[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[E. Relevancy in Debate]
[Â§ 37. Debate in Committee of the Whole]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10494-10504]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                         E. RELEVANCY IN DEBATE
 
Sec. 37. Debate in Committee of the Whole

    During general debate in the Committee of the Whole, remarks need 
not be confined to the pending bill unless ordered by the House or 
unless Calendar Wednesday business is being considered.(10) 
Under the modern

[[Page 10495]]

practice, however, bills are generally considered in the Committee of 
the Whole pursuant to special rules reported by the Committee on 
Rules,(11) and such rules often provide that debate in the 
Committee shall ``be confined to the bill,'' therefore requiring 
relevancy in debate.(12) Similarly, the Committee may by 
unanimous consent require that debate be confined to the 
bill,(13) in which case the Members in their remarks must 
conform to the rule of relevancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 39.1, infra.
            See Rule XXIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 865 
        (1995) and the comments thereto for the subjects requiring 
        consideration in Committee of the Whole. Under clause 7 of Rule 
        XXIV, general debate in Committee of the Whole on Calendar 
        Wednesday business must be confined to the bill.
11. See Ch. 21, supra.
12. See Sec. 37.1, infra.
13. See Sec. 37.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a Member does not obtain unanimous consent to speak out of order 
and is repeatedly called to order for failing to confine himself to the 
subject, he may be directed by the Chair to take his 
seat.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 37.1, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2592, 2594, 2595.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a bill is being read for amendment in the Committee of the 
Whole under the five-minute rule, all debate should be confined to the 
pending amendment,(15) and a Member should not discuss under 
the five-minute rule amendments to parts of the bill and subjects not 
then before the committee.(16) Although Members frequently 
avail themselves of the practice under the five-minute rule of offering 
pro forma amendments, the purpose of which is to gain time in debate 
without actually offering an amendment, a point of order against a 
Member so moving will require him to limit his remarks to the pending 
question.(17) But a Member offering the preferential motion 
to strike the enacting clause under the five-minute rule may discuss 
the entire bill, the motion bringing into question the entire bill 
before the Committee of the Whole.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 38.1, 38.4, infra; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5240-5256; 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2591.
            Rule XXIII clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1995) 
        allows a Member offering an amendment in the Committee of the 
        Whole five minutes ``to explain any amendment he may offer.''
16. See Sec. 38.5, infra.
            A Member may obtain unanimous consent to speak out of order 
        during the five-minute rule (see Sec. 38.16, 38.17, infra).
17. See Sec. 38.8-38.14, infra.
18. See Sec. 37.5-37.11, 38.18-38.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An appeal to the Chair's ruling in the Committee of the Whole is

[[Page 10496]]

governed by the five-minute rule, and debate on the appeal must be 
confined to the subject of the Chair's ruling.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 38.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Special Rule

Sec. 37.1 Where a rule provides that debate in the Committee of the 
    Whole shall be confined to the bill, a Member must confine his 
    remarks to the bill and if he continues to speak to other matters 
    after repeated points of order, the Chair will request that he take 
    his seat.

    On Mar. 29, 1944,(20) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4257, to expatriate or exclude certain persons for 
evading military and naval service. (The House had adopted H. Res. 482 
for consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole, providing that 
general debate be ``confined to the bill.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 3263, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, requested unanimous consent to 
speak out of order, and Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois, objected to the 
request on the ground that ``under the rule adopted by the House, 
debate on this bill is to be restricted to the bill.''
    Mr. Celler was then called to order twice for speaking to a subject 
irrelevant to the bill; he discussed the conduct of the Arabian nations 
in relation to the American war effort.
    When Mr. Celler continued to speak out of order, the following 
exchange took place (Chairman James Domengeaux [La.] presiding):

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Sabath: The gentleman is not speaking to the bill. He has 
    been admonished several times, he has refused, and I am obliged to 
    make the point of order myself, though I regret it.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained and the gentleman 
    is again requested to confine himself to the bill.
        Mr. Mason: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. How many 
    times do we have to call the gentleman to order and try to get him 
    to confine his remarks to the bill before the privilege of the 
    House is withdrawn?
        The Chairman: This will be the last time. If the gentleman does 
    not proceed in order, he will be requested to take his seat.

