
        administered by Department of Agriculture offered to, Sec. 3.8
    environmental research, bill authorizing Federal Energy Research 
        and Development Administration to conduct, amendment 
        authorizing Council on Environmental Quality to evaluate 
        environmental effects of energy technology offered to, 
        Sec. 5.13
    error or misstatement, amendment correcting, Sec. 7.9
    foreign-aid bills, Sec. Sec. 7.1-7.4, 19.25
    interior and insular affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 4.6
    Labor, Department of, amendment establishing wages and hours 
        division in, Sec. 7.7
    National Defense Mediation Board substituted for National Mediation 
        Board, Sec. 7.9
    natural resources and conservation, bills relating to, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.6, 7.6
    private agencies substituted for government, Sec. 7.4
    Red Cross, foreign relief given through, instead of government, 
        Sec. 7.4
    tin smelting, control of research in, given to Bureau of Mines, 
        Sec. 7.8
    United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, bill 
        authorizing participation in, Sec. 7.1
    water pollution control, Sec. 7.5
    World Relief Agency, amendment creating, to aid individuals, 
        Sec. 7.3
Agency, bill appropriating funds for, amendment to appropriate funds 
    for another agency to be used for related purpose offered to, 
    Sec. 8.1
Agency, bill creating new, amendment changing substantive laws newly 
    within agency's jurisdiction offered to, Sec. 4.86
Agriculture
    acreage reserves, Sec. 6.16
    appraisers, farm, authorized to make appraisals for public, 
        Sec. 14.2
    authority of Secretary of Agriculture, amendment changing existing 
        law affecting, offered to title not amending that law but 
        affecting Secretary's authority in diverse respects, Sec. 11.27
    committee jurisdiction not exclusive test where subject matter of 
        amendment reflected in bill, Sec. 2.8
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.58, 4.67, 4.69, 4.71-4.78, 13.17, 
        23.6, 30.13, 39.14
    Commodity Credit Corporation, amendment regarding sale of 
        commodities by, offered to bill discharging indebtedness, 
        Sec. 14.1

[[Page 9237]]

    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. Sec. 30.13-30.15
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. 31.40
    corn, formula for establishing minimum acreage allotment for, 
        Sec. 6.16
    corn price supports, bill amending law by striking section relating 
        to, Sec. 35.4
    cotton program, bill striking out section of law and inserting 
        language to create, Sec. 35.4
    cotton research program, bill establishing, amendment affecting 
        labor in cotton industry, offered to, Sec. 3.5
    definitions, amendments modifying, Sec. Sec. 39.12, 39.13
    diverting acres, amendments relating to, offered to 
        ``miscellaneous'' provisions, Sec. 18.8
    domestic agricultural products, bill to regulate marketing of, 
        amendment to control importation of agricultural products 
        offered to, Sec. 8.21
    dry milk, provision directing sale of surplus, amendment relating 
        to labeling under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act offered 
        to, Sec. 4.75
    employers, amendment conditioning eligibility for price support 
        programs on compliance with specified labor standards by, 
        offered to agriculture bill after adoption of amendments within 
        jurisdiction of various committees, Sec. 4.67
    exceptions, amendment providing for, Sec. 29.2
    existing law, bill or amendments as affecting, see, e.g., Existing 
        law, amendment changing, to bill citing or making minor 
        revision in law
    Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, amendment relating to 
        labeling under, offered to provision directing sale of surplus 
        dry milk, Sec. 4.75
    Federal Land Banks, amendment directing, to transfer certain 
        property to Secretary of Treasury, Sec. 6.15
    ``feed crops'' amendment relating to, offered to bill affecting 
        wheat, Sec. 9.29
    feed grains, acreage reserve programs for, Sec. 6.16
    food stamp program, bill addressing benefits under, amendment to 
        recover benefits from persons with specified income levels 
        offered to, Sec. 4.78
    food stamp program for distribution of surplus agricultural 
        products to needy, amendment providing, offered to bill 
        amending Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, 
        Sec. 35.7
    futures, onion, bill prohibiting speculation in, Sec. 8.16
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 9.29, 23.10, 
        35.2, 39.13
    general provisions, title containing, amendment offered to, 
        Sec. 18.8
    guaranteed payments to producers, amendment providing for, offered 
        to bill regulating marketing, Sec. 6.17
    importation of farm products, amendment to control, offered to bill 
        regulating domestic products, Sec. 8.21
    imports, amendment restricting, offered to proposal to assist 
        agriculture through price support payments, Sec. 4.71
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. Sec. 3.63, 8.16-8.18, 35.5, 39.12
    inspection of meat, bill relating to, amendment regarding seafood 
        offered to, Sec. 8.18
    labor in cotton industry, amendment affecting, offered to bill 
        establishing cotton research program, Sec. 3.5

[[Page 9238]]

    limitation imposed by amendment, generally, Sec. 30.13
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. 33.26
    livestock producers, bill authorizing loans to, amendment making 
        provision applicable to agricultural producers generally 
        offered to, Sec. 9.27
    loans to farmers, bill providing for, amendment providing for loans 
        to commercial fishermen offered to, Sec. 4.70
    loans to promote ownership of farms, Sec. 6.15
    Mexican labor, Sec. Sec. 13.17, 35.9, 35.10, 39.14, 39.15
    Mexico, bill relating to workers from, amendment regarding health 
        and safety offered to, Sec. 19.28
    miscellaneous provisions, amendment offered to, affecting whole 
        bill, Sec. 18.8
    Occupational Safety and Health Act, amendment repealing regulations 
        under, offered to provisions amending agriculture acts, 
        Sec. 4.68
    oleomargarine, amendment regarding content of, offered to bill 
        repealing tax thereon, Sec. 3.30
    oleomargarine, bill to repeal tax on, Sec. Sec. 3.30, 23.10
    onion futures, bill prohibiting speculation in, Sec. 8.16
    ownership of farms, loans to promote, Sec. 6.15
    parity price of tobacco, amendment concerning computation of, 
        offered to bill extending price support program, Sec. 39.16
    penalties, imposition of, Sec. Sec. 19.29, 35.10
    persons, propositions affecting same or different classes of, 
        Sec. Sec. 13.17, 35.11, 35.12, 39.14
    pesticides, bill amending law relating to registration of, 
        amendment barring award of attorneys' fees in civil actions 
        brought under the law, Sec. 4.76
    pesticides, bill amending law relating to registration of, 
        amendment contained in motion to recommit waiving laws 
        requiring payment of attorneys' fees in related actions as 
        germane to, Sec. 23.6
    price support for milk, bill providing, amendment relating to 
        tariffs on imported milk offered to, Sec. 4.74
    price supports, bill establishing, amendment restricting authority 
        of Secretary of Commerce over agricultural exports offered to, 
        Sec. 4.72
    price supports for commodities, bill establishing, amendment 
        extending coverage of bill to another commodity offered to, 
        Sec. 12.2
    price supports for commodities, bill establishing, amendment 
        relating to acreage allotments and marketing quotas offered to, 
        Sec. 3.83
    price supports for tung nuts, bill to provide, amendment to provide 
        price support for honey not germane to, Sec. 8.17
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.30, 3.63, 6.17, 8.21, 11.28, 30.13, 35.2
    reappropriation, amendment providing for, in lieu of new budget 
        authority for emergency agricultural credit, Sec. 6.14
    recommit, instructions in motion to, Sec. 23.10
    refund of certain payments under Agricultural Adjustment Act, 
        amendment providing for, offered to bill authorizing activities 
        of Department of Agriculture previously carried in 
        appropriation bills, Sec. 3.63
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. 30.14
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 6.14-6.18, 14.2

[[Page 9239]]

    Rural Electrification Act, provision to permit prepayment of loans 
        by designated borrowers under, amendment to enlarge class of 
        REA borrowers eligible to prepay loans offered to, Sec. 12.1
    school milk program, bill extending, Sec. 39.18
    storage of commodities, amendment providing certain penalties 
        incident to, Sec. 19.29
    strike, amendment to, language of bill or amendment, Sec. 20.6
    substitute, amendment as germane to amendment in nature of, rather 
        than to bill, Sec. 2.16
    technical references, amendment construed as correcting, Sec. 35.4
    wheat, bill affecting, amendment relating to ``feed crops'' offered 
        to, Sec. 9.29
    workers, amendment regarding health and safety of, Sec. 19.28
    workers, importation of, from Mexico, Sec. 13.17
Ambiguity, Chair's refusal to rule on question of, Sec. 46.4
Anticipatory rulings or opinions by Chair (see also Ruling, Chair 
    declines to make, on certain questions)
    civil rights, Sec. 19.4
    recommit, contents of, Sec. 45.7
    rules of the House, proposals to amend, Sec. 21.8
Antitrust laws, bills exempting newspapers from
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 9.62
Appeals from decisions of Chair
    appropriation bills, Sec. 41.10
    civil rights, Sec. 19.16
    law enforcement assistance to states, provision authorizing, 
        amendment to provide different type of law enforcement 
        assistance to states offered to, Sec. 8.37
Appropriations
    agencies' accounts, amendment transferring funds in bill between, 
        Sec. 15.38
    agency, amendment making allocation to, offered to bill permitting 
        President to make various allocations, Sec. 15.36
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. 7.9
    agency, amendment to extend life of, offered to relief 
        appropriations bill, Sec. 15.11
    agency, bill appropriating funds for, amendment appropriating funds 
        for different agency for same general purpose offered to, 
        Sec. 8.1
    agency funded in previous title of bill, amendment affecting, as 
        germane to general provisions portion, Sec. 15.1
    allocation of funds to agency in addition to agencies specified in 
        bill, Sec. 3.77
    allocation to specific agency, amendment making, offered to bill 
        permitting President to make various allocations, Sec. 15.36
    authorizing law, amendment permanently changing, offered to annual 
        appropriation, Sec. 9.30
    Bureau of Budget, authority of director of, Sec. 15.49
    Bureau of Budget, director of, substitute amendment imposing duties 
        on, Sec. 15.50
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.69, 4.96
    Commodity Credit Corporation, amendment regarding sale of 
        commodities by, offered to bill discharging indebtedness, 
        Sec. 14.1
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. Sec. 15.2, 30.9

[[Page 9240]]

    continental shelf lease sale, Senate amendment striking out 
        prohibition against using funds for, amendment to restrict use 
        of funds in bill or any other Act offered to, Sec. 15.21
    contingency, unrelated, amendment delaying availability of funds 
        pending, Sec. 9.32
    continuing appropriations, bill providing for, amendment requiring 
        certain reports on federal spending offered to, Sec. 15.48
    continuing resolution, amendment limiting total expenditures 
        offered to, Sec. 15.17
    Cuba, provision respecting aid to, amendment affecting other 
        nations offered to, Sec. 15.35
    Cuba, provision to bar use of contributions to United Nations 
        program for assistance to, amendment making provision 
        applicable to other nations offered to, Sec. 15.35
    debt, changes in, proposed to be used as standard for measuring 
        availability of funds for Members' salaries, Sec. 15.33
    discrimination on account of union membership, amendment 
        prohibiting, offered to relief bill, Sec. 30.9
    employment service facilities, grants to states for administration 
        of, Sec. 15.40
    error or misstatement, amendment correcting, Sec. 7.9
    exceptions, amendment providing for, Sec. Sec. 29.1, 29.9, 34.30
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill citing, Sec. 41.10
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. Sec. 14.1, 15.11, 42.57, 42.58
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. 15.48
    expense allowance for Members, provision relating to, Sec. 4.96
    fiscal year, restrictions imposed effective beyond, Sec. 15.27
    flood-stricken areas, rehabilitation of, Sec. 19.30
    forests, national, appropriation for maintenance and development 
        of, Sec. 15.46
    funds other than those in bill, amendment affecting, 
        Sec. Sec. 9.19, 15.12, 15.14-15.17, 15.21, 15.22, 15.35, 15.40, 
        23.4, 27.4, 27.20-27.22
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 9.19, 15.14, 
        15.16, 15.17, 15.35, 27.40, 27.41
    general fund of Treasury, amendment appropriating funds from, 
        Sec. 15.22
    general provisions applicable to funds carried throughout bill, 
        amendment offered to, Sec. 2.1
    general provisions portion of bill, amendment offered to, as 
        affecting agency funded in previous title, Sec. 15.1
    Holman rule, requirement of, that amendment be germane, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.13, 15.14, 15.23
    House and Senate rules for consideration of appropriations, 
        amendment modifying, offered to general appropriation bill, 
        Sec. 4.91
    Impoundment Control Act, guidelines for applying germaneness rule 
        to proceedings under, Sec. 15.41
    indebtedness of Commodity Credit Corporation, bill to discharge, 
        Sec. 14.1
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 8.9
    induction of farm labor, amendment relating to, Sec. 4.69
    investigation, amendment allotting funds for, offered to bill 
        making appropriations for relief, Sec. 4.79

[[Page 9241]]

    labor, farm, amendment relating to induction of, Sec. 4.69
    language of text of bill not subject to germaneness rule, Sec. 17.1
    legislation, proposition constituting, amendment offered to, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.15, 15.35, 15.45, 15.49, 15.50
    limitation on appropriations, Senate amendment striking specific, 
        motion to concur with amendment enlarging scope of original 
        limitation offered to, Sec. 9.31
    limitation on expenditure, amendment specifying formula for 
        computing, offered to provision limiting expenditure to 
        specific amount, Sec. 15.51
    limitation on funds not included in bill, Sec. 15.17
    limitations imposed by amendments, generally, Sec. Sec. 15.15, 
        27.38
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. 15.36
    Members' salary increase, provision limiting funds for, amendment 
        to restrict funds available for salaries of Members voting 
        against increase offered to, Sec. 15.32
    National School Lunch Act, amendment proposing funds to implement, 
        Sec. 15.4
    Nixon, general appropriation bill including allowances for former 
        President, amendment delaying availability of all funds in bill 
        pending restitution by President Nixon offered to, Sec. 15.20
    oil windfall profit tax, amendment delaying availability of 
        appropriation for emergency fuel assistance pending enactment 
        of, Sec. 15.28
    OSHA regulations applicable to small farms, provision to prohibit 
        use of funds to enforce, amendment requiring expenditure to 
        ensure congressional compliance with OSHA offered to, Sec. 8.20
    other funds, amendment affecting, Sec. Sec. 9.19, 15.12, 15.14-
        15.17, 15.21, 15.22, 15.35, 15.40, 18.12, 23.4, 27.4, 27.20-
        27.22
    other sources, prohibition on use of funds from, Sec. Sec. 9.19, 
        15.15, 15.16, 15.21
    paragraph, amendment to, affecting other provisions in bill, 
        Sec. 18.12
    Park Service, provision directing lease of land by, amendment 
        prohibiting lease to concessionaires offered to, Sec. 15.31
    part of bill to which amendment may be offered, Chairman's remarks 
        as to, Sec. 15.3
    pay raises in Department of Agriculture, appropriations to cover, 
        Sec. 15.4
    penalties, imposition of, Sec. 27.34
    permanent law, instructions in motion to recommit containing change 
        in, not germane to joint resolution continuing appropriations, 
        Sec. 23.4
    permanent legislation, amendment providing, offered to provisions 
        affecting funds appropriated for one year, Sec. Sec. 15.23-
        15.25
    persons, propositions affecting same or different classes of, 
        Sec. Sec. 27.34, 27.35
    pest control, allocation of funds for, Sec. Sec. 15.7, 29.1
    policies, existing, amendment implementing, Sec. 15.27
    public works, amendment relating to, in relief bill, Sec. 15.12
    public works, bill making appropriations for work relief and, 
        amendment appropriating funds for obtaining sites for post 
        offices offered to, Sec. 10.18
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test, Sec. Sec. 15.4, 15.46, 
        19.30

[[Page 9242]]

    reappropriation, amendment providing for, in lieu of new budget 
        authority for emergency agricultural credit, Sec. 6.14
    reclamation fund, money appropriated from, Sec. 15.22
    relief and work relief, bill making appropriations for, amendment 
        author izing loans to states offered to, Sec. 15.10
    relief and work relief, bill making appropriations for, amendment 
        author-
        izing use of funds from sale of securities offered to, 
        Sec. 15.12
    relief and work relief, bill making appropriations for, amendment 
        continuing temporary agency offered to, Sec. 15.11
    relief and work relief, bill making appropriations for, amendment 
        proposing construction program offered to, Sec. 15.9
    relief and work relief, bill making appropriations for, amendment 
        regarding investigation offered to, Sec. 4.79
    rescission of appropriations, Sec. Sec. 15.19, 15.39, 15.40
    research and education on seat belts and passive restraints, 
        provision rescinding agency's funds for, amendment imposing 
        conditions on availability of all funds for agency offered to, 
        Sec. 15.19
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. Sec. 15.2, 15.6-15.8, 15.27, 
        15.35, 15.47, 29.1, 29.9, 34.17, 34.30, 34.32, 34.33
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 6.30, 15.45, 15.48
    revenue, amendment proposing to raise, Sec. 15.43
    river and harbor projects, Sec. 15.42
    school lunch program, amendment appropriating funds for, offered to 
        section concerning appropriations for Department of 
        Agriculture, Sec. 15.5
    securities, amendment authorizing agency to use funds from sale of, 
        Sec. 15.12
    Senate amendment and amendments thereto, see Senate amendments and 
        amendments thereto
    sources, other, reference in amendment to funds from, Sec. 15.12
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. Sec. 10.18, 15.3, 
        15.42
    strike, amendment to, language of bill or amendment, Sec. 15.44
    striking reference to specified funds prohibited to be used for 
        abortions as enlarging class of funds subject to the 
        prohibition, Sec. 20.5
    substitute amendment, Sec. 3.4
    survey, amendment proposing funds for, offered to provision 
        relating to construction of public works, Sec. 18.11
    total budget expenditures, amendment limiting, offered to 
        resolution continuing appropriations, Sec. 15.17
    transferring funds from other accounts in bill, amendment as, for 
        use of one agency, Sec. 15.38
    transfer of unexpended balance to be used for different purpose, 
        Sec. 15.39
    unexpended balance, transfer of, for different purpose, Sec. 15.39
    unobligated balance of appropriation made in another act, 
        Sec. 15.40
    Vietnam, restrictions on use of funds for military operations in, 
        Sec. 15.27
    Weather Bureau, paragraph relating to total sum appropriated for, 
        amendment offered to, Sec. 18.14
    work relief and relief, bill making appropriations for, amendment 
        authorizing loans to states offered to, Sec. 15.10
    work relief and relief, bill making appropriations for, amendment 
        authorizing use of funds from sale of securities offered to, 
        Sec. 15.12

[[Page 9243]]

    work relief and relief, bill making appropriations for, amendment 
        continuing temporary agency offered to, Sec. 15.11
    work relief and relief, bill making appropriations for, amendment 
        proposing construction program offered to, Sec. 15.9
    work relief and relief, bill making appropriations for, amendment 
        regarding investigation offered to, Sec. 4.79
Armed services, see also Defense; Veterans
    absentee voting by members, Sec. 11.20
    academies, military, cadets at, Sec. 8.28
    agency of government, amendment imposing duties on, offered to 
        naval authorization bill, Sec. 3.43
    agricultural workers, amendment to defer, offered to bill 
        classifying draft registrants on basis of dependents, Sec. 8.27
    aliens, amendment to authorize enlistment of, offered to selective 
        service bill, Sec. 5.22
    audits of defense projects and contracts, amendment authorizing, by 
        Comptroller General, Sec. 18.1
    benefits and compensation for reservists called into service, 
        Sec. 3.40
    boundaries of naval frontier, amendment defining, offered to naval 
        authorization bill, Sec. 3.42
    brothels, amendment providing penalties for maintenance of, near 
        military camps, Sec. 13.12
    Caribbean, amendment authorizing patrols in, offered to aid bill, 
        Sec. 4.47
    citizenship of Members, Sec. 35.55
    civilian conservation corps, assignments of reserve military 
        officers to, Sec. 14.4
    civil rights, Sec. 11.19
    committee, joint, amendment establishing, Sec. Sec. 4.37, 21.12
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.32, 4.34, 4.37-4.39, 4.41, 4.42, 4.47, 
        6.44, 19.20, 22.1, 23.3, 30.5, 30.6, 31.4, 31.34, 42.34
    compensation to owners of requisitioned materials, Sec. 9.59
    Comptroller General, amendment authorizing, to review defense 
        contracts, Sec. Sec. 18.1, 18.2
    Comptroller General, amendment imposing duties on, offered to naval 
        authorization bill, Sec. 3.43
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. Sec. 30.1, 30.3, 30.4, 32.4, 
        39.25 construction, naval, Sec. 22.1
    construction, naval, President authorized to suspend, Sec. 18.3
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. Sec. 30.2, 30.5, 30.6, 
        31.4, 31.9, 31.10, 31.13, 31.34, 31.41, 34.11
    debts of foreign governments, credits on, as compensation for 
        materials required, Sec. 9.59
    defense articles, strikes by persons employed in production of, 
        Sec. 3.4
    defense contractors, employment of retired officers by, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.39, 4.40, 6.45
    dependents, bill classifying draft registrants on basis of, 
        amendment deferring agricultural workers offered to, Sec. 8.27
    dependents, bill providing allowances for military, amendment 
        relating to pay of personnel after separation from service 
        offered to, Sec. 3.39
    deputy chief of staff, bill making provision for, Sec. 3.41
    discharge of members, amendment relating to, offered to bill to 
        promote enlistments, Sec. 9.56

[[Page 9244]]

    discharge of wounded, amendment imposing conditions on, offered to 
        muster-out pay bill, Sec. 30.4
    discrimination in appointment of officers in Army Nurse Corps, 
        amendments prohibiting, Sec. 11.19
    discrimination in selective service, amendment to prohibit, 
        Sec. 10.3
    discriminatory employment practices in companies supplying goods, 
        amendment regarding, Sec. 30.1
    education assistance benefits for nonregistrants, amendment 
        denying, substitute affecting conscientious objectors offered 
        for, Sec. 2.18
    enlistments in regular army, bill to encourage, amendment affecting 
        discharges offered to, Sec. 9.56
    exceptions, amendment providing for, Sec. 30.3
    exclusion of armed services from coverage of bill relating to 
        political activities of federal employees, amendment to strike, 
        Sec. 13.5
    existing law, amendments affecting, see, e.g., Existing law, 
        amendment changing, to bill on different subject
    family allowances, bill providing, amendment relating to insurance 
        benefits offered to, Sec. 4.42
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 8.28, 8.30, 
        9.55-9.57, 9.59, 12.8, 37.7, 37.9
    humanitarian and evacuation assistance, bill authorizing use of 
        U.S. troops to provide, amendment authorizing military aid 
        offered to, Sec. 4.53
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. Sec. 8.27, 8.28, 8.30, 9.56
    induction, proposition postponing, amendment increasing pay offered 
        to, Sec. 13.14
    Internal Revenue Code, amendment modifying, Sec. 42.34
    investigations, propositions relating to, Sec. Sec. 21.12, 34.5
    jurisdiction over American personnel in foreign countries, 
        Sec. 39.24
    jurisdiction over American personnel in foreign countries, 
        amendment concerning, offered to bill amending Mutual Security 
        Act, Sec. 35.30
    Korea, amendment imposing permanent restrictions on troop 
        withdrawals from, offered to bill authorizing appropriations 
        and personnel strengths for fiscal year, Sec. 4.36
    legal training of officers at civilian institutions, amendment 
        providing for, Sec. Sec. 19.19, 19.20
    limitations imposed by amendments, generally, Sec. Sec. 30.1, 30.3, 
        32.3, 32.4, 35.55, 37.8, 39.25
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. 37.8
    mail, military, bill to reimburse postoffice for transportation of, 
        Sec. 6.44
    muster-out pay bill, amendment regarding provision made for wounded 
        offered to, Sec. 30.4
    muster-out pay bill, amendment relating to agencies of selective 
        service offered to, Sec. 42.36
    National Service Life Insurance Act amendment changing, offered to 
        bill to provide family allowances, Sec. 4.42
    naval construction, Sec. 32.3
    occupational groups, amendment relating to deferments to, offered 
        to bill classifying draft registrants on basis of dependents, 
        Sec. 8.27
    oleomargarine, bill permitting use of, by Navy, Sec. Sec. 8.30, 
        32.4
    Optometry Corps, amendment to establish, offered to bill providing 
        for appointment of officers, Sec. 16.1

[[Page 9245]]

    other statutes and regulations, reference in amendment to, 
        Sec. 9.55
    pay, amendment increasing, offered to amendment postponing further 
        induction, Sec. 13.14
    penalties, amendment imposing, for sale of products to Defense 
        Department by retired officers, Sec. 4.39
    persons, propositions affecting same or different classes of, 
        Sec. Sec. 5.22, 13.11-13.13, 30.1
    policy, amendment affecting, offered to naval authorization bill, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.42, 18.3
    policy as to military operations in North Vietnam, congressional 
        declaration of, offered in amendment to military authorization 
        bill, Sec. 32.1
    poll tax, amendment prohibiting, as applied to armed forces, 
        Sec. 13.13
    postage, free, for armed forces, Sec. 6.43
    post office, bill to reimburse, for transportation of military 
        mail, Sec. 6.44
    prisoners of war, amendment concerning benefits for, offered to 
        civilian internees' relief bill, Sec. 13.19
    prohibition on use of armed forces to evacuate civilians from 
        Sinai, amendment interpreting bill as not authorizing any new 
        use of armed forces generally, Sec. 3.47
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 5.22
    rank of individual, amendment as to, offered to bill increasing 
        number of certain ranks, Sec. 3.41
    ranks, bill increasing numbers in, amendment affecting rank of 
        individual upon retirement offered to, Sec. 3.41
    recommit, instructions in motion to, Sec. 23.3
    recruiting for regular Army, bill relating to, amendment affecting 
        discharges offered to, Sec. 9.56
    reservists, benefits and compensation for, Sec. 3.40
    reservists, bill providing for restoration to civilian jobs of, 
        amendment affecting annual leave offered to, Sec. 3.40
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. Sec. 4.32, 32.1, 34.10
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.39, 4.40, 6.43-6.45, 9.59
    retired officers, employment of, by defense contractors, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.39, 4.40, 6.45
    retirement of Army officers, Sec. 12.8
    selective service, amendment providing for use of agencies of, in 
        assisting personnel, Sec. 42.36
    Social Security Act, bill amending, amendment concerning military 
        service benefits offered to, Sec. 35.42
    Southeast Asia policy, congressional declaration of, amendment 
        requiring authorized funds to be used in accordance with, 
        Sec. 4.32
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 10.3
    strike, amendment to, language of bill or amendment, Sec. 31.13
    strike, motion to, as not precluding perfecting amendment, 
        Sec. 19.13
    strikes by persons employed in production of defense articles, 
        Sec. 3.4
    studies, Sec. 4.37
    substitute amendment on appropriations bill, Sec. 3.4
    surplus military equipment, disposal of, Sec. 35.100
    taxpayers, amendment requiring information to be given to, offered 
        to naval authorization bill, Sec. 4.34
    vessels, bill authorizing transfer of, to foreign nations, 
        Sec. 30.5

[[Page 9246]]

    vessels, naval, bill relating to construction of, Sec. Sec. 3.42, 
        18.3
    vessels, naval, contracts for construction of, Sec. 3.43
    Vietnam, amendment to restrict use of funds in, offered to military 
        authorization bill, Sec. 32.1
    voluntary enlistments, proposals to encourage, Sec. 13.14
    voting rights, Sec. 11.20
    war powers bill, see War powers bills
Atomic energy (see also Energy)
    committee jurisdiction as test of germaneness, Sec. 2.4
    contingency, bill authorizing construction of facilities made 
        subject to, Sec. 31.5
    fusion, amendment relating to, offered to bill dealing with 
        conversion from oil or gas to coal, Sec. 2.4
    military uses of nuclear material, bill requiring information from 
        Director of Arms Control Disarmament Agency, amendment 
        prohibiting agreements for export of any nuclear material prior 
        to report to Congress offered to, Sec. 4.27
Authorization bills, amendments affecting permanent law not germane to, 
    Sec. Sec. 24.1-24.3, 41.14, 41.17, 42.26, 42.28
Automobiles, production of
    Chrysler loan guarantees, see Chrysler Corporation, bill 
        authorizing loan guarantees for
    fuel economy standards for automobiles, House-passed bill imposing, 
        Senate amendment to provide loan guarantees for automotive 
        research and development not germane to, Sec. 26.15
    studies of factors affecting domestic production of automobile 
        products, bill authorizing, amendment directing study of impact 
        of currency exchange rates on manufacturers offered to, 
        Sec. 10.6
    studies of impact of manufacturers' practices, bill requiring, 
        amendment directing Attorney General to study antitrust and tax 
        implications of practices offered to, Sec. 3.22
Banking and finance, see also Coinage
    Bank Holding Company Act, bill amending Sec. 35.49
    Britain, loan agreement with, Sec. 21.19
    ceiling prices, suspension of, Sec. 6.22
    coinage, bill relating to, amendment affecting export of silver 
        offered to, Sec. 19.27
    commemorative coin, amendment relating to, offered to Coinage Act 
        amendments, Sec. Sec. 5.27, 5.28
    Commerce, Department of, bill removing federal loan agencies from, 
        Sec. 3.20
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.31, 35.46, 42.3, 42.5, 42.41
    communities, bill to promote economic development through financial 
        assistance to, amendment requiring study of impact of all laws 
        on employment opportunities offered to, Sec. 9.35
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 30.24
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. 21.19
    currency, bill providing for minting of new coins as, 
        Sec. Sec. 5.27, 5.28
    currency, expansion of, bill amending Federal Reserve Act to 
        promote, Sec. 3.34
    debt limit of United States, bill to increase, Sec. 42.61
    Disaster Loan Corporation, bill concerning lending authority of, 
        Sec. 35.28
    exchange value of dollar, bill relating to, Sec. 11.14

[[Page 9247]]

    existing law, bill or amendments as affecting, see, e.g., Existing 
        law, amendment changing, to bill citing or making minor 
        revision in law
    Export-Import Bank, amendment relating to management of, Sec. 3.21
    Federal Deposit Insurance Act, bill prescribing amounts of 
        insurance coverage under, amendment in motion to recommit to 
        limit coverage except where collateral pledged as germane to, 
        Sec. 23.11
    Federal Loan Administrator, amendment affecting term of office of, 
        offered to bill removing loan agencies from Department of 
        Commerce, Sec. 3.20
    Federal Reserve Act, bill amending, Sec. 3.34
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 3.21, 13.15, 
        21.19
    gold, amendment relating to purchase of, by Secretary of Treasury, 
        Sec. Sec. 11. 14, 35.44
    gold content of dollar, Sec. 35.44
    gold reserve requirements, elimination of, for certain United 
        States currencies, Sec. 35.46
    gold reserves backing, Federal Reserve notes, bill modifying 
        requirements as to, Sec. 3.33
    gold weight of dollar, amendment fixing, offered to bill amending 
        Federal Reserve Act, Sec. 3.34
    government corporations, auditing of, by General Accounting Office, 
        Sec. 13.15
    government corporations, bill affecting, amendment regarding 
        government ``controlled'' corporations offered to, Sec. 13.15
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 3.21
    Internal Revenue Code, amendment modifying, offered to bill 
        amending Defense Production Act, Sec. 42.5
    International Monetary Fund, bill relating to United States 
        participation in, amendment prohibiting alienation of gold to 
        IMF trust fund or to any other international organization 
        offered to, Sec. 9.34
    International Monetary Fund financing facility, bill concerning 
        United States participation in, amendment imposing directives 
        on governor of IMF affecting all IMF transactions offered to, 
        Sec. 9.36
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. 33.21
    loan agencies, bill to remove, from Department of Commerce, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.21, 42.41
    ``loan sharking,'' amendment prohibiting, offered to bill 
        regulating consumer credit transactions, Sec. 11.15
    price control bills, see Price control purpose of amendment, 
        fundamental, as test of germaneness, Sec. Sec. 3.21, 5.8, 5.27, 
        5.28, 42.61
    recommit, motion to, instructions to reinsert amendments previously 
        stricken included in, Sec. 23.11
    reserve requirements, amendment affecting, offered to bill 
        concerning consumer credit, Sec. 42.42
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.22, 19.27
    salary limitations, amendment imposing a supertax offered to 
        amendment concerning, Sec. 42.61
    silver, amendment affecting export of, offered to bill relating to 
        coinage, Sec. 19.27

