Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10, Chapter 28 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11, Chapter 28 (Sections 25-end, plus index)

[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 10, Chapter 28 (Sections 1-24), Volume 11, Chapter 28 (Sections 25-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 28. Amendments and the Germaneness Rule]
[C. House-Senate Relations]
[§ 27. Amendment to Senate Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[Page 8484-8543]

CHAPTER 28

Amendments and the Germaneness Rule

C. HOUSE-SENATE RELATIONS

Sec. 27. --Amendment to Senate Amendment

The reader will note from prior sections in this chapter that when
judging the germaneness of an amendment to a proposition under
consideration and originating in the House, the amendment must relate
to the subject matter and to the pending text under immediate
consideration. For example, in sections 2 and 18, supra, it is
demonstrated that an amendment must be germane to the pending portion
of the bill to which offered, or to the amendment to which offered, as
the case may be, whether in the form of a motion to strike out and
insert, to strike out, or to insert. Similarly, section 21, supra,
indicates that perfecting amendments to amendments in the nature of a
substitute or to substitute amendments need only be germane to the
inserted language contained in said substitutes, it being irrelevant
whether or not the perfecting amendment might be germane to the
underlying (perhaps broader) bill which said substitute seeks to strike
out and replace. In that contest, the language of the underlying bill
proposed to be stricken is not taken into consideration when
determining the germaneness of a second degree amendment to a
substitute proposing to insert other language. It is only the pending
text under immediate consideration against which the germaneness of
proposed amendments thereto is judged. This test of germaneness is
consistent with Rule XIX governing the permis

[[Page 8485]]

sible degree of amendments in the House (see Chapter 27, Amendments,
supra). At this stage, the House has not finally adopted any version of
a House-passed bill and is free to reject the pending amendment(s) and
proceed to other differently drafted amendments which may present
another test of germaneness to the bill as a whole.
With respect to proposed House amendments to Senate amendments to a
House-passed bill, however, the language of the underlying House-passed
bill may be relevant to the question of the germaneness of a
subsequently proposed amendment to a Senate amendment, especially where
the Senate amendment has stricken out language in the House-passed
bill, since in such a situation the House should not be bound only to
language or a modification thereof which is germane to Senate inserted
provisions, but should be permitted to insist upon retention of all or
a portion of House-passed stricken language without having to insist
upon disagreement with the entire Senate-inserted language, in an
effort to reach a germane compromise with the Senate. Thus where a
Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in a House bill, the
test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and concur with an
amendment is the relationship between the language in the motion and
the provisions in the House bill proposed to be stricken, as well as
those to be inserted (if any) by the Senate amendment.⁽¹⁹⁾
On the other hand, it is not sufficient that an amendment to a Senate
amendment be germane to the original House bill if it is not germane to
the subject matter of a Senate amendment which merely inserts new
matter and does not strike out House provisions.⁽²⁰⁾ In that
case, House-passed text may have no direct bearing on the germaneness
of a House amendment to the Senate-inserted amendment. Therefore, while
it is generally true that a proposed House amendment must always be
germane to the particular Senate amendment to which
offered,⁽¹⁾ the form of the Senate amendment is relevant in
determining whether underlying House-passed text is also language to
which the proposed amendment must relate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 27.9, 27.10, 27.13, 27.22, 27.25 and 27.41, infra.
20. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6188 and 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 2936.
1. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6188-91, 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 2936 and Sec. Sec. 27.2 and 27.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The test of the germaneness of an amendment to a motion to concur
in a Senate amendment with

[[Page 8486]]

an amendment is the relationship between the amendment and the motion,
and not between the amendment and the Senate amendment to which the
motion has been offered,⁽²⁾ since at that stage the
amendment is being offered to a proposition initially pending in and
not yet adopted by the House, rather than directly to a Senate
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. 27.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Formerly, a Senate amendment was not subject to the point of order
that it was not germane to the House bill,⁽³⁾ but under
recent changes in the rules points of order may be made and separate
votes demanded on portions of Senate amendments and conference reports
containing language which would not have been germane if offered in the
House. Clause 4 of Rule XXVIII permits points of order against language
in a conference report which was originally in the Senate bill or
amendment and which would not have been germane if offered to the
House-passed version, and permits a separate motion to reject such
portion of the conference report if found nongermane.⁽⁴⁾ For
purposes of that rule, the House-passed version, against which Senate
provisions are compared, is that finally committed to conference,
taking into consideration all amendments adopted by the House,
including House amendments to Senate amendments.⁽⁵⁾ Clause 5
of Rule XXVIII permits points of order against motions to concur or
concur with amendment in nongermane Senate amendments, the stage of
disagreement having been reached, and, if such points of order are
sustained, permits separate motions to reject such nongermane matter.
Clause 5 of Rule XXVIII is not applicable to a provision contained in a
motion to recede and concur with an amendment (the stage of
disagreement having been reached) which is not contained in any form in
the Senate version, the only requirement in such circumstances being
that the motion as a whole be germane to the Senate amendment as a
whole under clause 7 of Rule XVI.⁽⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3425.
4. See Sec. 26, supra.
5. See Sec. 26.3, supra.
6. See Sec. Sec. 27.4 and 27.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When a Senate amendment reported in disagreement by conferees is
under consideration, a proposal to amend must, under clause 7 of Rule
XVI, be germane to the Senate amendment.⁽⁷⁾ A point of order
may therefore be sustained against a motion to concur in a Senate
amendment with

[[Page 8487]]

an amendment, on the grounds that the proposed amendment is not germane
to the Senate amendment.⁽⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. 27.35, infra.
8. See Sec. 27.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accordingly, where a Senate amendment proposing legislation on a
general appropriation bill is reported back in disagreement and a
motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment is offered,
the proposed amendment is subject to the rule of
germaneness.⁽⁹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate amendments proposing legislation on appropriation bills may
be amended by germane amendments. And while it has been held that a
Senate amendment proposing legislation on a general appropriation bill
may be subject to an amendment of a similar nature offered in the
House, the requirement remains in such circumstances that the House
amendment be germane to the Senate amendment.⁽¹⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See the proceedings at 116 Cong. Rec. 41504, 41505, 91st Cong. 2d
Sess., Dec. 15, 1970, in which a Senate amendment proposing
legislation on a general appropriation bill (H.R. 17755,
Committee on Appropriations, comprising Department of
Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1971) was reported
back from conference in disagreement, pursuant to provisions of
Rule XX clause 2 (House Rules and Manual Sec. 829) prohibiting
conferees from agreeing to certain Senate amendments. A motion
to concur in the amendment with a further amendment was held to
be in order, even though such further amendment was also
legislative in nature.
See the ruling of Speaker McCormack at p. 41505. For
further discussion of the rules with respect to legislation on
appropriation bills, see Ch. 26, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where, in the consideration of a Senate bill reported from
conference in total disagreement, a motion to concur in Senate
amendments to a House amendment to the bill is pending or is rejected,
the Senate amendments are open to germane amendments.⁽¹¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See the remarks of Speaker McCormack at 113 Cong. Rec. 19033, 90th
Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1967, made in response to the
parliamentary inquiry of Mr. Adams. The bill under
consideration was S.J. Res. 81, providing for settlement of a
railway labor dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An amendment to a Senate amendment is germane if it merely changes
the effective date of provisions of law contained in the Senate
amendment.⁽¹²⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See the ruling of Speaker pro tempore John J. O'Connor (N.Y.) at 81
Cong. Rec. 976, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1937, quoted in
Sec. 27.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While it is normally not in order under the guise of an amendment