Debate on ``Omnibus'' Appropriation Bill

Sec. 37.2 Where general debate was confined in the Com

[[Page 10497]]

    mittee of the Whole to an appropriation bill by unanimous consent, 
    the Speaker indicated that since the pending bill included many 
    different appropriations, debate on the bill would be broad in 
    scope.

    On Apr. 3, 1950,(1) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of H.R. 7786, making 
appropriations for the support of the government for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1951. By unanimous consent, the House ordered that 
general debate be confined to the bill. Mr. Ben F. Jensen, of Iowa, 
arose to express the hope that the Chairman of the Committee, Clarence 
Cannon, of Missouri, and other Members would not make points of order 
on the relevancy of debate since there was so much involved in the 
bill. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, replied:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 96 Cong. Rec. 4614, 4615, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would think that this appropriation bill actually 
    being 11 bills in one, and covering everything in the Government, a 
    Member speaking on the bill would have a rather wide range.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The 1951 appropriation bill consolidated 
into one bill 11 different 
appropriation bills considered in prior years.

Speaking Out of Order by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 37.3 Where the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union is considering a bill under terms of a resolution which 
    states that debate shall be ``confined to the bill,'' a Member may 
    proceed out of order only by unanimous consent.

    On Nov. 27, 1967, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 
13489, a credit union measure.(2) The Member having the 
floor had yielded two minutes to Mr. John M. Murphy, of New York, who 
was speaking on the failure of the city administration of New York City 
to provide an adequate housing program. Mr. Durward G. Hall, of 
Missouri, rose to state a point of order that Mr. Murphy was speaking 
out of order. The Chairman, Donald M. Fraser, of Minnesota, indicated 
that Mr. Murphy could speak out of order only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 33773, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 37.4 Where a resolution confines general debate on a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole to the bill under consideration, a Member 
    may speak on an

[[Page 10498]]

    other subject only by unanimous consent, and the Member controlling 
    the time may not yield to another Member to speak out of order.

    On Nov. 25, 1970, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 
19504, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970, under a resolution (H. Res. 
1267) confining general debate to the subject matter of the 
bill.(3) Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of Illinois, who had the 
floor, yielded to Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, to speak out of 
order. Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, ruled that Mr. 
Kluczynski was required to make a unanimous-consent request for that 
purpose and that the Chair could not make the request for him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 38747, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Debate on Motion To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 37.5 Debate on a preferential motion that the Committee of the 
    Whole rise with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken out may go to any portion of the bill under consideration.

    On Apr. 4, 1974,(4) during consideration of the 
supplemental military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1974 
(H.R. 12565) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. John J. Flynt, Jr., of 
Georgia, made a motion, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 120 Cong. Rec. 9853, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Flynt moves that the Committee now rise and report the 
        bill back to the House with a recommendation that the enacting 
        clause be stricken.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, this so-
    called $1.4 billion ceiling is in reality----
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Waggonner: I make a point of order that the gentleman is 
    not speaking to the preferential motion.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the rule governing preferential 
    motions, the gentleman from Georgia is privileged to speak to any 
    part of the bill, but he must confine his remarks to the bill.

Sec. 37.6 Debate in opposition to a preferential motion to strike out 
    the enacting clause may relate to any portion of the bill, 
    including the merits of an amendment

[[Page 10499]]

    pending when the preferential motion was offered.

    During consideration of the military procurement authorization 
(H.R. 6674) in the Committee of the Whole on May 20, 
1975,(6) the proposition described above was demonstrated as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 15458, 15465, 15466, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto, and on further 
    amendments to the bill, end in 20 minutes.
        The Chairman: (7) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired. [All time 
    has expired.]
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bauman moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken out.