[[Page 9248]]

    silver, amendment providing for use of, in commemorative coin, 
        Sec. 5.28
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 11.15
    strategic gold reserve, amendment to establish, Sec. 3.33
    wages and salaries, stabilization of, Sec. 6.21
Bill itself, provisions of, not subject to germaneness rule, Sec. 17.1
Budget
    category of budget authority, provision changing one, amendment 
        changing several categories offered to, Sec. 9.37
    concurrent resolution on budget, amendment offered to substitute 
        amendment to, ruled out as enlarging scope of substitute, 
        Sec. 21.14
    concurrent resolution on budget, perfecting amendment changing 
        figures for one of years covered by, amendment affecting two 
        fiscal years not germane to, Sec. 21.21
    Impoundment Control Act, amendment expressing sense of Congress on 
        repeal of, offered to budget resolution addressing 
        congressional actions, Sec. 4.89
    joint resolutions, amendment in motion to recommit to convert 
        resolutions in various phases of budget process from concurrent 
        resolutions to, offered to bill requiring balanced budgets to 
        be submitted by President and voted on by Congress, Sec. 5.6
    perfecting amendment making limited changes in figures for one 
        year, amendment rewriting resolution covering two fiscal years 
        offered to, Sec. 9.38
    President, resolution requesting information from, amendment 
        requesting information from certain House Members offered to, 
        Sec. 8.9
Budget, balanced, or similar requirement as condition precedent for 
    bill to take effect (see also, e.g., Conditions, amendment 
    imposing), Sec. Sec. 31.16, 31.17
Budgetary information, resolution requesting President to furnish 
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
    proposition, Sec. 8.9
Burden of proof, see Points of order
Busing, school, see Education; see also Civil rights; Constitutional 
    rights ``Buy-American'' provisions
    outer continental shelf, bill relating to development of energy 
        resources of, buy American amendment affecting equipment used 
        offered to, Sec. 4.18
    Urban Mass Transportation Act, authorization to carry out, 
        restrictions on contracts attached to, Sec. 33.24
    vessels, amendment requiring use of American steel in construction 
        of, substitute requiring all materials used in vessels to be 
        American offered for, Sec. 21.9
Campaign expenditures, see Election campaigns and Campaign expenditures
Census
    Aliens, Senate amendment authorizing special census in areas 
        impacted by influx of, House amendment excluding aliens from 
        count for reapportionment not germane to, Sec. 27.3
    conditions affecting basis of representation, amendment imposing, 
        Sec. 8.11
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. Sec. 3.66, 
        35.96
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 8.11
    limitations imposed by amendments, generally, Sec. 8.11

[[Page 9249]]

    reduction of basis of representation where voting rights abridged, 
        Sec. 8.11
    Representatives, amendment changing total number of, offered to 
        bill relating to apportionment, Sec. 35.96
Chrysler Corporation, bill authorizing loan guarantees for
    alternatives to automobiles, amendment requiring study of, 
        Sec. 3.23
    condition on loan guarantees, amendment imposing additional, 
        Sec. 11.13
Cigarettes, bill requiring reports on use of, amendment requiring 
    report on tobacco subsidies offered to, Sec. 11.29
Civil rights (see also Constitutional rights; Voting rights)
    armed forces, bill increasing, amendment regarding discrimination 
        against members offered to, Sec. 13.11
    armed services, Sec. 11.19
    Attorney General, proceedings instituted by, against persons 
        abridging individuals' civil rights, Sec. 19.18
    busing, amendment prohibiting use of fuel for, offered to bill 
        concerning energy conservation, Sec. 5.15
    busing, amendment relating to, offered to title establishing 
        administrative structure of Department of Education, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.17, 34.38
    commission, amendment authorizing, to make relocation loans, 
        Sec. 5.5
    commission, amendment creating congressional committee offered to 
        bill establishing, Sec. 4.94
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.94, 4.103
    Community Relations Service, amendment to establish, offered to 
        bill relating to Attorney General's participation in 
        litigation, Sec. 9.11
    court orders, amendment to penalize obstruction of, offered to bill 
        concerning certain court orders, Sec. 9.12
    definition of entity liable to penalties for discrimination, bill 
        amending law to clarify, amendment attempting to modify 
        definitions of other terms offered to, Sec. Sec. 35.64-35.67
    discrimination, bill concerning termination of federal assistance 
        to institutions practicing, amendment to extend coverage of 
        bill to Members of Congress offered to, Sec. 13.9
    District of Columbia, amendment affecting voting rights in, 
        Sec. 19.17
    economic opportunities, amendment regarding, offered to bill to 
        protect political rights, Sec. 19.16
    education, amendment to provide aid to, offered to voting rights 
        bill, Sec. 4.103
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act, bill amending, amendment 
        regarding busing offered to, Sec. 39.19
    employment, amendment prohibiting payment to firms practicing 
        discrimination in, Sec. 34.18
    existing law, bill or amendments as affecting, see, e.g., Existing 
        law, amendment changing, to bill citing or making minor 
        revision in law
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 9.10-9.13
    highway funds, amendment restricting availability of, for states 
        where segregation practiced, Sec. 35.76
    Housing Act, amendment to, to prohibit discrimination, 
        Sec. Sec. 30.10, 35.69
    Indians, amendment concerning opportunities for, made in order by 
        resolution, Sec. 19.4
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 3.18

[[Page 9250]]

    interference with certain civil rights, bill prescribing penalties 
        for, amendment prohibiting additional activities offered to, 
        Sec. 11.21
    investigations, propositions relating to, Sec. Sec. 7.9, 11.22
    job opportunity, amendment establishing commission on, Sec. 19.16
    limitations imposed by amendments, generally, Sec. 34.19
    loans, amendment authorizing Civil Rights Commission to make, 
        offered to bill describing certain duties of commission, 
        Sec. 5.5
    military, employment practices in companies supplying goods to, 
        Sec. 30.1
    policemen and firemen, amendment prohibiting interference with, 
        Sec. 11.21
    political affiliation, discrimination on basis of, amendment 
        authorizing investigation of, Sec. 11.22
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 5.5, 19.16
    recommit, instructions in motion to, Sec. 23.7
    relocation loans for blacks, amendment authorizing Civil Rights 
        Commission to grant, offered to bill describing duties of 
        commission, Sec. 5.5
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. Sec. 34.19, 39.19
    selective service, amendment to prohibit discrimination in, 
        Sec. 10.3
    sex, bill prohibiting wage discrimination based on, Sec. 3.18
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 11.22
    states and people, amendment concerning, study of rights reserved 
        to, Sec. 12.7
    studies, Sec. 12.7
    wage discrimination based on race, amendment to prohibit, offered 
        to bill to eliminate wage discrimination based on sex, 
        Sec. 3.18
Claims, bills relating to
    civilian internees, bill concerning, amendment affecting military 
        prisoners of war offered to, Sec. 13.19
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.50
    enemy governments and nationals, bill relating to claims against, 
        amendment affecting adjudication procedures offered to, 
        Sec. 4.50
    foreign individuals, settlement of claims of, inform of credit upon 
        indebtedness of foreign government, Sec. 6.39
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.39
Classes of persons, see Persons, same or different classes of, 
    propositions as affecting
Class, propositions of same, amendment adding to two or more
    agricultural products, bill relating to marketing of, amendment to 
        add poultry and eggs to list of products covered by bill 
        offered to, Sec. 11.28
    Agriculture, amendment changing existing law affecting authority of 
        Secretary of, offered to title not amending that law but 
        affecting Secretary's authority in diverse respects, Sec. 11.27
    air pollution from various sources, bill to regulate, amendment to 
        regulate bus emissions offered to, Sec. 11.10
    arts and humanities, bill authorizing diverse programs of 
        assistance to, amendment adding program for the employment of 
        unemployed artists offered to, Sec. 11.35
    authority, bill conferring, amendment adding function or limiting 
        exercise of authority offered to, Sec. 11.5
    auto stickers denoting auto usage, substitute imposing conditions 
        on use in conservation plan of, amendment affecting different 
        line and page numbers as germane to, Sec. 11.8

[[Page 9251]]

    Bankruptcy Act, bill providing procedure for adjustment of 
        municipal debts under terms of, amendment defining certificates 
        of indebtedness under the bill as among those eligible for 
        federal guarantees offered to, Sec. 11.2
    cigarette labeling and advertising and related reports, bill 
        concerning, amendment requiring reports on tobacco subsidies 
        offered to, Sec. 11.29
    civil rights, bill prohibiting interference with officials 
        enforcing amendment proscribing interference under additional 
        circumstances offered to, Sec. 11.21
    civil rights violations, bill authorizing investigation of, 
        amendment adding further discriminatory practice to be 
        investigated offered to, Sec. 11.22
    construction of pipelines, bill authorizing, amendment to authorize 
        additional pipeline offered to, Sec. 11.9
    consumer credit transactions, bill prohibiting various activities 
        related to, amendment to prohibit ``loansharking'' offered to, 
        Sec. 11.15
    Defense, bill addressing diverse authorities of Department of, 
        amendment restricting use of specified land for weapons system 
        offered to, Sec. 11.17
    definitions of terms, amendments adding to, Sec. Sec. 11.2-11.4
    diplomatic relations, amendment to sever, offered to concurrent 
        resolution addressing steps to secure release of American 
        arrested in Czechoslovakia, Sec. 11.33
    discrimination in Army Nurse Corps, provisions prohibiting 
        different forms of, amendment to prohibit additional form of 
        discrimination offered to, Sec. 11.19
    District of Columbia, provisions relating to political rights of 
        citizens of, amendment providing for election of non-voting 
        delegate to Senate offered to, Sec. 11.25
    Education, bill establishing Department of, amendment adding to 
        findings of bill a finding as to use of quotas based on race 
        and other factors offered to, Sec. 11.23
    Energy, bill to direct use of operating expenses of Department of, 
        amendment relating to use of alternative fuels by Department 
        offered to, Sec. 11.7
    Energy, bill transferring governmental functions relating to energy 
        to new Department of, amendment to transfer additional function 
        offered to, Sec. 11.6
    exemption from limitation on authority, amendment adding to 
        ``definitions'' section of bill as providing for, Sec. 11.3
    Federal Energy Administration, bill prescribing functions of, 
        amendment directing Administrator to issue guidelines for 
        citizen fuel use offered to, Sec. 11.5
    Flammable Fabrics Act, bill extending coverage of, amendment to 
        bring toys within coverage of Act offered to, Sec. 11.16
    foreign assistance, bill providing two categories of, amendment 
        providing for additional category offered to, Sec. 11.31
    foreign debt, bill prohibiting use of certain foreign aid funds for 
        retirement of, amendment to prohibit assistance to country that 
        has reduced its budget offered to, Sec. 11.32

[[Page 9252]]

    Gold Reserve Act, bill amending two provisions of, amendment 
        related to different subject in Act offered to, Sec. 11.14
    gun control bill, amendment relating to gun registration offered 
        to, Sec. 11.36
    import controls on specified products, bill extending, amendment 
        making bill applicable to additional products offered to, 
        Sec. 11.30
    ``loansharking,'' amendment to prohibit, offered to bill 
        prohibiting various activities relating to consumer credit, 
        Sec. 11.15
    ``methane,'' amendment adding, to definition of synthetic fuels, 
        Sec. 11.4
    milk supply in District of Columbia, resolution authorizing 
        investigation of sources and purity of, amendment expanding 
        scope of investigation offered to, Sec. 11.26
    miscellaneous provisions, diversity of, as affecting germaneness of 
        amendments, Sec. 11.1
    political activities, proscribed, amendment adding to list of, 
        Sec. 11.24
    synthetic fuels, amendment adding methane to definition of, in bill 
        promoting such fuels, Sec. 11.4
    tax credits, bill reducing tax liabilities partly by means of, 
        Senate amendment adding further tax credit as germane to, 
        Sec. 11.34
    transportation facilities eligible for grants, amendment adding to 
        categories of, Sec. 11.12
    voting rights of armed forces, bill waiving state laws affecting, 
        amendment waiving poll tax as requirement offered to, 
        Sec. 11.20
    war, bill addressing various subjects relating to prosecution of, 
        amendment adding further related subject offered to, Sec. 11.18
Class, same, amendment extending coverage of bill to other subjects of
    agricultural commodities, bill setting price support levels for, 
        amendment extending coverage of bill to another agricultural 
        commodity offered to, Sec. 12.2
    army officers' retirement, bill concerning, amendment to extend 
        retirement privileges to other branches of service offered to, 
        Sec. 12.8
    civil rights, bill authorizing commission to investigate abridgment 
        of, amendment to enlarge scope of investigation to include 
        rights reserved to states and to people offered to, Sec. 12.7
    Consumer Protection Agency, provisions allowing limited transfer of 
        functions from other agencies to, amendment authorizing 
        Director of Office of Management and Budget to transfer 
        designated types of functions to Agency offered to, Sec. 12.6
    definition of synthetic fuels, amendment to include methane within, 
        for purposes of bill promoting development of synthetic fuels, 
        Sec. 12.5
    firearms, provision imposing penalty for commission of felony while 
        carrying, amendment providing for prosecution for such offense 
        in federal or state court offered to, Sec. 12.10
    foreign countries, amendment prohibiting indirect foreign 
        assistance to specified, amendment adding other countries to 
        prohibition offered to, Sec. 12.9
    mail carriers under star-route contracts, bill relating to 
        compensation for, amendment requiring cost estimates in 
        advertisements for bids for star routes offered to, Sec. 12.4

[[Page 9253]]

    postal rates, bill to readjust, amendment to abolish franking 
        privileges offered to, Sec. 12.3
    Rural Electrification Act, provision to permit prepayment of loans 
        by designated borrowers under, amendment to enlarge class of 
        REA borrowers eligible to prepay loans offered to, Sec. 12.1
Coinage (see also Banking and finance)
    commemorative coins, amendment relating to minting of, offered to 
        Coinage Act amendments, Sec. Sec. 5.27, 5.28
    design of coin currency, bill relating to, amendment providing for 
        commemorative coin offered to, Sec. 3.37
    design of coin currency, bill relating to, amendment requiring 
        issuance of other coins in uncirculated proof form offered to, 
        Sec. 3.38
Commerce, Department of, bill removing loan agencies from, Sec. 3.20
Commerce, see, for example, Interstate and foreign commerce; Urban mass 
    transportation
Commission, amendment creating, to pay indemnities for flood damage, 
    Sec. 19.30
Commit or recommit, rule as applicable to instructions in motion to, 
    Sec. Sec. 23.1-23.11
Committee amendment, application of rule to
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 12.8, 19.20, 22.1
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. 42.5
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.31
    District of Columbia, bills relating to, Sec. 37.12
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 3.81
    rivers and harbors bill, Sec. 14.3
    special committee, amendment relating to expenses of, offered to 
        resolution from Committee on Rules, Sec. 4.95
    veterans, Sec. 8.29
Committee, joint, amendment establishing
    agencies of government, bill directing, to make information 
        available to congressional committees, Sec. 4.93
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 4.37, 21.12
    Civil Rights Commission, bill creating, amendments offered to, 
        Sec. 4.94
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.30, 4.37, 4.93, 4.94
    Defense Production Act, Sec. 4.30
    investigations, propositions relating to, Sec. 21.12
    Mutual Security Act, committee to study operations under, Sec. 4.48
Committee jurisdiction as test of germaneness
    administrative hearings and judicial review, amendment providing 
        for determination to be made pursuant to, offered to bill 
        providing that determination be made by Secretary of Labor, 
        Sec. 4.84
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. 4.6
    agency, bill creating new, amendment changing substantive laws 
        newly within agency's jurisdiction offered to, Sec. 4.86
    agricultural imports, amendment restricting, offered to proposal to 
        assist agriculture through price support payments, Sec. 4.71

[[Page 9254]]

    agricultural price supports, bill establishing, amendment 
        restricting authority of Secretary of Commerce over 
        agricultural exports offered to, Sec. 4.72
    agricultural surplus, provision directing sale of, amendment 
        relating to labeling under Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 
        offered to, Sec. 4.75
    agriculture bill, amendment within another committee's jurisdiction 
        allowed where subject matter already reflected in bill, 
        Sec. 2.8
    amendments within jurisdiction of other committees, adoption of, as 
        affecting application of test, Sec. Sec. 4.54, 4.67
    Amtrak, bill to reorganize, amendment to improve Amtrak through tax 
        incentives offered to, Sec. 4.66
    appropriation bill, amendment modifying rules of House and Senate 
        affecting consideration of appropriations offered to, Sec. 4.91
    armed forces, amendment relating to insurance for, offered to bill 
        authorizing President to arm vessels, Sec. 4.33
    armed forces, amendment relating to voting rights in, offered to 
        bill amending Universal Military Training and Service Act, 
        Sec. 4.41
    armed forces, bill increasing, amendment changing Internal Revenue 
        Code offered to, Sec. 4.38
    armed forces, bill increasing, amendment creating committee to 
        study military policy offered to, Sec. 4.37
    armed forces, bill providing family allowances for, amendment to 
        provide life insurance benefits offered to, Sec. 4.42
    arms control agreements, amendment directing President to submit 
        reports on Soviet Union's compliance with, offered to bill 
        relating to military procurement and national defense policy, 
        Sec. 4.26
    bonds, bill authorizing issuance of, amendment providing for tax 
        exemption offered to, Sec. 4.92
    budget resolution addressing congressional actions, amendment 
        expressing sense of Congress on repeal of Impoundment Control 
        Act offered to, Sec. 4.89
    civil rights, bill to protect, amendment to provide education aid 
        to communities proceeding with desegregation offered to, 
        Sec. 4.103
    Civil Rights Commision, amendment changing method of appointing 
        members of, Sec. 4.94
    claims against enemy governments and nationals, bill relating to, 
        amendment regarding court jurisdiction and procedures in 
        respect of claims offered to, Sec. 4.50
    Coast Guard, bill authorizing various activities of, amendment 
        urging consultation between Secretary of State and Coast Guard 
        regarding other nations' cooperation in defending mutual 
        interests in Persian Gulf offered to, Sec. 4.46
    committees, joint resolution directing agencies to make information 
        available to, amendment creating joint committee offered to, 
        Sec. 4.93
    Congress, bill increasing salaries of legislative employees and 
        Members of, amendment affecting audits of financial 
        transactions of House offered to, Sec. 4.108
    contingent fund, amendment directing payment of committee's 
        expenses from, offered to resolution providing for special 
        committee to investigate campaign expenditures, Sec. 4.95
    debt ceiling, bill to raise, amendment affecting budget and 
        appropriations procedures offered to, Sec. 4.90

[[Page 9255]]

    Defense Department, provision subjecting to court martial retired 
        officers who sell to, amendment making conduct federal penal 
        offense offered to, Sec. 4.39
    Defense Department, provision subjecting to court martial retired 
        officers who sell to, amendment to prohibit contractors from 
        hiring retired officers offered to, Sec. 4.40
    defense procurement, bill amending laws relating to, amendment 
        affecting contracts with Defense Department and other agencies 
        offered to, Sec. 4.29
    Defense Production Act, amendment establishing committee to consult 
        with President on administration of Act offered to, Sec. 4.30
    Defense Production Act, bill to amend, amendment to change Internal 
        Revenue Code offered to, Sec. 4.31
    District of Columbia, bill authorizing daylight-saving time in, 
        amendment relating to daylight-saving time in other 
        jurisdictions offered to, Sec. 4.105
    educational programs, bill authorizing appropriations for expansion 
        of, amendment providing tax deduction for support of college 
        students offered to, Sec. 4.101
    Eisenhower Civic Center, provisions that support fund would become 
        effective upon approval by congressional committees (as 
        provided in Public Buildings Act) of construction of, amendment 
        changing approval procedures under law offered to, Sec. 4.100
    employee positions in Bureau of Public Roads, amendment to create, 
        in lieu of positions allocated under Classification Act, 
        Sec. 4.87
    energy agency, bill prescribing functions of, amendment modifying 
        existing law by establishing ceiling prices for petroleum 
        products offered to, Sec. 4.11
    energy bill dealing with conversion from oil and gas to coal, 
        amendment relating to atomic energy offered to, Sec. 2.4
    energy resources, provisions to regulate production and allocation 
        of, amendment to reduce energy consumption by reducing workweek 
        for federal employees offered to, Sec. 4.13
    Environmental Protection Agency, amendment expressing sense of 
        Congress as to regulatory activities of, offered to bill 
        authorizing environmental research, Sec. 4.2
    environmental research and development, bill authorizing, amendment 
        granting permanent regulatory authority to agency offered to, 
        Sec. 4.1
    evacuation assistance out of South Vietnam, bill providing for, 
        amendment providing for costs of settlement of evacuees in 
        United States offered to, Sec. 4.52
    existing law, amendment changing, see, e.g., Existing law, 
        amendment changing, offered to bill on different subject
    exportation of energy resources, provisions conferring 
        discretionary authority to restrict, amendment to prohibit 
        exportation of petroleum products for particular uses offered 
        to, Sec. 4.20
    Fair Labor Standards Act, bill amending, amendment modifying Tariff 
        Act offered to, Sec. 4.83
    farm labor, joint resolution providing appropriations for, 
        amendment to change Selective Training and Service Act offered 
        to, Sec. 4.69

[[Page 9256]]

    Federal Energy Administration, bill to extend, amendment to abolish 
        agency and transfer functions offered to, Sec. 4.12
    flag, bill imposing penalties for desecration of, amendment placing 
        restrictions on export of flag offered to, Sec. 4.56
    food stamp program, bill addressing benefits under, amendment to 
        recover benefits from persons with specified income levels 
        offered to, Sec. 4.78
    foreign aid bill provisions establishing committee to advise on 
        avoiding in flationary pressures, amendment affecting postage 
        on packages sent abroad offered to, Sec. 4.51
    foreign assistance authorizations, amendment prohibiting designated 
        imports offered to bill providing for, after adoption of other 
        amendments containing diverse import restrictions, Sec. 4.54
    fusion energy, amendment to promote practical application of, 
        offered to title referring to industrial conversion from oil or 
        gas to coal, Sec. 4.22
    grain inspectors, bill authorizing Secretary of Agriculture to 
        employ, amendment permitting employees to credit prior private 
        service for civil service retirement purposes offered to, 
        Sec. 4.77
    hazardous waste cleanup, bill containing diverse titles relating 
        to, amendment creating cause of action for victims of improper 
        hazardous waste disposal offered to, Sec. 4.10
    housing and community development, bill providing for grant and 
        credit programs for, amendment expressing sense of Congress as 
        to tax policies affecting housing offered to, Sec. Sec. 4.59, 
        4.60
    housing bill authorizing urban property insurance, amendment 
        inaugurating urban insurance in District of Columbia offered 
        to, Sec. 4.64
    imports, bill to mitigate effects on domestic labor market of, 
        amendment modifying Tariff Act provisions with respect to 
        imports from communist nations offered to, Sec. 4.83
    incidental provisions of amendment within jurisdiction of another 
        committee, effect of, Sec. 4.7
    Justice, bill creating new office within Department of, amendment 
        abolishing Department offered to, Sec. 4.109
    Korea, amendment imposing permanent restrictions on withdrawals of 
        troops from, offered to bill authorizing appropriations for 
        armed forces, Sec. 4.36
    labor and wage laws, proposal to suspend, amendment providing for 
        study of effects of such laws on war production offered to, 
        Sec. 4.85
    labor disputes, bill to facilitate settlement of, amendment 
        relating to taxation and disposition of revenues offered to, 
        Sec. 4.82
    labor disputes, bill to facilitate settlement of, amendment 
        requiring unions to incorporate and to file reports offered to, 
        Sec. 4.81
    loans to agriculture workers, bill providing for, amendment 
        providing for loans to commercial fishermen of fered to, 
        Sec. 4.70
    Members' expense allowances, bill appropriating funds for, 
        amendment to amend Internal Revenue Code offered to, Sec. 4.96
    mentally ill, bill to protect, amendment prohibiting use of 
        revenuesharing funds in jurisdictions permitting homosexual 
        bathhouses offered to, Sec. 4.104

[[Page 9257]]

    military aid, amendment authorizing, offered to bill to provide 
        humanitarian and evacuation assistance utilizing U.S. troops, 
        Sec. 4.53
    military expenditures, bill authorizing, amendment prohibiting use 
        of funds except in accordance with congressional foreign policy 
        declarations offered to, Sec. 4.32
    Mutual Security Act, bill amending, amendment establishing joint 
        committee on mutual security offered to, Sec. 4.48
    Mutual Security Act, bill amending, amendment to provide submarine 
        patrols in Caribbean offered to, Sec. 4.47
    naval authorization bill, amendment requiring information to be 
        given to taxpayers as to proportion of taxes spent on military, 
        Sec. 4.34
    nuclear material, bill requiring report from Director of Arms 
        Control Disarmament Agency on military uses of, amendment 
        prohibiting agreements for export of any nuclear material prior 
        to report to Congress offered to, Sec. 4.27
    Occupational Safety and Health Act, amendment repealing regulations 
        under, offered to provisions amending agriculture acts, 
        Sec. 4.68
    organizational bill establishing Department of Education and 
        transferring existing programs to, amendment prohibiting use of 
        authorized funds for school busing not germane to, Sec. 34.38
    outer continental shelf, bill relating to development of energy 
        resources of, ``buy-American'' amendment affecting equipment 
        used offered to, Sec. 4.18
    overlapping jurisdiction, effect of, Sec. Sec. 4.10, 4.12, 4.67, 
        4.99, 39.28
    penalties, bill and amendment as imposing different classes of, for 
        violation of export controls, Sec. 4.55
    pesticides, bill amending law relating to registration of, 
        amendment barring award of attorneys' fees in civil actions 
        brought under the law, Sec. 4.76
    pesticides, bill amending law relating to registration of, 
        amendment contained in motion to recommit waiving laws 
        requiring payment of attorneys' fees in related actions as 
        germane to, Sec. 23.6
    petroleum conservation and allocation, bill relating to, amendment 
        imposing quotas on importation of petroleum products from 
        certain countries offered to, Sec. 4.19
    petroleum products and coal, provisions for allocation of, 
        amendment waiving laws in order to encourage coal production 
        offered to, Sec. 4.15
    petroleum reserves, provisions authorizing Secretary of Interior to 
        establish, amendment giving President authority over reserves 
        conditional upon subsequent congressional authorization offered 
        to, Sec. 4.14
    postal rates, bill to adjust, amendment providing for investigation 
        of post office operations offered to, Sec. 4.88
    price control bill, amendment repealing Silver Purchase Act and 
        relating to stamp taxes offered to, Sec. 4.98
    price of sugar, amendment relating to import duties and quotas as 
        means of stabilizing, amendment affecting price support 
        payments for sugar not germane to, Sec. 4.73
    price support for milk, bill providing, amendment relating to 
        tariffs on imported milk offered to, Sec. 4.74

[[Page 9258]]

    price support programs, amendment requiring compliance with labor 
        standards as condition of eligibility of agricultural employers 
        for, offered to omnibus agriculture bill, Sec. 4.67
    public works construction bill, revenue-sharing amendment to, 
        Sec. 4.99
    public works jobs, bill authorizing funds for state and local 
        governments to create, Senate amendment to mandate expenditure 
        of previously appropriated funds for public works and 
        reclamation contained in conference report on, Sec. 4.62
    Puerto Rico, bill relating to elections in, amendment affecting tax 
        laws applicable to Puerto Rico offered to, Sec. 4.57
    relief and work relief, bill making appropriations for, amendment 
        allotting funds for investigating effects of relief offered to, 
        Sec. 4.79
    report, language of, as not relied on where language not contained 
        in pending text, Sec. 4.73
    rules of House and Senate, amendment modifying, offered to general 
        appropriation bill, Sec. 4.91
    rural housing loans, bill amending law to reauthorize, amendment 
        authorizing pooling of guaranteed rural housing loans under 
        another law offered to, Sec. 4.58
    Senate amendment to provide guidelines for acceptance of foreign 
        gifts as germane to House bill concerning foreign relations and 
        operation of State Department, Sec. 4.107
    special committee, resolution providing for, amendment directing 
        payment of expenses from contingent fund offered to, Sec. 4.95
    subversive activities, bill relating to control of, amendment 
        modifying immigration laws offered to, Sec. 4.49
    synthetic fuel development for defense purposes, provisions for 
        financial assistance for, amendment providing for expedited 
        approval of designated projects under the bill offered to, 
        Sec. 4.25
    synthetic fuel program, amendment establishing procedures for 
        designating priority projects within, substitute amendment 
        authorizing temporary waivers of laws inconsistent with 
        projects offered to, Sec. 4.23
    synthetic fuel program for defense purposes, provisions relating 
        to, amendment requiring commercial fuel to contain certain 
        percentage of synthetic fuel offered to, Sec. 4.24
    tax incentives for conservation of energy, bill providing for, 
        amendment prohibiting purchase of fuel inefficient autos by 
        federal government offered to, Sec. 4.216
    tax incentives for enterprise zones, amendment providing, offered 
        to bill to provide employment opportunities through projects to 
        renovate community facilities, Sec. 4.61
    telephone communications, amendment regulating, not germane to 
        education bill, Sec. Sec. 26.13, 26.14
    tidelands bill, substitute relating to lease of off-shore lands 
        offered for, Sec. 4.17
    unemployment benefits for persons affected by designation of 
        wilderness area, amendment providing, offered to bill 
        designating wilderness areas, Sec. 4.8
    urban mass transportation, bill relating to, amendment affecting 
        railroads offered to, Sec. 4.65

[[Page 9259]]

    user charges for gasoline allocation under rationing plan, 
        amendment imposing, offered to provisions authorizing President 
        to ration gasoline, Sec. 4.16
    veterans, bill providing aid to, amendment to amend Servicemen's 
        Dependents Allowances Act offered to, Sec. 4.44
    veterans' home loan guarantees, bill to increase, amendment 
        requiring Federal Reserve banks to purchase loans offered to, 
        Sec. 4.43
    veterans' housing, bill increasing maximum loans for, amendment 
        excluding interest from gross income offered to, Sec. 4.45
    wages on highway projects, bill and amendment as using different 
        procedures to determine prevailing rates for purposes of 
        establishing, Sec. 4.84
    water pollution control, bill relating to, amendment to amend Clean 
        Air Act offered to, Sec. 4.3
    weapons, bill authorizing funds for development of, amendment 
        prohibiting use of funds until President resumes arms control 
        initiatives offered to, Sec. 4.28
Committee report, language of, not relied on in determining germaneness 
    of amendment where language not contained in pending text, 
    Sec. 4.73
Committees, House, provisions affecting, see Congress, operation of
Committee, special, resolution creating
    jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.95
Conceding point of order, see Points of order
Concurrent resolution, amendment to
    Senate, resolution concerning adjournment of, Sec. 17.6
    Soviet Union, resolution expressing sense of Congress as to 
        domestic situation in, motion to recommit with instructions 
        regarding diplomatic initiatives by United States, Sec. 23.2
Concurrent resolution on budget, see Budget
Conditions, amendments imposing (see also, e.g., Restrictions on use or 
    availability of funds)
    additional condition for shipment of arms to Turkey, amendment 
        imposing, offered to bill delaying such shipment pending 
        progress in resolution of Cyprus issue, Sec. 8.23
    agricultural inspectors, bill authorizing Secretary of Agriculture 
        to employ, amendment permitting prior private service to be 
        credited toward civil service retirement offered to, Sec. 30.17
    agriculture bills, Sec. Sec. 30.13-30.15
    appropriation bills, Sec. Sec. 15.2, 30.9
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 30.1, 30.3, 32.4, 39.25
    armed services, bill providing musterout pay for, Sec. 30.4
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. 30.24
    budget, balanced, or similar requirement as condition precedent for 
        bill to take effect, Sec. Sec. 31.16, 31.17
    census and apportionment, bill providing for, amendment regarding 
        basis of representation offered to, Sec. 8.11
    Commodity Credit Corporation, bill directing Secretary of Treasury 
        to discharge indebtedness of, Sec. 14.1
    compliance with laws not otherwise applicable to parties as 
        condition to availability of funds, Sec. 30.23