[[Page 8488]]

to a numbered Senate amendment to amend an unamended portion of the
House engrossed bill,⁽¹³⁾ a motion to delete all funding for
a program has been offered as an amendment to a Senate amendment which
reduced the funding in the original House bill--thus necessitating
either an amendment to the House engrossed bill to strike the entire
paragraph or some other drafting technique to eliminate the
funding.⁽¹⁴⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 27.8, infra.
14. See 133 Cong. Rec. 18297, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1987
(motion offered by Mr. Whitten during consideration of H.R.
1827, supplemental appropriations for fiscal
1987). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Amendment Appropriating Funds for Asbestos Hazards Abatement--
House Amendment Earmarking Funds for Refinancing Municipal Bond
Debt

Sec. 27.1 When a motion is offered that the House recede from its
disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur therein with an
amendment, the proposed amendment must be germane to the Senate
amendment; and where a Senate amendment appropriated funds for
abatement of asbestos hazards in schools, a proposed House
amendment to such amendment which would also have earmarked a
portion of those funds for the refinancing of the bond debt of the
recycle energy system of a specified city was ruled out as
nongermane, being totally unrelated to the issue of asbestos
hazard.

On Aug. 10, 1984,⁽¹⁵⁾ during consideration in the House
of a motion to recede from disagreement to a Senate amendment and
concur with an amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R.
6040,⁽¹⁶⁾ Speaker Pro Tempore Doug Barnard, Jr., of Georgia,
ruled that the House amendment was not germane to the Senate amendment.
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 130 Cong. Rec. 23988, 23989, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Senate amendment No. 55: Page 17, after line 23, insert:

abatement, control, and compliance

For an additional amount for ``Abatement, control, and
compli

[[Page 8489]]

ance'', $50,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That this amount shall be available for the purposes
of the Asbestos School Hazards Abatement Act of 1984.

Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 55 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:

abatement, control, and compliance

For an additional amount for ``Abatement, control, and
compliance'', $63,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Of this amount, $50,000,000 shall be available for the purposes
of the Asbestos School Hazards Abatement Act of 1984 (including
up to ten percent for administrative expenses as provided for
in said Act): Provided, That this sum shall not be available
for asbestos removal projects until the Environmental
Protection Agency develops comprehensive guidelines to classify
and evaluate asbestos hazards and appropriate abatement
options. And of this amount, $13,000,000 shall be available to
the City of Akron, Ohio, to refinance the bond debt of the
recycle energy system of such city: Provided, That such sum may
not exceed sixty percent of such debt: Provided further, That
the facilities of such recycle energy system shall be made
available to the Federal Government as a laboratory facility
for municipal waste to energy research. . . .

Mr. [Robert L.] Livingston [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make
a point of order that the amendment in the motion is not germane to
the Senate amendment.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Livingston: Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment provided $5
million for abatement, control, and compliance, to remain available
until expended for the purposes of the Asbestos School Hazards
Abatement Act of 1984.
The amendment in the motion not only provides funds for the
same product as the Senate amendment, but goes far beyond the scope
of the Senate amendment by earmarking $13 million for the city of
Akron, OH, to refinance the bond debt of the recycle energy system
of that city.
A motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an
amendment must be germane to the Senate amendment. This amendment
introduces a new and wholly unrelated purpose and subject into the
Senate amendment. There is no relationship whatever between the
subject and purpose of the original Senate amendment, which is
asbestos hazards, and the bond debt of the city of Akron for its
recycle energy system. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The proposed amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment.
Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Computation of Civil Service Retirement Annuities--House Amendment
Regarding Mortgage Bond Taxability

Sec. 27.2 An amendment to a Senate amendment must be germane thereto;
and where a

[[Page 8490]]

Senate amendment, reported from conference in disagreement on a
joint resolution making continuing appropriations, provided for
computation of civil service retirement annuities, an amendment
(proposed in a motion to recede and concur with an amendment) which
sought to amend provisions of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act
relating to mortgage bond taxability under the Internal Revenue
Code was held not germane.

On Dec. 13, 1980,⁽¹⁷⁾ during consideration of H.J. Res.
637 (further continuing appropriations, fiscal year 1981), the Chair
sustained a point of order against a motion that the House recede from
its disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur with an amendment.
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 34097, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽¹⁸⁾ The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The amendment reads as follows:

Senate amendment 129: Page 64, after line 21, insert:
Sec. 196. (a) The annuity of an employee retiring under the
civil service retirement system with at least five years but
less than twenty years of service as a law enforcement officer
or firefighter under the civil service system, or any
combination thereof, shall be computed with respect to the
service of such employee as such a law enforcement officer or
firefighter, or any combination thereof, by multiplying 2\1/2\
percent of such employee's average pay by the years of such
service.

Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 129 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter proposed by said amendment insert the following:
Sec. 196. The table contained in paragraph (1) of
subsection (n) of section 1104 of the Omnibus Reconciliation
Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-499, approved December 5, 1980) is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item:
``San Bernardino, California--225,000,000 Financing owner-
occupied residences in the overall Shandin Hills Project of the
State College Redevelopment Project Number 4.''. . .

Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I renew my
point of order . . . on the grounds that [the amendment] is not
germane to the Senate amendment or a House amendment on any
provision passed in either House, and therefore amounts to
legislation on an appropriation bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Mississippi
desire to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I cannot argue the point of order.
The basis for the committee bringing this to the Congress is that
this really fits as an

[[Page 8491]]

emergency situation which must be handled. If we wait it will force
an 8- or 10-month delay. It was thought that we should bring it to
the Members on emergency grounds. I have no defense against the
point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The motion is not germane to the Senate amendment, and the
Chair sustains the point of order for that reason.

Special Census in Areas Impacted by Influx of--Legal Aliens--Amendment
Prohibiting Counting of Aliens in Determining Reapportionment

Sec. 27.3 When a Senate amendment reported from conference in
disagreement is under consideration, an amendment thereto must be
germane to the Senate amendment; thus, to a Senate amendment
authorizing the President to order a special census in state or
local government areas determined to have been significantly
impacted by an influx of legal aliens within 6 months of a regular
census, an amendment not only modifying that provision but also
prohibiting the counting of all aliens (legal and illegal) in
determining reapportionment of the House of Representatives was
held to be not germane because broadening the scope of the Senate
amendment beyond the issue of a special census in those areas
impacted by legal aliens.

During consideration of House Joint Resolution 610 (continuing
appropriations for fiscal 1981) in the House on Sept. 30,
1980,⁽¹⁹⁾ the proceedings described above occurred as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 126 Cong. Rec. 28503, 28504, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: ⁽²⁰⁾ The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 35: Page 12, after line 4, insert:
Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when
the President determines that a State, county, or local unit of
general purpose government is significantly affected by a major
population change due to a large number of legal immigrants
within six months of a regular decennial census date, he may
order a special census, pursuant to section 196 of title XIII
of the United States Code, or other method of obtaining a
revised estimate of the population, of such jurisdiction or
subsections of that jurisdiction in which the immigrants are
concentrated. Any such special census of revised estimate shall
be conducted solely at Federal expense. Such special census or
revised estimate shall be conducted no later than twelve months
after the regular census date

[[Page 8492]]

and shall be designated the official census statistics and may
be used in the manner provided by applicable law.

Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 35 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:
Sec. 118. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
when the President determines that a State, county, or local
unit of general purpose government is significantly affected by
a major population change due to a large number of legal
immigrants within six months of a regular decennial census
date, he may order a special census, pursuant to section 196 of
title XIII of the United States Code. . . .
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the number
of Representatives in Congress to which each State would be
entitled under the twentieth decennial census shall be
determined only on the basis of the number of persons in each
State who are citizens of the United States.

Mr. [Robert] Garcia [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point
of order against the motion to recede and concur in the Senate
amendment with an amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to recede and concur is not in order
because it does not meet the germaneness test under clause 7 of
rule 16 of the rules of the House which provide that, ``no motion
or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration
shall be admitted under color of amendment.''
Under the precedents of the House germaneness is determined by
the text of the amendment and the burden of proof must be carried
by the proponent of the amendment.
The Senate amendment is limited to situations such as the
unprecedented influx of Cuban refugees who were lawfully admitted
into the country after the census got underway. Senator Chiles'
amendment is limited in scope and addresses a unique problem not
heretofore encountered in the census.
The amendment is limited to a specific period of time and to a
specific category of people who enter the country lawfully around
the time the census is taken.
Specifically, the Senate amendment authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce to conduct a special census, within 6 months of the
decennial census, in order where there has been an unprecedented
influx of legal aliens. The number of legal aliens counted in this
special census would then be added to the official census figures
and used for all legal purposes. The House amendment on the other
hand would fundamentally alter and enlarge the purpose of the
Senate amendment, and accordingly, the entire motion to recede and
concur with an amendment is not in order.
The House amendment directly impacts on the reapportionment of
the House following the decennial census. Specifically, the
amendment to the Senate amendment would base the apportionment of
seats in the House on the number of citizens counted in the census.
It would exclude legal as well as illegal aliens counted in the
census and incorporated into the apportion

[[Page 8493]]

ment base. Unlike the Senate amendment which is limited to a
specific situation, the amendment to the Senate amendment
encompasses legal as well as illegal aliens counted in the census.
Moreover, it is not restricted to any time frame so that any alien
who enters the country regardless of the circumstances and legality
of their entry are subject to exclusion from the census.
Thus, the amendment is not germane because it vitiates the
applicability of the Senate amendment for all legal purposes. Mr.
Speaker, for the foregoing reasons, I must insist on my point of
order. . . .
Mr. [Joseph M.] McDade [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I
rise in opposition to the point of order. Under the precedents,
when a motion is made to recede and concur in an amendment of the
Senate with a further amendment, the only test is whether the
proposed amendment is germane to the Senate amendment reported in
disagreement.
This amendment is germane to the Senate amendment. Both the
Senate amendment, and the amendment in the motion, constitute
permanent law, since they both contain the phrase ``Notwithstanding
any other provision of law.''
Both of the amendments deal with the same subject, that is, the
census. Both deal with the question of who shall be included in the
census.
The amendment is germane, and the point of order should be
overruled. . . .
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York makes the point of
order that the amendment contained in the motion offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) is not germane to the
Senate amendment No. 35. Under the precedents as cited in
Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 21, when a Senate
amendment reported in disagreement by conferees is under
consideration, a proposal to amend must be germane to the Senate
amendment.
Senate amendment No. 35 provides that the President may order a
special census to be taken if he determines that a State or local
unit of government is significantly impacted by a major population
change due to a large number of legal aliens within 6 months of a
regular decennial census, and that such census in those areas when
conducted would be designated as the official census under all
applicable law.
The proposed amendment to the Senate amendment, in addition to
a slight modification of the Senate language, contains, the
additional requirement that representation in Congress to which
each State would be entitled under the 20th Decennial Census shall
be determined only on the basis of the number of persons in each
State who are U.S. citizens. In the opinion of the Chair, the
proposed amendment represents a significant broadening of the issue
presented by the Senate amendment No. 35, as it addresses not only
those areas impacted by legal immigrants within 6 months of a
general census, but attempts to legislate on the issue of whether
legal and illegal aliens in all areas of the United States should
be counted for reapportionment of the House of Representatives. The
Chair sustains the point of order.

[[Page 8494]]

Point of Order Should Be Based on Rule XVI, Not Rule XXVIII

Sec. 27.4 Where a motion is made to concur in a Senate amendment with
an amendment, and such proposed House amendment contains new matter
and is not germane to the Senate amendment, any point of order
against the House amendment should be based on Rule XVI, clause 7,
rather than on Rule XXVIII, clauses 5(a) and 5(b), which permits
points of order against Senate matter (including Senate amendments
proposed to be amended by a motion to concur with an amendment);
thus, where a point of order is based on the contention that a
Senate amendment as proposed to be amended would not have been
germane to the House bill, under Rule XXVIII, the Chair may treat
the point of order as having been raised under Rule XVI, clause 7.

On June 30, 1987,⁽¹⁾ during consideration of H.R. 1827
(supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1987), the motion
described above was offered to the following amendment in disagreement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 133 Cong. Rec. 18294, 18295, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽²⁾ The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 5: Page 3, after line 7, insert:

Administrative Provision

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds appropriated for fiscal year 1987 shall be used for the
purpose of granting any patent for vertebrate or invertebrate
animals, modified, altered, or in any way changed through
engineering technology, including genetic engineering.

Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 5 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following:

Economic Development Administration

economic development assistance programs

Not to exceed $14,100,000 appropriated and available for
obligation and expenditure under section 108(a)(1) of Public
Law 99-190, as amended, shall remain available for obligation
through September 30, 1988: Provided, That the Economic

[[Page 8495]]

Development Administration shall close out the audits
concerning grants to New York, New York pursuant to title I of
the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act
of 1976, not later than August 1, 1987.

Patent and Trademark Office

salaries and expenses

None of the funds appropriated by this or any prior Act to
the Patent and Trademark Office shall be used to purchase the
mass storage requirement (PTO-10) portion of the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office Automation Project. . . .

Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order against amendment No. 5 reported in disagreement of the
supplemental appropriation conference report on page 13 of the
report, and on page 3 lines 19 through 23 of the printed bill now
before us which relates to procurement by the U.S. Patent and Trade
Market Office automation project pursuant to rule XXVIII, clause
5(a)(1). This rule relates to nongermane matter in amendments in
disagreement.
As I interpret it, the rule states that any matter introduced
as a new issue in a conference committee which would have been
otherwise ruled out of order if it came before the House, would
likewise be made eligible for a point of order as reported in
amendments in disagreement from the conference committee should
there be a motion from the House to recede from its disagreement
with the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment introduced as new material in
the conference committee would delay procurement funds for the
Patent Office for the purchase of mass storage requirement
equipment. The purchase is part of the overall automation of the
U.S. Patent Office and I urge my point of order be sustained.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Frenzel] is raising a point of order against the motion, is that
correct, as being not germane to the Senate amendment under rule
XVI, clause 7?
Mr. Frenzel: Yes, Mr. Speaker. . . .
Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of
order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith]
concedes the point of order and the point of order is sustained
against the motion.