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I only offer this motion in order to 
    obtain time since I was not able to receive any time from the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) who offered what he claimed to be 
    the Bauman amendment. I have read his amendment very carefully. It 
    is not the same amendment which I offered to the National Science 
    Foundation authorization bill. . . .
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
    requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the 
    preferential motion.
        I thank the gentleman from Maryland for giving me an 
    opportunity to expand a little bit more on some of these ridiculous 
    spending programs that waste the taxpayers' dollars.
        If the offices of other Members are like mine, whenever they 
    get one of these letters they begin to wonder, and people begin to 
    ask the Members, just what it is we do to take care of these 
    situations. If we pass this routine authorization bill for the 
    Defense Department for $32 billion in the usual manner, we will 
    have to answer to our constituents if we choose to be honest about 
    it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I demand regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman speaks on the preferential motion.
        The Chair would like to make the observation that any portion 
    of the bill is open to [debate].

Sec. 37.7 Since the preferential motion that the Committee rise and 
    report with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    applies to the entire bill, debate may be directed to any part of 
    the bill (including a pending amendment) and need not be confined 
    to the merits of the preferential motion.

    On June 20, 1975,(8) during consideration of the Energy 
Research

[[Page 10500]]

and Development Administration authorization for fiscal year 1976 (H.R. 
3474), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 19971, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Harkin moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken out. . . .

        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply does this. It 
    sets 
    a middle-ground course between the Coughlin amendment and the 
    committee position.
        What my amendment does is go back to the original law as it was 
    enacted and ask that the utility companies and private industries 
    come up within 50 percent of the capital cost of the construction 
    of the Clinch River breeder reactor. . . .
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman not have to speak to the 
    preferential motion?
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman, as he advised another gentleman awhile ago, that debate 
    on the preferential motion opens the entire bill to debate. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        My point of parliamentary inquiry is, does not the gentleman 
    have to relate to his motion in some manner? He is not even 
    remotely relating to his motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair has listened to the gentleman in the 
    well and it seems to the Chair that the gentleman in the well is 
    debating within the parameters of the bill which is before the 
    Committee, and the point of order is overruled.

Sec. 37.8 Since the preferential motion that the Committee rise and 
    report with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    applies to the entire bill, debate may be directed to any part of 
    the bill, and the motion may be used by a Member to secure five 
    minutes to debate a pending amendment notwithstanding a limitation 
    of time for debate on the pending amendment and all amendments 
    thereto.

    On June 20, 1975,(10) during consideration of H.R. 3474 
(11) in the Committee of the Whole, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 19941, 19951, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. A bill authorizing appropriations for the Energy Research and 
        Development Administration for fiscal year 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Young of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate 
    on this amendment and all amendments thereto cease in 30 minutes.

[[Page 10501]]

        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman from Texas moves 
    that all debate on the McCormack amendment and all amendments 
    thereto cease in 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Young).

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Edgar moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

        Mr. Edgar: Mr. Chairman, I make this motion to get more time to 
    talk about this very important matter. . . . We rise in support of 
    the Coughlin amendment. We feel very strongly that the gentleman 
    from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) has pointed out many of the important 
    features of this program that have to be taken into consideration 
    and we feel very strongly that we should delete this item from the 
    budget.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield the continuation of my time to the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin). . . .
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    regular order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is following regular order. . . .
        Mr. Symms: Is it regular order to seek recognition under a 
    preferential motion?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under the parliamentary 
    procedure the entire bill is under debate. The Chair is following 
    regular order.

Sec. 37.9 Debate on a preferential motion, that the Committee of the 
    Whole rise and report the bill to the House with the recommendation 
    that the enacting clause be stricken, may relate to any portion of 
    the bill, including the merits of an amendment pending when the 
    motion was offered.

    During consideration of the energy and water appropriation bill 
(H.R. 4388) in the Committee of the Whole on June 14, 
1979,(13) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 14995, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: (14) The Clerk will report the 
    preferential motion of the gentleman from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dingell moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
        be stricken out.