[[Page 9260]]

    defense procurement contracts, availability of funds for, 
        conditional on compliance with specified laws, Sec. 30.23
    District of Columbia, bills relating to, Sec. 30.21
    education, Sec. Sec. 30.11, 30.12, 31.42
    enactment, authority granted as conditional on subsequent, 
        Sec. 30.28
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. 19.26
    flood control, condition imposed on allocation of funds authorized 
        for, Sec. 18.15
    foreign affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 30.8
    foreign-aid bills, Sec. Sec. 3.57, 19.26, 30.26, 38.1
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 18.15
    Hawaii, amendment relating to boundaries of, offered to bill for 
        admission, Sec. 3.59
    health, bills relating to, Sec. 30.12
    housing and urban renewal, bills relating to, Sec. 30.10
    incidental condition or exception, Sec. 30.36
    India, bill specifying terms of credit extended to, amendment 
        providing that interest paid be available for expenditures by 
        Department of State offered to, Sec. 30.26
    interior and insular affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 6.19
    loan guarantees for Chrysler Corporation, conditions attached to, 
        Sec. 30.25
    merchant marine and fisheries, bills relating to, Sec. 32.15
    missile system, expenditures for, made contingent on findings by 
        Secretary of Defense as to impact of United States grain sales 
        on Soviet preparedness, Sec. 30.19
    oath to Member, amendment attaching conditions to resolution 
        concerning administration of, Sec. 1.1
    permanent restriction on expenditure of funds for missile system, 
        Sec. 30.19
    post office, Sec. 29.6
    public works, Sec. 30.16
    recipients, availability of funds for, conditional on actions by 
        parties other than recipients, Sec. 30.29
    recipients, availability of funds for, conditional on 
        implementation by recipients of specified program, Sec. 30.30
    regulation of operation of nuclear energy facilities, amendment 
        addressing, as germane to bill relating to indemnification for 
        liability, Sec. 30.31
    safety regulations, agreement to comply with, as condition on 
        indemnification of operators of nuclear energy facilities 
        against liability, Sec. 30.31
    seat belt use, amendment conditioning availability of all agency 
        funds on state compliance with federal standards for, offered 
        to provision rescinding agency's funds for research on seat 
        belt use, Sec. 9.33
    subsequent authorization, authority granted as dependent on, 
        Sec. 30.28
    Turkey, provision requiring certification of progress in resolution 
        of Cyprus issue prior to shipment of arms to, amendment to 
        further require certification as to control of opium traffic 
        offered to, Sec. 8.23
    unions, Sec. 41.4
    urban mass transportation, Sec. 30.21
    Vietnamese war victims, provisions for assistance to, amendment 
        prohibiting use of assistance to relocate evacuees in high 
        unemployment areas in United States offered to, Sec. 30.27

[[Page 9261]]

Conferees as bound by rule of germaneness, Sec. 27.30
Conference (see also Senate amendments and amendments thereto)
    motion to instruct conferees, amendment to, Sec. Sec. 28.1, 28.2
    Senate amendments in conference report, see Senate amendments and 
        amendments thereto
    Senate amendment to House bill included in conference substitute 
        and reported from conference must be germane to bill as a 
        whole, Sec. 2.11
Congress, operation of (see also Government organization; Rules of the 
    House, proposals to amend)
    budgetary information from President, resolution requesting, 
        amendment requesting budgetary information from certain House 
        Members offered to, Sec. 8.9
    clerk-hire allowance, bill increasing, Sec. 8.8
    committee expenses outside United States, provision restricting use 
        of funds for, amendments restricting use of funds for travel 
        expenses of retiring Members offered to, Sec. Sec. 3.70, 3.71
    committee reports, amendment in nature of substitute and amendment 
        thereto as both relating to contents of, Sec. 3.68
    committees, resolution to reform structure and procedures of, 
        amendment affecting procedures in Committee of the Whole 
        offered to, Sec. 3.67
    funds for travel undertaken by committee, restrictions placed on, 
        Sec. 34.5
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 13.7
    oath to Member, amendment imposing conditions offered to resolution 
        providing for administration of, Sec. 1.1
    Office of Technology Assessment, amendment creating, offered to 
        proposition to improve research facilities of Library of 
        Congress, Sec. 9.53
    pay practices affecting executive agencies, bill requiring study of 
        equitability of, amendment to include practices in legislative 
        branch offered to, Sec. 13.8
    persons, propositions affecting same or different classes of, 
        Sec. 27.35
    polygraphy, amendment to prohibit congressional uses of, offered to 
        bill to prohibit uses in private sector, Sec. 13.106
    reports of investigations by Civil Service Commission, amendment 
        concerning availability of, to committees, Sec. 19.33
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 9.53
    roll call votes in House on amendments rejected in Committee of the 
        Whole, amendments to permit, Sec. Sec. 6.32, 6.33
    salaries of Members, amendment proposing adjustment of, to reflect 
        fluctuation in national debt, Sec. 30.20
    salaries, provision limiting funds for payment of increase in, 
        amendment to restrict funds available for salaries of Members 
        voting against increase offered to, Sec. 15.3
    Senate amendments, Sec. 27.35
    study of needs for facilities, proposition establishing commission 
        to undertake, amendment directing Speaker to set aside space in 
        new building offered to, Sec. 3.69
    teller votes, different methods of recording, proposition and 
        amendment thereto as comprising, Sec. Sec. 6.32, 6.33

[[Page 9262]]

    travel allowances, Senate amendment affecting payments from Senate 
        contingent fund for, House amendment affecting payments from 
        House contingent fund not germane to, Sec. 27.35
    travel expenses of Senate employees, proposition concerning, 
        amendment relating to allowance for House Members offered to, 
        Sec. 13.7
    travel expenses, payment of, from contingent fund, Sec. 27.35
Congressional intent, statement of, see Policy, congressional, 
    amendment stating
Consent Calendar bills
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 16.1, 39.25
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 39.25
    election of Governor of Puerto Rico, Sec. 4.57
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. 39.25
    Optometry Corps, amendment to establish, offered to bill providing 
        for appointment of Army officers, Sec. 16.1
    public works, Sec. 34.18
Consideration of bill, resolution providing for, see Special rules, 
    amendments to; Special rules waiving points of order
Constitutional rights (see also Civil rights; Voting rights)
    assembly, amendment concerning right of, offered to voting rights 
        bill, Sec. 5.3
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.103, 12.7
    District of Columbia, amendment affecting voting rights in, 
        Sec. 19.17
    economic opportunities, amendment regarding, offered to bill to 
        protect political rights, Sec. 19.16
    education, amendment to provide aid to, offered to bill protecting 
        political rights, Sec. 4.103
    equal protection and voting rights, bill concerning study of 
        denials of, Sec. 12.7
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 5.3
    investigations, propositions relating to, Sec. 12.7
    job opportunity, amendment establishing commission on, Sec. 19.16
    political rights, bill to protect, amendment providing aid to 
        education offered to, Sec. 4.103
    political rights, bill to protect, amendment regarding economic 
        opportunities offered to, Sec. 19.16
    press, amendment concerning freedom of, offered to voting rights 
        bill, Sec. 5.3
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 5.3, 19.16
    speech, amendment concerning freedom of, offered to voting rights 
        bill, Sec. 5.3
    states and people, amendment concerning study of rights reserved 
        to, Sec. 12.7
    wage discrimination based on race, amendment to prohibit, offered 
        to bill to eliminate wage discrimination based on sex, 
        Sec. 3.18
Constitution, proposals to amend
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 23.8
    District of Columbia, amendment regarding voting rights in, offered 
        to voting rights bill, Sec. 19.17
    District of Columbia, motion to recommit joint resolution providing 
        for representation for, with instructions to consider 
        retroceding portions of District to Maryland, Sec. 23.9

[[Page 9263]]

    electoral college process, provision affecting, amendment relating 
        to apportionment not germane to, Sec. 8.12
    poll taxes, contained in motion to recommit bill prohibiting, 
        Sec. 23.8
    President's term of office, amendment proposing change in, offered 
        to bill authorizing appointment of assistants, Sec. 6.37
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.37
Contingency, amendment delaying effectiveness of bill or availability 
    of funds pending
    agriculture, Sec. 31.40
    appropriation bill, Sec. 9.32
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 30.2, 30.5, 30.6, 31.4, 31.9, 31.10, 
        31.13, 31.34, 31.41
    arms control, treaty initiatives toward, Sec. Sec. 31.26, 31.27
    atomic energy bills, Sec. 31.5
    authorization for testing antisatellite weapon, subsequent 
        specific, required, Sec. 31.6
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. 21.19
    budget, balanced, or similar requirement as condition precedent for 
        bill to take effect, Sec. Sec. 31.16, 31.17
    certification that bill will have positive effect on employment 
        levels, Sec. 31.20
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 30.5, 30.6
    Congress, consent of, required for evacuation of persons to any 
        state, Sec. 31.31
    conveyance of land to Milwaukee, amendment delaying, until use of 
        port facilities permitted, Sec. 31.44
    debt limit, enactment of legislation in creasing, Sec. 31.14
    Defense, certification by Secretary of, as to impact of grain sales 
        on Soviet preparedness, Sec. 31.24
    education, Sec. 31.42
    employment levels, certification as to effect of bill on, 
        Sec. 31.20
    evacuation of persons to any state, congressional consent required 
        for, Sec. 31.31
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. 19.26
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. 31.35
    expenditures, government receipts in excess of, Sec. 31.16
    expenditures under other Acts, determination as to, Sec. 31.17
    foreign affairs, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 31.29, 31.32
    foreign aid bill, Sec. Sec. 19.26, 30.7, 31.3, 31.29, 31.30, 31.37
    General Services Administration, bill authorizing administrator of, 
        to convey land to Milwaukee, Sec. 31.44
    government receipts in excess of expenditures, Sec. 31.16
    housing and urban renewal, bills relating to, Sec. 4.63
    International Monetary Fund, contributions to, contingent on change 
        in monetary policy, Sec. 31.36
    legislation, enactment of, Sec. Sec. 31.7, 31.8, 31.12
    legislation, other, enactment of, Sec. 31.11
    Milwaukee, amendment delaying conveyance of land to, until use of 
        port facilities permitted, Sec. 31.44
    monetary policy, contributions to International Monetary Fund 
        contingent on change in, Sec. 31.36
    Nixon, restitution by former President, to United States 
        government, Sec. 31.2

[[Page 9264]]

    nuclear waste storage facility, licensing of, Sec. 31.1
    oil windfall profits tax, enactment of, Sec. 31.8
    post office, Sec. 31.43
    President's certification as to availability of energy supplies as 
        affecting assistance to Israel, Sec. 31.22
    President's certification as to enactment of tax legislation, 
        Sec. 31.12
    President's determination and report on ownership of gold in 
        Vietnam, Sec. 31.19
    public works, Sec. 31.16
    radio broadcasting to Cuba, bill authorizing, congressional 
        consideration of balanced budget amendment to constitution as 
        condition attached to, Sec. 31.39
    radio broadcasting to Cuba, bill authorizing, enactment of law 
        authorizing broadcasts to South Africa as condition attached 
        to, Sec. 31.38
    receipts of government, effectiveness of provisions dependent on, 
        Sec. Sec. 31.16, 31.17
    referendum, amendment prohibiting use of funds until approval in, 
        Sec. 31.3
    referendum, amendment requiring that naval authorization bill be 
        confirmed in, Sec. 31.4
    report to Congress on costs of program, Sec. 31.25
    Salt II treaty, ratification of, Sec. 31.28
    Secretary of State Dean Acheson, bill ineffective until dismissal 
        of, Sec. 31.41
    Soviet Union, certification by Secretary of Defense as to impact of 
        grain sales on preparedness of, Sec. 31.24
    Soviet Union, determination as to lifting of restrictions on 
        emigration by, Sec. 31.23
    Soviet Union, determination as to limitation of weapons systems by, 
        Sec. 31.15
    tax or revenue legislation, certification as to, by President or 
        Congress, Sec. 31.12
    tax or revenue legislation, enactment of, Sec. 31.14
    testimony by Korean Ambassador regarding gifts to House Members as 
        condition of assistance to South Korea, Sec. 31.33
    trade, determination as to balance of, in automotive products, 
        Sec. 31.18
    trade policy of foreign nation, proclamation concerning, Sec. 31.21
Correction of error in bill, see Error or misstatement
Criminal justice
    civil rights, interference with, see Civil Rights
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.39, 4.40
    Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act, bill amending, Sec. 41.14
    Department of Justice, proposition to transfer functions of, to 
        independent agency, Sec. 42.43
    drug abuse, legislation relating to, Sec. 41.14
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill citing, Sec. 41.13
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. 42.44
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. Sec. 11.36, 
        12.10, 35.101, 41.13
    firearms, amendment to regulate, offered to bill concerning crime 
        control, Sec. 6.6

[[Page 9265]]

    firearms, control of, Sec. Sec. 35.99, 35.101
    firearms, provision imposing penalty for commission of felony while 
        carrying, amendment providing for prosecution for such offense 
        in federal or state court offered to, Sec. 12.10
    firearms, registration of, amendment relating to, Sec. 11.36
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 20.3
    gun control, Sec. Sec. 11.36, 12.10
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. Sec. 20.3, 35.101
    Juvenile Delinquency Control Act, Sec. 32.7
    Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act, Sec. 30.34
    law enforcement administration grants for purchase of photographic 
        and fingerprinting equipment, amendment adding authorization 
        for bullet-proof vests to, Sec. 3.78
    lynching, Sec. 20.3
    military officers, retired, selling products to Defense Department, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.39, 4.40
    police and other law enforcement officers, amendment requiring 
        enactment of specific program relating to welfare of, as 
        condition on award of grants to states for improvement of state 
        and local law enforcement, Sec. 10.14
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 6.6, 11.36
    research and training, bill to control crime through, amendment 
        regulating firearms offered to, Sec. 6.6
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.39, 4.40, 6.6
    several unlawful acts, bill defining, amendment to include 
        additional act of same class offered to, Sec. 11.21
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. Sec. 11.36, 30.34
    state courts and federal courts, amendment giving concurrent 
        jurisdiction to, in cases involving firearms, Sec. 12.10
Currency, see Banking and finance
Daylight saving time, bills relating to
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.105
    interstate commerce, amendment relating to daylight saving time as 
        affecting, not germane to bill authorizing daylight saving time 
        in District of Columbia, Sec. 4.105
Debate on motion to reject nongermane portion of conference report (see 
    also Senate amendments and amendments thereto), Sec. 26.6
Debate on points of order, see Points of order
Debt limit of United States, bill to increase
    budget and appropriations procedures, amendment affecting, 
        Sec. 4.90
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaness, Sec. 42.61
    taxes, amendment imposing, offered to amendment relating to salary 
        limitations in Price Stabilization Act, Sec. 42.61
Defense (see also, e.g., Armed services; Foreign affairs)
    arms control agreements, amendment directing President to submit 
        reports on Soviet Union's compliance with, offered to bill 
        relating to military procurement and national defense policy, 
        Sec. 4.26
    chemical weapons, substitute amendment prohibiting use of Defense 
        Department funds for, offered to amendment decreasing 
        authorization for army ammunition funds, Sec. 9.14

[[Page 9266]]

    contracts entered into by other agencies, amendment affecting, 
        offered to bill amending laws on defense procurement, Sec. 4.29
    Korea, amendment imposing permanent restrictions on troop 
        withdrawals from, offered to bill authorizing appropriations 
        for armed forces for one year, Sec. 24.1
    lands, amendment attaching conditions to defense uses of, offered 
        to bill relating to authorities of Department of Defense, 
        Sec. 19.21
    merchant marine, provisions establishing study of role of, 
        amendment waiving coastwise trade laws for two vessels offered 
        to, Sec. 3.45
    missile systems, bill relating to deployment of, amendment 
        permanently making expenditures contingent on certifications by 
        Secretary of Defense offered to, Sec. 24.6
    procurement programs for military, provisions authorizing funds 
        for, amendment authorizing establishment of military 
        preparedness grain reserve offered to, Sec. 10.5
    synthetic fuel development for defense purposes, provisions for 
        financial assistance for, amendment providing for expedited 
        approval of designated projects under the bill offered to, 
        Sec. 4.25
    synthetic fuel program, provisions authorizing and providing 
        funding for, amendment requiring fuel sold in commerce to 
        contain certain percentage of synthetic fuel offered to, 
        Sec. 4.24
    weapons, bill authorizing funds for development of, amendment 
        prohibiting use of funds until President resumes arms control 
        initiatives offered to, Sec. 4.28
    weapons systems, amendment prohibiting use of specified land for, 
        offered to bill containing diverse provisions relating to 
        authorities of Department of Defense, Sec. 11.17
Definition of terms, amendment adding or changing
    agriculture, Sec. Sec. 35.19, 39.12, 39.13, 42.7
    authority conferred in bill, definition of terms as providing 
        exemption from limitation on, Sec. 11.3
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. 35.49
    Bankruptcy Act, bill providing procedure for adjustment of 
        municipal debts under terms of, amendment defining certificates 
        of indebtedness under the bill as among those eligible for 
        federal guarantees offered to, Sec. 11.2
    ``confiscated property,'' definition of, in National Stolen 
        Property Act, Sec. 13.18
    discrimination, bill amending law to clarify definition of entity 
        liable to penalties for, amendments attempt-ing to modify 
        definitions of other terms offered to, Sec. Sec. 35.64-35.67
    displaced persons, bill to authorize admission of, amendment 
        providing that term ``displaced person'' include persons of 
        German origin offered to, Sec. 10.2
    education, Sec. 30.34
    exception to limitation on authority in bill, Sec. 29.14
    existing law, bill amending, in limited respect, Sec. 35.19
    foreign agents, bill relating to registration of, Sec. 30.33
    Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act, Sec. 30.34
    labor, Sec. 35.19

[[Page 9267]]

    recipients of federal financial assistance, amendment to include 
        unborn as, for purposes of laws being amended by bill, 
        Sec. 10.1
    synthetic fuels, amendment including methane within definition of, 
        offered to bill promoting development of such fuels, Sec. 11.4
Deportation of named individual, see Private bills
Discretionary authority, provisions conferring, amendment to direct 
    specified actions in exercise of authority offered to, Sec. 4.20, 
    11.5
Discretion of board in determining wages, proposition concerning, 
    amendment to establish minimum wages offered to, Sec. 6.23
District of Columbia
    abortions, prohibition in appropriation bill on use of federal 
        payment funds for, amendment making prohibition applicable to 
        all funds in bill offered to, Sec. 9.15
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. 6.27
    alley dwellings, Sec. 37.12
    commissioners authorized to establish daylight saving time, 
        Sec. 4.105
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.105
    Community Development and Finance Corporation, bill conferring 
        broad powers on, amendment restricting certain authority of 
        District of Columbia Council ruled out as beyond scope of bill, 
        Sec. 35.97
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 30.21
    daylight saving time, Sec. Sec. 4.105, 29.10
    delegate to Senate, amendment providing for, offered to provisions 
        relating to political rights of District voters, Sec. 11.25
    employees of District government, provision for one-year ceiling 
        on, amendment proposing hiring preference system as permanent 
        law offered to, Sec. 24.5
    exceptions, amendment providing for, Sec. 29.10
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. 42.49
    existing law, amendment repealing, Sec. 36.1
    existing law, bill repealing, Sec. Sec. 37.12, 37.13
    interstate commerce, amendment exempting services in, from 
        provisions of bill authorizing institution of daylight saving 
        time in District, Sec. 4.105
    milk supply, committee authorized to investigate, Sec. 11.26
    Potomac River, construction of tunnel under, Sec. 3.61
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaness, Sec. 37.12
    recommit, motion to, joint resolution providing for representation 
        with instructions to consider retroceding portions of District 
        to Maryland, Sec. 23.9
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 6.27, 6.29
    sales tax, amendment relating to income tax laws offered to bill 
        providing for, Sec. 6.29
    taxes, Sec. 6.29
    transportation authority, Sec. 6.27
    tunnel under Potomac River, construction of, Sec. 3.61
    urban mass transportation, Sec. 30.21

[[Page 9268]]

    Virginia, amendment requiring payment of road construction costs 
        by, offered to bill authorizing tunnel, Sec. 3.61
    zoning, amendment changing, offered to bill relating to alley 
        dwellings, Sec. 37.12
Education
    abortion counselling, amendment prohibiting use of funds for, 
        offered to title restricting federal control over education, 
        Sec. 3.16
    busing, amendment prohibiting use of fuel for, offered to bill 
        concerning energy conservation, Sec. 5.15
    busing, amendment relating to, offered to title establishing 
        administrative structure of Department of Education, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.17, 34.38
    civil rights, see Civil rights
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.101, 32.13
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. Sec. 30.11, 30.12, 31.42
    construction of school facilities, bill concerning, amendment 
        affecting teachers' salaries offered to, Sec. 8.38
    construction of schools, formulas for allotting funds to states 
        for, Sec. 5.10
    construction, school, in impacted areas, Sec. 31.42
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. 31.42
    ``decisions'' of Supreme Court substituted for ``provisions,'' 46.4
    desegregation, see Civil rights
    equal opportunity, amendment providing remedies for agencies' 
        denial of, offered to bill extending laws relating to federal 
        assistance to educational agencies, Sec. 3.15
    error or misstatement, amendment correcting, Sec. 46.4
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. 35.57
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. 39.19
    findings and purposes relating to establishment of Department of 
        Education, portion of bill stating, amendment adding finding 
        with respect to use of quotas offered to, Sec. 10.4
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 9.9
    impact aid, amendment affecting, offered to bill amending 
        miscellaneous educational assistance laws, Sec. 2.2
    impacted areas, school construction in, Sec. 9.9
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. Sec. 8.38, 8.39, 9.60
    Juvenile Delinquency Control Act, Sec. 32.13
    Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act, Sec. 30.34
    limitations imposed by amendments, generally, Sec. 32.13
    loans for education, provision making teachers in Peace Corps 
        eligible for partial cancellation of, amendment to permit 
        alternative repayment plan based on income offered to, 
        Sec. 9.60
    private schools, amendment concerning construction of, offered to 
        bill authorizing aid for public school construction, Sec. 8.39
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 5.10
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. Sec. 31.42, 39.19
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 30.12
    scholarships to medical schools, Sec. 30.12
    school construction, formulas for allotting funds to states for, 
        Sec. 5.10

[[Page 9269]]

    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 30.34
    surplus government property, use of, for educational purposes, 
        Sec. 10.17
    tax exemptions, amendment providing, for persons supporting 
        students, Sec. 4.101
    teachers' salaries, amendment concerning, offered to bill relating 
        to school construction, Sec. 8.38
    telephone communications, amendment regulating, offered to 
        education bill, Sec. Sec. 26.13, 26.14
Effective date of bill, amendment changing,
    report, President's, amendment postponing effective date of 
        provisions for assistance to refugees pending, Sec. 3.52
    Senate amendments, Sec. 27.16
Election campaigns and campaign expenditures
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 6.35
    labor organization, amendment to regulate contributions of, offered 
        to bill relating to settlement of labor disputes, 3.3
    persons, propositions affecting same or different classes of, 
        Sec. 11.24
    poll taxes, amendment to prohibit, offered to bill prohibiting 
        certain political activities, Sec. 3.84
    poll taxes, motion to recommit bill prohibiting, with instructions, 
        Sec. 23.8
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test, Sec. 6.35
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.35
    special committee, resolution providing for, to investigate 
        expenditures, Sec. 4.95
    television and radio, bill to limit expenditures for, Sec. 6.35
Electoral college process, joint resolution to reform, amendment 
    relating to apportionment of Representatives offered to, Sec. 8.12
Energy (see also, e.g., Atomic energy; Environment; Interior and 
    insular affairs)
    agencies' authority to formulate policies of energy conservation, 
        bill addressing, amendment prohibiting use of fuelfor school 
        busing offered to, Sec. 5.15
    agency, bill prescribing functions of new, amendment modifying 
        existing law by establishing ceiling prices forpetroleum 
        products offered to, Sec. Sec. 42.22, 42.23
    agency, provision abolishing, amendment delaying termination date 
        offered to, Sec. 3.6
    Alaska pipeline, bill authorizing construction of, amendment 
        permitting judicial review of specified claims arisingfrom 
        construction offered to, Sec. 4.7
    appropriation bill containing funds for programs administered by 
        Department of Energy, amendment to appropriateportion of funds 
        for wood utilization program authorized to be conducted by 
        Department of Agriculture offered to, Sec. 8.1
    appropriations for programs administered by Department of Energy, 
        amendment appropriating funds for program tobe administered by 
        Department of Agriculture offered to, Sec. 3.8
    atomic energy facilities, bill authorizing construction of, 
        amendment making projects contingent on enactment offair 
        housing measures, Sec. 31.5

[[Page 9270]]

    auto stickers denoting auto usage, substitute imposing conditions 
        on use in conservation plan of, amendmentaffecting different 
        line and page numbers as germane to, Sec. 11.8
    committee jurisdiction as test of germaneness, Sec. 2.4
    controls on allocation and pricing of natural gas and petroleum, 
        amendment repealing authority under all laws toimpose, offered 
        to bill authorizing loans and contracts to promote development 
        of synthetic fuels for defensepurposes, Sec. 9.39
    conversion from oil or gas to coal, bill to promote, amendment to 
        provide government aid to private industry forconstruction of 
        facilities for liquefaction of coal offered to, Sec. 6.13
    conversion from oil or gas to coal in industry, title referring to, 
        amendment to promote practical application of fusionenergy 
        offered to, Sec. 4.22
    criminal penalties imposed in amendment to energy conservation 
        bill, Sec. 3.11
    Department of Energy, bill providing limitations and directions on 
        operating expenses of, amendment relating touse of alternative 
        fuels by Department offered to, Sec. 11.7
    Department of Energy, bill to transfer governmental functions 
        affecting energy to, amendment to transferPresident's oil 
        import purchase authority to Department offered to, Sec. 11.6
    emergency fuel assistance, appropriation for, amendment to prohibit 
        use of windfall profits taxes except asspecified offered to, 
        Sec. 9.40
    employment, provision conferring authority to minimize adverse 
        effects of energy conservation measures upon, amendment 
        authorizing grants to states to assist unemployed offered to, 
        Sec. 10.10
    Environmental Protection Agency, amendment expressing sense of 
        Congress as to regulatory activities of, offered to bill 
        authorizing environmental research, Sec. 4.2
    exportation of energy resources, provisions conferring 
        discretionary authority to restrict, amendment to prohibit 
        exportation of petroleum products for particular uses offered 
        to, Sec. 4.20
    Federal Energy Administration, bill to extend, amendment to abolish 
        agency and transfer functions offered to, Sec. 4.12
    Federal Energy Administration, substitute affecting reorganization 
        of, offered to amendment changing date of termination of 
        agency, Sec. 2.17
    fusion energy, amendment relating to, offered to bill dealing with 
        conversion from oil or gas to coal, Sec. 2.4
    gas, provisions deregulating primarily interstate sales of, 
        substitute amendment addressing more aspects of regulation of 
        intrastate sales offered for, Sec. 5.16
    gasoline, provisions authorizing President to ration, amendment 
        providing for user charges as part of rationing plan offered 
        to, Sec. 4.16
    information on resources and technology, bill requiring Energy 
        Research and Development Administration to maintain and to make 
        available, amendment to prohibit disclosure of certain 
        information obtained by other agencies offered to, Sec. 9.41

[[Page 9271]]

    new title dealing with energy used in production of beverage 
        containers offered to conservation bill, Sec. 2.31
    outer continental shelf, bill relating to development of energy 
        resources of, ``buy-American'' amendment affecting equipment 
        used offered to, Sec. 4.18
    petroleum conservation and allocation, title of bill relating to, 
        amendment imposing quotas on importation of petroleum products 
        from certain countries offered to, Sec. 4.19
    petroleum products and coal, provisions for allocation of, 
        amendment waiving laws in order to encourage coal production 
        offered to, Sec. 4.15
    petroleum reserves, bill relating to, amendment in nature of 
        substitute requiring study of use of public lands offered to, 
        Sec. 2.12
    prices, amendment affecting ceiling on crude oil, substitute 
        amendment affecting ceiling prices on all petroleum products 
        offered to, Sec. 9.42
    rationing and monitoring of fuel supplies, provisions for, 
        amendment to set aside fuel for agriculture offered to, 
        Sec. 3.10
    rationing, bill relating to, amendment adding new section providing 
        for fuel set-asides for agriculture held germane to, Sec. 2.9
    rationing, proposition authorizing, amendment requiring charge to 
        gasoline users offered to, Sec. 3.9
    reorganization plan, substitute amendment proposing, offered to 
        amendment establishing termination date for Federal Energy 
        Administration, Sec. 3.7
    research and development program, bill authorizing, amendment 
        directing specific emphasis on unconventional energy sources 
        offered to, Sec. 10.9
    school busing, amendment prohibiting use of fuel for, offered to 
        energy conservation bill, Sec. 3.11
    special rule, amendment made in order by, amendments may be offered 
        to, Sec. 2.24
    studies relating to energy conservation, bill funding, amendment 
        authorizing specific inquiry offered to, Sec. 10.7
    study of energy conservation, proposition requiring, amendment 
        requiring study of effect of regulations on energy shortage 
        offered to, Sec. 3.12
    study, proposition directing agency to conduct, amendment requiring 
        agency to propose legislation offered to, 3.14
    substitute requiring auto stickers as part of conservation plan, 
        amendment to, as affecting different part of bill but same 
        subject matter, Sec. 2.20
    synthetic fuel development for defense purposes, provisions for 
        financial assistance for, amendment providing for expedited 
        approval of designated projects under the bill offered to, 
        Sec. 4.25
    synthetic fuel program, amendment establishing procedures for 
        designating priority projects within, substitute amendment 
        authorizing temporary waivers of laws inconsistent with 
        projects offered to, Sec. 4.23
    synthetic fuels, amendment adding to definitions of, to include 
        methane, Sec. 11.4
    synthetic fuels for defense purposes, provisions relating to 
        achieving goal for production of, amendment requiring that any 
        fuel sold in commerce contain specified percentage of synthetic 
        fuel offered to, Sec. 9.43

[[Page 9272]]

    tax incentives for conservation, bill providing, amendment 
        prohibiting purchase of fuel inefficient autos by federal 
        government offered to, Sec. 4.21
    work week of federal employees, amendment to reduce energy 
        consumption by reducing, offered to provisions regulating 
        production and allocation of energy resources, Sec. 4.13
Entire amendment ruled out if improper in part, Sec. 43.2
Environment (see also, e.g., Atomic energy; Energy; Interior and 
    insular affairs; Natural resources and conservation)
    air pollution from various sources, bill to regulate, amendment to 
        regulate bus emissions offered to, Sec. 11.10
    air pollution, Senate amendment striking House provision 
        prohibiting use of funds for indirect control of one source of, 
        amendment enlarging scope of original prohibition offered to, 
        Sec. 9.31
    Clean Air Act, provisions modifying standards imposed by, amendment 
        suspending authority of Administrator to control automobile 
        emissions offered to, Sec. 35.85
    Clean Air Act, provisions temporarily suspending requirements of, 
        amendment prohibiting federal assistance under Water Pollution 
        Control Act offered to, Sec. 4.5
    hazardous waste cleanup, bill containing diverse titles relating 
        to, amendment creating cause of action for victims of improper 
        hazardous waste disposal offered to, Sec. 4.10
    nuclear winter, provision authorizing funds for research on, 
        amendment designating by specified Senators' names any science 
        scholarships established under the bill offered to, Sec. 5.34
    study of relationship between environmental pollution and diseases, 
        bill creating task force to conduct, amendment to direct task 
        force to consider impact of personal health habits including 
        smoking offered to, Sec. 10.12
    suspension of one law, provision for, amendment to suspend all 
        other environmental requirements in certain instances offered 
        to, Sec. 9.44
Error or misstatement, amendment correcting
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. 7.9
    education, Sec. 46.4
Ethics in Government Act, title providing for financial disclosure and 
    regulation of ethical conduct contained in, amendment placing 
    limits on outside earned income offered to, Sec. 6.34
Exceptions or exemptions, amendments providing for
    agriculture bills, Sec. 29.2
    appropriation bills, Sec. Sec. 29.9, 34.30
    appropriations, allocation of, for pest control, Sec. 29.1
    armed services, Sec. 30.3
    District of Columbia, bills relating to, Sec. 29.10
    education benefits, denial of, Sec. 29.11
    foreign affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 29.5
    government organization, bills relating to, Sec. 29.7
    incidental condition or exception, Sec. 30.36
    interior and insular affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 32.14

