Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11 (Sections 25-end, plus index) - § 4. Committee Jurisdiction of Subject Matter as Test

[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11 (Sections 25-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 28. Amendments and the Germaneness Rule]
[A. General Principles]
[§ 4. Committee Jurisdiction of Subject Matter as Test]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[Page 7569-7752]

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.