        Mr. [John T.] Myers of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman 
    opposed to the bill?
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Michigan opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Dingell: In its present form, I am, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page 10502]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman qualifies. The gentleman from 
    Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion. . . 
    .

    A point of order was made as to the relevancy of Mr. Dingell's 
subsequent remarks.

        Mr. [Mickey] Edwards [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I do not 
    believe the gentleman is proceeding in order. I believe the 
    gentleman is supposed to speak on his preferential motion and not 
    on the amendment the gentleman is offering.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I am explaining why I will vote for 
    the preferential motion.
        The Chairman: Any aspect of the bill is debatable.
        The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.

Sec. 37.10 Debate on a preferential motion that the enacting clause be 
    stricken may relate to any portion of the pending bill or 
    amendment, and need not be confined to the propriety of the motion.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Aug. 20, 1980,(15) during consideration of the Treasury 
Department and Postal Service appropriations bill for fiscal 1981 (H.R. 
7593):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 22173-76, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) . . . The Clerk will report the 
    motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bauman moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken. . . .

        Mr. Bauman: . . . These health programs, which are provided to 
    Federal employees, are paid for by a combination of Government and 
    employees. . . .
        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the gentleman is discussing his 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The entire bill is debatable on a preferential 
    motion.

Sec. 37.11 Debate in Committee of the Whole on a preferential motion to 
    rise with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    need not be confined to a pending amendment but need only relate to 
    the bill.

    On July 29, 1982,(17) during consideration of the 
military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1983 (H.R. 6030) in 
the Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 18605, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.

[[Page 10503]]

        The Chairman: (18) The Clerk will report the 
    preferential motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Walker moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
        clause 
        be stricken out.

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a very valuable 
    debate on some vital issues here today. . . .
        Now, I did not agree with everybody who brought their issues to 
    the floor. As a matter of fact, I voted against I think most of the 
    amendments that have been offered; but it has been very valuable 
    debate and it has been debate that has taken place in pretty strict 
    adherence to the 5-minute rule, primarily because I started 
    objecting here earlier today, and I must say that I am sorry I had 
    to object to the gentleman from Massachusetts who was making a 
    point on something he felt very strongly about and particularly 
    because I had to object to the gentleman from New York who for many 
    years has stood strong on this floor for civil defense and was not 
    permitted to make his full argument because I objected. . . .
        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the 
    gentleman is not speaking to his motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair will observe that debate on this motion 
    can range over the entire bill and procedure thereon.
        The gentleman will continue.

Argument on Point of Order

Sec. 37.12 Argument on a point of order must be confined to the point 
    of order and may not go to the merits of 
    the amendment being challenged.

    On June 24, 1976,(19) during consideration of H.R. 14232 
(the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriation bill for fiscal 1977), the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 20370, 20371, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Millicent H.] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment as a substitute for the 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 . . . 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. . . .''

        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. Myers of Pennsylvania to the 
        amendment

[[Page 10504]]

        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.
        The Chairman: (20) The Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not 
    germane. It is also in violation of the rule against legislating on 
    an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers).
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, because of my great 
    concern for the safety of all workers and because of the fact that 
    Members of Congress are allowed in fact to have several offices and 
    up to 18 full-time employees, some of those who travel vehicular 
    equipment on the highways are exposed to extreme hazards. . . .
        The objective of this bill is to appropriate money to see that 
    OSHA is bringing under compliance all workers who work in an 
    environment such as an industrial office or similar facilities.
        Mr. [Ronald A.] Sarasin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) is 
    being heard on a point of order.
        Mr. Sarasin: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the gentleman 
    is not addressing himself to the point of order, but he is 
    addressing himself to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers), at this point, 
    should address his comments to the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford), to-wit, that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) would not be 
    germane to the language of the substitute which it would seek to 
    amend and, further, that it would constitute legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.