[[Page 9273]]

    labor, Sec. 29.3
    limitation on authority, definition of term as providing exemption 
        from, Sec. 11.3
    natural resources and conservation, bills relating to, Sec. 32.14
    pest control, funds for, restriction on use of, Sec. 15.7
    post office, Sec. 29.6
    powers conferred in bill, discretionary, exception from limitation 
        on, Sec. Sec. 29.13, 29.14
    social security benefits, amendment affecting eligibility of 
        noncitizens for, Sec. 29.4
    unions, Sec. 41.1
Executive department, reorganization of, see Government organization
Existing law, amendment changing, offered to bill citing or making 
    minor revision in law
    agriculture bills, Sec. Sec. 11.28, 41.7
    appropriation bills, Sec. 41.10
    authorization bill temporarily restricting use of funds, Senate 
        amendment affecting policy over several years not germane to, 
        Sec. 41.18
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. 41.5
    civil rights, Sec. Sec. 41.11, 41.12
    Clayton Act, bill citing but not amending, amendment to make 
        provisions of Clayton Act applicable to subject of bill as not 
        germane to, Sec. 41.21
    crime, Sec. 41.13
    effective date of law, amendment changing, as affecting activities 
        not within scope of bill relating to one activity, Sec. 41.22
    foreign affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 41.9
    foreign-aid bills, Sec. 41.8
    government employment and civil service, bills relating to, 
        Sec. 41.6
    labor, Sec. Sec. 41.1-41.4
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. 41.9
    Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Commission on, bill increasing 
        expenditure limitation for, Sec. 41.14
    penalty, bill increasing, for deprivation of constitutional rights, 
        Sec. 41.12
    post office, Sec. 41.6
    toxic wastes, bill relating to agency's regulatory authority with 
        respect to certain, amendment addressing compensation for 
        damages caused by toxic wastes offered to, Sec. 41.23
    unions, Sec. Sec. 41.1-41.4
Existing law, amendment changing, offered to bill on different subject 
    (see also Existing law, amendment changing or affecting, offered to 
    bill not citing that law)
    Administrative Procedure Act, amendment modifying, Sec. 4.84
    agriculture bills, Sec. Sec. 30.13, 42.8, 42.10, 42.11
    appropriation bills, Sec. Sec. 14.1, 15.11, 42.57, 42.58
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 4.38, 22.1, 42.34, 42.36, 42.37
    authorization, temporary, amendment affecting permanent law offered 
        to, Sec. 42.26
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 3.21, 19.27, 
        42.3, 42.4, 42.6, 42.39, 42.40, 42.42
    civil rights, Sec. Sec. 42.47, 42.48
    Classification Act of 1949, amendment changing, Sec. 4.87

[[Page 9274]]

    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.31, 4.49, 4.84, 4.87, 42.3, 42.13, 
        42.14, 42.31, 42.35, 42.43, 42.45, 42.51
    Committee of the Whole, amendment affecting rules governing voting 
        procedures in, offered to resolution relating to committee 
        stage of legislative process, Sec. 35.90
    committees, jurisdiction of different, bill and amendment as 
        affecting matters within, Sec. Sec. 42.13, 42.14, 42.31, 42.35
    crime, Sec. 42.44
    Davis-Bacon Act, amendment modifying, Sec. 4.84
    District of Columbia, bills relating to, Sec. 42.49
    District of Columbia Council, amendment limiting authority of, 
        offered to bill conferring powers on new Community Development 
        and Finance Corporation, Sec. 35.97
    Education, organizational restrictions on new Department of, 
        amendment limiting funding authority not germane to, Sec. 42.56
    energy agency, bill prescribing functions of new, amendment 
        modifying existing law by establishing ceiling prices for 
        petroleum products offered to, Sec. Sec. 42.22, 42.23
    Export-Import Bank, amendment relating to management of, Sec. 3.21
    export of silver, amendment affecting, offered to bill relating to 
        coinage, Sec. 19.27
    flood control, Sec. 35.103
    foreign-aid bills, Sec. Sec. 35.31, 35.34, 42.51
    Foreign Assistance Act, bill amending, amendment modifying 
        Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act held germane 
        to, Sec. 35.31
    foreign countries, bill relating to military and economic 
        assistance for, amendment authorizing Librarian of Congress to 
        use foreign currencies for acquisitions, Sec. 35.37
    Gold Reserve Act, amendment modifying, offered to bill amending 
        Federal Reserve Act, Sec. 3.34
    government employment and civil service, bills relating to, 
        Sec. 42.45
    housing and urban renewal, bills relating to, Sec. 42.39
    Immigration Act of 1917, amendment modifying, offered to internal 
        security bill, Sec. 4.49
    immigration and naturalization bills, Sec. 42.53
    Justice, Department of, amendment to abolish, Sec. 42.43
    labor, Sec. Sec. 42.1, 42.2
    lobbyists, requirement of public disclosure by, amendment applying 
        sanctions to persons violating House rules against lobbying on 
        floor offered to, Sec. 42.46
    military assistance to foreign nations, bill authorizing, amendment 
        affecting economic assistance and contribution to United 
        Nations offered to, Sec. 42.52
    military procurement contracts, bill amending laws relating to, 
        amendment affecting contracts of other agencies offered to, 
        Sec. 42.35

[[Page 9275]]

    President's authority under War Powers Act, amendment to modify, 
        Sec. 42.41
    price control, Sec. 42.3
    public works, Sec. Sec. 31.16, 42.60
    rent control, amendment relating to, offered to Defense Production 
        Act, Sec. 19.23
    selective service, Sec. 42.36
    Tariff Act, amendment modifying, offered to bill amending Fair 
        Labor Standards Act, Sec. Sec. 42.1, 42.2
    veterans, Sec. 42.38
    wages of employees on federal-aid highway project, bill affecting, 
        Sec. 4.84
    waiving other law, amendment, not germane to amendment establishing 
        procedures for designating priority projects in synthetic fuels 
        program, Sec. 42.18
    agricultural commodities, bill establishing emergency price 
        supports for, amendment affecting additional commodity 
        ``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' Sec. 42.17
Existing law, amendment changing or affecting, offered to bill not 
    citing that law (see also Existing law, amendment changing, offered 
    to bill on different subject)
    agricultural commodities, bill establishing emergency price 
        supports for, amendment relating to agricultural exports 
        offered to, Sec. 42.16
    Agriculture, title affecting diverse authorities of Secretary of, 
        amendment to law not amended by title as germane to, Sec. 42.9
    aircraft flying over national parks, bill relating to, amendment 
        establishing standards for aircraft collision avoidance 
        generally offered to, Sec. 42.62
    budget, second concurrent resolution on, amendment expressing sense 
        of Congress as to Presidential authority under Impoundment 
        Control Act not germane to, Sec. 42.55
    Congress, bill increasing salaries of legislative employees and 
        Members of, amendment affecting audits of financial 
        transactions of House offered to, Sec. 42.45
    criminal penalty for sabotage of nuclear facilities, authorization 
        bill containing provision imposing, amendment to amend Federal 
        Criminal Code offered to, Sec. 42.33
    disclaimer as to effect on existing law, bill containing, amendment 
        further addressing relationship of bill to existing law as 
        germane to, Sec. 42.54
    Endangered Species Act, bill permitting exemptions from, amendment 
        conferring new authorities over projects offered to, Sec. 42.32
    Energy, authorization for Department of, amendment authorizing 
        funds for study of tax credits affecting energy use offered to, 
        Sec. 42.25
    Energy, authorization for Department of, amendment requiring 
        publication of information on petroleum supply notwithstanding 
        other law, Sec. 42.19
    environmental law, bill suspending requirements of, amendment to 
        prohibit federal assistance under another law offered to, 
        Sec. 42.29

[[Page 9276]]

    environmental research and development, bill authorizing, amendment 
        adding permanent regulatory authority to agency offered to, 
        Sec. 42.28
    Federal Reserve Act, bill relating to reserve requirements under, 
        amendment to another Act relating to purchase of small banks by 
        national banks, Sec. 35.50
    indirect effect on laws specifying time periods for review of 
        proposed defense projects, Sec. 35.87
    Internal Revenue Code, amendment inserting supertax provision in, 
        not germane to provisions affecting salary limitations under 
        Price Stabilization Act, Sec. 42.61
    Justice, bill creating new office within Department of, amendment 
        abolishing Department offered to, Sec. 42.43
    nuclear winter, authorization of funds for research on, amendment 
        affecting application of other laws offered to, Sec. 42.20
    permanent law, amendment affecting, not germane to Senate amendment 
        relating to annual appropriation for agency, Sec. 42.59
    permanent regulatory authority, amendment conferring, not germane 
        to bill authorizing environmental research for two years, 
        Sec. 42.28
    property in District of Columbia, transfer for charitable use of, 
        amendment requiring reversion of property if not used for 
        charitable purpose under Internal Revenue Code as germane to, 
        Sec. 42.50
    waiving other provisions of law or having effect ``notwithstanding 
        any other provision of law,'' amendment as, Sec. 42.14-42.19
Existing law, amendment extending, offered to bill amending
    housing and urban renewal, bills relating to, Sec. 40.1
Existing law, amendment repealing
    agriculture bills, Sec. Sec. 23.10, 35.1, 36.2
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 5.22, 19.19, 19.20
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.98, 42.43
    District of Columbia, bills relating to, Sec. 36.1
    Federal Energy Administration, bill establishing, amendment 
        repealing Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation 
        Act, Sec. 42.21
    government employment and civil service, bills relating to, 
        Sec. 41.6
    government reorganization, amendment to achieve, offered to bill 
        establishing new office within Department of Justice, 
        Sec. 42.43
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 35.101
    interior and insular affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 36.3
    interstate and foreign commerce, Sec. 35.16
    Justice, Department of, amendment to abolish, Sec. 42.43
    labor, Sec. 19.31
    post office, Sec. 41.6

[[Page 9277]]

    price control, Sec. 4.98
    taxation, Sec. 36.1
Existing law, amendments to bills amending, generally
    agricultural commodities, bill amending law establishingprice 
        support levels for, amendment extending coverage to another 
        commodity offered to, Sec. 35.3
    agricultural commodities, provisions requiring notice of suspension 
        of exports of, amendment requiring payments to farmers affected 
        not germane to, Sec. 35.15
    armed forces, bill affecting qualifications for entering, amendment 
        to allow noncitizens to volunteer offered to, Sec. 35.55
    committee jurisdiction as test where laws respectively amended by 
        bill and amendment thereto are within jurisdiction of different 
        committees, Sec. 4.58
    congressional disapproval procedure, amendment to establish, 
        offered to bill amending Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act to 
        authorize regulations including rationing procedures, 
        Sec. 35.86
    definition of federal property amended to include postal service 
        property for purposes of assessing federal ``impact'' in 
        educational assistance program, where bill has amended existing 
        law in two diverse respects, Sec. 35.92
    disclaimer as to effect on existing law, bill containing, amendment 
        further addressing relationship of bill to existing law as 
        germane to, Sec. 42.54
    employees of executive branch, bill granting rights to, amendment 
        affecting legislative branch employees offered to, Sec. 35.95
    Endangered Species Act, bill amending, amendment imposing duties 
        respecting protection of wildlife on parties not within 
        coverage of bill offered to, Sec. 35.104
    Endangered Species Act, bill amending, amendment providing that 
        specified project satisfies requirements of Act offered to, 
        Sec. 35.88
    energy research and development programs, bill amending permanent 
        laws relating to, amendment to define ``research and 
        development'' offered to, Sec. 35.83
    foreign assistance, bill amending laws relating to recipients of, 
        amendment requiring reports of human rights violations by both 
        recipient and nonrecipient nations offered to, Sec. 35.38
    House committee reports, resolution relating to content of, 
        amendment requiring statement attached to appropriation 
        provisions to indicate changes in law as germane to, Sec. 3.37
    labor unions, bill broadly amending laws governing, amendment 
        providing for injunctions against violation of no strike 
        agreements offered to, Sec. 35.20
    labor unions, provisions to require certification of certain 
        elections involving, amendment containing additional 
        circumstances in which such certification is required as 
        germane to, Sec. 35.24
    penalties, amendment relating to different class of, offered to 
        bill amending Export Administration Act to impose one type of 
        penalty, Sec. 35.45
    rationing under Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act, provisions 
        authorizing, amendment requiring user charge for allocations 
        offered to, Sec. 35.84

[[Page 9278]]

    restriction on use of funds loaned by United States, amendment 
        adding, offered to bill continuing authority to make 
        contributions to international financial organization, 
        Sec. 35.47
    Senate amendment imposing restrictions on funds for Legal Services 
        Corporation, amendment to make criminal and civil laws 
        applicable to corporation offered to, Sec. 34.37
    test of germaneness as relationship of amendment to bill rather 
        than law being amended, Sec. 35.95
    ``this or any other Act,'' amendment to prohibit funds for 
        specified purpose under, Sec. Sec. 35.62, 35.63
Existing law, bill amending, in limited respect
    agriculture bills, Sec. Sec. 35.2, 35.4, 35.5, 36.2, 39.12
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 35.56, 35.100
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 35.6, 35.28, 
        35.44, 35.46
    budget, amendment relating to total government receipts and 
        expenditures under, offered to bill extending authorization for 
        contributions to International Monetary Fund, Sec. 35.48
    civil rights, Sec. 41.12
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 35.46, 42.43
    Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act, Sec. 41.14
    definitions, amendments modifying, Sec. 35.19
    discrimination, bill amending law to clarify definition of entity 
        liable to penalties for, amendment to define term in bill 
        offered to, Sec. 35.67
    discrimination, bill amending law to clarify definition of entity 
        liable to penalties for, amendment to expand definition of 
        persons who are subjects of discrimination offered to, 
        Sec. 35.65
    discrimination, bill amending law to clarify definition of entity 
        liable to penalties for, amendment to extend coverage of law to 
        include Members of Congress, Sec. 35.66
    discrimination, bill amending law to clarify definition of entity 
        liable to penalties for, amendment to redefine sex 
        discrimination offered to, Sec. 35.64
    effective date of entire section of law, amendment postponing, 
        offered to bill narrowly amending one subsection of law, 
        Sec. 9.45
    Fair Labor Standards Act, Sec. 42.7
    foreign affairs, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 35.30, 39.24
    foreign languages and cultures, bill authorizing programs to 
        increase understanding of, amendment prohibiting assistance to 
        programs promoting religion of secular humanism offered to, 
        Sec. 35.68
    general provisions authorizing economic sanctions based on human 
        rights violations, amendment containing, offered to bill 
        affecting Rhodesian chrome imports, Sec. 35.40
    Gold Reserve Act, Sec. 35.44
    Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 3.26
    interstate and foreign commerce, bills relating to, 
        Sec. Sec. 19.32, 35.16, 35.77, 35.79, 39.22, 39.23
    Justice, Department of, amendment abolishing, Sec. 42.43
    labor, Sec. Sec. 35.19, 35.21, 42.7
    labor organization and elections, bill amending sections of 
        National Labor Relations Act relating to, amendment 
        substantively addressing unfair labor practices offered to, 
        Sec. Sec. 35.25, 35.26
    labor relations, bill relating to narrow aspect of, amendment 
        providing remedies for injury from illegal pickets not germane 
        to, Sec. 35.23

[[Page 9279]]

    Legislative Reorganization Act, Sec. 30.20
    post office, Sec. 35.94
    price control, Sec. 35.27
    Public Health Service Act, Sec. 8.40
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 35.2, 35.14
    railroads, amendments to laws affecting federal funding of, 
        amendment relating to freight rate practices not germane to, 
        Sec. 35.80
    repealing authority under any provision of law, amendment, offered 
        to bill amending one law with respect to that authority, 
        Sec. 9.39
    savings deposit insurance coverage, bill relating to, amendment 
        affecting maximum interest rates payable, Sec. 35.51
    Social Security Act, Sec. 35.42
    tariffs, bills relating to, Sec. 35.14
    temporary law, amendment continuing, offered to bill amending such 
        law, Sec. 40.1
    ``this or any other Act,'' amendment prohibiting assistance under, 
        for particular purpose, Sec. 9.23
    unions, Sec. 41.1
    veterans, Sec. 39.27
    waiver of inconsistent provisions of law, amendment providing for, 
        Sec. 35.41
Existing law, bill amending, in several respects
    agriculture bills, Sec. Sec. 35.1, 35.7-35.12, 39.17,41.7
    Airport and Airway Development, amendment to extend state airport 
        demonstration grants, offered to bill amending several 
        provisions of, Sec. 35.78
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 4.41, 19.22
    Bank Holding Company Act, bill amending, Sec. 35.49
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 11.14, 35.44, 
        35.49
    ``Buy-American'' provisions, amendment adding, to bill amending 
        Urban Mass Transportation Act, Sec. 35.82
    census and population, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 3.66, 35.96
    Clean Air Act, provisions modifying standards imposed by, amendment 
        suspending authority of administrator to control automobile 
        emissions offered to, Sec. 35.85
    comprehensiveness of bill as affecting germaneness of amendments 
        relat-ing to provisions of law not amended, Sec. Sec. 35.81, 
        35.95
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 19.26
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. 19.26, 31.3
    crime, Sec. Sec. 11.36, 12.10, 35.101, 41.13
    Defense Production Act, Sec. 39.10
    education, Sec. 35.57
    educational assistance, amendment affecting form of, covered in 
        another title of bill, Sec. 35.61
    educational opportunity, amendment providing remedies for denial of 
        equal, offered to bill amending several laws relating to 
        administration of federal educational programs, Sec. 3.15
    education, see Education
    education, higher, amendment barring student admission quotas in 
        elementary and secondary programs offered to bill amending laws 
        relating to, Sec. 35.58
    education, higher, amendment barring student admission quotas in 
        higher education programs offered to bill amending laws 
        relating to, Sec. 35.59

[[Page 9280]]

    Fair Labor Standards Act, Sec. 42.7
    firearms, regulation of transfers of, Sec. 35.99
    Flammable Fabrics Act, Sec. 11.16
    foreign affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 35.29
    foreign-aid bills, Sec. Sec. 32.32, 32.35, 32.36
    Foreign Assistance Act, Sec. 19.26
    Gold Reserve Act, Sec. 35.44
    highways, Sec. Sec. 35.75, 35.76
    housing and urban renewal, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 35.69, 
        35.70, 35.71, 35.73
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 35.101
    intelligence community, bill amending laws relating to, amendment 
        changing law relating to accountibility for intelligence 
        activities offered to, Sec. 35.102
    interstate and foreign commerce, bills relating to, 
        Sec. Sec. 35.13, 35.101
    labor, Sec. Sec. 35.19, 35.22, 42.7
    Mutual Security Act, Sec. 35.29
    National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities Act, Sec. 35.74
    Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, Sec. 41.13
    open to amendment at any point, test of germaneness of amendment 
        where bill is, Sec. 35.93
    penalties, imposition of, Sec. 35.10
    post office, Sec. 18.7
    Postal Reorganization Act, bill amending, amendment affecting 
        different subsection of Act offered to, Sec. 35.93
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 35.99
    Rail Reorganization Act, Regional, amendment affecting provisions 
        of Act not mentioned in bill amending several sections of, 
        Sec. 35.81
    single subject, bill amending several provisions relating to, 
        amendment concerning unrelated subject offered to, 35.91
    Social Security Act, Sec. 29.4
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 29.4
    tax credits, House bill amending Internal Revenue Code to provide, 
        Senate amendment authorizing payments to social security 
        recipients not germane to, Sec. 35.52
    tax credits, House bill amending Internal Revenue Code to provide, 
        Senate amendment limiting use of foreign tax credits as germane 
        to, Sec. 35.54
    tax credits, House bill amending Internal Revenue Code to provide, 
        Senate amendment providing unemployment compensation benefits 
        not germane to, Sec. 35.53
Existing law, bill amending miscellaneous portions of, amendment on 
    general subject offered to, Sec. 2.2
Existing law, bill extending
    agency, amendment substituting differ ent, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. 7.8
    agriculture bills, Sec. Sec. 19.28, 29.2, 35.7, 39.12-39.18
    appropriation bills, Sec. 15.48
    armed services pay, amendment to in crease, offered to proposals 
        affecting selective service, Sec. 13.14
    authorization, amendments to bill extending, distinguished from 
        amendments to bill extending existence of agency created by 
        organic law, Sec. 39.33
    authorization for Nuclear Regulatory Commission for one year, 
        amendment making permanent changes in organization of agency 
        not germane to, Sec. 39.35

[[Page 9281]]

    authorization for one year, amendment extending authorization for 
        longer period not germane to, Sec. 39.34
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. 11.14
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 39.5, 39.9, 39.10, 39.26
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. 31.35
    Defense Production Act, Sec. 39.10
    Economic Opportunity Act, Sec. 39.11
    education, Sec. 39.19
    emergency powers, Sec. 39.9
    Energy Administration, Federal, amendment abolishing agency and 
        amendment thereto changing date of termination offered during 
        consideration of bill extending, Sec. 39.32
    Energy Administration, Federal, amendment providing reorganization 
        plan for agency offered as substitute for amendment 
        establishing termination date for, Sec. 39.29
    Energy Administration, Federal, amendment to abolish agency and 
        transfer functions offered to bill extending, 39.28
    Energy Administration, Federal, amendment to restrict discretionary 
        authority conferred by law offered to bill extending, 
        Sec. 39.30
    Energy Administration, Federal, amendment to restrict use of funds 
        offered to bill extending, Sec. 39.31
    Energy Research and Development Administration, bill providing 
        annual appropriation for, amendment affecting basic law by 
        extending existence of another agency offered to, Sec. 39.33
    expired provisions, amendment reenacting, Sec. 39.11
    Federal Energy Administration, amendment in nature of substitute 
        abolishing, amendment changing date of termination offered to, 
        Sec. 2.32
    Federal Energy Administration, bill extending existence of, 
        amendment modifying Federal Energy Administration Act offered 
        to, Sec. 2.25, 2.26
    housing and urban renewal, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 35.70, 
        35.71
    imports of food products, controls on, Sec. 11.30
    interstate and foreign commerce, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 24.4, 
        39.20, 39.22, 39.23
    labor, Sec. Sec. 24.4, 35.22
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. Sec. 33.1-
        33.3, 33.20, 33.21, 39.3
    Mexican farm labor programs, Sec. 39.14 modifying provisions of law 
        being extended, amendment, Sec. 2.25, 2.26
    National Stolen Property Act, Sec. 13.18
    ``other act or acts,'' amendment relating to, Sec. 39.5
    ``other law,'' amendment referring to, Sec. 39.6
    price control, Sec. Sec. 29.8, 33.20, 33.21, 35.17, 35.18, 39.1-
        39.7
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 39.1, 39.21
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. 39.19
    retroactive effect, amendment having, Sec. 39.20
    revenue-sharing program, authorization for one year for, amendment 
        extending program for three years offered to, Sec. 39.34
    selective service, Sec. 13.14
    sugar, provisions affecting price of, Sec. 39.8
    tariffs, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 33.2, 33.3, 39.20, 39.21
    unions, Sec. 24.4
    veterans, Sec. Sec. 39.26, 39.27
    war powers bill, Sec. 11.30

[[Page 9282]]

Existing law, bill incorporating provisions of
    other provisions of same law made applicable to terms of emergency 
        assistance to India by amendment to bill, Sec. 38.1
    Labor law, substitute eliminating applicability of wage provisions 
        of, offered for amendment modifying applicability in limited 
        respect, Sec. 38.2
Existing law, bill repealing
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 37.7-37.9
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. 37.11
    District of Columbia, bills relating to, Sec. 37.13
    foreign affairs, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 37.3-37.5
    immigration and naturalization bills, Sec. 37.6
    judiciary, bills relating to, Sec. 37.10
    unions, Sec. Sec. 37.1, 37.2, 41.3
Existing law, bill striking and inserting language in, amendment to 
    retain stricken section and add language offered to, Sec. 35.4
Existing law, references to unrelated section of, in bill and amendment
    class of subjects covered in bill, amendment addressing different 
        law as germane because related to, Sec. 11.27
    foreign aid bills, Sec. 38.1
Expiration date, amendment establishing, Sec. 35.1
Expiration date of bill's provisions made ineffective with respect to 
    specified section, Sec. 24.8
Federal employment, see Government employment and civil service
Firearms, see Criminal justice
Flag, bill imposing penalties for desecration of
    exportation of flag, amendment placing restrictions on, Sec. 4.56
Flood control
    condition attached to allocation of funds, Sec. 18.15
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. 35.103
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 18.15
    highways, bill authorizing construction of, amendment authorizing 
        highway project with ancillary purpose of facilitating 
        completion of flood control project offered to, Sec. 5.12
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 35.103
    temporary legislation, amendment to, making certain provisions 
        thereof permanent, Sec. 24.8
Flood-stricken areas, appropriations for rehabilitation of
    indemnities for flood damage, amendment providing for, Sec. 19.30
Foreign affairs (see also Foreign aid; Foreign policy)
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. Sec. 7.1, 7.2
    aid to parts of United States, amendment providing for, offered to 
        foreign aid bill, Sec. 3.53
    Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, bill authorizing 
        appropriations for, Sec. 31.32
    Asian Development Banks and African Development Fund, bill 
        authorizing funds for, amendment to promote support of energy 
        policy by institutions in bill offered to, Sec. 19.7
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.33, 4.47, 4.48, 35.30, 37.3
    committee to study operations under Mutual Security Act, amendment 
        to establish, Sec. 4.48
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 30.8

[[Page 9283]]

    conferees, motion to instruct, amendment to, Sec. Sec. 28.1, 28.2
    ``confiscated property,'' definition of, in National Stolen 
        Property Act, Sec. 13.18
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. Sec. 31.29, 31.32
    debt of foreign government, credit upon, as form of settlement of 
        claims, Sec. Sec. 6.39, 6.40
    diverse aspects of foreign policy, foreign aid and trade, bill 
        addressing, amendments affecting sanctions against Rhodesia 
        offered to, Sec. 19.24
    evacuation of Vietnamese, bill providing for, amendment prohibiting 
        evacuation to states offered to, Sec. 3.49
    evacuation of Vietnamese war victims, provisions for assistance 
        regarding, amendment prohibiting assistance to relocate 
        evacuees in high unemployment areas in United States offered 
        to, Sec. 30.27
    exceptions, amendment providing for, Sec. 29.5
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill citing, Sec. 41.9
    existing law, bill amending, in limited respect, Sec. Sec. 35.30, 
        39.24
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. 35.29
    existing law, bill repealing, Sec. Sec. 37.3-37.5
    exportation of arms, amendment prohibiting, offered to section of 
        Neutrality Act, Sec. 18.4
    exportation of materials to belligerent states, amendment relating 
        to, offered to Neutrality Act, Sec. 18.5
    export of agricultural commodities, section of bill requiring 
        notice to Congress of curtailment of, amendment requiring 
        payments to farmers when exports are suspended offered to, 
        Sec. 3.55
    humanitarian assistance for war victims, bill providing for, 
        amendment requiring negotiations with war perpetrators offered 
        to, Sec. 3.51
    humanitarian assistance for war victims, substitute providing for, 
        amendments declaring views as to parties responsible for 
        creating conditions necessitating such assistance offered to, 
        Sec. 3.50
    International Monetary Fund, provisions relating to, see Banking 
        and finance
    Israel, bill authorizing military assistance for, amendment 
        expressing sense of Congress with respect to middle east peace 
        negotiations, Sec. 3.82
    Korea, amendment imposing permanent restrictions on withdrawals of 
        troops from, offered to bill authorizing appropriations for 
        armed forces, Sec. 4.36
    military assistance, bill authorizing, amendment permitting funds 
        for use in influencing political activities in other nations 
        offered to, Sec. 3.48
    Mutual Security Act, bill amending, Sec. Sec. 11.32, 35.37
    Mutual Security Act, bill authorizing appropriations for assistance 
        under, Sec. 4.47
    Neutrality Act, amendment offered to, prohibiting exportation of 
        arms to belligerent nations, Sec. 18.4
    Neutrality Act, amendments striking portions of, offered to 
        section, Sec. 18.5
    Neutrality Act, provisions of, repealed, Sec. 4.33
    opium trade, amendment adding negotiations with Turkey relating to, 
        offered to bill to strengthen relations with Turkey and Greece 
        in diverse ways, Sec. 10.21

[[Page 9284]]

    programs authorized by Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, amendment 
        proposing alternatives to, Sec. 6.38
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 35.30, 35.37
    radio broadcasting to Cuba, bill authorizing funds for, amendment 
        to include broadcasting to all dictatorships in Caribbean 
        offered to, Sec. 9.46
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. 11.32
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 6.38, 6.39, 7.1
    Rhodesia, amendment to remove sanctions against, offered to bill 
        addressing diverse aspects of foreign policy, foreign aid, and 
        trade, Sec. 19.24
    sanctions against one country, bill to enforce, amendment providing 
        for sanctions against other countries offered to, Sec. 9.47
    Senate amendment to provide guidelines for acceptance of foreign 
        gifts as germane to House bill concerning foreign relations and 
        operation of State Department, Sec. 26.28
    Soviet Union, resolution expressing sense of Congress as to 
        domestic situation in, motion to recommit with instructions 
        regarding diplomatic initiatives by United States, Sec. 23.2
    Spain, prohibition on shipment of arms to, Sec. 20.4
    strike, amendment to, language of bill or amendment, Sec. 20.4
    tariffs, see Tariffs
    United Nations Bonds, Sec. 3.58
    United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, 
        participation in, Sec. Sec. 7.1, 30.8
    United States, amendment providing for aid within, offered to 
        foreign aid bill, Sec. 3.53
    zoning regulations in District of Columbia, amendment requiring 
        foreign chanceries to observe, Sec. 3.54
Foreign aid (see also Foreign affairs; Foreign policy)
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. Sec. 7.1-7.4, 19.25
    business enterprise, amendment establishing center to promote 
        assistance to foreign and domestic, offered to bill authorizing 
        foreign developmental and economic assistance, Sec. 3.46
    categories of assistance, bill providing for two or more, amendment 
        providing for additional category offered to, 11.31
    commission, creation of, to control funds proposed in bill and in 
        other legislation, Sec. 19.25
    committee expenditures for foreign travel, amendment relating to, 
        Sec. 35.34
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.47, 4.51, 42.51
    commodities, surplus, amendment relating to rates of exchange 
        applicable to sale of, Sec. 35.31
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. Sec. 3.57, 19.26, 30.26, 38.1
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. Sec. 19.26, 30.7, 31.3, 
        31.29, 31.30, 31.37
    countries, amendment adding prohibition on indirect aid to that on 
        direct aid to, substitute naming additional country subject to 
        prohibition on direct aid offered for, Sec. 21.2
    countries ineligible for indirect assistance, provision specifying, 
        amendment adding other countries offered to, Sec. 12.9

[[Page 9285]]

    domestic relief, amendment concerning, Sec. 8.22
    domestic use of products, amendment to prevent curtailment of, 
        Sec. 3.57
    effective date, amendment postponing, pending President's report, 
        Sec. 3.52
    existing law, aid provided on terms stated in designated section 
        of, Sec. 38.1
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill citing, Sec. 41.8
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. Sec. 35.34, 42.51
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. Sec. 19.26, 
        35.32, 35.35, 35.36
    existing law, bill incorporating provisions of, by reference, 
        Sec. 38.1
    Foreign Assistance Act, bill amending, amendment modifying 
        Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act held germane 
        to, Sec. 35.31
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 38.1
    import restrictions, amendment containing, offered to bill 
        providing foreign assistance authorizations that had been 
        amended to contain other import restrictions, Sec. 4.54
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 8.22
    individuals, amendment requiring that aid be furnished directly to, 
        Sec. 7.3
    miscellaneous provisions, title containing, amendment offered to, 
        Sec. 2.5
    Mutual Security Act of 1954, bill amending, Sec. 35.37
    percentage limitation on funds authorized in each title, Sec. 2.5
    postage on packages sent abroad, amendment allocating funds for 
        payment of, Sec. 4.51
    programs authorized by Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, amendment 
        proposing alternatives to, Sec. 6.38
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 7.3, 35.37
    Reconstruction Finance Corporation, bill authorizing foreign 
        assistance through, Sec. 7.2
    restriction on funds to particular nation, amendment extending 
        restriction to other nations offered to, Sec. 9.48
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. 11.32, 34.4
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 6.38, 7.17.4, 30.26
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 31.37
    travel, foreign, amendment relating to committee expenditures for, 
        Sec. 35.34
    United States, amendment concerning relief in, Sec. 8.22
Foreign policy, amendment affecting, offered to bill on another subject 
    (see also Foreign affairs; Foreign aid)
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 4.32, 23.3, 30.6
    Coast Guard, bill authorizing various activities of, amendment 
        urging consultation between Secretary of State and Coast Guard 
        regarding other nations' cooperation in defending mutual 
        interests in Persian Gulf offered to, Sec. 4.46
    naval authorization bill, offered to, Sec. Sec. 3.42, 18.3
Funds, restrictions on use or availability of, see Restrictions on use 
    or availability of funds
Gambling devices, amendment relating to transportation of, offered to