Point of Order, Based on Nongermane Senate Matter, Against Portion of
Motion To Recede and Concur With Amendment

Sec. 27.5 Pursuant to clause 5(b) of Rule XXVIII, a Member may make a
point of order against a portion of a motion to recede and concur
in a Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement,
with a further amendment, on the ground that that portion of the
Senate amendment contained in the motion was not germane to the
House-passed measure; and a motion rejecting that portion of the
motion to re

[[Page 8496]]

cede and concur with an amendment is in order if the point of order
is sustained.

The proceedings of July 31, 1974, relating to the conference report
on H.R. 8217, to provide exemptions from tariff duty of certain
equipment on United States vessels, are discussed in section 26.30,
supra.

Test of Germaneness of Amendment to Motion To Concur in Senate
Amendment With Amendment

Sec. 27.6 The test of the germaneness of an amendment to a motion to
concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment is the relationship
between the amendment and the motion, and not between the amendment
and the Senate amendment to which the motion has been offered.

On Aug. 3, 1973,⁽³⁾ there was pending a motion to concur
in a Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate bill with a
further amendment. The Speaker indicated in response to a parliamentary
inquiry that any amendment offered to the pending motion upon rejection
of the previous question thereon must be germane to the amendment
contained in the motion. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 119 Cong. Rec. 28121, 28122, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the
conference report on the bill (S. 1888) to extend and amend the
Agricultural Act of 1970 for the purpose of assuring consumers of
plentiful supplies of food and fiber at reasonable prices.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Speaker: ⁽⁴⁾ The Clerk will read the conference
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read the conference report.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the
House of July 31, 1973.)
The Speaker: The Clerk will read the Senate amendment to the
House amendment.
The Clerk proceeded to read the Senate amendment to the House
amendment.
(For Senate amendment to House amendment, see proceedings of
the Senate of July 31, 1973.) . . .
Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Poage moves to concur in the Senate amendment to the
House amendment to the bill, S. 1888, with an amendment as
follows: On page 48, line 14, in the engrossed Senate
amendment, insert the following new subsection (d) to section
815 of paragraph 27:
``(d) The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to implement
policies under this Act which are designed to encourage
American farmers to produce to their full capabilities dur

[[Page 8497]]

ing periods of short supply to assure American consumers with
an adequate supply of food and fiber at fair and reasonable
prices.'' . . .

Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, as I
understand the situation now, it is a very delicate parliamentary
situation. What we are voting on is a Senate amendment to a House
amendment to a Senate bill. That means it has been amended to the
first degree, and with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture
adding this innocuous amendment, that is an amendment to the second
degree, and no more are allowed.
My question is, On the motion for the previous question, if the
question is voted down, should a substitute or an amendment be
offered to the motion of the chairman, must it be germane to the
innocuous amendment?
The Speaker: The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Texas
is now before the House. The amendment contained in the motion of
the gentleman from Texas would be subject to a germane amendment if
the previous question on this motion were rejected.

Test of Germaneness of Portion of Conference Report Originally
Contained in Senate Amendment--Effect of House Amendment to Senate
Amendment Prior to Conference

Sec. 27.7 The test of germaneness under Rule XXVIII, clause 4, of a
portion of a conference report originally contained in a Senate
amendment is its relationship to the final House version of the
bill committed to conference, and not to the original House-passed
bill which may have been superseded by a House amendment to the
Senate amendment prior to conference; thus, where the House (by
unanimous consent) amended a Senate amendment to include matter
germane to the Senate amendment although not germane to the
original House-passed bill, the Chair stated that a germaneness
point of order would not lie against the Senate amendment as so
modified in a conference report.

The proceedings of July 28, 1983, relating to the conference report
on H.R. 2973 (interest and dividend tax withholding repeal), are
discussed in Sec. 26.3, supra.

Amendment to Provisions Not in Disagreement

Sec. 27.8 During consideration of a Senate amendment in disagreement, a
motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment with an
amendment is not in order if its effect is to amend a part of the
House-passed bill not in disagreement.

[[Page 8498]]

In the 78th Congress, a bill ⁽⁵⁾ was under consideration
making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1944. During consideration of certain Senate
amendments reported from conference in disagreement, Mr. Stephen Pace,
of Georgia, made a motion that ``the House recede and concur in the
amendment of the Senate'' with an amendment striking out unamended
language passed by the House, in addition to language stricken by the
Senate, and inserting language in lieu thereof not relevant to the
language stricken by the Senate.⁽⁶⁾ A point of order was
made as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. H.R. 2481 (Committee on Appropriations).
6. See motion reported at 89 Cong. Rec. 7041, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.,
July 2, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order against the language of the motion offered by the
gentleman from Georgia that it is not relevant to the subject
matter. The motion is offered in part in lieu of language which has
not been stricken from the bill and in regard to which the two
Houses are not in disagreement. . . .

The Speaker,⁽⁷⁾ in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the matter stands, the gentleman has offered a motion to
strike out certain language that the two Houses have agreed to. The
Chair sustains the point of order. . . .

Senate Amendment Striking Language in House Bill--Test of Germaneness
of House Amendment

Sec. 27.9 Where a Senate amendment proposes to strike out language in a
House bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and
concur with an amendment is the relationship between the language
in the motion and the provisions in the House bill proposed to be
stricken by the Senate amendment.

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

Reinserting or Amending Provisions Stricken by Senate Amendment

Sec. 27.10 Where a Senate amendment struck language of a House bill and
inserted language in lieu thereof, an amendment offered in the
House substantially retaining both the Senate language and the
language of the

[[Page 8499]]

House bill was held to be germane. The Speaker in making his ruling
relied in part on the relationship between the House amendment and
the language proposed to be stricken from the House bill by the
Senate amendment.

In the 78th Congress, during consideration of a bill ⁽⁸⁾
comprising Treasury and Post Office appropriations for 1944, the
following amendment was reported in disagreement: ⁽⁹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. H.R. 1648 (Committee on Appropriations).
9. 89 Cong. Rec. 5899, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment No. 26: On page 52, line 11, strike out the
following:

Sec. 204. No part of the money appropriated in this title
shall be expended for the purpose of collecting, sorting,
handling, transporting, or delivering free the mail of any
officer in any executive department or administrative agency of
government.

And insert in lieu thereof the following:

Sec. 204. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the
Postmaster General are hereby directed to conduct jointly a
study of the use of the mails free of postage by the
departments and independent establishments of the executive
branch of the Government, and shall report to the Congress not
later than 60 days after the passage of this act such actions
as may be considered in the best interests of the Government
toward reduction in the volume and cost of handling such
penalty mail.

As part of a motion offered by Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, an
amendment was introduced containing substantially the same provisions
as the Senate version of the section under consideration, and adding
the following language:

. . . Provided further, That after January 1, 1944, no part of
the money appropriated in this title shall be expended for the
purpose of collecting, sorting, handling, transporting, and
delivering free the mail of any officer in any executive department
or administrative agency of the Government.

The following points of order were raised against the amendment:

Mr. [Emmet] O'Neal [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point
of order that the amendment is not germane to the paragraph under
discussion. It goes beyond the matters considered in the paragraph.
Mr. [Louis] Ludlow [of Indiana]: I supplement that with the
suggestion, Mr. Speaker, also that it is legislation on an
appropriation bill.