[[Page 9286]]

    bill prohibiting off-shore gambling establishments, Sec. 5.33
Gambling devices, bill prohibiting transportation of
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 9.8
General amendments to specific or limited propositions
    abortions, prohibition on use of specified funds for, amendment 
        striking specific language in order to make prohibition 
        applicable to all funds in bill offered to, Sec. 9.15
    Africa, bill authorizing assistance for, amendment restricting use 
        of funds in ``this or any other Act'' to support African 
        National Congress offered to, Sec. 9.18
    agency, provision applicable to one, amendment affecting all 
        agencies within department offered to, Sec. 9.24
    agricultural feed crops, amendment affecting producers' use of, 
        offered to bill increasing quantity of wheat permitted to be 
        sold for feed by Commodity Credit Corporation, Sec. 9.29
    agricultural producers, amendment to authorize loans to, offered to 
        bill authorizing loans only to ``livestock'' producers, 
        Sec. 9.27
    agricultural products, amendment relating to taxes on, offered to 
        provision relating to taxes on specified livestock products, 
        Sec. 9.28
    aircraft flight restrictions, bill providing for, amendment 
        generally modifying Federal Aviation Act offered to, Sec. 9.61
    appropriation for one fiscal year, amendment permanently changing 
        authorizing law offered to provision affecting, Sec. 9.30
    appropriations, joint resolution making specified supplemental, 
        amendment stating conditions not limited to funds in bill 
        offered to, Sec. 9.19
    appropriations, Senate amendment to strike specific limitation on, 
        amendment broadening scope of original limitation offered to, 
        Sec. 9.31
    automobile parts, bill requiring study of impact of manufacturers' 
        practices on production of, amendment directing Attorney 
        General to study antitrust and tax implications of 
        manufacturers' sales-lease price differentials offered to, 
        Sec. 9.4
    budget, provision changing one functional category in, amendment 
        changing several categories of budget authority offered to, 
        Sec. 9.37
    budget resolution, amendment rewriting, offered to perfecting 
        amendment making limited changes for one fiscal year, Sec. 9.38
    civil rights act, provision for legal counsel for persons charged 
        under, amendment providing counsel for persons charged with any 
        offense offered to, Sec. 9.10
    civil rights remedies for discrimination in public facilities, bill 
        providing, amendment to establish Community Relations Services 
        to settle diverse civil rights disputes offered to, Sec. 9.11
    compensation to owners for requisitioned materials, bill providing 
        for, amendment providing that compensation to defaulting debtor 
        governments be in form of credit on indebtedness offered to, 
        Sec. 9.59
    condition affecting availability of all agency funds, amendment 
        imposing, offered to amendment rescinding agency's funds for 
        one purpose, Sec. 9.33
    contingency, unrelated, amendment to general appropriation bill 
        delaying availability of funds pending, Sec. 9.32

[[Page 9287]]

    continuing appropriations for certain agencies, amendment to 
        restrict all expenditures offered to, Sec. 9.22
    Defense Department authorization bill, amendment decreasing 
        particular funds in, substitute amendment prohibiting use of 
        any Defense Department funds for binary chemical weapons 
        offered to, Sec. 9.14
    deportation of named individual, bill authorizing, amendment 
        authorizing deportation of class of aliens offered to, Sec. 9.6
    economic development through assistance to communities, bill to 
        promote, amendment to require study of impact of all laws on 
        employment opportunities offered to, Sec. 9.35
    emergency fuel assistance, appropriation for, amendment to prohibit 
        use of windfall profits taxes except as specified offered to, 
        Sec. 9.40
    Energy Research and Development Administration, bill relating to 
        technological information to be made available by, amendment to 
        prohibit disclosure of certain information by other agencies 
        offered to, Sec. 9.41
    environmental law, provision for suspension of one, amendment to 
        suspend all other environmental requirements in certain 
        instances offered to, Sec. 9.44
    federal employees, provisions addressing official conduct of, 
        amendment addressing all conduct offered to, Sec. 9.49
    federal employees' retirement benefits, bill relating to, amendment 
        affecting state and local retirement benefits offered to, 
        Sec. 9.52
    foreign aid to particular nation, provision restricting, amendment 
        extending restriction to other countries offered to, Sec. 9.48
    funds in other Acts, amendment affecting use of, Sec. Sec. 9.16-
        9.18, 9.21
    gambling devices, bill prohibiting interstate shipment of, 
        amendment expanding prohibition to include racing horses and 
        dogs offered to, Sec. 9.8
    government employees engaged in political activities, bill 
        governing rights and obligations of, amendment prohibiting 
        compensation from any employment public or private offered to, 
        Sec. 9.50
    government employees, provision to waive certain laws governing 
        removal of, amendment proposing discharge of noncitizens from 
        government offered to, Sec. 9.51
    International Monetary Fund, bill relating to United States 
        participation in, amendment prohibiting alienation of gold to 
        IMF trust fund or to any other international organization 
        offered to, Sec. 9.34
    International Monetary Fund financing facility, bill concerning 
        United States participation in, amendment imposing directives 
        on governor of IMF affecting all IMF transactions offered to, 
        Sec. 9.36
    labor compensated on piece-rate basis, amendment providing for 
        minimum standard of compensation for, substitute amendment 
        striking portions of bill not affected by pending amendment 
        offered to, Sec. 9.17
    labor dispute, bill extending time limit for settlement of 
        specified, amendment to provide permanent procedures for 
        settlement of all emergency labor disputes offered to, Sec. 9.3
    Library of Congress, provision improving research facilities of, 
        amendment to create Office of Technology Assessment offered to, 
        Sec. 9.53

[[Page 9288]]

    mail, bill extending subsidy of certain nonprofit, amendment to 
        establish new class of mail and postal rate offered to, 
        Sec. 9.54
    maritime academy, provision funding training vessel for, amendment 
        affecting all maritime academies' use of training vessels 
        offered to, Sec. 9.58
    medical information, bill authorizing study of child health 
        assurance program and providing for collection of, amendment 
        broadly restricting access of government employees to medical 
        information offered to, Sec. 9.26
    medicare and medicaid patients' records, bill addressing disclosure 
        of, amendment relating to disclosure of other records by 
        government employees, Sec. 9.25
    military personnel, amendment relating generally to discharge of, 
        offered to bill to stimulate voluntary enlistments in Regular 
        Military and Naval Establishments, Sec. 9.56
    military personnel, bill authorizing President to reactivate 
        reserve or retired, amendment restricting authority under bill 
        or any other law offered to, Sec. 9.55
    military personnel, bill authorizing reactivation of reserve and 
        retired, amendment authorizing prohibition on sale of liquor to 
        all armed forces offered to, Sec. 9.57
    monument, bill to abolish particular, amendment relating to 
        monuments generally offered to, Sec. 9.7
    newpapers, bill exempting from antitrust laws certain instances of 
        joint operation of newspapers, amendment to prevent publication 
        of more than one newspaper using subsidized class of mail 
        offered to, Sec. 9.62
    outer continental shelf lease sale, provision affecting use of 
        funds in bill for, amendment prohibiting use of funds in bill 
        or in any other act for same and other lease sales offered to, 
        Sec. 9.21
    permanently extending law, amendment, offered to one year 
        authorization, Sec. 9.2
    prices, amendment affecting ceiling on crude oil, substitute 
        amendment affecting ceiling prices on all petroleum products 
        offered to, Sec. 9.42
    programs not in bill, amendment restricting, Sec. 9.34
    radio broadcasting to Cuba, bill authorizing funds for, amendment 
        to include broadcasting to all dictatorships in Caribbean 
        offered to, Sec. 9.46
    repealing authority under any provision of law, amendment, offered 
        to bill amending one law with respect to that authority, 
        Sec. 9.39
    sanctions against one country, bill to enforce, amendment providing 
        for sanctions against other countries offered to, Sec. 9.47
    school construction, bill providing aid to federal impact areas 
        for, amendment providing aid for school construction generally 
        offered to, Sec. 9.9
    school desegregation orders, bill to provide penalties for 
        obstructing, amendment making penalties bill applicable to all 
        court orders offered to, Sec. 9.12
    striking out language, amendment having effect of enlarging scope 
        of bill by, Sec. Sec. 8.5, 9.12, 9.13, 9.15, 9.17, 15.44, 20.1-
        20.5, 21.5, 21.6
    striking out larger portion of text than amendment to which 
        offered, substitute amendment as, Sec. 9.5

[[Page 9289]]

    teachers in Peace Corps, provision permitting partial cancellation 
        of education loans for, amendment permitting alternative 
        repayment plan based on income offered to, Sec. 9.60
    voting rights, bill to investigate deprivation of, amendment 
        striking out language limiting coverage of bill to deprivation 
        due to color, race, religion or national origin offered to, 
        Sec. 9.13
General parliamentary law, germaneness requirement under, Sec. 1.1
Government employment and civil service (see also Post Office)
    citizenship, amendment to require, as condition of employment, 
        Sec. 9.51
    Civil Service Commission, bill concerning investigations by, 
        Sec. 19.33
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 30.20
    conduct in official capacity of employees, provisions addressing, 
        amendment relating to all conduct offered to, Sec. 9.49
    ethical conduct and financial disclosure requirements applicable to 
        executive branch employees, provisions relating to, amendment 
        providing for special prosecutor to investigate violations by 
        such employees and others, Sec. 14.5
    executive branch employees, bill granting rights to, amendment 
        extending coverage of bill to legislative employees offered to, 
        Sec. 8.3
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill citing, Sec. 41.6
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. 42.45
    existing law, amendment repealing, Sec. 41.6
    former executive branch employees, bill and amendment as addressed 
        to different subsections of existing law prohibiting 
        appearances before agencies by, Sec. 8.7
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 9.52
    grain inspectors, bill authorizing Secretary of Agriculture to 
        employ, amendment permitting employees to credit prior private 
        service for civil service retirement purposes offered to, 
        Sec. 4.77
    legislative employees, post office bill broadened by amendment to 
        include, Sec. 19.14
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, see Limitations 
        imposed by amendments as to powers
    pay practices within civil service, bill mandating study of, 
        amendment to include impact on wages in other jobs offered to, 
        Sec. 13.1
    persons, propositions affecting same or different classes of, 
        Sec. Sec. 13.6, 41.6
    political activities, bill governing rights and obligations under 
        federal employment system of employees engaging in, amendment 
        prohibiting compensation from any employment public or private 
        offered to, Sec. 9.50
    political activities of civilian employees, bill governing, 
        amendment extending coverage of bill to military personnel 
        offered to, Sec. 8.5
    political activities of civilian employees, bill relating to, 
        amendment to strike provision excluding military persons from 
        coverage offered to, Sec. 13.5
    political activities of employees paid from clerk-hire allowances, 
        amendment to restrict, offered to salary bill, Sec. 19.14

[[Page 9290]]

    postal and District of Columbia employees, amendment to extend 
        coverage of civil service reform bill to, Sec. 8.4
    post office employees, amendment affecting selection of, Sec. 10.16
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 9.51
    reform of civil service, bill concerning, amendment to extend 
        coverage to postal and District of Columbia employees offered 
        to, Sec. 13.3
    removal of employees, waiver of law governing, upon approval by 
        Secretary of War, Sec. 9.51
    retirees from foreign service, bill containing cost-of-living 
        adjustment for, amendment adjusting civil service annuities 
        offered to, Sec. 8.6
    retirees from foreign service, provision for cost-of-living 
        adjustment for, amendment containing adjustment of civil 
        service annuities offered to, Sec. 13.2
    retirement benefits, bill exempting, from taxation, Sec. 9.52
    salaries of Members of Congress, amendment proposing adjustment of, 
        to reflect fluctuation in national debts, Sec. 30.20
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 10.16
    state and local retirement benefits, amendment affecting, Sec. 9.52
    strike, amendment to, language of bill or amendment, Sec. 20.7
Government organization (see also Congress, operation of)
    agency, amendment to establish, for consolidation of functions 
        relating to foreign aid, Sec. 10.15
    agency, bill creating new, amendment changing substantive laws 
        newly within agency's jurisdiction offered to, Sec. 4.86
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.86, 42.41
    Consumer Protection Agency, provisions allowing limited transfer of 
        functions from other agencies to, amendment authorizing 
        Director of Office of Management and Budget to transfer 
        designated types of functions to Agency offered to, Sec. 12.6
    exceptions, amendment providing for, Sec. 29.7
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. 3.21
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 3.21
    individual propositions offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 3.21
    loan agencies, bill to remove, from Department of Commerce, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.21, 42.41
    Office of Technology Assessment, amendment creating, offered to 
        proposition to improve research facilities of Library of 
        Congress, Sec. 9.53
    post office employees, amendment affecting selection of, Sec. 10.16
    President's term of office, amendment relating to, offered to bill 
        to reorganize executive agencies, Sec. 3.19
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 3.21, 10.15
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 9.53
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 10.16
Government property, surplus, disposition of
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 10.17

[[Page 9291]]

Grants for public works, amendment to authorize, offered to bill 
    authorizing ``loans or advances,'' Sec. 6.3
Guns, see Criminal justice
Hawaii, amendment relating to boundaries of, offered to bill for 
    admission, Sec. 3.59
Health
    abortions, prohibition on use of specified funds for, amendment 
        striking specific language in order to make prohibition 
        applicable to all funds in bill offered to, Sec. 9.15
    child health assurance program, bill authorizing collection of 
        medical information for study of, amendment broadly restricting 
        access of government employees to medical information offered 
        to, Sec. 9.26
    cigarettes, bill requiring reports on use of, amendment requiring 
        report on tobacco subsidies offered to, Sec. 11.29
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 30.12
    Drug Abuse Prevention Act, bill amending, Sec. 41.14
    hospital facilities, amendment to provide grants to private and 
        public agencies for, offered to bill relating to acquisition of 
        building by government, Sec. 3.81
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 8.40
    medical schools, grants to, for scholarships, Sec. 30.12
    mentally ill, bill to protect, amendment prohibiting use of 
        revenuesharing funds in jurisdictions permitting homosexual 
        bathhouses offered to, Sec. 4.104
    mentally ill persons, amendment extending bill's protections to 
        another class of, held germane where bill referred to class, 
        Sec. 2.7
    National Institute of Health, provision authorizing funds for and 
        granting authority to, amendment restricting fetal research 
        within other agencies of Department of Health and Human 
        Services offered to, Sec. 9.24
    records of Medicare and Medicaid patients, bill addressing 
        disclosure of, amendment relating to disclosure of other 
        records by government employees offered to, Sec. 9.25
    research workers, amendment providing for training of, offered to 
        bill relating to construction of research facilities, Sec. 8.40
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 30.12
    states, amendment authorizing assistance in controlling health 
        hazard by giving grants to, offered to bill authorizing grants 
        to certain private health care facilities, Sec. 8.41
    water, drinking, amendment permitting judicial remedy to prevent 
        discharge of contaminants into streams offered to bill 
        authorizing promulgation of national standards for, Sec. 6.24
    water, drinking, amendment requiring international agreements 
        relating to contaminants in water offered to bill authorizing 
        promulgation of national standards for, Sec. 6.25
Highways (see also Public works)
    administrative hearings on wage determinations, amendment providing 
        for, offered to bill affecting wages on federal aid projects, 
        Sec. 4.84
    bonds, amendment creating corporation with authority to issue, 
        offered to bill amending Federal Aid Road Act, Sec. 35.75
    bonds, amendment to create corporation with authority to issue, 
        Sec. 35.75

[[Page 9292]]

    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.84, 4.87
    contracts, award of, amendment stating congressional intent with 
        respect to, Sec. 30.22
    corporation, amendment creating, with authority to issue bonds, 
        Sec. 35.75
    employee positions in Bureau of Public Roads, amendment creating, 
        Sec. 4.87
    employees on federal aid construction projects, Sec. 4.84
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. Sec. 35.75, 
        35.76
    flood control project, amendment authorizing completion of highway 
        project with ancillary purpose of facilitating completion of, 
        offered to omnibus surface transportation authorization bill, 
        Sec. 5.12
    limitations imposed by amendments, Sec. 34.16
    military operations in Vietnam, amendment praising, offered to 
        omnibus federal-aid highway bill, Sec. 3.31
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 35.75
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. Sec. 34.16, 35.76
    segregation in restaurants, amendment regarding, Sec. 34.16
    urban mass transportation, amendment permitting diversion of 
        highway program funds for, Sec. 3.32
Holman rule, requirement of, that amendment be germane, Sec. Sec. 9.12, 
    15.13, 15.14, 42.57
House, germaneness rule applied in, as well as in Committee of the 
    Whole
    agriculture bills, Sec. 35.5
    appropriation bills, Sec. Sec. 27.34, 27.35
    appropriations, resolutions continuing, Sec. 15.17
    armed services, Sec. 39.25
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. 35.28
    committee travel, funds for, Sec. 34.5
    conferees, motion to instruct, amendment to, Sec. 28.2
    consent calendar bills, see Consent calendar bills
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. 31.44
    District of Columbia, bills relating to, Sec. 29.10
    District of Columbia, resolution authorizing investigation of milk 
        supply in, Sec. 11.26
    Flood Control Act, bill amending, Sec. 35.103
    foreign affairs, Sec. 11.33
    gambling establishments, off-shore, bill to prohibit, Sec. 5.33
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 13.4
    motion to instruct conferees, amendment to, Sec. 28.2
    Panama Canal, employees on, Sec. 32.15
    post office, Sec. 12.4
    public works, Sec. 34.18
    recommit, instructions in motion to, Sec. Sec. 8.29, 23.10
    Senate amendments, Sec. Sec. 13.7, 27.8, 27.16, 27.23, 27.30, 
        27.38, 27.40, 27.41
House procedures, see Rules of the House, proposals to amend; Congress, 
    operation of
Housing and urban renewal
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.63, 4.64, 5.25, 31.11

[[Page 9293]]

    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 30.10
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. Sec. 4.63, 31.11
    discrimination, racial, amendment conditioning aid on absence of, 
        Sec. 30.10
    District of Columbia, amendment providing for program of urban 
        insurance force, Sec. 4.64
    eligibility for admission to low rent housing project, 
        determination of, Sec. 21.10
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. 42.39
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. Sec. 35.69-
        35.73
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. Sec. 35.70, 35.71
    grant and credit programs for housing and community development, 
        bill providing for, amendment expressing sense of Congress as 
        to tax policies affecting housing offered to, Sec. Sec. 4.59, 
        4.60
    income, maximum, for occupants of public housing units, Sec. 21.10
    insurance program for District of Columbia, amendment to establish, 
        Sec. 4.64
    limitations imposed by amendments, Sec. Sec. 21.10, 30.10
    loans to individuals, amendment authorizing, offered to bill 
        providing assistance for states, Sec. 6.5
    materials, construction, amendment relating to maximum prices for, 
        Sec. 5.26
    mortgage foreclosure, procedures relating to, under National 
        Housing Act, Sec. 3.36
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 5.25, 5.26
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. Sec. 30.10, 34.34
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 5.26, 6.5rural housing loan and grant programs, bill 
        amending law to reauthorize, amendment authorizing pooling 
        ofguaranteed rural housing loans under another law offered to, 
        Sec. 4.58
    surplus war housing, disposal of, Sec. 42.39
    temporary law, amendment continuing, offered to bill amending such 
        law, Sec. 40.1
    veterans' housing, see Veterans
Immigration and naturalization
    Chinese Exclusion Act, bill to repeal, $376
    deportation of named individual, bill authorizing, Sec. 9.6
    displaced person, amendment including certain persons of German 
        origin within definition of, Sec. 10.2
    displaced persons, bill providing for temporary admission of, 
        Sec. 42.53
    evacuation of Vietnamese, bill providing for, amendment prohibiting 
        evacuation to states offered to, Sec. 3.49
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. 42.53
    existing law, bill repealing, Sec. 37.6
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 9.6, 37.6
    private bill, amendment comprising general legislation offered to, 
        Sec. 9.6
    relief for foreign political refugees, bill providing, amendment to 
        provide similar relief for nonalien group offered to,Sec. 8.24
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 10.2
Impoundment Control Act, guidelines for applying germaneness

[[Page 9294]]

    rule during proceedings under, Sec. 15.41
Individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
    proposition
    agricultural commodities, bill to regulate domestically produced, 
        amendment to control importation of suchcommodities offered to, 
        Sec. 8.21
    agricultural commodity, bill relating to, amendment affecting 
        another product or another agricultural commodityoffered to, 
        Sec. Sec. 8.16-8.18
    agricultural producers, bill providing financial relief for, 
        amendment to extend such relief to commercial fishermenoffered 
        to, Sec. 8.19
    alien political refugees, bill providing relief for, amendment to 
        provide similar relief for nonaliens offered to, Sec. 8.24
    apportionment of Representatives, bill providing for census and, 
        amendment invoking constitution to reduce basisof 
        representation where voting rights abridged offered to, 
        Sec. 8.11
    appropriation bill containing funds for agency, amendment to 
        appropriate funds for different agency to be used forsame 
        general purpose offered to, Sec. 8.1
    civil service annuities, amendment to adjust, offered to bill 
        containing cost-of-living adjustment for Foreign 
        Serviceretirees, Sec. 8.6
    civil service employees, bill relating to, amendment to extend 
        coverage of bill to postal and District of Columbiaemployees 
        offered to, Sec. 8.4
    class, bill providing relief for one, amendment to extend such 
        relief to another class offered to, Sec. Sec. 8.19, 8.24
    coin currency, bill relating to design of, amendment to provide for 
        issuance of commemorative coin offered to, 8.35
    condition, provision to delay implementation of policy pending 
        fulfillment of, amendment imposing additionalcondition offered 
        to, Sec. 8.23
    Court of Claims, bill authorizing specified appeal from, amendment 
        conferring jurisdiction on Court of Claims tohear another case 
        offered to, Sec. 8.15
    elections, bill regulating poll closing time in presidential, 
        amendment to extend coverage of bill to primary 
        electionsoffered to, Sec. 8.13
    electoral college process, joint resolution proposing 
        constitutional amendment to reform, amendment relating 
        toapportionment of Representatives offered to, Sec. 8.12
    evacuation of persons, bill relating to, amendment relating to 
        evacuation of commodities offered to, Sec. 8.25
    executive branch employees, former, bill and amendment as addressed 
        to different subsections of existing lawprohibiting appearances 
        before agencies by, Sec. 8.7
    executive branch, resolution requesting budgetary information from, 
        amendment requesting budgetary informationfrom certain House 
        Members offered to, Sec. 8.9
    existing law, amendment changing, offered to proposition not 
        amending that law, Sec. 41.20
    federal civilian employees, bill governing political activities of, 
        amendment extending coverage of bill to militarypersonnel 
        offered to, Sec. 8.5
    federal employees in executive branch, bill granting certain rights 
        to, amendment extending coverage of bill tolegislative 
        employees offered to, Sec. 8.3

[[Page 9295]]

    federal government, bill relating to subversive activities 
        affecting, amendment relating to subversive activitiesagainst 
        state and local governments offered to, Sec. 8.10
    foreign aid, bill providing for, amendment relating to domestic 
        relief offered to, Sec. 8.22
    health care facilities in private sector, bill authorizing grants 
        to, amendment to authorize direct grants to states forcontrol 
        of health hazard offered to, Sec. 8.41
    health research facilities, bill to aid construction of, amendment 
        to provide for training of research workers offeredto, 
        Sec. 8.40
    labor dispute, bill relating to settlement of, amendment relating 
        to settlement of another labor dispute offered to, 8.34
    law enforcement assistance to states for purchase of photographic 
        and fingerprint equipment, bill providing for,amendment to 
        provide assistance for purchase of bulletproof vests offered 
        to, Sec. 8.37
    legislative clerk-hire allowance, bill increasing, amendment 
        affecting private sector wages offered to, Sec. 8.8
    meat, bill relating to cost of inspection of, amendment to extend 
        coverage of bill to seafood offered to, Sec. 8.18
    Military Academy, bill increasingcadet corps at, amendment to 
        increase certain appointments both toMilitary Academy and Naval 
        Academy offered to, Sec. 8.28
    naval procurement, bill relating to,amendment affecting 
        procurementfor other armed services offered to,Sec. 8.30
    OSHA regulations applicable to smallfarms, provision to prohibit 
        use offunds to enforce, amendment requiring expenditure to 
        ensure congressional compliance with OSHA offered to, Sec. 8.20
    onion futures, bill prohibiting speculation in, amendment 
        prohibiting speculation in potato futures offered to,Sec. 8.16
    pensions for veterans based on disability, bill affecting, 
        amendment relating to compensation for service-connected 
        disability offered to, Sec. 8.29
    persons, bill relating to evacuation of,amendment relating to 
        evacuation ofcommodities offered to, Sec. 8.25
    petroleum products, bill relating toprices of, amendment relating 
        toprice of coal offered to, Sec. 8.32
    price support for tung nuts, bill providing, amendment providing 
        price support for honey offered to, Sec. 8.17
    refugees from foreign countries, political, amendment to provide 
        relief for nonalien group offered to bill providing such relief 
        for, Sec. 8.24
    school facilities, bill providing aid forconstruction of, amendment 
        proposing assistance for teachers' salariesoffered to, 
        Sec. 8.38
    school facilities, public, amendmentproposing loans for 
        construction ofprivate schools offered to bill providing 
        assistance for construction of,Sec. 8.39
    Selective Service deferments, bill andamendment as providing 
        differentbases for, Sec. 8.27
    Turkey, provision requiring certification of progress in resolution 
        ofCyprus issue prior to shipment ofarms to, amendment to 
        further require certification as to control ofopium traffic 
        offered to, Sec. 8.23

[[Page 9296]]

    voting rights, amendment providingfor reduction of basis of 
        representation on account of abridgement of,offered to bill 
        providing for censusand apportionment of Representatives, 
        Sec. 8.11
Information, resolution requestingPresident to furnish
    Members, amendment requesting information from, Sec. 8.9
Insurance
    armed forces personnel serving onarmed vessels, life insurance 
        for,amendment to provide, Sec. 4.33
    committee jurisdiction of subjectmatter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 37.3
    housing bill, amendment relating tourban insurance in District of 
        Columbia offered to, Sec. 4.64
    military duty, amendment concerninginsurance for persons on, 
        offered tobill repealing part of Neutrality Act,Sec. 37.3
    National Service Life Insurance Act,amendment changing, offered to 
        billto provide family allowances, Sec. 4.42
Intent, congressional, statement of, see Policy, congressional, 
    amendment stating
Interior and insular affairs (see also, e.g., Energy; Environment; 
    Natural resources and conservation)
    agency, amendments substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. Sec. 4.6, 7.6
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.6, 4.57, 7.6
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 6.19
    electrical energy generated at certain projects, disposition of, by 
        Secretary of Interior, Sec. 14.3
    exceptions, amendment providing for, Sec. 32.14
    existing law, amendment repealing, Sec. 36.3
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 9.7
    Hawaii, amendment relating to boundaries of, offered to bill for 
        admission, Sec. 3.59
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 3.60 (Parliamentarian's Note)
    limitations imposed by amendments, generally, Sec. 32.14
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. 33.25
    monuments, amendment regarding preservation of, offered to bill 
        affecting one monument, Sec. 9.7
    outer continental shelf lease sale, provision affecting use of 
        funds in bill for, amendment prohibiting use offunds in bill or 
        in any other Act for same and other lease sales offered to, 
        Sec. 9.21
    parkway lands, amendment authorizing lease of, offered to bill 
        relating to maintenance and administrations, Sec. 3.60
    petroleum reserves, provisions authorizing Secretary to establish, 
        amendment giving President authority to placepetroleum reserves 
        in strategic storage conditional upon subsequent congressional 
        authorization offered to, Sec. 4.14

[[Page 9297]]

    Puerto Rico, amendment modifying tax laws applicable to, offered to 
        bill affecting election of governor, Sec. 4.57
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. 32.14
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.19, 7.6
    rivers and harbors, see Rivers and harbors
    strike, amendment to, language of bill or amendment, Sec. 36.3
    timberlands, transfer of, as compensation to private owners for 
        lands acquired by government, Sec. 6.19
    unemployment benefits for persons affected by designation of 
        wilderness area, amendment providing, offered tobill 
        designating wilderness areas, Sec. 3.62
    water resources of Alaska, Sec. 7.6
    wildlife preservation, amendment concerning, offered to agriculture 
        bill, Sec. 41.7
Internal Revenue Code (see also Taxation)
    Amtrak, amendment providing tax incentives to improve services of, 
        offered to bill to reorganize Amtrak, Sec. 4.66
    appropriation bill, amendment modifying provisions of code not 
        germane to, Sec. 4.96
    armed services bill, amendment to modify code offered to, 
        Sec. 42.34
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 42.5, 42.34
    Defense Production Act, bill amending, amendment modifying code 
        offered to, Sec. 4.31
    excise taxes, amendment concerning, offered to provision regarding 
        securities, Sec. 18.10
    excise tax rates, amendment to repeal, offered to bill affecting 
        certain income tax liabilities, Sec. 3.26
    incentives, tax, proposed in lieu of direct financial assistance as 
        means of improving rail passenger services, 6.28
    insurance companies, income tax liability of, Sec. 3.26
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 42.61
    securities, worthless, amendment regarding transfer of, 
        Sec. Sec. 18.9, 18.10
    selective service bill, amendment changing Internal Revenue Code 
        offered to, Sec. 4.38
    Senate amendment adding section to House bill amending Code must be 
        germane to bill as a whole, Sec. Sec. 2.10, 2.11
    Senate amendments to amend, see Senate amendments and amendments 
        thereto
    supertax, amendment imposing, offered to proposition concerning 
        salary limitations, Sec. 42.61
Internal Security
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.49
    foreign agents, registration of, Sec. 30.17 general amendments to 
        specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 8.10, 27.7
    immigration laws, amendment modifying, offered to bill, Sec. 4.49
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 8.10
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 30.33

[[Page 9298]]

Interstate and foreign commerce
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. 6.27
    cigarettes, bill requiring reports on use of, amendment requiring 
        report on tobacco subsidies offered to, Sec. 11.29
    claims against enemy governments and nationals, bill relating to, 
        Sec. 4.50
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.50, 4.65, 39.22
    common carriers, amendment relating to rates of, offered to bill 
        affecting motor carriers, Sec. 19.32
    common carriers, bill granting discretion to Interstate Commerce 
        Commission in establishing rates of, Sec. 33.10
    ``confiscated property,'' definition of, in National Stolen 
        Property Act, Sec. 13.18
    convict-made goods, transportation of, Sec. 3.56
    discretionary authority of commission over rates, bill 
        establishing, amendment prohibiting rate increases offered 
        to,Sec. 33.10
    District of Columbia Transportation Authority, Sec. 6.27
    existing law, amendment repealing, Sec. 35.16
    existing law, bill amending, in limited respect, Sec. Sec. 35.16, 
        35.77, 35.79, 39.22, 39.23
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. Sec. 11.16, 
        35.13, 35.101
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. Sec. 24.4, 39.20, 39.22, 39.23
    Flammable Fabrics Act, amendment extending coverage of, to toys, 
        Sec. 11.16
    foreign goods, amendment prohibiting importation of, unless 
        produced under specified conditions of labor, Sec. 3.56
    freight forwarders, bill affecting, amendment relating to common 
        carriers, offered to, Sec. 19.32
    freight rates of common carriers, Sec. 3.65gambling devices, 
        transportation of, Sec. 9.8
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 9.3, 9.8, 
        19.32, 24.4
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. Sec. 9.3, 33.5, 35.101
    Interstate Commerce Commission, discretionary authority granted to, 
        over rates of common carriers, Sec. 33.10
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. Sec. 33.1-33.6
    petroleum products, transportation of, Sec. Sec. 39.22, 39.23
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 33.10
    railroads, amendment relating to federal acquisition of, offered to 
        bill providing for study of assistance to urbanmass 
        transportation companies, Sec. 4.65
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.27
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 11.16
    tariffs on crude oil, amendment repealing, Sec. 39.22
    trade agreements, authority of President in negotiating, 
        Sec. Sec. 33.5, 33.6
Investigations, (see also Studies)
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. 7.6
    agricultural programs, investigation of, amendment proposing that 
        bill's provisions remain inoperative pendingcompletion of, 
        Sec. 31.40
    appropriation bills, Sec. 4.79

[[Page 9299]]

    appropriations for relief and work relief, bill making, amendment 
        allotting appropriations for investigation of effectsof relief 
        offered to, Sec. 4.79
    appropriations for survey, amendment making, Sec. 18.11
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 21.12, 34.5
    campaign expenditures, resolution providing for special committee 
        to investigate, Sec. 4.95
    civil rights, Sec. Sec. 11.22, 12.7
    Civil Service Commission, bill concerning investigations by, 
        Sec. 19.33
    committee of House, restrictions on funds to be used in travel 
        undertaken by, Sec. 34.5
    constituional rights, Sec. 12.7
    federal spending in congressional districts, amendment requiring 
        reports on, offered to bill curtailing expenditures,Sec. 15.48
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 9.13
    labor, Sec. 5.29
    milk supply in District of Columbia, committee authorized to 
        investigate, Sec. 11.26
    post office operations, amendment directing committees to employ 
        experts to investigate, offered to bill readjusting rates, 
        Sec. 4.88
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 5.29
    voting rights, Sec. Sec. 9.13, 12.7
    war production, amendment providing for investigation of effects of 
        labor laws on, offered to war powers bill, Sec. 4.85
    water pollution, amendment proposing investigation of, offered to 
        bill creating water pollution control division, Sec. 7.5
    water resources of Alaska, projects for conservation of, Sec. 7.6
Joint committee, see Committee, joint, amendment establishing
Judiciary
    claims of specified individuals, jurisdiction over, proposition 
        conferring, Sec. 8.15
    contempt cases arising from civil rights actions, jury trials in, 
        Sec. 23.7
    contempt under Civil Rights Act, counsel for persons charged with, 
        Sec. 9.10
    existing law, bill repealing, Sec. 37.10
    firearms, amendment giving state courts jurisdiction over certain 
        crimes involving, Sec. 12.10
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 8.15, 9.10, 
        9.12, 37.10
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 8.15
    interpretation of acts of Congress, rules regarding, 
        Sec. Sec. 19.11, 19.12, 21.20
    jurisdiction of courts, bill defining, amendment modifying labor 
        laws offered to, Sec. 19.31
    jury trials, amendment providing for, in contempt cases arising 
        from civil rights actions, Sec. 23.7
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. Sec. 33.31-
        33.33
    orders, court, obstruction of, Sec. 9.12
    portal-to-portal pay, bill regulating recovery of, amendment 
        affecting labor laws offered to, Sec. 19.31
    preemption, federal, interpretation of doctrine of, Sec. 19.11
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 37.10
    recommit, instructions in motion to, Sec. 23.7

[[Page 9300]]

    retirement of Supreme Court Justices, bill relating to, amendment 
        subjecting retirement pay to taxation offered to, 3.29
    state courts and federal courts, amendment giving concurrent 
        jurisdiction to, in cases involving firearms, Sec. 12.10
    taxation of retirement pay of Supreme Court Justices, amendment 
        regarding, Sec. 3.29
    voting referees, amendment providing for court appointment of, 
        offered to bill to enforce voting rights, Sec. Sec. 5.2, 45.11
Justice, Department of, proposal to abolish, Sec. 42.43
Labor (see also Unions)
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. 7.7
    ``agriculture,'' amendment modifying definition of, in Fair Labor 
        Standards Act, Sec. 42.7
    Civilian Conservation Corps, assignment of reserve military 
        officers to, Sec. 14.4
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.81-4.83, 42.1, 42.2
    ``confiscated property'' in foreign state, amendment defining, as 
        property taken without compensation to workmen engaged in its 
        production, Sec. 13.18
    convict-made goods, transportation of, Sec. 3.56
    cotton industry, amendment affecting labor in, offered to bill 
        establishing cotton research program, Sec. 3.5
    defense employees participating in strikes, amendment prohibiting 
        compensation to, substitute amendment prohibiting compensation 
        to person seeking forcibly to prevent return of workmen to work 
        offered to, Sec. 3.4
    definitions, amendments modifying, Sec. 35.19
    discretionary powers of board over wages and hours, proposition 
        concerning, amendment to establish minimum wages and hours 
        offered to, Sec. 6.23
    exceptions, amendment providing for, Sec. 29.3
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill citing, Sec. 41.2
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. Sec. 42.1, 42.2
    existing law, amendment repealing, Sec. 19.31
    existing law, bill amending, in limited respect, Sec. Sec. 35.19, 
        35.21, 42.7
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. Sec. 35.19, 
        35.22
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. Sec. 24.4, 35.22
    foreign goods, amendment prohibiting importation of, unless 
        produced under specified conditions of labor, Sec. 3.56
    foreign workers, amendment concerning just compensation to, for 
        property ``confiscated'' by foreign government, Sec. 18.18
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 9.3, 24.4
    imports, bill to mitigate effects of, on domestic labor, Sec. 4.83
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 9.3
    investigations, propositions relating to, Sec. 5.29
    picketing, amendment relating to, offered to proposition to 
        regulate strikes, Sec. 3.4
    political contributions of labor organizations, amendment to 
        regulate offered to bill relating to settlement of labor 
        disputes, Sec. 3.3

[[Page 9301]]

    portal-to-portal pay, bill regulating recovery of, amendment 
        repealing wages and hours provisions offered to, Sec. 19.31
    President, amendment authorizing, to operate plants threatened by 
        work stoppages, Sec. 39.10
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 5.29, 7.7
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.82, 6.23,7.7
    Senate provision to promote formation of labor-management 
        committees not germane to House provisions relating to 
        employment and training, Sec. 26.27
    settlement of dispute, amendment regarding, offered to bill 
        relating to another dispute, Sec. 9.3
    strike, amendment imposing penalties for causing, offered to 
        amendment relating to wages and hours, Sec. 21.11
    strikes, bill relating to settlement of, amendment proposing tax 
        measures offered to, Sec. Sec. 3.1, 3.2
    strikes, bills relating to settlement of, amendments affecting 
        political contributions of labor organizations offered to, 
        Sec. 3.3
    strikes, proposition relating to, amendment to regulate picketing 
        offered to, Sec. 3.4
    strikes, settlement of, amendment requiring unions to become 
        corporate bodies offered to bill relating to, Sec. 4.81
    studies, Sec. 5.29
    Tariff Act, amendment modifying, offered to bill amending Fair 
        Labor Standards Act, Sec. Sec. 42.1, 42.2
    tax credits, amendment affecting excess profits, offered to bill 
        relating to settlement of strikes, Sec. 3.1
    tax measures, amendment declaring intent of Congress as to 
        suspension of, offered to bill relating to settlement of 
        strikes, Sec. 3.2
    temporary legislation, amendment to, proposing permanent 
        legislation of same character, Sec. 24.4
    wages and hours, amendment establishing minimum, offered to 
        proposition concerning flexible wages and hours, Sec. 6.23
    wages and hours, amendment imposing penalties for causing strike 
        not germane to proposition affecting, Sec. 21.11
    work stoppages, amendment authorizing President to operate plants 
        threatened by, offered to Defense Production Act amendments, 
        Sec. 39.10
Last word, germaneness of motion to strike, Sec. 17.2
Law enforcement, see Criminal justice law, existing, proposal to 
    modify, see, e.g., Existing law, amendment changing, to bill on 
    different subject
Limitations imposed by amendments as to powers
    agriculture bills, Sec. 33.26
    appropriation bills, Sec. Sec. 15.36, 15.45
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 9.55, 37.8
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. 33.21
    ``Buy-America'' restrictions on contracts attached to authorization 
        to carry out Urban Mass Transportation Act, Sec. 33.24
    coal carriers, authority of, as affected by reference to rules 
        affecting railroad carriers as measure of duration of contracts 
        of coal carriers, Sec. 33.23
    Congress, amendment providing for disapproval of agency regulations 
        by, Sec. 33.11

[[Page 9302]]

    congressional approval of revisions of airline flights, amendment 
        to require, offered to provisions concerning energy 
        conservation measures by Civil Aeronautics Board, Sec. 33.18
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. Sec. 33.1-33.3, 33.20, 33.21, 
        39.3
    Federal Energy Administrator, amendment modifying existing law as 
        to discretionary authority of, offered to bill extending law, 
        Sec. 2.26
    Federal Energy Administrator, amendments limiting or restricting 
        authority of, Sec. Sec. 33.12-33.17
    government employment and civil service, bills relating to, 
        Sec. 33.26
    helium, bill authorizing sale of, by government, Sec. 33.7
    interior and insular affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 33.25
    International Development Association, provisions concerning 
        participation in, direction to United States representative to 
        oppose certain loans attached to, Sec. 33.29
    interpretation of laws administered by official, limitation on 
        discretion regarding, Sec. 33.10
    interstate and foreign commerce, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 33.1-
        33.6
    judiciary, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 33.31-33.33
    nuclear reactor sales, amendment to require consideration of 
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission data bearing on, as affecting 
        authority of Export-Import Bank, Sec. 33.30
    President, authority of, regarding transfer of defense equipment to 
        Korea, Sec. 33.8
    President's authority to establish priorities among users of 
        petroleum products, amendment to impose restrictions on use of 
        petroleum products for school busing as affecting, Sec. 33.9
    President's authority under War Powers Act, Sec. 42.41
    price control, Sec. Sec. 33.20, 33.21
    regulations, agency, amendment providing for congressional 
        disapproval of, Sec. 33.11
    science and space, bills relating to, Sec. 33.27
    tariffs, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 33.3, 39.20, 39.21
    unemployed, amendment directing particular means to assist, offered 
        to provisions conferring broad authority to minimize effect of 
        Energy Emergency Act on employment, Sec. 33.19
    unions, Sec. Sec. 41.2, 41.4
    veterans, Sec. 33.28
    voting rights, Sec. Sec. 33.31-33.33
Limitations on funds or use of funds, see Restrictions on use or 
    availability of funds
Limitations or prohibitions imposed by amendments, generally
    abortions, prohibition on performance of, attached to provisions 
        concerning medical facilities for agency employees, Sec. 32.7
    agriculture bills, Sec. 30.13
    appropriation bills, Sec. Sec. 15.15, 27.38
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 30.1, 30.3, 32.3, 32.4, 35.55, 37.8, 
        39.25
    civil rights, Sec. 34.19
    contributions to international financial organization, restrictions 
        on, Sec. 32.5
    education, Sec. 32.13
    Education, provisions permitting use of facilities of Department 
        of, restriction on use by certain educational institutions 
        attached to, Sec. 32.8
    evacuees from Vietnam War, relocation of, in high unemployment 
        areas, Sec. 32.2

[[Page 9303]]

    Federal Energy Administrator, limitation on discretionary authority 
        of, Sec. 32.10
    flood control, condition imposed on allocation of funds for, 
        Sec. 18.15
    form or guise of limitation, amendment proposed in, Sec. 32.17
    funds authorized in bill, condition attached to allocation of, 
        Sec. 18.15
    funds, use of, see Restrictions on use or availability of funds
    gold, prohibition against alienation of, to International Monetary 
        Fund Trust Fund, Sec. 32.6
    highways, Sec. 34.16
    homeless shelter, transfer of property to provide, restriction on 
        noncharitable use of property attached to, Sec. 32.12
    housing and urban renewal, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 21.10, 
        30.10
    interior and insular affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 32.14
    merchant marine and fisheries, bills relating to, Sec. 32.15
    natural resources and conservation, bills relating to, Sec. 32.14
    pollutants, variances in permitted levels of concentration of, 
        Sec. 32.16
    public works, Sec. 31.16
    state and local agencies receiving federal funds, restrictions on 
        activities of, Sec. 32.9
    synthetic fuels, provisions relating to development of, restriction 
        on contracts with major oil companies as affecting, Sec. 32.11
    taxation, Sec. 31.35
    total budget expenditures, amendment limiting, offered to 
        resolution continuing appropriations, Sec. 15.17
Loans for public works, bill authorizing, amendment authorizing 
    ``grants'' offered to, Sec. 6.3
Lobbyists, proposition to require disclosure by
    contributions, amendment affecting use of information on, Sec. 3.74
    contributions, amendment placing ceiling on, Sec. 3.76
    name tags, amendment to require wearing of, Sec. 3.75
Mental institutions, see Health
Mentally ill, see Health
Merchant marine and fisheries, bills relating to
    compensation, form of, for foreign vessels acquired by United 
        States, Sec. 6.40
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 32.15
    defense, provisions establishing study of use of merchant marine 
        in, amendment waiving coastwise trade laws for two vessels 
        offered to, Sec. 3.45
    limitations imposed by amendments, Sec. 32.15
    Panama Canal, employees on, Sec. 32.15
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.40
Merits of amendment, discussion of, during argument on point of order, 
    Sec. 5.25
Method, amendment to accomplish purpose of bill by different, see 
    Purpose of bill, amendment to accomplish, by different method
Military, see Armed services; Veterans
Minting of coins, see Banking and finance; Coinage
Miscellaneous provisions of bill, title or section containing, 
    amendment offered to, Sec. Sec. 2.5, 11.1
Miscellaneous requirements for receiving social security benefits,

[[Page 9304]]

    title containing, amendment offered to, Sec. 29.4
Monuments, amendment regarding preservation of, offered to bill 
    affecting one monument
    Jackson Hole National Monument, Sec. 9.7
Mortgages, bills relating to (see also, e.g., Banking and finance; 
    Housing and urban renewal)
    moratorium on foreclosures, amendment providing for, Sec. 3.36
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 3.36
Motives of author of provisions as not determinative of germaneness 
    issues, Sec. 3.45
Natural resources and conservation (see also, e.g., Environment; 
    Energy; Interior and insular affairs)
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. Sec. 4.6, 7.5, 7.6
    agency to allocate revenues from oil leases, amendment to 
        establish, offered to tidelands bill, Sec. 4.17
    Civilian Conservation Corps, assignment of military officers to, 
        Sec. 14.4
    coal, amendment relating to, offered to bill affecting petroleum 
        prices, Sec. 8.32
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.6, 4.17, 7.6
    environmental research and development, bill authorizing, amendment 
        granting permanent regulatory authority to agency offered to, 
        Sec. 4.1
    exceptions, amendment providing, Sec. 32.14
    flood control, see Flood control
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 8.32
    limitations imposed by amendments, Sec. 32.14
    oil leases, Sec. 4.17
    petroleum, bill relating to, amendment affecting coal prices 
        offered to, Sec. 8.32
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. 32.14
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 7.5, 7.6
    states, bill establishing title of, to land beneath navigable 
        waters, Sec. 4.17
    tidelands bill, Sec. 4.17
    water for irrigation, bill amending Reclamation Law primarily with 
        respect to eligibility for, amendment to require review of 
        audit reports on water resource projects including specified 
        projects to provide hydroelectric power offered to, Sec. 5.20
    water pollution, amendment proposing study of, offered to bill 
        creating water pollution control division, Sec. 7.5
    water pollution control, bill relating to, amendment to amend Clean 
        Air Act offered to, Sec. 4.3
    water resources of Alaska, Sec. 7.6
    waters, navigable, bill establishing title of states to lands 
        beneath, Sec. 4.17
    wildlife preservation, amendment concerning, offered to bill 
        amending Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, 
        Sec. 41.7
Newspapers, bill exempting, from antitrust laws
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 9.62
Nongermane amendment, amendment to
    point of order, failure to make, against nongermane amendment, 
        Sec. 43.1

[[Page 9305]]

    Senate amendment, amendment to, see Senate amendments and 
        amendments thereto
Oath, amendment imposing conditions in resolution authorizing 
    administration of, Sec. 1.1
Open to amendment at any point, germaneness of amendment where bill is, 
    determined by relationship to entire bill, Sec. Sec. 2.6, 2.7, 
    35.93
Paragraph, amendment adding new, to bill (see also, e.g., Section, 
    amendment adding new, to bill)
    appropriation bills, Sec. Sec. 15.3, 15.5, 15.42, 18.14
Part of amendment, effect of sustaining point of order raised against, 
    Sec. Sec. 8.29, 43.2
Part of amendment in nature of substitute, special rule permitting 
    point of order against, see Special rules waiving points of order
Passed in reading, amendment offered to portion of bill, Sec. Sec. 2.1, 
    2.2
Penalties, imposition of
    agriculture bills, Sec. Sec. 19.29, 35.10
    appropriation bills, Sec. 27.34
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.39, 4.40
    constitutional rights, deprivation of, bill increasing penalty for, 
        Sec. 41.12
    defense contractors, amendment imposing penalties for activities by 
        retired military officers in behalf of, Sec. 4.39
    defense contractors, amendment penalizing, for hiring retired 
        officers, Sec. 4.40, 6.45
    different types of penalty, bill and amendment as imposing, 
        Sec. 4.39, 4.40, 6.45
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. 35.10
    export controls, bill addressing penalties for violating, amendment 
        authorizing President to impose penalties of different class 
        offered to, Sec. 4.55
    nuclear facilities, authorization bill containing provision 
        imposing penalties for sabotage of, amendment to amend Federal 
        Criminal Code offered to, Sec. 42.33
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.39, 4.40, 6.45
    school busing, amendment imposing penalties for use of fuel in, 
        offered to bill addressing agencies' formulation of policies of 
        energy conservation, Sec. 5.15
    strike, amendment imposing penalties for causing, offered to 
        amendment relating to wages and hours, Sec. 21.11
Pensions and compensation, distinction between, Sec. 8.29
Percentage reduction in funds authorized, see Restrictions on use or 
    availability of funds
Permanent law, amendment affecting, offered to authorization bill, 
    Sec. Sec. 24.1-24.3, 41.14, 41.17, 42.26, 42.28
Permanent legislation, amendment proposing, offered to temporary 
    legislation
    agency, annual authorization for, amendment permanently affecting 
        organization of agency offered to, Sec. 24.2
    armed forces, bill authorizing fiscal year appropriations for, 
        amendment imposing permanent restrictions on troop withdrawals 
        from Korea offered to, Sec. 24.1

[[Page 9306]]

    Defense, Secretary of, amendment permanently making expenditures 
        contingent on certifications by, Sec. 24.6
    District of Columbia government, provision establishing one-year 
        ceiling on number of employees of, amendment proposing hiring 
        preference system as permanent law offered to, Sec. 24.5
    Energy, annual authorization for Department of, amendment requiring 
        Secretary to issue regulations and permanently affecting laws 
        and House rules offered to, Sec. 24.3
    expiration date in bill made inapplicable to certain provisions, 
        Sec. 24.8
    labor disputes, bill extending time for settlement of, amendment 
        providing permanent procedures for settlement of disputes 
        offered to, Sec. 24.4
Persons, same or different classes of, propositions as affecting
    agriculture bills, Sec. Sec. 13.17, 35.11, 35.12, 39.14
    agricultural workers from Mexico, bill relating to, amendment 
        requiring minimum wage for United States citizens employed in 
        agriculture offered to, Sec. 13.17
    appropriation bills, Sec. Sec. 27.34, 27.35
    armed forces, bill increasing strength of, amendment exempting 
        members of armed forces from poll taxes offered to, Sec. 13.13
    armed forces, bill increasing strength of, amendment imposing 
        penalties on persons outside armed forces for maintenance of 
        brothels offered to, Sec. 13.12
    armed forces, bill increasing strength of, amendment prohibiting 
        discrimination against members by specified persons outside 
        armed forces offered to, Sec. 13.11
    armed forces, provision to postpone further induction into, 
        amendment to increase pay of all members of armed forces 
        offered to, Sec. 13.14
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 4.40, 6.45, 9.57, 13.11, 13.13, 30.1
    armed services pay, amendment to increase, offered to proposals 
        affecting selective service, Sec. 13.14
    civilian internees, provision relating to relief for, amendment to 
        extend relief to military prisoners of war offered to, 
        Sec. 13.19
    civil rights, bill concerning termination of federal assistance to 
        institutions violating certain, amendment to extend coverage of 
        bill to Members of Congress offered to, Sec. 13.9
    civil service employees, bill relating to, amendment to extend 
        coverage to postal and District of Columbia employees offered 
        to, Sec. 13.3
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 13.17
    Congress, operation of, Sec. 27.35
    election campaigns and campaign expenditures, Sec. 11.24
    executive branch, bill to require study of pay practices in, 
        amendment to include practices in legislative branch offered 
        to, Sec. 13.8
    federal employees, bill providing salary increases for, amendment 
        to promote increases for members of press offered to, Sec. 13.6
    federal civilian employees, bill affecting political activities of, 
        amendment extending coverage to military persons by striking 
        provision excluding such persons offered to, Sec. 13.5
    foreign owners of confiscated property, bill affecting, amendment 
        relating to just compensation for workers engaged in production 
        of affected property offered to, Sec. 13.18

[[Page 9307]]

    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 9.57
    government corporations, bill requiring audits of, amendment to 
        require audits of corporations ``controlled'' by government 
        offered to, Sec. 13.15
    government employment and civil service, bills relating to, 
        Sec. 41.6
    health care providers in private sector, bill authorizing grants 
        to, amendment authorizing direct grants to states offered to, 
        Sec. 13.16
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. Sec. 13.4, 13.7
    legislative and executive branches, members of, Sec. 8.9
    Members of House, amendment concerning, offered to proposition 
        affecting Senate employees, Sec. 13.7
    military prisoners of war, amendment extending relief to, offered 
        to bill concerning relief of civilian internees, Sec. 13.19
    pay practices within civil service, bill mandating study of, 
        amendment to include impact on wages in other jobs offered to, 
        Sec. 13.1
    post office, Sec. 41.6
    post office and Treasury Department employees, Sec. 13.4
    post office employees, bill relating to salary increases for, 
        amendment making provisions applicable to Treasury Department 
        employees offered to, Sec. 13.4
    private sector, bill to prohibit uses of polygraphy in, amendment 
        to extend coverage of bill to Congress offered to, Sec. 13.10
    retirees from foreign service, provision for cost-of-living 
        adjustment for, amendment to adjust civil service annuities 
        offered to, Sec. 13.2
    Selective Service Act, Sec. Sec. 13.11-13.14
    Senate amendments, Sec. Sec. 13.7, 27.35
    Senate employees, provision for payment of travel expenses of, 
        amendment providing additional travel allowances for House 
        Members offered to, Sec. 13.7
Points of order
    burden of proof, Sec. Sec. 9.26, 35.31, 41.8
    conceding point of order, Sec. 30.4
    debate confined to point of order, Sec. Sec. 3.31, 35.101
    debate, discussion of Chair with respect to, Sec. 18.7
    debate on, Sec. 5.25
    debate, recognition for, as affecting right of another to make 
        point of order, Sec. 31.44
    failure to make, effect of, Sec. 13.12, 43.1
    failure to make point of order as not precluding subsequent 
        objection to similar amendment, Sec. 13.19
    inconsistency of amendment with previously adopted amendment not 
        grounds for, Sec. 43.9
    jurisdiction of committee, contention that section of committee 
        amendment is not within, as not necessarily raising question of 
        germaneness, Sec. 43.8
    merits of amendment, discussion of, during debate on point of 
        order, Sec. Sec. 3.31, 35.101
    part of amendment, effect of sustaining point of order raised 
        against, Sec. 8.29
    recognition for debate as affecting right of another to make point 
        of order, Sec. 31.44
    recommit, instructions in motion to, Sec. 23.3
    rule of House, specific, point of order must be based on, Sec. 43.7

[[Page 9308]]

    specific rule of House, point of order must be based on, Sec. 43.7
    subsequent amendment to nongermane amendment against which no point 
        of order was raised, Sec. 43.1
    timeliness, Sec. Sec. 9.12, 30.34, 33.28, 35.37, 43.1, 44.1-44.3
    timeliness of point of order against committee amendment in nature 
        of a substitute being read as original bill for amendment by 
        title, Sec. 30.36
    waiver, generally, see Waiver of points of order
    waiver of, against another bill offered as amendment, Sec. 45.7
    whole amendment, point of order against part as affecting, 
        Sec. 8.29
    yielding in debate on point of order, Sec. 18.7
Policy, congressional, amendment stating
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 34.10, 34.11
    assistance, humanitarian, amendment offered to substitute providing 
        for, Sec. 2.29, 2.30
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.32, 30.6
    existing law, bill amending, in limited respect, Sec. 39.24
    existing law, bill repealing, Sec. Sec. 37.5, 37.9
    foreign affairs, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 11.33, 35.30, 37.5, 
        39.24
    highways, Sec. 30.22
    humanitarian assistance, substitute providing for, amendment 
        stating sense of Congress as to cause of conditions offered to, 
        Sec. 3.50
    Impoundment Control Act, amendment expressing sense of Congress 
        relating to Presidential authority under, offered to second 
        concurrent resolution on budget, Sec. 42.55
    interstate and foreign commerce, bills relating to, Sec. 35.13
    President's term of office, amendment stating sense of Congress 
        with respect to, offered to reorganization bill, Sec. 3.19
    recommit, instructions in motion to, Sec. 23.3
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. 34.10
    Southeast Asia, statement of policy in, offered in amendment to 
        military authorization bill, Sec. 4.32
    Vietnam, Sec. 30.6
    Vietnam, military operations in, Sec. 34.10
    Vietnam, North, amendment to restrict use of funds for operations 
        in, Sec. 32.1
Policy, foreign, amendment affecting, see, e.g., Foreign affairs; 
    Foreign policy
Political campaigns and contributions, see Election campaigns and 
    campaign expenditures
Poll taxes, bill or amendment prohibiting, see Election campaigns and 
    campaign expenditures
Post Office (see also Government employment and civil service)
    annual leave, amendment concerning, offered to bill relating to 
        grades and salaries, Sec. 35.94
    Civil Service Commission, bill relating to investigations by, 
        Sec. 19.33
    civil service reform bill, amendment to extend coverage of, to 
        postal and District of Columbia employees, Sec. 8.4
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.88
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 29.6
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. 31.43

[[Page 9309]]

    employees, amendment affecting selection of, offered to government 
        reorganization bill, Sec. 10.16
    employees, custodial, salary increases for, Sec. 13.4
    exceptions, amendment providing for, Sec. 29.6
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill citing, Sec. 41.6
    existing law, amendment repealing, Sec. 41.6
    existing law, bill amending, in limited respect, Sec. 35.94
    existing law, bill amending, in several respects, Sec. 18.7
    franking privileges, amendment to abolish, offered to bill 
        readjusting rates, Sec. 12.3
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 13.4
    legislative employees, bill broadened by amendment to include, 
        Sec. 19.14
    military forces, free postage for, Sec. 6.43
    military mail, reimbursement of post office for transportation of, 
        Sec. 6.44
    open to amendment at any point, germaneness of amendment where bill 
        is, determined by relationship to entire bill, Sec. 2.6
    pay differentials between clerks and supervisors, amendment 
        providing for, offered to proposition affecting compensation of 
        employees, Sec. 21.15
    persons, propositions affecting same or different classes of, 
        Sec. 41.6
    postmasters, amendment concerning appointment of, offered to bill 
        relating to employees' compensation, Sec. 18.7
    rates, bill to readjust, amendment directing investigation of post 
        office operation offered to, Sec. 4.88
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.43, 6.44
    salary increases for custodial employ-ees, Sec. 13.4
    sick leave, amendment concerning, of fered to bill relating to 
        grades and salaries, Sec. 35.94
    specific amendments to general propo-sitions, Sec. 21.15
    star route carriers, compensation of, Sec. 12.4
    subsidy of certain nonprofit mail, bill extending, amendment to 
        establish new class of mail and postal rate offered to, 
        Sec. 9.54
    substitute amendment, amendment to, Sec. 21.15
    waiver of points of order, Sec. 45.2
Powers, limitations on, amendments imposing, see Limitations imposed by 
    amendments as to powers
Powers not granted in bill, amendments conferring
    Commodity Credit Corporation, amendment authorizing transferor sale 
        of surplus commodities by, offered to joint resolution 
        directing Secretary of Treasury to discharge indebtedness of 
        Corporation, Sec. 14.1
    congressional committees, amendment conferring responsibilities 
        relating to consumer protection upon, offered to bill creating 
        executive agency to protect consumer interests, Sec. 14.6
    ethical conduct and financial disclosure requirements applicable to 
        executive branch employees, provisions relating to, amendment 
        providing for special prosecutor to investigate violations by 
        such employees and others, 14.5

[[Page 9310]]

    farm appraisers, bill relating to, amendment concerning approval of 
        certain appraisals offered to, Sec. 14.2
    Presidential authority to order military reservists to Civilian 
        Conservation Corps, bill addressing, amendment authorizing 
        President to make permanent assignments to corps offered to, 
        Sec. 14.4
    rivers and harbors projects, bill authorizing, amendment 
        authorizing Secretary of Interior to dispose of electricity 
        generated, Sec. 14.3
Price control
    agricultural commodities, amendment regarding regulation of, 
        Sec. 39.6
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 4.98, 42.6
    coal, amendment relating to, offered to bill affecting petroleum 
        prices, Sec. 8.32
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.98, 39.5
    construction materials, amendment relating to price of, offered to 
        housing bill, Sec. 5.26
    credit expansion, amendment relating to powers of Federal Reserve 
        Board with respect to, Sec. 3.35
    currency and credit, amendment relating to powers of Federal 
        Reserve Board over, Sec. 3.35
    exceptions, amendment providing for, Sec. 29.8
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. 42.3
    existing law, amendment repealing, Sec. 4.98
    existing law, bill amending, in limited respect, Sec. 35.27
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. Sec. 29.8, 33.20, 33.21, 35.17, 
        35.18, 39.1-39.8
    Federal Reserve Board, amendment relating to powers of, over 
        currency and credit, Sec. 3.35
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 39.8
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. Sec. 8.32, 39.8
    labor, amendment affecting, Sec. 39.1
    limitations imposed by amendments, generally, Sec. 39.7
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. Sec. 33.20, 
        33.21
    livestock, amendment to eliminate subsidies on, Sec. 39.2
    livestock, amendment to prohibit regulations affecting, Sec. 39.3
    meat, amendment to eliminate subsidies on, Sec. 39.2
    meat, amendment to prohibit regulations affecting, Sec. 39.3
    petroleum, bill relating to, amendment affecting coal prices 
        offered to, Sec. 8.32
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 35.27, 39.1
    ration tokens, amendment regarding issuance of, by Office of Price 
        Administration, Sec. 39.7
    rent control, amendment relating to, offered to Defense Production 
        Act, Sec. 19.23
    Silver Purchase Act of 1934, amend-ment repealing, Sec. 4.98
    stamp taxes, amendment relating to, Sec. 4.98
    sugar, extension of laws affecting price of, Sec. 39.8
    suspension of ceiling prices, Sec. 6.22
    voluntary restraints, bill to promote, amendment directing 
        President toissue orders stabilizing wages and prices offered 
        to, Sec. 6.20

[[Page 9311]]

    wages and working conditions, amendment relating to, Sec. 39.1
Private bills
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 8.15, 9.6
    general legislation, amendment comprising, Sec. 9.6
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 8.15
Privileged pension bill, amendment containing nonprivileged matter 
    offered to, Sec. 8.29
Procedural aspects of point of order and ruling, see Points of order
Pro forma amendment, germaneness of, Sec. 17.2
Public works (see also e.g., Appropriations; Highways)
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 30.16
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. 31.16
    discrimination in employment, firms practicing, amendment providing 
        that funds not be paid to, Sec. 34.18
    Eisenhower Civic Center, provisions that support fund would become 
        effective upon approval by congressional committees (as 
        provided in Public Buildings Act) of construction of, amendment 
        changing approval procedures under law offered to, Sec. 4.100
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. Sec. 31.16, 42.60
    Federal Works Administration, powers granted to, Sec. 9.22
    flood control, see Flood control
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 3.51, 9.22
    grants, amendment authorizing, offered to bill authorizing loans, 
        Sec. 6.3
    hospital facilities, amendment authorizing grants for construction 
        of, offered to bill relating to government buildings, Sec. 9.22
    hospital facilities, amendment authorizing grants to private and 
        state agencies for, Sec. 3.51
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 6.3
    limitations imposed by amendment, Sec. 31.16
    loans, bill authorizing, amendment authorizing ``grants'' offered 
        to, Sec. 6.3
    naval construction, Sec. 22.1
    private agencies, grants to, amendment authorizing, Sec. 9.22
    private and state agencies, amendment authorizing grants to, for 
        hospital facilities, Sec. 3.51
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. 30.16
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.3
    revenue-sharing amendment to public works construction bill, 
        Sec. 4.99
    rivers and harbors, see Rivers and harbors specific amendments to 
        general proposition, Sec. 10.18
    state and private agencies, amendment authorizing grants to, for 
        hospital facilities, Sec. 3.51
    states, bill authorizing loans to, amendment authorizing ``grants'' 
        offered to, Sec. 6.3
    states, grants to, amendment authorizing, Sec. 9.22
    unemployment, bill providing for grants for projects to alleviate, 
        amendment containing revenue-sharing provisions to assist local 
        governments in maintaining public services offered to, Sec. 6.1
Punishment for prior wrongful acts, amendment imposing, offered to