Mr. O'Neal further stated: ⁽¹⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 5899, 5900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . The Senate amendment has only to do with a study of
penalty mail, unless the Senate amendment includes the matter
stricken from the House bill. The Keefe amendment deals with the
use of the money after January 1, 1944, and this seems to go beyond
the

[[Page 8500]]

scope of paragraph 204, the amendment of the Senate, in that among
other matters there is a wide degree of prohibition as to all
agencies of the Government. . . .

The Speaker ⁽¹¹⁾ overruled the point of order, stating
that: ⁽¹²⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 5900, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . The only difference that the Chair can see between the
motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin and what was in the House
bill and is now in the bill as it comes from the Senate is fixing
the dates January 1, 1944, and June 30, 1944. . . .

Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker apparently rejected the view
implicit in Mr. O'Neal's argument, that the Keefe amendment was
required to be germane to the language inserted by the Senate
amendment.⁽¹³⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 27.14, infra, supporting the view that the test of
germaneness under such circumstances is the relationship
between the language in the motion and the provision in the
House bill proposed to be stricken by, and/or the language
inserted by, the Senate amendment. Clearly the language
proposed to be stricken is part of the subject under
consideration under such circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test of Germaneness as Affected by Whether Amendment to Senate
Amendment is--Modification' of Senate Amendment or Entirely New
Provision

Sec. 27.11 Clause 5(b) of Rule XXVIII is not applicable to a provision
contained in a motion to recede and concur with an amendment which
was not contained in any form in the Senate version and which is
not therefore a ``modification'' of the Senate provision, the only
requirement in such circumstances being that the motion as a whole
be germane to the Senate amendment as a whole under clause 7, Rule
XVI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

For discussion of the requirement of germaneness of Senate
amendments to House bills and amendments and related procedures under
Rule XXVIII clause 5, see Sec. 26, supra.
The proceedings of Oct. 4, 1978, relating to H.R. 7843, the Omnibus
Judgeship Bill, are discussed in Sec. 27.12, infra.

Diverse Provisions Affecting Organization and Administration of Federal
Courts

Sec. 27.12 To a Senate amendment to a House bill con

[[Page 8501]]

taining diverse provisions relating to the organization and
administration of the federal courts, including appointment of
additional district and circuit judges, a split of the fifth
circuit into two new circuits, assignments, terms and
jurisdictional requirements, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute containing comparable provisions, omitting any split of
the fifth circuit but permitting courts of appeals of a certain
size to establish administrative units, was held germane to the
Senate amendment as a whole.

On Oct. 4, 1978,⁽¹⁴⁾ during consideration of the
conference report on the Omnibus Judgeship Bill ⁽¹⁵⁾ in the
House, the Speaker Pro Tempore overruled a point of order against the
amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 124 Cong. Rec. 33502-06, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. H.R. 7843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call
up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 7843) to provide for the
appointment of additional district and circuit judges, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽¹⁶⁾ The Clerk will read
the conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read the conference report [in total disagreement].
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the Senate
amendment.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
That (a) the President shall appoint, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, two additional district
judges for the northern district of Alabama, one additional
district judge for the middle district of Alabama, three
additional district judges for the district of Arizona, two
additional district judges for the eastern district of
Arkansas, one additional district judge for the northern
district of California, three additional district judges for
the eastern district of California. . . .
Sec. 6. On the effective date of this Act the nine active
circuit judges of the fifth circuit whose official station is
located in the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and
Mississippi are assigned as circuit judges of the fifth
judicial circuit as redesignated by this Act; and the six
active circuit judges whose official station is located in the
States of Louisiana or Texas are assigned as circuit judges of
the eleventh judicial circuit as constituted by this Act. The
seniority in service of each of the judges so assigned shall
run from the date of his original appointment to be a judge of
the fifth circuit as it existed prior to the effective date of
this Act. . . .
Sec. 10. Section 48 of title 28 of the United States Code
is amended to read in part as follows:
``Sec. 48. Terms of court

``Terms or sessions of courts of appeals shall be held
annually at the places listed below, and at such other places
within the respective circuits as may be designated by rule

[[Page 8502]]

of court. Each court of appeals may hold special terms at any
place within its circuit.
[Fifth circuit sessions to be held in Atlanta, Birmingham,
Jackson, Jacksonville, Miami, and Montgomery. . . .]
Sec. 11. Section 46 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended to read in part as follows:
``Sec. 46. Assignment of judges; panels; hearings; quorum
* * * * *

``(c) Cases and controversies shall be heard and determined
by a court or panel of not more than three judges, unless a
hearing or rehearing before the court en banc is ordered by a
majority of the circuit judges of the circuit who are in
regular active service. A court en banc shall consist of all
circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service.''. . .
Sec.15. (a) Section 1337, of title 28 of the United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 1337. Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in
controversy, costs

``(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction
of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of
Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce
against restraints and monopolies: Provided however, That the
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of an action
brought under and by virtue of paragraph (11) of section 20,
chapter 1, or section 319, chapter 8 of title 49 of the United
States Code, only if the matter in controversy for each receipt
or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and
costs. . . .

Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rodino moves that the House recede and concur in the
Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 7843 with an amendment, as
follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment, insert the following:
That (a) the President shall appoint, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate, three additional district judges for
the northern district of Alabama, one additional district judge
for the middle district of Alabama, three additional district
judges for the district of Arizona, two additional district
judges for the eastern district of Arkansas, one additional
district judge for the northern district of California, three
additional district judges for the eastern district of
California. . . .

Sec. 6. Any court of appeals having more than 15 active judges
may constitute itself into administrative units complete with such
facilities and staff as may be prescribed by the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts, and may perform its en banc
function by such number of members of its en banc courts as may be
prescribed by rule of the court of appeals. . .
Sec. 9. (a) Section 1337 of title 28 of the United States Code
is amended to read as follows:
`` Sec. 1337. Commerce and antitrust regulations; amount in
controversy, costs

[[Page 8503]]

Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 20 (11)) or section 219 of part II of
such Act (49 U.S.C. 319), only if the matter in controversy for
each receipt or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, exclusive of
interest and costs. . . .

Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that section 6 of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey is not a germane modification of the
House bill and the Senate amendment thereto. Section 6 is an
entirely new subject introduced under color of amendment contrary
to clause 7 of rule XVI. Section 6 is not what is commonly known as
a nongermane Senate amendment but rather is a nongermane House
amendment.
Section 6 treats with the subject of ``administrative units.''
Neither the House bill nor the Senate amendment treat with that
subject. The Senate amendment did create a new 11th circuit. But
the creation of new administrative units are very different
subjects, the former being quite fundamental and the latter being--
in the chairman's view--much less so. Moreover, while the Senate
amendment dealt with the creation of one new circuit, the pending
amendment deals with all circuits.
Finally, section 6 sets new law for en banc courts. The House
bill did not. The Senate amendment did not. But the pending
amendment says that the number of members of an en banc court may
be set by rule of court. Current law--which neither body has sought
to change--requires en banc courts comprised of all the judges.
For these reasons, section 6 is not germane. . .
Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I urge, first of all, that the matter
in section 6 is wholly appropriate to the subject matter of the
bill, which includes matters pertaining to all 11 circuits, and
there is no issue of germaneness, therefore. If it is outside of
the scope of the conference, that is not relevant. We are in
technical disagreement. . . .
Mr. McClory: Mr. Speaker, I just point this out, as I did: It
is not a question of technical disagreement: it is a question that
there was nothing in the Senate bill and nothing in the House bill.
The Senate bill did provide for splitting the fifth circuit. I
guess that is what they are trying to accomplish here, but what in
fact is occurring is that they are trying to develop an
administrative procedure which will set up the courts themselves
without any law, without any act on the part of this body, to do
something.
In a sense, we are delegating a legislative authority to
administrative bodies of the courts to enact legislation. So, it is
for all circuits throughout the country. It is something that is
entirely new. It is new in the Senate, it is new here, and it is
entirely nongermane as far as our House rules are concerned in my
opinion, Mr. Speaker. . . .
Miss [Barbara] Jordan [of Texas]: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, on
the point of order, the question of germaneness is inappropriate to
be raised at this time. This bill has as its total subject matter
the creation of new district court judges and the creation of
circuit judges, so ``circuits'' is viable, relevant subject matter
of this conference.
The fact that this compromise proposal which is reported in the
technical disagreement amendment proposed by the gentleman from New
Jersey, the