[[Page 9312]]

    resolution to administer oath to Member, Sec. 1.1
Purpose, fundamental, of bill or amendment as test of germaneness
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. Sec. 5.13, 5.14
    armed forces, bill to increase, amendment to allow aliens to enlist 
        offered to, Sec. 5.22
    budget resolutions, amendment changing procedures generally to 
        require presidential approval of, offered to bill requiring 
        balanced budget to be submitted by President and voted on by 
        Congress, Sec. 5.6
    Civil Rights Commission, bill extending, amendment authorizing 
        relocation loans to persons wishing to emigrate from state 
        practicing segregation, Sec. 5.5
    Coast Guard, bill authorizing operations of, amendment to require 
        that commercial cargo under protection of Coast Guard be 
        transported on United States vessels offered to, Sec. 5.24
    debt limit, bill to increase, amendment authorizing issuance and 
        directing purchase of non-interest-bearing obligations, 
        Sec. 5.8
    electrical power in Pacific northwest, bill granting powers to 
        government agency relating to use and conservation of, 
        amendment creating government corporation to perform similar 
        function offered to, Sec. 5.14
    energy conservation, bill addressing agencies' formulation of 
        policies of, amendment prohibiting use of fuel for school 
        busing offered to, Sec. 5.15
    energy conservation, bill to promote, amendment relating to energy 
        use in production of beverage containers offered to, Sec. 5.18
    environmental research, bill authorizing Federal Energy Research 
        and Development Administration to conduct, amendment 
        authorizing Council on Environmental Quality to evaluate 
        environmental effects of energy technologyoffered to, Sec. 5.13
    gambling, bill to prohibit off-shore, amendment to prohibit 
        transportation of gambling devices in interstate commerce 
        offered to, Sec. 5.33
    gas, provisions deregulating primarily interstate sales of, 
        substitute amendment addressing more aspects of regulation of 
        intrastate sales offered for, Sec. 5.16
    highway construction authorization bill, amendment authorizing 
        funds for portion of highway project having ancillary purpose 
        of facilitating completion of flood-control project offered to, 
        Sec. 5.12
    housing, bill to stabilize costs of, amendment authorizing 
        establishment of maximum prices for construction materials 
        offered to, Sec. 5.26
    housing, bill to stabilize costs of, amendment providing aid to 
        veterans in buying houses offered to, Sec. 5.25
    humanitarian and evacuation assistance, bill providing for, 
        amendment authorizing military aid to further purposes of bill 
        offered to, Sec. 5.23
    labor standards affecting wages and hours, bill providing for 
        establishment of, amendment to establish committee to 
        investigate social and other factors relevant to labor 
        standards offered to, Sec. 5.29
    lobbyists, provisions requiring registration and disclosure by, 
        amendment placing ceiling on lobbyists contributions to federal 
        officials offered to, Sec. 5.31

[[Page 9313]]

    lobbyists, provisions requiring registration and disclosure by, 
        amendment requiring identification tags offered to, Sec. 5.30
    lobbyists, provisions requiring registration and disclosure by, 
        amendment to prohibit lobbying within certain distance of House 
        and Senate offered to, Sec. 5.32
    ``nuclear winter,'' provision authorizing funds for research on, 
        amendment designating by specified Senators' names any science 
        scholarships established under the bill offered to, Sec. 5.34
    petroleum reserves, bill to authorize, amendment requiring study of 
        recreational and other public uses of land in reserve, 
        Sec. 5.17
    revenue-sharing, provision extending for one year authorization 
        for, amendment extending program for three years offered to, 
        Sec. 5.9
    school construction, formula for allotment to states of funds for 
        school construction, amendment proposing different formula 
        offered to provisions authorizing, Sec. 5.10
    taxation by states of federal incomes, amendment to allow, offered 
        to revenue bill, Sec. 5.11
    veterans, amendment to provide housing aid to, offered to bill to 
        stabilize costs of housing, Sec. 5.25
    voting rights, bill establishing commission to study deprivation 
        of, amendment creating commission to aid negroes wishing to 
        emigrate from state practicing segregation, Sec. 5.4
    voting rights, bill to enforce, amendment to protect related first 
        amendment rights offered to, Sec. 5.3
    war powers bill, amendment affecting federal retirement law offered 
        to, Sec. 5.21
    water for irrigation, bill amending Reclamation Law primarily with 
        respect to eligibility for, amendment to require review of 
        audit reports on water resource projects including specified 
        projects to provide hydroelectric power offered to, Sec. 5.20
Purpose of bill, amendment to accomplish, by different method
    additional means of accomplishing purpose, amendment providing for, 
        see, e.g., Class, propositions of same, amendment adding to two 
        or more
    agency, different, bill and amendment as contemplating 
        implementation of provisions by, Sec. Sec. 6.8, 6.9
    agricultural credit, bill providing new budget authority for, 
        amendment providing for reappropriation in lieu of such new 
        authority offered to, Sec. 6.14
    agricultural products, bill regulating marketing of, amendment to 
        fix prices after determinations made by Secretary of 
        Agriculture offered to, Sec. 6.17
    armed forces, bill relating to free postage for, amendment 
        proposing to furnish 15 postage-free envelopes each month to 
        members of armed forces offered to, Sec. 6.43
    arts and humanities, bill authorizing grant programs for support 
        of, amendment authorizing additional program for employment of 
        unemployed artists offered to, Sec. 6.47
    automobiles, fuel efficient, rebates to purchasers in lieu of 
        regulatory measure to promote, Sec. 6.12

[[Page 9314]]

    campaign expenditures for radio and television, bill to limit, 
        amendment to effect limitation on newspaper and periodical 
        expenditures offered to, Sec. 6.35
    coal, bill to promote conversion from gas or oil to, amendment 
        providing for government aid to private industry for 
        construction of facilities for liquefaction of coal offered to, 
        Sec. 6.13
    constitutional amendment affecting President's term of office, 
        amendment proposing, offered to bill authorizing President to 
        appoint assistants, Sec. 6.37
    consumer protection, bill establishing independent executive agency 
        with responsibility for, amendment substituting congressional 
        office permitted to intervene in proceedings affecting 
        consumers offered to, Sec. 6.36
    crime control measure, firearm regulation proposed as, instead of 
        assistance to states in law enforcement research and training, 
        Sec. 6.6
    defense department, proposal to withhold pay of retired military 
        officers who engage in selling products to, amendment to 
        penalize defense contractors who hire retired officers offered 
        to, Sec. 6.45
    distribution formulas, proposition and amendment as containing 
        different, for determining rate of assistance to states on 
        account of unemployment,Sec. 6.2
    electrical power in Pacific Northwest, bill granting powers to 
        government agency relating to use and conservation of, 
        amendment creating government corporation to perform similar 
        function offered to, Sec. 6.8
    energy conservation measure emphasizing petroleum resources, 
        amendment prohibiting non-returnable beverage containers 
        offered to, Sec. 6.7
    Ethics in Government Act, title providing for financial disclosure 
        and regulation of ethical conduct contained in, amendment 
        placing limits on outside earned income offered to, Sec. 6.34
    expenditure limitation in specific amount, provision fixing, 
        amendment providing formula for calculation of limitation 
        offered to, Sec. 6.30
    farm ownership, bill authorizing loans to promote, amendment 
        directingfederal land banks to transfer property for resale 
        offered to, Sec. 6.15
    Federal Energy Administration, bill to extend, amendment to 
        abolishagency and transfer functions offered to, Sec. 6.10
    Federal Energy Research and Development Administration, bill 
        relating toprograms to be conducted by, amendment authorizing 
        Council on Environmental Quality to evaluate environmental 
        effects of energy technology offered to, Sec. 6.9
    Foreign Assistance Act, bill amending, amendment authorizing annual 
        appropriation to President to accomplish objectives of bill 
        offered to, Sec. 6.38
    foreign claims against United States, amendment providing for 
        creditagainst foreign indebtedness as means for settlement of, 
        offered tobill providing for settlement, Sec. Sec. 6.39, 6.40
    foreign vessels, proposition empowering President to take over, 
        amendment providing that compensation to foreign nation may be 
        in form ofcredit against any indebtedness offered to, Sec. 6.40

[[Page 9315]]

    formulas, different, as stated in proposition and amendment 
        pertaining toacreage reserve programs, Sec. 6.16
    loan guarantees to states and cities, bill to provide, amendment 
        providingdirect loan to New York offered to, Sec. 6.4
    mail, military, bill and amendment as providing different means for 
        covering costs of air transportation of, Sec. 6.44
    President's term of office, amendment to change, offered to bill 
        authorizing President to appoint assistants, Sec. 6.37
    price ceilings, amendment providing for suspension of, substitute 
        amendment providing for suspension of price ceilings under 
        different conditions offered to, Sec. 6.22
    public ownership of District of Columbia transportation authority 
        for interim period proposed in lieu of private ownership, 
        Sec. 6.27
    public works construction, bill to provide grants for, amendment 
        containing revenue-sharing provisions to assist local 
        governments in maintaining public services offered to, Sec. 6.1
    reappropriation, amendment providing for, in lieu of new budget 
        authority,Sec. 6.14
    rebates to purchasers in lieu of regulatory measure to promote fuel 
        efficient automobiles, Sec. 6.12
    roll call votes in House on amendments rejected in Committee of 
        theWhole, amendments to permit, Sec. Sec. 6.32, 6.33
    salary limitations, bill and amendment as achieving, through 
        application of different criteria, Sec. 6.21
    science research facility, bill authorizing construction of, 
        amendment authorizing expansion of existing facilities offered 
        to, Sec. 6.46
    states, aid for public works projects proposed to be given to, in 
        form ofgrants instead of loans, Sec. 6.3
    states, bill to provide assistance for development of public 
        housing to, amendment proposing loans to individuals for 
        purpose of providing better privately owned housing facilities 
        offered to, Sec. 6.5
    tax incentives to promote energy conservation, bill containing, 
        amendment repealing oil depletion tax credit offered to, 
        Sec. 6.11
    tax, income, in lieu of sales tax proposed for District of 
        Columbia, Sec. 6.29
    teller votes, different methods of recording, proposition and 
        amendment thereto as comprising, Sec. Sec. 6.32, 6.33
    timberlands, proposition to permit transfer of, amendment 
        permitting transfer of timber rights only offered to, Sec. 6.19
    veterans' loans, bill giving Administrator authority to establish 
        maximum interest rate for, amendment changing authority of 
        Administrator to manage loan program offered to, Sec. 6.41
    veterans' pensions, bill and amendment as stating different 
        conditions to be used in determining, Sec. 6.42
    wage and price stabilization, bill extending advisory function of 
        agency for purpose of achieving, amendment directing President 
        to issue orders and regulations to effect stabilization offered 
        to, Sec. 6.20
    wages and hours in industry, bill conferring authority on 
        independent board to set, amendments to vest authority in 
        division of Department of Labor or to specifically set wages 
        and hours offered to, Sec. 6.23

[[Page 9316]]

    water, drinking, amendment permitting judicial remedy to prevent 
        discharge of contaminants into streams offered to bill 
        authorizing promulgation of national standards for, Sec. 6.24
    water, drinking, amendment requiring international agreements 
        relating to contaminants in water offered to bill authorizing 
        promulgation of national standards for, Sec. 6.25
Reappropriation, amendment providing for, in lieu of new budget 
    authority, Sec. 6.14
Recommit, instructions in motion to
    agriculture bills, Sec. 23.10
    amendment to bill, instructions as not directly proposing, 
        Sec. 23.9
    appropriation of new budget authority, amendment providing for 
        transfer of unexpended balances of funds previously 
        appropriated in lieu of, Sec. 15.39civil rights, Sec. 23.7
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 23.3, 23.8
    concurrent resolution expressing sense of Congress as to domestic 
        situation in Soviet Union, amendments regarding diplomatic 
        initiatives by United States included in motion to recommit, 
        Sec. 23.2
    Constitution, proposals to amend, Sec. 23.8, 23.9
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 8.29
    judiciary, bills relating to, Sec. 23.7
    permanent law, amendment containing change in, not germane to joint 
        resolution continuing appropriations, Sec. 23.4
    policy, congressional, instructions including declaration of, 
        Sec. 23.3
    reinserting amendments previously stricken, instructions as, 
        Sec. 23.11
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. 23.3
    veterans' pension bill, Sec. 8.29
    voting rights, Sec. 23.7
    waiving provisions of law within another committee's jurisdiction, 
        Sec. 2.8
Rent control, amendment relating to, offered to Defense Production Act, 
    Sec. 19.23
Resolution from Committee on Rules providing for consideration of bill, 
    see Special rules, amendments to; Special rules waiving points of 
    order
Resolution waiving points of order, see Special rules waiving points of 
    order; Waiver of points of order
Restrictions on use or availability of funds
    abortion, funds in education bill for teaching or counseling as to 
        use of,Sec. 34.25
    abortions, restriction on funds for, Sec. 34.24
    agency funded in previous title of bill, amendment to limit use of 
        funds by, Sec. 34.36
    agriculture bills, Sec. 30.14
    aid to Israel, amendment prohibiting, except on certain conditions, 
        Sec. 15.15
    alternative fuels, direction to Department of Energy concerning 
        purchase of, Sec. 34.29
    appropriation bills, Sec. Sec. 15.2, 15.6-15.8, 15.27, 15.35, 
        15.47, 29.1, 29.9, 34.17, 34.30, 34.32, 34.33
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 32.1, 34.10
    Asian Development Bank, United States payments to, Sec. 34.23
    budget, levels of spending in resolution on, as measure of spending 
        authority, Sec. 34.2

[[Page 9317]]

    chemical weapons, production of, Sec. 34.9
    civil rights, Sec. Sec. 34.19, 39.19
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 34.5
    committee travel, Sec. 34.5
    condition imposed on allocation of funds authorized for flood 
        control, Sec. 18.15
    Cuba, provision respecting aid to, amendment affecting other 
        nations offered to, Sec. 15.35
    debt limit, increases in, as standard affecting availability of 
        funds, Sec. 34.1
    Defense Department authorization bill, substitute amendment 
        prohibiting use of any Defense Department funds for binary 
        chemical weapons offered for amendment to, Sec. 9.14
    deployment of troops, funds for, beyond specified period, 
        Sec. 34.13
    education, Sec. Sec. 31.42, 39.19
    Education, organizational bill transferring programs to new 
        Department of, amendment to prohibit use ofauthorized funds for 
        school busing not germane to, Sec. 34.38
    evacuees, use of funds to relocate, in high unemployment areas in 
        United States, Sec. 34.12
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. 39.19
    expenditures under other Acts as measure of availability of funds, 
        Sec. 34.3
    Federal Energy Administration hearings to be conducted in specified 
        areas, Sec. 34.27
    foreign affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 11.32
    foreign aid bills, Sec. Sec. 11.32, 34.146
    foreign aid to particular nation, provision restricting, amendment 
        extending restriction to other nations offered to, Sec. 9.48
    foreign-made goods, funds to purchase, Sec. 34.21
    health centers in states that permit public bath houses, amendment 
        denying assistance to, Sec. 34.26
    highways, Sec. Sec. 34.16, 35.76
    housing and urban renewal, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 30.10, 
        34.34
    interior and insular affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 32.14
    language restricting amendments effects to ``use of funds in the 
        bill,'' Sec. 34.37
    law, application of separate and substantive, to operations of 
        agency, Sec. 34.37
    laws, amendments making substantive changes in, offered to bill 
        creating new department and transferring administration of 
        existing laws thereto, Sec. 34.38
    Members, retiring, funds for expenses of, Sec. 34.7
    missile system, unconditional prohibition on use of funds for one 
        year, Sec. 34.8
    National Park Service, lease of property by, to concessioners, 
        Sec. 34.35
    natural resources and conservation, bills relating to, Sec. 32.14
    new department, bill transferring administration of existing laws 
        to, amendments changing substantive laws being administered 
        offered to, Sec. 34.38
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, authorization of funds for, 
        amendment prohibiting use of funds for approval of uranium 
        exports offered to, Sec. 34.31
    organizational bill transferring programs to new Department of 
        Education, amendment to prohibit use of authorized funds for 
        school busing not germane to, Sec. 34.38

[[Page 9318]]

    OSHA regulations applicable to small farms, provision to prohibit 
        use of funds to enforce, amendment requiring expenditure to 
        ensure congressional compliance with OSHA offered to, Sec. 8.20
    other Acts, expenditures under, as measure of availability of 
        funds, Sec. 34.3
    other Acts, restriction affecting funds in, Sec. Sec. 9.16-9.18, 
        9.21
    percentage reduction imposed on funds authorized in each title of 
        foreign aid bill, Sec. 2.5
    previous title of bill, agency funded in, amendment to limit use of 
        funds by, Sec. 34.36
    public works, Sec. 30.16
    racial imbalance, transportation programs intended to overcome, 
        Sec. 34.20
    recommit, instructions in motion to, Sec. 23.3
    salaries of Members who voted against salary increase, Sec. 34.4
    Southeast Asia policy, congressional declaration of, funds to be 
        used in accordance with, Sec. 4.32
    Soviet Union, goods produced by slave labor in, barred from customs 
        entry, Sec. 34.22
    state law, amendment prohibiting use of funds for purposes 
        prohibited by, Sec. 15.7
    synthetic fuels, provisions concerning contracts for development 
        of, prohibition against contracts with major oil producers 
        attached to, Sec. 34.28
    total budget expenditures, amendment limiting, offered to 
        resolution continuing appropriations, Sec. 15.17
    transportation programs intended to overcome racial imbalance, 
        Sec. 34.20
    United Nations, amendment prohibiting use of funds for paying dues 
        of members of, Sec. 15.8
    United Nations peacekeeping forces, amendment making funds for 
        earlywarning system in Sinai dependent on reduction in United 
        States contribution to, Sec. 34.15
    Vietnam, amendment to restrict use of funds in, offered to military 
        authorization bill, Sec. 32.1
    Vietnam, military operations in, Sec. 15.27
Result of bill, amendment to accomplish, by different method, see 
    Purpose of bill, amendment to accomplish, by different method
Retirement of Army officers, bill relating to (see also Armed services; 
    Veterans)
    Navy and Marine Corps, amendment extending privileges to, Sec. 12.8
Retrenchment of expenditures, see Holman rule
Rivers and harbors
    electrical energy generated at projects, disposition of, by 
        Secretary of Interior, Sec. 14.3
    flood control, see Flood control
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 10.20
    Intracoastal Waterway, Sec. 10.20
    pipelines, bill authorizing construction of, amendment adding 
        pipeline offered to, Sec. 11.9
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. Sec. 11.9, 14.3
    temporary legislation, amendment to, making certain provisions 
        thereof permanent, Sec. 24.8
Rules, Committee on, special rule from, see Special rules, amend

[[Page 9319]]

    ments to; Special rules waiving points of order
Rules of the House, proposals to amend (see also Congress, operation 
    of; Government organization)
    committee chairman, acting, selection of, Sec. Sec. 18.6, 21.8
    committee meetings, calling of, Sec. 18.6
    Committee of the Whole, amendment relating to voting procedures in, 
        offered to provisions affecting committee stage of legislative 
        process, Sec. 35.90
    committee reports, resolution addressing content of, amendment to 
        require statement to accompany appropriation provisions as to 
        changes made in law offered to, Sec. 3.37
    different rule, amendment addressed to, from that under 
        consideration, Sec. Sec. 6.32, 21.8
    disapproval procedure, amendment to establish, offered to bill 
        amending Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act to authorize 
        regulations including rationing procedures, Sec. 35.86
    hearings, proposal to amend rules relating to open or closed, 
        amendment affecting investigative funds for minority staff 
        offered to, Sec. 35.91
    proxy voting in committees, amendment restricting, offered to 
        amendment relating to selection of temporary chairmen, 
        Sec. 18.6
    reconsideration in House of amendments rejected in Committee of the 
        Whole, Sec. Sec. 6.32, 6.33
    recorded teller votes, proposal to permit, in Committee of the 
        Whole, Sec. Sec. 6.32, 6.33
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 6.32, 6.33
    section of bill, amendment affecting all provisions of, offered to 
        amendment adding paragraph to section, Sec. 18.6
    substitute amendment addressed to different rule, Sec. 21.8
    teller votes, proposal to permit recording of, in Committee of the 
        Whole, Sec. Sec. 6.32, 6.33
    votes, teller, proposal to permit recording of, Sec. Sec. 6.32, 
        6.33
Rules, special, see Special rules, amendments to; Special rules waiving 
    points of order
Ruling, Chair as confining analysis to text of amendment and bill in 
    making, Sec. Sec. 3.45, 46.2
Ruling, Chair as looking behind form of amendment in making, Sec. 46.7
Ruling, Chair declines to make, on certain questions (see also 
    Anticipatory rulings or opinions by Chair)
    ambiguity, Sec. 46.4
    anticipatory ruling as to propriety of amendments not yet offered, 
        Sec. 46.3
    consistency, Sec. 46.5
    constitutional questions, Sec. Sec. 30.21, 33.8, 35.86
    effect, probable, of bill or amendment, Sec. Sec. 46.2, 46.7
    hypothetical questions, Sec. 45.7
    motives behind amendment, Sec. 3.45
    offered, inquiries as to amendments not yet, Sec. 46.3
    Speaker may decline to rule on questions that are within province 
        of Chairman of Committee of the Whole, Sec. 45.7
    ``workability'' of amendment, Sec. 34.2

[[Page 9320]]

Salaries, limitation on (see also, e.g., Government employment and 
    civil service; Congress, operation of)
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.21
Schools, see Education
Science and space, bills relating to
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 6.46
    life science research facilities, authorization for, Sec. 6.46
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. 33.27
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.46
Scope of bill, amendment enlarging (see also General amendments to 
    specific propositions)
    exclusion from coverage of bill, amendment to strike language 
        providing for, as enlarging scope of bill, Sec. 8.5
Section, amendment adding new, to bill
    agriculture bills, Sec. Sec. 19.28, 19.29, 42.11
    appropriation bills, Sec. Sec. 15.6, 15.8, 19.30
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 4.41, 13.11, 19.19, 19.20, 19.22
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. 42.42
    bill as a whole as perfected, amendment adding section at end must 
        be germane to, Sec. 2.9
    busing, amendment to prohibit use of fuel for school, offered to 
        bill addressing agencies' regulation of energy conservation, 
        Sec. 19.15
    civil rights, Sec. 19.186
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 39.10
    condition, proposition imposing, on allocation of all funds 
        authorized in bill, Sec. 18.15
    end of bill, new section added at, Sec. Sec. 19.9, 19.10, 19.24
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. Sec. 35.31, 42.11
    existing law, amendment repealing, Sec. 41.6
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. 39.10
    export of silver, amendment affecting, offered to bill relating to 
        coinage, Sec. 19.27
    flood control, Sec. 18.15
    foreign aid bills, Sec. Sec. 19.25, 30.26, 35.34, 38.1
    foreign policy, foreign aid, and trade, bill addressing diverse 
        aspects of, amendment to remove under specified conditions 
        sanctions against Rhodesia offered to, Sec. 19.24
    funds authorized in bill, condition attached to allocation of, 
        Sec. 18.15
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 18.15
    government employment and civil service, bills relating to, 
        Sec. Sec. 19.14, 19.33, 41.6
    highways, Sec. Sec. 3.31, 34.16
    housing and urban renewal, bills relating to, Sec. 31.11
    interstate and foreign commerce, bills relating to, Sec. 19.32
    judiciary, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 19.11, 19.12, 19.31
    loans to nations not party to nuclear non-proliferation treaty, 
        amendment to prohibit, offered to bill containing diverse 
        sections including provision continuing participation in 
        International Development Association, Sec. 19.10
    motion to strike pending when amendment offered, Sec. 18.2

[[Page 9321]]

    post office, Sec. Sec. 12.3, 35.94
    post office employees, bill affecting salaries of, Sec. 41.6
    previous section, amendment affecting applicability of, Sec. 19.11
    previous section, amendment qualifying, Sec. 19.12
    restrictions on use of funds, Sec. 15.6
    Senate amendment in form of new section as germane to House bill as 
        a whole, Sec. 19.8
    Senate amendment relating to tax credits for home purchases as 
        germane to House bill amending diverse portions of Internal 
        Revenue Code, Sec. 19.8
    Senate amendment to House bill must be germane to bill as a whole, 
        Sec. 2.10
    strike, motion to, pending when amendment offered, Sec. 18.2
    taxation, Sec. Sec. 18.9, 18.10, 19.34
    test of germaneness, Sec. Sec. 19.8, 19.9, 19.15, 19.24
    title, relationship between amendment and pending, as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 19.15
Senate amendments and amendments thereto
    agriculture, Senate amendment providing for census of, House 
        amendment prohibiting agencies other than Director of Census 
        from collecting agricultural information not germane to, 
        Sec. 27.38
    air pollution, Senate amendment striking prohibition on use of 
        funds to regulate parking facilities to control, House 
        amendment to restrict use of funds relating to review of 
        indirect sources of air pollution not germane to, Sec. 27.14
    amount of appropriation, amendment changing, as germane to Senate 
        amendment, Sec. 27.23
    antitrust remedies against local governments, bill restricting, 
        amendment to repeal limitation on agency's use of funds to 
        conduct antitrust actions against local governments not germane 
        to, Sec. 26.25
    appropriation amount for agency for one year, Senate amendment 
        relating to, amendment permanently requiring agency to submit 
        budget estimates not germane to, Sec. 42.59
    appropriations, amendments affecting, Sec. Sec. 27.1-27.4, 27.8-
        27.10, 27.13-27.16, 27.19-27.41
    asbestos hazard abatement, Senate amendment appropriating funds 
        for, House amendment earmarking funds for refinancing municipal 
        bond debt not germane to, Sec. 27.1
    B-1 Bomber, Senate amendment rescinding funds for, House amendment 
        delaying rescission pending contingency not germane to, 
        Sec. 27.29
    Capitol buildings, availability of Senate contingent fund for art 
        items in, House amendment affecting availability of House 
        unexpended balances for other purposes not germane to, 
        Sec. 27.36
    census in areas impacted by influx of aliens, Senate amendment 
        authorizing, House amendment excluding aliens from count in 
        determining reapportionment not germane to, Sec. 27.3
    civil service retirement annuities, Senate amendment affecting 
        computation of, House amendment relating to mortgage bond 
        taxability not germane to, Sec. 27.2
    Commodity Exchange Act, authorization to carry out, Senate 
        provisions authorizing transfer of forest lands and changing 
        basis for computing payments under Agricultural Act not germane 
        to, Sec. 26.31

[[Page 9322]]

    concur in Senate amendment with amendment, motion to, test of 
        germaneness of amendment to, Sec. 27.6
    condition unrelated to that imposed by Senate amendment, House 
        amendment as containing, Sec. 27.27
    conference report, debate on motion to reject nongermane portion 
        of, Sec. 26.6
    conference report, proceedings after House agrees to motion to 
        reject nongermane portion of, Sec. Sec. 26.8, 26.9
    conference report ruled out of order, point of order after, against 
        nongermane Senate language contained in motion to recede and 
        concur in Senate amendment with amendment, Sec. 26.26
    Congress, operation of, Sec. 27.35
    courts, federal, diverse provisions affecting organization and 
        administration of, Sec. 27.12
    debate on motion to reject nongermane portion of conference report, 
        Sec. 26.6
    defense construction, Senate amendment to allocate funds for, House 
        amendment allocating funds for restoration of facilities 
        destroyed by natural disasters not germane to, Sec. 27.30
    disagreement, amendment to provisions not in, Sec. 27.8
    divisible, motion to reject nongermane provisions of conference 
        report as, Sec. 26.35
    effective date of provisions, amendment changing, Sec. 27.16
    environmental liabilities in one State, House amendment waiving law 
        affecting, not germane to Senate amendment proposing 
        feasibility study of land transfer in , another State, 
        Sec. 27.39
    excess-profits tax legislation, Senate amendment directing 
        committee to report, amendment providing for enactment of 
        excess-profits tax legislation not germane to special rule 
        providing that House disagree to, Sec. 27.17
    federal officials, amendment authorizing appointment of special 
        prosecutor to investigate public and private conduct of, not 
        germane to House bill addressing official conduct only, 
        Sec. 26.33
    foreign relations and operation of State Department, House bill 
        concerning, Senate amendment to provide guidelines for 
        acceptance of foreign gifts as germane to, Sec. 26.28
    funds in other Acts, amendment affecting, Sec. Sec. 27.4, 27.20, 
        27.21, 27.22
    House amendment to Senate amendment, point of order based on 
        nongermaneness of, should be raised under Rule XVI clause 7, 
        not Rule XXVIII, Sec. 26.12
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 13.7
    Internal Revenue Code, Senate amendment promoting reforestation by 
        amendment of, not germane to House bill relating to boating 
        safety, Sec. 26.21
    labor-management committees, Senate provision to promote formation 
        of, not germane to House provisions relating to employment and 
        training, Sec. 26.27
    lands, Senate amendment restricting transfer of jurisdiction over, 
        House amendment restricting creation of historic sites not 
        germane to, Sec. 27.40

[[Page 9323]]

    Legal Services Corporation, Senate amendment imposing restrictions 
        on funds for, House amendment making other specified provisions 
        of law applicable to corporation not germane to, 
        Sec. Sec. 27.32, 27.33
    legislation on appropriation bill, germane amendments to Senate 
        amendment comprising, permitted, Sec. Sec. 27.16, 27.19
    legislation on appropriation bill, Senate amendment proposing, 
        House amendment to, Sec. Sec. 27.15, 27.37
    library and information services, House amendment authorizing 
        conference on, Senate amendment affecting applicability of sex 
        discrimination laws to college fraternities and sororities not 
        germane to, Sec. 26.32
    limitation exceeding scope of Senate amendment, Sec. Sec. 27.34, 
        27.38
    modification of Senate amendment or entirely new provision, test of 
        germaneness as affected by whether amendment to Senate 
        amendment is, Sec. Sec. 27.11, 27.12
    motion to reject nongermane portion of conference report, effect of 
        adoption of, on point of order that conferees have exceeded 
        scope of matters committed, Sec. 26.5
    motion to reject nongermane portion of conference report must be 
        disposed of before further points of order entertained, 
        Sec. Sec. 26.4, 26.15
    motion to reject nongermane provisions of conference report as 
        divisible, Sec. 26.35
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, bill authorizing appropriations for, 
        amendments to organic law governing Commission not germane to, 
        Sec. Sec. 26.34, 26.35
    office building extension, Senate legislative amendment affecting, 
        House amendment reducing funding ceiling and containing related 
        specifications as germane to, Sec. 27.37
    oil imports, bill requiring use of United States vessels to carry, 
        amendment relating to construction of vessels in foreign or 
        domestic commerce not germane to, Sec. 26.29
    original House-passed bill, germaneness of Senate amendment 
        modified by House amendment prior to conference as not 
        determined by relationship to, Sec. 26.3
    penalties, imposition of, Sec. 27.34
    permanent change in law, House amendment comprising, not germane to 
        Senate amendment affecting appropriation for one year, 
        Sec. Sec. 27.24, 27.25
    permanent change in law, House amendment proposing, not germane to 
        Senate amendment striking funds for program for one year, 
        Sec. 27.25
    permanent law, House amendment changing, not germane to Senate 
        amendment relating to annual appropriation for agency, 
        Sec. 42.59
    persons, propositions affecting same or different classes of, 
        Sec. 13.7, 27.35
    Philippine War Damage Commission, Senate amendment imposing 
        prohibition on certain uses of funds affecting, House amendment 
        to enlarge scope of prohibition not germane to, Sec. 27.34
    point of order against provision as appropriation on legislative 
        bill to be disposed of prior to germaneness point of order, 
        Sec. Sec. 26.2, 26.26
    point of order should be based on Rule XVI not Rule XXVIII, 
        Sec. Sec. 27.4, 27.11, 27.12

[[Page 9324]]

    portion of motion to recede and concur with amendment, point of 
        order against, where Senate amendment contained therein is not 
        germane to House-passed measure, Sec. Sec. 26.11, 26.30
    prohibition on use of funds in appropriation bill, Senate amendment 
        imposing, House amendment to enlarge scope of prohibition not 
        germane to, Sec. 27.34
    prohibition on use of funds in fashion to commit United States to 
        specified policy affecting MX missile, House amendment adding 
        authorization of another weapons system not germane to, 
        Sec. 27.19
    recede and concur in Senate amendment with an amendment, amendment 
        contained in motion to, must be germane to Senate amendment, 
        Sec. Sec. 27.1-27.3
    recede and concur in Senate amendment with amendment consisting of 
        remainder of conference report, motion to, as pending question 
        after rejection of nongermane portion, Sec. Sec. 26.8, 26.9
    recede and concur in Senate amendment with amendment, effect of 
        recognition to make motion to, on point of order that conferees 
        exceeded scope of matters committed, Sec. 26.5
    recede and concur in Senate amendment with amendment, point of 
        order against motion to, based on nongermaneness of Senate 
        amendment to House-passed measure, Sec. Sec. 26.11, 26.30
    recede and concur in Senate amendment with amendment, point of 
        order against nongermane Senate language in motion to, after 
        conference report ruled out on other grounds, Sec. 26.26
    recede and concur in Senate amendment with amendment, point of 
        order under rule prohibiting appropriation on legislative bill 
        against motion to, must be disposed of prior to germaneness 
        point of order, Sec. Sec. 26.2, 26.26
    reinserting or amending provisions stricken by Senate amendment, 
        Sec. 27.10
    rejection of nongermane portion of conference report, proceedings 
        after, Sec. Sec. 26.8, 26.9
    research and education on seat belts and passive restraints, 
        provision rescinding agency's funds for, amendment imposing 
        conditions on availability of all funds for agency not germane 
        to, Sec. 27.28
    resolution providing that House disagree to, amendment offered to, 
        Sec. 27.17
    separate vote on nongermane Senate provisions agreed to in 
        conference, where Senate bill is amended by inserting House 
        bill in lieu thereof, Sec. 26.1
    special rule providing that House disagree to Senate amendment that 
        directed committee to report excess-profits tax legislation, 
        House amendment providing that House concur in amendment with 
        amendment actually to enact excess-profits tax legislation not 
        germane to, Sec. 27.17
    special rule waiving points of order against conference report, 
        amendment to, permitting rejection of nongermane portion and 
        addition of language of original nongermane Senate amendment, 
        Sec. 26.13
    special rule waiving points of order against nongermane House 
        amendments proposed in joint statement of managers, Sec. 27.18