[[Page 8504]]

point that we did not talk about administrative units when the bill
was before the House, is not applicable to a germaneness question.
The question of circuits was a question with us, and we can do
anything within the context of that general subject matter of
circuits which is desirable to be done.
This particular administrative unit amendment is apropos and
germane to the subject matter of circuits. The gentleman from
Illinois is arguing the scope of the conference rather than a point
of germaneness. Mr. Speaker, on the issue of germaneness, the
gentleman from Illinois must be overruled.
Mr. McClory: Mr. Speaker, may I just respond to that statement
simply in this way: We are not dealing in this bill with the
subject of circuits. We are dealing with the subject of additional
district court and additional circuit court judges for the Federal
courts. The limited effect of the legislation before us was an
amendment on that judgeship bill in the Senate with respect to one
circuit, not all the circuits; so that this is not legislation
dealing with division of the circuits. It is legislation dealing
with additional judges.
May I say further that the subject of en banc courts is
something upon which this body had better legislate independently.
I do not see how we could possibly be delegating to an
administrative body authority to decide legislation with respect to
what is and what is not an en banc court, in contradistinction to
what the law presently is, which is to the effect that all of the
circuit judges represent the en banc court.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair agrees with the gentlewoman from Texas on the essence
of her argument. The essential question, since the conferees
reported in disagreement, is whether the proposed motion is germane
to the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment was much broader than
the House version.
The Chair has a little difficulty in really pinpointing the
point that the gentleman from Illinois makes. It may be that he
intends his point of order to lie against the motion under rule
XXVIII, clause 5. Clause 5(b)(2) of rule XXVIII provides that a
point of order may be made upon the offering of a motion to recede
and concur with an amendment in an amendment of the Senate reported
from conference in disagreement, but only if the Senate amendment
or a portion thereof as proposed to be amended by such motion
contains matter which would not have been germane if offered to the
House bill when it was under consideration.
The Chair would note, however, that the nongermane Senate
matter to which the gentleman refers, the split of the 5th circuit
into a 5th and an 11th circuit, is not proposed to be included even
in modified form in the motion offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey.
The amendment proposed to the Senate amendment provides, in
section 6, for the establishment of administrative units in any
court of appeals with more than 15 active judges, but deletes any
mention of an adjustment of the fifth circuit.
Section 6 appears to the Chair to be a new proposition, not a
modification of the portion of the Senate amend

[[Page 8505]]

ment dealing with the fifth circuit. Therefore, a point of order
under clause 5 of rule XXVIII does not apply in this instance.
The only appropriate test is whether the entire amendment
proposed by the gentleman from New Jersey in his motion is germane
to the Senate amendment as a whole, and it appears to the Chair
that it is germane since the Senate amendment dealt with diverse
subjects including appointment of additional district and circuit
judges, a split of the fifth circuit, assignments and terms of the
courts, and jurisdictional requirements.
For all of these reasons, the Chair will very respectfully
overrule the point of order.

Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair mentioned the inapplicability of
clause 5 of Rule XXVIII, although Mr. McClory did not specifically
mention that clause, because the point of order was based on the
argument that section 6 of the Rodino motion, taken alone, was not
germane to the provision in the Senate amendment for a split of the
fifth circuit. As the Chair indicated, that was not the proper test of
germaneness where the provision complained of is an entirely new
provision in an amendment to a Senate amendment rather than a
``modification'' of the Senate amendment.

Striking Appropriation for Missile Program--House Amendment Reinserting
Funds and Earmarking Other Funds for Unrelated Grants

Sec. 27.13 To a Senate amendment striking an appropriation for a
missile program from a general appropriation bill, a House
amendment not only reinserting a portion of those funds but also
earmarking other funds in the bill for specific grants unrelated to
that missile program and waiving provisions of law otherwise
restricting such grants was conceded to be nongermane.

On Nov. 15, 1989,⁽¹⁷⁾ during consideration of the
Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal 1990 ⁽¹⁸⁾ in
the House, it was demonstrated that an individual proposition is not
germane to another individual proposition when a point of order was
conceded and sustained against the amendment described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 135 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
18. H.R. 3072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽¹⁹⁾ The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Al Swift (Wash.).

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

[[Page 8506]]

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 94: Page 32, line 17, strike out all
after ``diseases'' down to and including ``program'' in line
20.

Mr. [John P.] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Murtha moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 94, and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter stricken by said amendment, insert ``: Provided further,
That of the amount herein provided for the Strategic Defense
Initiative, $52,000,000 shall be available only for the Arrow
missile program: Provided further, That of funds appropriated
in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense Agencies
in fiscal year 1989, $46,000,000 shall be available only for
grants as follows:
(1) $15,000,000 for the National Center for Industrial
Innovation at Lehigh University . . .
Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated in
this appropriations account for fiscal year 1990, $15,200,000
shall be available only for grants, as follows:
(1) $5,200,000 for the proposed Center for Environmental
Medicine at the Medical College of Ohio;
(2) $8,000,000 for the proposed Center for commerce and
Industrial Expansion at Loyola University of Chicago; and
(3) $2,000,000 for the Pilot Program for Combat Casualty
Care Management and Research at the Martin Luther King, Jr.
General Hospital-Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and
Science . . .
Provided further, That the grants provided for in the preceding
provisions shall be made without regard to, and (to the extent
necessary) in contravention of, subsection (a) of section 2361
of title 10, United States Code (which is hereby superseded to
the extent necessary to make such grants), and shall be made
without regard to subsection (b)(2) of such section, and shall
be made without regard to the requirements of section 2304 of
title 10, United States Code. . . .

Mr. [Steve] Bartlett [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of
order on the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) violates
clause 7 of rule XVI in that it is not germane to the subject
matter under consideration, and I would seek to speak to my point
of order.
Mr. Murtha: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and
sustained.

Senate Amendment Striking Prohibition Against Use of Funds To Control
Air Pollution by Regulating Parking Facilities--House Amendment To
Prohibit Use of Funds for Plans Requiring Review of Indirect
Sources of Air Pollution

Sec. 27.14 A specific proposition may not be amended by a proposition
more general in scope; thus, to a Senate amendment striking a
provision in a general appropria

[[Page 8507]]

tion bill which precluded the use of funds therein by the
Environmental Protection Agency to control air pollution by
regulating parking facilities, a motion in the House to recede and
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment which temporarily
prohibited the use of such funds to implement any plan requiring
the review of any indirect sources of air pollution was held more
comprehensive in scope and was held to be not germane.

On Dec. 12, 1974,⁽²⁰⁾ during consideration in the House
of the conference report on H.R. 16901,⁽¹⁾ it was
demonstrated that where a Senate amendment proposed to strike out
language in a House bill, the test of the germaneness of a motion to
recede and concur with an amendment was the relationship between the
language in the motion and the provisions in the House bill proposed to
be stricken by the Senate amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 39272, 39273, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
1. Agriculture, Environment and Consumer Appropriations, fiscal 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: ⁽²⁾ The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 8: Page 52, line 20, strike: ``Sec.
510. No part of any funds appropriated under this Act may be
used by the Environmental Protection Agency to administer any
program to tax, limit, or otherwise regulate parking
facilities.''

Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 8 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
``Sec. 510. No part of any funds appropriated under this
Act may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to
implement or enforce any provision of a state implementation
plan promulgated or approved pursuant to Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act that requires the review of indirect sources, as
defined in 40 CFR 52.22(b)(1), pending completion of judicial
review, pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, of the
indirect source regulations set forth in 40 CFR 52.22, or any
other such regulation relating to indirect sources.''. . .

Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point
of order on the ground of nongermaneness.
The House provision provided only for parking, and the Senate
struck completely the House provision.
This language is not germane in that it goes far beyond
parking. The amendment would cover airports, it would cover
highways, it would cover shopping centers, and it would cover
sports arenas, regardless of whether any parking facilities are
attached or associated.

[[Page 8508]]

There is no question but what this is not germane. It is far
beyond what the House had stated, and I think it is not appropriate
to be in an appropriation bill at all. Therefore I ask that it be
stricken in accordance with the arguments used against the
amendment. . . .
Mr. Whitten: . . . Mr. Speaker, the legislation to which the
gentleman from Florida has referred has had the effect of stopping
employment in the cities of this country. It has done this because
they have to have a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency
for parking. It has prevented new buildings in universities,
hospitals, shopping centers--and this at a time of great
unemployment in the United States.
It was felt when the bill passed in the House that in order to
prevent that effect upon our economy and upon the growth of our
cities, and in order to protect the inner cities so that efforts
could be made to live there, that we, in turn, should keep this one
item from being used to effect this legislation.
In the Senate it was felt that since there are lawsuits pending
throughout the United States, I think in at least four instances,
that this legislation covering parking was the key, that that part
which had parking in it should be included in the conference and
the conferees felt that in the interest of the Nation that those
related matters which are a part and parcel of the provisions to
which we were trying to direct our attention, should be accepted,
and it was accepted by the conferees.
So, Mr. Speaker, on that basis I respectfully submit that while
we touched on only one part of this provision, that the other parts
thereby came before the conference, and on that basis we have gone
along with delaying this, not to prohibit, but to restrict EPA from
causing such delays or work stoppages in this area until such time
as the courts determine the issue. And, as I said, the question is
now pending before the Federal courts in at least four cases. Of
course neither of these provisions, either the House or the
conference provision, affects the rights of the cities, towns or of
a State from taking such action as they wish. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
There is only one issue involved here and that is whether the
amendment included in the motion of the gentleman from Mississippi
is germane. It obviously is far more comprehensive than the House
provision, and is not germane thereto. The Chair, therefore,
sustains the point of order.

Rule Against Offering Amendments Which Change Existing Law to
Appropriation Bills as Not Applicable to Motion To Dispose of
Senate Amendment

Sec. 27.15 Where a Senate amendment proposing legislation on a general
appropriation bill is, pursuant to Rule XX, clause 2, reported back
from conference in disagreement, a proposed House amendment to the
Senate amendment adding further legislation is in order if germane

[[Page 8509]]

thereto, as clause 2(c) of Rule XXI proscribing amendments to
general appropriation bills which change existing law has been held
not to apply to motions to dispose of Senate amendments; thus, to a
Senate amendment providing for prepayment of certain loans by Rural
Electrification Administration borrowers serving a specified
density of population, a proposed House amendment eliminating the
population density criterion to broaden the applicability of the
Senate amendment to additional borrowers within the same class was
held germane.

During consideration of H.R. 1827 (supplemental appropriations,
fiscal 1987) in the House on June 30, 1987,⁽³⁾ the Chair
overruled points of order in the circumstances described above. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 133 Cong. Rec. 18307, 18308, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽⁴⁾ The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text of the amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment No. 223: Page 49, after line 17, insert:

Rural Electrification Administration

Notwithstanding the amount authorized to be prepaid under
section 306A(d)(1) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7
U.S.C. 936a(d)(1)), a borrower of a loan made by the Federal
Financing Bank and guaranteed under section 306 of such Act (7
U.S.C. 936) that serves 6 or fewer customers per mile may, at
the option of the borrower, prepay such loan (or any loan
advance thereunder) during fiscal year 1987 or 1988, in
accordance with section 306A of such Act.

Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 223 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter inserted by said amendment, insert the following:

Rural Electrification Administration

Hereafter, notwithstanding section 306A(d) of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 936(d)), a borrower of a
loan made by the Federal Financing Bank and guaranteed under
section 306 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 936) may, at the option of
the borrower, prepay such loan (or any loan advance thereunder)
in accordance with section 306A of such Act. . . .

Mr. [Ron] Packard [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order, the following points of order, actually:
No. 1, that subject to rule 21, clause 2, this amendment is
legislating on appropriation bills.

[[Page 8510]]

No. 2, that this amendment is not germane to the supplemental
appropriations bill. . . .
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of
order. This amendment is germane to the amendment of the Senate.
What the amendment does is quite straightforward. It removes
the phrase ``that serves 6 or fewer customers per mile'' from the
Senate amendment. This has the direct result of allowing REA's that
have population density of up to 12.4 customers per mile to
qualify, rather than just 6 customers per mile.
The amendment does not change the class of borrowers that can
prepay; it simply enlarges the same class. It does not add some
other type of borrower.
The Senate amendment allows Rural Electrification
Administration borrowers who serve 6 or fewer customers per mile of
line to refinance their REA guaranteed debt with the Federal
Financing Bank without being assessed a prepayment penalty.
There are 51 borrowers whose loans bear an interest rate such
that they would be worthwhile to refinance at present interest
rates.
At present there are 31 borrowers with loans whose density is 6
or fewer per mile.
There are 20 borrowers with loans whose density is greater than
6 customers per mile of line.
The conference agreement would allow all 51 borrowers to
refinance their loans rather than only 31 borrowers.
This type of amendment is clearly in order and is germane.
Cannon's procedures states, ``A general subject may be amended
by specific proposition of the same class.'' Mr. Speaker, this is
exactly what is being done.
In fact, the amendment is even stricter. In effect, what is
involved is a proposition being amended by the same proposition in
the same class. Clearly, such an amendment expands the scope, but
is germane. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
With respect to the issue of whether this motion constitutes
legislation on an appropriations bill, the Chair rules that it is
not in violation of clause 2 [of Rule XX], since the amendment was
brought back in disagreement for a separate vote, not as part of
the conference report. . . .
With respect to the germaneness issue that the gentleman
raises, the motion is germane to the Senate amendment since
relating to the same class of borrowers covered by the Senate
amendment and the Senate amendment itself is being brought back in
disagreement for a separate vote. Therefore, there is no valid
germaneness point of order with respect to the motion disposing of
the Senate amendment. . . .
Therefore, the Chair overrules the various points of order.