[[Page 9325]]

    states, amendment establishing grants to assist in provision of 
        public services, by, not germane to House bill authorizing 
        grants to states for public works construction projects, 
        Sec. 26.22
    states, bill authorizing funds for creation of public works jobs to 
        be provided to, amendment mandating expenditure of previously 
        appropriated funds deferred under Impoundment Control Act not 
        germane to, Sec. 26.24
    states, new title in Senate bill establishing grants to assist in 
        provision of public services by, not germane to House amendment 
        relating to grants to states for public works construction 
        projects, Sec. 26.23
    stricken language, House amendment to reinsert or amend, as germane 
        to Senate amendment, Sec. Sec. 27.10, 27.13, 27.33
    stricken language, relationship between House amendment and, as 
        test of amendment's germaneness to Senate amendment that struck 
        language of House bill, Sec. Sec. 27.9, 27.10, 27.14
    striking prohibition on payment to named individuals, Senate 
        amendment, House amendment prohibiting payments to class of 
        persons not germane to, Sec. 27.41
    striking prohibition on use of funds for regulation of parking 
        facilities to control air pollution, Senate amendment, House 
        amendment to restrict use of funds relating to review of 
        indirect sources of air pollution not germane to, Sec. 27.14
    substitute reported from conference, Senate amendment included in, 
        must be germane to House-passed bill as a whole, Sec. 2.11
    tariff duty, bill exempting equipment and repairs for United States 
        Vessels from, amendment extending unemployment benefits not 
        germane to, Sec. 26.30
    tax credits, House bill providing, Senate amendment affecting 
        foreign tax credits as germane to, Sec. 26.20
    tax credits, House bill providing, Senate amendment authorizing 
        payments to social security recipients not germane to, 
        Sec. 26.18
    tax credits, House bill providing, Senate amendment regarding 
        credits for home purchases as germane to, Sec. 26.17
    tax credits, House bill providing, Senate amendment to provide 
        unemployment benefits not germane to, Sec. 26.19
    travel allowances, Senate amendment affecting payments from Senate 
        contingent fund for, House amendment affecting payments from 
        House contingent fund not germane to, Sec. 27.35
    vessel for State maritime academy, Senate amendment providing for, 
        House amendment regarding vessels for all State maritime 
        academies not germane to, Sec. 27.31
Senate, consideration of similar amendment in, as affecting germaneness 
    of amendment in House, Sec. 13.11
Sense of Congress, see Policy, congressional, amendment stating
Social Security benefits, amendment concerning eligibility of 
    noncitizens for, Sec. 29.4
Social Security benefits, requirements for receiving
    specific amendments to general proposition, Sec. 10.19

[[Page 9326]]

Special committee, resolution providing for
    expenses, committee amendment relating to payment of, from 
        contingent fund of House, Sec. 4.95
    jurisdiction, committee, over subject matter of proposal as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.95
Special rule permitting amendments that have been printed in Record, 
    amendment may not differ from printed amendment when offered 
    pursuant to, Sec. 43.12
Special rule providing that House disagree to Senate amendment that 
    directed committee to report excess-profits tax legislation, House 
    amendment providing that House concur in amendment with amendment 
    enacting excess profits tax legislation not germane to, Sec. 27.17
Special rules, amendments to, Sec. Sec. 17.3-17.5
Special rules waiving points of order (see also Waiver of points of 
    order)
    amendments permitted to be offered to amendment made in order by 
        special rule, Sec. Sec. 2.24, 45.8-45.10
    conference reports, special rules waiving points of order against, 
        see Senate amendments and amendments thereto
    illustrative special rules, Sec. Sec. 45.1, 45.2
    legislative provision in appropriation bill, effect of waiver of 
        points of order against, on subsequent germane amendments to 
        provision, Sec. 45.10
    portion of amendment in nature of substitute to be read as original 
        text, special rule permitting point of order against, 
        Sec. Sec. 21.18, 45.3, 45.4
    Record, special rule permitting offering of amendments printed in, 
        as not allowing amendments differing from printed Record, 
        Sec. 45.5
    similar amendments, germaneness of, as not determined by waiver of 
        points of order against particular amendments, Sec. 45.11
    substitute, germane, allowed for amendment made in order by rule, 
        Sec. 2.18
    ``text of'' bill offered as amendment, waiver of points of order 
        against, as applicable only when whole text is offered as 
        amendment, Sec. 45.7
Specific amendments to general propositions
    automobiles, bill mandating diverse studies of factors affecting 
        domestic production of, amendment directing study of impact of 
        currency exchange rates on production offered to, Sec. 10.6
    definition of terms in bill, amendment adding or changing, 
        Sec. Sec. 10.1-10.3
    displaced persons, bill to authorize admission of, amendment 
        providing that term ``displaced person'' include persons of 
        German origin offered to, Sec. 10.2
    Education, portion of bill stating findings and purposes related to 
        establishment of Department of, amendment adding finding with 
        respect to use of quotas offered to, Sec. 10.4
    employment, provision conferring authority to minimize adverse 
        effects of energy conservation measures upon, amendment 
        authorizing grants to states to assist unemployed offered to, 
        Sec. 10.10
    energy, bill relating to conversion from oil and gas to coal as 
        source of, amendment providing for assistance to industry for 
        the construction of coal liquefaction facilities offered to, 
        Sec. 10.8

[[Page 9327]]

    energy research and development program, bill authorizing, 
        amendment directing specific emphasis on unconventional energy 
        sources offered to, Sec. 10.9
    environmental pollution, bill creating task force to investigate 
        relationship of certain diseases to, amendment to direct task 
        force to consider impact of personal health habits including 
        smoking offered to, Sec. 10.12
    government agencies, bill authorizing reorganization of, amendment 
        relating to one agency offered to, Sec. 10.15
    government employees in executive branch, provisions relating to, 
        amendment relating to specific department offered to, 
        Sec. 10.16
    government surplus property, bill providing for methods of 
        disposition of, amendment relating to disposition of property 
        appropriated for educational use offered to, Sec. 10.17
    government vehicles, restrictions placed on purchase of, amendment 
        imposing numerical limitation on purchase of fuel inefficient 
        vehicles, Sec. 10.11
    intracoastal waterway, bill authorizing construction of channel as 
        part of, amendment to authorize additional channel offered to, 
        Sec. 10.20
    law enforcement, bill authorizing funding of programs to improve, 
        amendment to condition funds on enactment of law enforcement 
        officers' grievance system offered to, Sec. 10.14
    military procurement programs, provisions authorizing funds for, 
        amendment authorizing establishment of military preparedness 
        grain reserve offered to, Sec. 10.5
    opium trade, amendment adding negotiations with Turkey relating to, 
        offered to bill to strengthen relations with Turkey and Greece 
        in diverse ways, Sec. 10.21
    public works, appropriations for, amendment to make appropriation 
        for post office buildings offered to, Sec. 10.18
    social security benefits, provision describing requirements for 
        receiving, amendment adding requirement offered to, Sec. 10.19
    studies relating to energy conservation, bill funding diverse, 
        amendment authorizing specific inquiry offered to, Sec. 10.7
Statute, existing, proposal to modify, see, e.g., Existing law, 
    amendments to bills amending, generally
Stricken, language of House bill proposed by Senate amendment to be, 
    germaneness of House motion to recede and concur with amendment as 
    determined by its relationship to, Sec. Sec. 9.21, 9.31
Stricken matter, amendment relating to, Sec. 35.32
Strike, amendment to, language of bill or amendment
    agriculture bills, Sec. 20.6
    appropriation bills, Sec. 15.44
    armed services, Sec. 31.13
    civil rights, Sec. Sec. 9.12, 9.13
    class of persons, language excluding, from terms of bill, 
        Sec. 13.19
    District of Columbia appropriation bill, prohibition on certain 
        uses of federal payment funds contained in, amend ment to 
        strike reference to federal payment funds offered to, Sec. 20.5
    enlarging scope of bill or amendment, amendment striking language 
        as, Sec. Sec. 8.5, 9.12, 9.13, 9.15, 9.17, 13.5, 15.44, 20.1-
        20.5, 21.5, 21.6

[[Page 9328]]

    federal employees, provision excluding uniformed services from 
        coverage of bill affecting, amendment to strike exclusion 
        offered to, Sec. 20.2
    foreign affairs, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 18.5, 20.4
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 9.13, 20.3
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 20.3
    interior and insular affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 36.3
    judiciary, bills relating to, Sec. 21.20
    last word, germaneness of motion to strike, Sec. 17.2
    military prisoners of war, amendment extending relief to, offered 
        to bill concerning relief of civilian internees, Sec. 13.19
    perfecting amendment offered while amendment to strike pending, 
        Sec. Sec. 18.2, 19.13
    previous section, substitute amend ment striking, Sec. 21.20
    scope of bill, amendment striking language as broadening, 
        Sec. Sec. 8.5, 9.12, 9.13, 9.15, 9.17, 15.44, 20.1-20.5, 21.5, 
        21.6
    Spain, prohibition on shipment of arms to, Sec. 20.4
    substitute for perfecting amendment, not proper as, Sec. Sec. 21.6, 
        21.7
    voting rights, Sec. 9.13
Studies, propositions relating to (see also Investigations)
    alternative to authorization for program, study of feasibility of 
        program offered as, Sec. 30.37
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 4.37, 18.2
    automobiles, amendment requiring study of alternatives to, offered 
        to bill authorizing loan guarantees for Chrysler Corporation, 
        Sec. 3.23
    automobile manufacturers, bill requiring diverse studies of impact 
        of practices by, amendment directing Attorney General to study 
        antitrust and tax implications of practices offered to, 
        Sec. 3.22
    civil rights, Sec. 12.7
    Comptroller General, amendment authorizing, to study profits on 
        defense contracts, Sec. 18.2
    conditions relating to factors beyond scope of bill, amendment 
        imposing, as not rendered germane by bill's inclusion of such 
        factors in a required study of impact of bill, Sec. 3.25
    Congress, proposal to study facilities needed by, amendment 
        directing Speaker to set aside office space in new building 
        offered to, Sec. 3.69
    constitutional rights, Sec. 12.7
    defense contracts, amendment authorizing Comptroller General to 
        study profits on, Sec. 18.2
    energy conservation, bill funding diverse studies related to, 
        amendment authorizing specific inquiry offered to, Sec. 10.7
    energy conservation, proposition requiring, amendment to require 
        study of effect of regulations on energy shortage offered to, 
        Sec. 3.12
    environmental pollution, bill creating task force to investigate 
        relationship of certain diseases to, amendment to direct task 
        force to consider impact of personal health habits including 
        smoking offered to, Sec. 10.12
    feasibility of program, substitute amendment proposing study of, as 
        alternative to authorization for program, Sec. 30.37
    fuel economy, proposition directing agency to conduct study 
        affecting standards of, amendment requiring agency to propose 
        legislation offered to, Sec. 3.14

[[Page 9329]]

    labor, Sec. 5.29
    legislation, study of proposed, amendment to provisions 
        authorizing, Sec. 27.17
    nuclear winter, provision authorizing funds for research on, 
        amendment designating by specified Senators' names any science 
        scholarships established under the bill offered to, Sec. 5.34
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 5.29
    railroads, amendment requesting study of impact of tax law changes 
        on railroads, offered to bill reforming economic regulation of 
        railroads, Sec. 3.24
    various studies, bill funding, amendment authorizing specific 
        inquiry offered to, Sec. 10.7
    voting rights, Sec. 12.7
    water pollution, amendment proposing study of, offered to bill 
        creating Water Pollution Control Division, Sec. 7.5
Subject matter, new, not to be introduced by way of amendment (see also 
    specific subjects), Sec. Sec. 3.1 et seq.
Substitute amendment
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. 6.27
    amendment for which offered as substitute, must be germane to, 
        Sec. Sec. 2.17, 2.18, 21.2
    appropriation bills, Sec. 15.49
    armed services, Sec. 21.12
    banking and finance, bills relating to, Sec. 21.19
    budget, substitute amendment to concurrent resolution changing one 
        functional category in, amendment changing several categories 
        of budget authority offered to, Sec. 21.14
    ceiling prices, suspension of, Sec. 6.22
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.39
    Defense Department authorization bill, amendment decreasing 
        particular funds in, substitute amendment prohibiting use of 
        any Defense Department funds for binary chemical weapons 
        offered to, Sec. 9.14
    different or lesser portion of bill, substitute as affecting, 
        Sec. Sec. 21.2, 21.4, 21.9
    District of Columbia, bills relating to, Sec. 42.49
    District of Columbia Transportation Authority, bill relating to, 
        Sec. 6.27
    education, Sec. 9.60
    end of section, substitute adding language at, offered for 
        amendment making several changes in section, Sec. 21.4
    existing law, amendment repealing, Sec. 36.3
    foreign affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 41.9
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 9.28
    government employment and civil service, bills relating to, 
        Sec. 20.7
    government organization, bills relating to, Sec. 29.7
    housing and urban renewal, bills relating to, Sec. 21.10
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 9.60
    interior and insular affairs, bills relating to, Sec. 36.3
    judiciary, bills relating to, Sec. 21.20
    labor, Sec. 21.11
    lesser portion of same text, substitute for perfecting amendment as 
        amending, Sec. 21.5

[[Page 9330]]

    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. 41.9
    line and page numbers, substitute and amendment thereto not 
        required to affect same, Sec. 11.8
    page and line numbers, same, amendment to substitute need not 
        affect, Sec. 2.20
    penalties, amendment imposing, on retired military officers 
        employed by defense contractors, Sec. 4.39
    portion of bill, substitute amending different, Sec. Sec. 21.2, 
        21.4, 21.9
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.39, 6.22, 6.23, 6.27
    rules of the House, proposals to amend, Sec. Sec. 6.32, 21.8
    strike, amendment to, language of bill or amendment, Sec. 21.20
    strike, motion to, not proper as substitute for perfecting 
        amendment, Sec. Sec. 21.6, 21.7
    striking out larger portion of text than amendment to which 
        offered, effect of, Sec. 9.5
    study of feasibility of program offered as alternative for 
        authorization for program, Sec. 30.37
    taxation, Sec. 9.28
    wages and hours, determination of, by board exercising 
        discretionary powers, Sec. 6.23
    war powers bills, Sec. 21.11
Substitute, amendment in nature of
    agency, amendment substituting different, to administer provisions 
        of bill, Sec. 7.5, 7.7
    amendment to, Sec. 3.36
    amendment to, must be germane thereto rather than to bill, 
        Sec. 2.16
    armed services, Sec. 37.7
    civil rights, Sec. 9.11
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill citing, Sec. 41.4
    existing law, bill repealing, Sec. Sec. 37.4, 37.7
    foreign affairs, bills relating to, Sec. Sec. 18.5, 37.4
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 9.11
    labor, Sec. 5.29
    mortgage foreclosure, proceedings relating to, Sec. 3.36
    original bill, provision contained in, as not necessarily germane 
        when offered to amendment in nature of substitute, Sec. 4.68
    perfecting amendment to, as required to be germane to substitute 
        rather than to original bill, Sec. 5.9
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, Sec. 7.7
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 7.5, 7.7
    special rule permitting point of order against portion of amendment 
        in nature of substitute to be read as original text, Sec. 21.18
    substitution of section of bill for whole bill, Sec. 21.20
    test of germaneness is relationship to bill as a whole, 
        Sec. Sec. 21.17, 30.36
    unions, Sec. 41.4
    water pollution, amendment proposing investigation of, offered to 
        bill creating Water Pollution Control Division, Sec. 7.5
Subversive activities, see Internal security
Superfund authorization, see, e.g., Environment; Energy; Natural 
    resources and conservation

[[Page 9331]]

Surplus government property, disposition of
    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 10.17
Tariffs, bills relating to
    Communist nations, amendment to prevent concessions to imports 
        from, Sec. 39.21
    existing law, bill amending, in limited respect, Sec. 35.14
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. Sec. 33.2, 33.3, 39.20, 39.21
    handicraft methods, articles produced by, Sec. 33.3
    hand-made articles, imports quotas on, Sec. 33.2
    import taxes, amendment concerning, offered to proposition relating 
        to excise taxes, Sec. 33.5
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 33.5
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. Sec. 33.2, 
        33.3, 39.20, 39.21
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 35.14, 39.21
Taxation (see also Internal Revenue Code)
    ``agricultural products,'' amendment concerning taxes on, offered 
        to proposition conerning specific taxes, Sec. 9.28
    air carrier, sale of property of, Sec. 35.79
    armed services bill, amendment to, making provisions contingent 
        upon passage of tax measures, Sec. Sec. 31.9, 31.10, 31.13
    cigarettes, assistance to states in collecting taxes on, Sec. 19.34
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.57, 4.92, 39.26
    contingency, bill ineffective pending, Sec. 31.35
    credits, bill to reduce tax liabilities through various, Senate 
        amendment adding further form of tax credit as germane to, 
        Sec. 11.34
    credits, tax, Senate amendment authorizing rebates to social 
        security recipients offered to provision for, Sec. 3.28
    credits, tax, Senate amendment providing unemployment compensation 
        benefits not germane to House bill amending Internal Revenue 
        Code to provide for, Sec. 35.53
    credits, tax, Senate amendment relating to earnings of controlled 
        foreign corporations as germane to House bill amending Internal 
        Revenue Code to provide for, Sec. 35.54
    District of Columbia, bill providing for sales tax in, Sec. 6.29
    District of Columbia, bills relating to, Sec. 42.49
    education bill, amendment to, providing exemptions for persons 
        supporting students, Sec. 4.101
    energy, bill providing for tax incentives for conservation of, 
        amendment prohibiting federal purchase of fuel inefficient 
        autos offered to, Sec. 4.21
    energy conservation, bill containing tax incentives to promote, 
        amendment repealing oil depletion tax credit offered to, 
        Sec. 6.11
    enterprise zones, amendment providing tax incentives for, offered 
        to bill to provide employment opportunities through projects to 
        renovate community facilities, Sec. 4.61
    excess-profits tax, Senate amendment directing study of, Sec. 27.17
    excise taxes, amendment concerning, offered to provision regarding 
        securities, Sec. 18.10

[[Page 9332]]

    excise taxes, proposition concerning, amendment relating to import 
        duties offered to, Sec. 33.5
    excise tax on importation of pork, Sec. 9.28
    excise tax rates, amendment to repeal, offered to bill affecting 
        certain income tax liabilities, Sec. 3.26
    existing law, amendment repealing, Sec. 36.1
    gasoline, provisions authorizing President to ration, amendment 
        providing for user charges to qualify for additional allocation 
        of gasoline offered to, Sec. 4.16
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 9.28, 9.52
    gold fund, amendment making tax bill contingent upon use of, to 
        defray expenditures, Sec. 31.35
    income taxes, bill providing for current payment of, amendment 
        affecting inheritance taxes offered to, Sec. 3.27
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 33.5
    inheritance taxes, amendment affecting, offered to bill providing 
        for current payment of income taxes, Sec. 3.27
    insurance companies, income tax liability of, Sec. 3.26
    interest on veterans' loans, amendment providing for exclusion of, 
        from gross income, Sec. 4.45
    labor disputes, amendment proposing reduction of excess-profits tax 
        credits according to duration of, Sec. 3.1
    labor disputes, amendment proposing suspension of certain tax 
        measures during, Sec. 3.2
    limitations imposed by amendments, Sec. 31.35
    Members' salaries, amendment affecting tax on, offered to bill 
        appropriating sums for expense allowances, Sec. 4.96
    oleomargarine, bill repealing tax on, Sec. Sec. 3.30, 23.10
    Puerto Rico, amendment modifying tax laws applicable to, offered to 
        bill affecting election of Governor, Sec. 4.57
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 5.11
    railroads, amendment requesting study of impact of tax law changes 
        on railroads, offered to bill reforming economic regulation of 
        railroads, Sec. 3.24
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.29
    retirement benefits, exemption of, from taxation, Sec. 9.52
    retirement pay of Supreme Court Justices, amendment providing for 
        taxation of, offered to bill relating to retirement of 
        Justices, Sec. 3.29
    returns, tax, amendment relating to publication of information 
        derived from, Sec. 18.9
    revenue bill, amendment offered to, for purpose other than raising 
        revenue, Sec. 5.11
    salaries, limitation on, in amount of Sec. 25,000 after taxes, 
        Sec. 6.21
    salary limitations, amendment imposing supertax offered to 
        amendment concerning, Sec. 42.61
    sales tax in District of Columbia, bill providing for, amendment 
        concerning income tax offered to, Sec. 6.29
    securities, worthless, provision regarding transfer of, 
        Sec. Sec. 18.9, 18.10
    Senate amendment directing study of excess-profits tax, Sec. 27.17
    Senate amendments affecting, see Senate amendments and amendments 
        thereto

[[Page 9333]]

    state taxation of federal incomes, amendment to permit, offered to 
        revenue bill, Sec. 5.11
    state taxes on cigarettes, assistance in collection of, Sec. 19.34
    supertax, amendment to impose, offered to amendment relating to 
        salary limitations, Sec. 42.61
    suspension of certain tax measures during strikes, amendment 
        proposing, Sec. 3.2
    taxpayers, amendment relating to publication of names of, Sec. 18.9
    user charges for gasoline allocation under rationing plan, 
        amendment imposing, offered to provisions authorizing President 
        to ration gasoline, Sec. 4.16
    veterans' loans, amendment providing for exclusion from gross 
        income of interest on, offered to bill relating to such loans, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.45, 39.26
Technical references, amendment construed as correcting, Sec. 35.4
Temporary law, amendment continuing, offered to bill amending such law, 
    Sec. 40.1
Temporary legislation, amendment proposing permanent legislation 
    offered to, see Permanent legislation, amendment proposing, offered 
    to temporary legislation
Temporary legislation on appropriation bill, amendment comprising 
    permanent legislation offered to, see Appropriations; Holman rule, 
    requirement of, that amendment be germane
Text of another bill offered as amendment
    waiver of points of order against, Sec. 45.2
Timeliness of point of order, see Points of order
Title, amendment adding new, to bill
    agriculture bills, Sec. Sec. 3.63, 11.28
    civil rights, Sec. Sec. 4.103, 19.4, 19.16, 19.17
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.103
    constitutional rights, Sec. 19.17
    Defense, bill addressing diverse authorities of Department of, 
        amendment prohibiting use of lands for defense purposes pending 
        study offered to, Sec. 19.21
    end of bill, new title added at, Sec. 4.54, 4.67
    energy, bill to promote use of coal for, amendment providing 
        assistance to industry in liquefaction and gasification of 
        coal, Sec. 19.5
    energy conservation bill, amendment dealing with energy used in 
        production of beverage containers offered to, Sec. 2.31
    energy policy, amendment promoting support by Asian Development 
        Bank and other institutions of, offered to bill authorizing 
        United States participation in institution activities, 
        Sec. 19.7
    energy use and conservation, bill addressing, amendment relating to 
        production of beverage containers offered to, Sec. 19.6
    existing title in bill on same subject, effect of, Sec. 18.10
    housing and urban renewal, bills relating to, Sec. 30.10
    post office, Sec. 18.7
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 11.18, 19.16
    rent control, amendment relating to, offered to Defense Production 
        Act, Sec. 19.23
    taxation, Sec. 18.10

[[Page 9334]]

    test of germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.54, 4.66, 4.67
    voting rights, Sec. 19.17
    waiver of points of order, amendment made in order by, offered as 
        new title, Sec. 45.6
    war powers bills, Sec. 11.18
Title of bill not determinative, Sec. 8.17
Title or section, amendment as germane to more than one Sec. Sec. 3.24, 
    15.1
Title passed in reading, amendment affecting, Sec. Sec. 3.24, 15.1
Transportation, see Highways; Interstate and foreign commerce; Urban 
    mass transportation
Un-American activities, see Internal security
Unanimous consent that nongermane amendment be voted on, Sec. 4.41
Unanimous consent to offer amendment at different point in bill, 
    Sec. Sec. 18.13, 18.14
Unions (see also Labor)
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.82
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 41.4
    corporate bodies, amendment requiring unions to become, offered to 
        bill relating to settlement of labor disputes, Sec. 4.81
    discrimination in armed services based on union membership, 
        amendment prohibiting, Sec. 11.19
    discrimination on account of union membership, amendment 
        prohibiting, offered to relief bill, Sec. 30.9
    exceptions, amendment providing for, Sec. 41.1
    exemptions, amendment providing for, Sec. 41.1
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill citing, Sec. Sec. 41.1-
        41.4
    existing law, bill amending, in limited respect, Sec. 41.1
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. 24.4
    existing law, bill repealing, Sec. Sec. 37.1, 37.2, 41.3
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. Sec. 9.3, 24.4
    incorporation, amendment requiring, Sec. 4.82
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 9.3
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. Sec. 41.1, 
        41.4
    political contributions, amendment concerning, offered to bill 
        relating to settlement of strikes, Sec. 3.3
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 41.1, 41.2
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 4.82
    settlement of dispute, amendment regarding, offered to bill 
        relating to another dispute, Sec. 9.3
    strikes, bills relating to, see Labor
    temporary legislation, amendment to, proposing permanent 
        legislation of same character, Sec. 24.4
    veterans, amendment concerning application to, of closed-shop 
        agreements, Sec. 37.1
Urban mass transportation
    aid, federal, bill directing Secretary of Transportation to study 
        feasibility of, Sec. 4.65
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.65
    conditions, amendment imposing, Sec. 30.21

[[Page 9335]]

    District of Columbia and metropolitan area, Sec. 30.21
    District of Columbia Transportation Authority, Sec. 6.27
    highway program, amendment permitting diversion of funds from, 
        Sec. 3.32
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. 6.27
Urban renewal, see Housing and urban renewal
Veterans (see also Armed services)
    Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, amendment changing authority 
        of, over loan program, Sec. 6.41
    allowances, dependents', amendment relating to, Sec. 4.44
    bonus, amendment providing, to be applied to purchase of house, 
        Sec. 5.25
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. Sec. 4.43-4.45, 5.25, 39.26
    direct loans, bill increasing authorized maximum for, Sec. 4.45
    discharge of wounded, amendment imposing conditions on, offered to 
        muster-out pay bill, Sec. 30.4
    existing law, amendment changing, to bill on different subject, 
        Sec. Sec. 42.36, 42.38
    existing law, bill amending, in limited respect, Sec. 39.27
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. Sec. 39.26, 39.27
    Federal Reserve Banks, amendment imposing duties on, offered to 
        bill increasing amounts of guaranteed home loans, Sec. 4.43
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 12.8
    guaranteed loans, amendment to exclude interest on, from gross 
        income, Sec. 4.45
    guaranteed loans, authority of Administrator of Veterans' Affairs 
        to establish interest rate on, Sec. 6.41
    housing, amendment providing bonus to aid veterans in acquiring, 
        Sec. 5.25
    housing, authorized maximum for direct loans for, bill increasing, 
        Sec. 4.45
    housing loans, authorized maximum for, bill increasing, Sec. 3.44
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. 8.29
    interest rate on direct loans, amendment increasing, offered to 
        bill increasing maximum loan, Sec. 3.44
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. 33.28
    loans, authority of Administrator of Veterans' Affairs over, 
        amendment changing, Sec. 6.41
    loans, authority of administrator to establish interest rates on, 
        Sec. Sec. 33.28, 39.27
    loans, bill increasing maximum authorized for, Sec. 42.38
    loans, direct, distinguished from guaranteed loans, Sec. 3.44
    loans, exemption from taxation of interest on, Sec. 39.26
    muster-out pay bill, amendment regarding provision made for wounded 
        offered to, Sec. 30.4
    muster-out pay bill, amendment relating to use of agencies of 
        selective service offered to, Sec. 42.36
    pensions, basis for award of, amendment changing, Sec. 6.42
    privileged pension bill, amendment to, Sec. 8.29
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. 5.25

[[Page 9336]]

    readjustment, bill providing aid to facilitate, amendment to change 
        Servicemen's Dependents Allowance Act offered to, Sec. 4.44
    result of bill, amendment accomplishing, by different method, 
        Sec. Sec. 6.41, 6.42, 39.27
    selective service, amendment providing for use of agencies of, in 
        giving assistance and advice, Sec. 42.36
    separation from service, amendment affecting pay after, offered to 
        bill providing allowances for dependents, Sec. 3.39
    service-connected disabilities, amendment concerning, offered to 
        pension bill, Sec. 8.29
    taxation, exemption from, of interest on veterans' loans, 
        Sec. Sec. 4.45, 39.26
    union-shop agreements, amendment concerning application of, to 
        veterans, Sec. 37.1
    wounded, amendment regarding provision made for, offered to muster-
        out pay bill, Sec. 30.4
Voting rights (see also Civil rights; Constitutional rights)
    apportionment of Representatives, bill providing for, amendment 
        affecting basis of representation offered to, Sec. 8.11
    armed services, Sec. Sec. 11.20, 13.13
    assembly, amendment concerning right of, offered to voting rights 
        bill, Sec. 5.3
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.103
    conditions affecting basis of representation, Sec. 8.11
    contempt in voting rights cases, Sec. Sec. 33.31, 33.32
    desegregation, amendment to provide aid to education in communities 
        proceeding with, Sec. 4.103
    District of Columbia, amendment regarding right of citizens of, to 
        vote, Sec. 19.17
    economic opportunities, amendment regarding, Sec. 19.16
    education, amendment to provide aid to, Sec. 4.103
    equal protection and voting rights, bill concerning study of 
        denials of, Sec. 12.7
    general amendments to specific propositions, Sec. 9.13
    Human Resettlement, amendment to establish Commission on, offered 
        to bill to protect voting rights, Sec. 5.4
    individual proposition offered as amendment to another individual 
        proposition, Sec. Sec. 5.3, 8.11
    injunctive relief, Sec. Sec. 23.7, 33.31, 33.32
    investigations, propositions relating to, Sec. Sec. 11.22, 12.7
    jury trial in cases of contempt, Sec. 33.31
    jury trials, amendment providing for, in contempt cases arising 
        from civil rights actions, Sec. 23.7
    limitations imposed by amendments as to powers, Sec. Sec. 33.31-
        33.33
    poll taxes, amendment to prohibit, offered to bill prohibiting 
        certain political activities, Sec. 3.84
    press, amendment concerning freedom of, offered to voting rights 
        bill, Sec. 5.3
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 5.2-5.4, 45.11
    recommit, instructions in motion to, Sec. 23.7
    reduction of basis of representation where right is abridged, 
        Sec. 8.11
    relocation loans to blacks, amendment to establish commission to 
        make, offered to bill to protect voting rights, Sec. 5.4

[[Page 9337]]

    specific amendments to general propositions, Sec. 11.20
    speech, amendment concerning freedom of, offered to voting rights 
        bill, Sec. 5.3
    studies, Sec. 12.7
    waiver of points of order, Sec. 45.11
Waiver of points of order (see also Special rules waiving points of 
    order)
    appropriation bills, Sec. 45.10
    civil rights, Sec. 19.4
    conference report, amendment to special rule waiving points of 
        order against, permitting rejection of nongermane portion and 
        addition of language of original nongermane Senate amendment, 
        Sec. 26.13
    post office, Sec. Sec. 31.43, 45.2
    similar amendments, waiver of points of order against specific 
        amendment as affecting points of order against, Sec. 45.11
    specific amendment made in order, Sec. 45.6
    text of another bill offered as amendment, Sec. 45.7
    text, waiver of points of order against, Sec. 19.26
    voting rights, Sec. 45.11
War powers bills
    Civil Service Retirement Act, amendment proposing to modify, 
        Sec. 5.21
    committee jurisdiction of subject matter of proposition as test of 
        germaneness, Sec. 4.85
    existing law, bill extending, Sec. 11.30
    labor, amendment affecting, Sec. 11.18
    purpose of amendment, fundamental, as test of germaneness, 
        Sec. Sec. 5.21, 11.18
    strike, amendment imposing penalties for causing, offered to 
        amendment relating to wages and hours, Sec. 21.11
    wages and hours, amendment imposing penalties for causing strike 
        not germane to proposition affecting, Sec. 21.11
Water, see, e.g., Natural resources and conservation; Health; Interior 
    and insular affairs; Public works; Merchant marine and fisheries; 
    Flood control; Energy; Environment
Whole amendment, point of order against part as affecting, 
    Sec. Sec. 8.29, 43.2
Word, substitution of, to clarify meaning, Sec. 46.4