Amending Senate Amendment Comprising Legislation on Appropriation Bill

Sec. 27.16 Where a Senate amendment on a general appropriation bill
proposes an expenditure not authorized by law, it is in order in
the House to

[[Page 8511]]

perfect the Senate amendment by germane amendments.

In the 75th Congress, during consideration of a deficiency
appropriation bill,⁽⁵⁾ a Senate amendment as described above
was reported in disagreement.⁽⁶⁾ Mr. Clifton A. Woodrum, of
Virginia, made a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an
amendment, and Mr. Henry Ellenbogen, of Pennsylvania, made the point of
order that the motion constituted ``legislation on an appropriation
bill.'' ⁽⁷⁾ The Speaker pro tempore ⁽⁸⁾ responded
that, ``the Senate amendment is legislation, and the amendment to that
amendment . . . is not out of order because it contains legislation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. H.R. 3587 (Committee on Appropriations).
6. 81 Cong. Rec. 975, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1937. See
Sec. 27.10, supra, for discussion of a similar instance in
which a Senate amendment comprising legislation on an
appropriation bill was sought to be amended.
7. Id. at p. 976.
8. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following exchange then occurred:

Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia is
not germane, since it limits the Senate amendment by date.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that it deals
with the same subject matter, and the mere limitation of the Senate
amendment by date does not destroy its germaneness, and the Chair
therefore overrules the point of order.

Amendment to Special Order From Committee on Rules

Sec. 27.17 To a resolution providing that the House disagree to a
Senate amendment that directed a joint committee to conduct a study
of excess-profits tax legislation and further directed the
appropriate committee to report such legislation and agree to a
conference, an amendment providing that the House concur in the
Senate amendment with an amendment actually enacting excess-profits
tax legislation was held to be not germane, as a special order
providing for consideration of a certain subject may not be amended
by a proposition providing for consideration of another nongermane
subject.

On Sept. 14, 1950, the House had under consideration a resolution
providing for action on a tax

[[Page 8512]]

bill.⁽⁹⁾ The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See 96 Cong. Rec. 14832 et seq., 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14,
1950. The bill, to reduce excise taxes and for other purposes,
was H.R. 8920 (Committee on Ways and Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I call up
House Resolution 842 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the bill (H.R. 8920) to reduce excise taxes, and for
other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and the
same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate
amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to; that the
conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the said bill be, and hereby is, agreed to;
and that the Speaker shall immediately appoint conferees
without intervening motion.

Following rejection of the previous question on the resolution, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered which sent all
other Senate amendments to conference and which amended, in particular,
a Senate amendment relating to a study of excess-profits tax
legislation. The Senate amendment stated: ⁽¹⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 96 Cong. Rec. 14054, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) The House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate
Committee on Finance are hereby directed to report to the
respective Houses of Congress during the first session of the
Eighty-second Congress, and as early as practicable during said
session, a bill for raising revenue by the levying, collection,
and payment of corporate excess-profits taxes with retroactive
effect to October 1, or July 1, 1950, said bill to originate as
required by article I, section 7, of the Constitution.
(b) The Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, or
any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is hereby authorized
and directed to make a full and complete study of the problems
involved in the taxation of excess profits accruing to
corporations as the result of the national defense program in
which the United States is now engaged. The joint committee
shall report the results of its study to the House Committee on
Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance as soon as
practicable.

Mr. Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, offered the amendment to
the resolution:

Amendment offered by Mr. Eberharter: Strike out all after the
word ``Resolved'' and insert in lieu thereof the following:

``That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution,
the bill H.R. 8920 with Senate amendments thereto be, and the
same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end--
``(1) That all Senate amendments other than amendment No.
191 be, and the same are hereby, disagreed to and the
conference requested thereon by the Senate is agreed to; and
``(2) That Senate amendment No. 191 be, and the same is
hereby, agreed to with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the
matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert the
following:

[[Page 8513]]

`` `Title VII--Excess-Profits Tax

`` `Sec. 701. Excess-profits tax applied to taxable years
ending after June 30, 1950.
`` `Notwithstanding section 122(a) of the Revenue Act of
1945, the provisions of subchapter E of chapter 2 of the
Internal Revenue Code shall apply to taxable years ending after
June 30, 1950.
`` `Sec. 702. Computation of tax in case of taxable year
beginning before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950.
`` `Section 710 (a) (relating to imposition of excess-
profits tax) is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new paragraph:
`` ` ``(8) Taxable years beginning before July 1, 1950, and
ending after June 30, 1950: In the case of a taxable year
beginning before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950,
the tax shall be an amount equal to that portion of a tentative
tax, computed without regard to this paragraph, which the
number of days in such taxable year after June 30, 1950, bears
to the total number of days in such taxable year.'' . . .
`` `Sec. 704. Unused excess-profits credit
`` `(a) Definition of unused excess-profits credit: Section
710 (c) (2) (relating to definition of unused excess-profits
credit) is hereby amended to read as follows:
`` ` ``(2) Definition of unused excess-profits credit: The
term `unused excess-profits credit' means the excess, if any,
of the excess-profits credit for any taxable year ending after
June 30, 1950, over the excess profits net income for such
taxable year, computed on the basis of the excess-profits
credit applicable to such taxable year. The unused excess-
profits credit for a taxable year of less than 12 months shall
be an amount which is such part of the unused excess-profits
credit determined under the preceding sentence as the number of
days in the taxable year is of the number of days in the 12
months ending with the close of the taxable year. The unused
excess-profits credit for a taxable year beginning before July
1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950, shall be an amount
which is such part of the unused excess-profits credit
determined under the preceding provisions of this paragraph as
the number of days in such taxable year after June 30, 1950, is
of the total number of days in such taxable year.'' . . .

A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
⁽¹¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 14843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order against the amendment on the ground that the
amendment is neither germane to the resolution sought to be
amended, nor to the Senate amendment No. 191. The language of the
Senate amendment would direct the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House and the Finance Committee of the Senate to conduct a
study of excess-profits-tax legislation during the Eighty-second
Congress, ostensibly to report back to the House and Senate for
passage with a retroactive date of July 1, 1950, or October 1,
1950.
The provision of the bill does not in any way attempt to
legislate an excess-profits tax in connection with H.R. 8920. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania proposes an
excess-profits tax in connection with H.R. 8920. . . .

In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:
⁽¹²⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 14843, 14844.

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

[[Page 8514]]

Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: In the first
place, Mr. Speaker, this amendment seeks to amend the resolution
reported out by the Committee on Rules. . . .
Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this resolution from the
Committee on Rules is to waive a rule requiring that matter subject
to a point of order in the first place in the House if put in in
the Senate shall be considered in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union. The resolution of the Committee on Rules
waives that. It is our contention, Mr. Speaker, that this being so
the House has a right by its vote on this substitute resolution to
waive the rule pertaining to germaneness, which my substitute
amendment attempts to do.

The Speaker,⁽¹³⁾ in ruling on the point of order,
stated: ⁽¹⁴⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 14844, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a rule long established that a resolution from the
Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill
relating to a certain subject may not be amended by a proposition
providing for the consideration of another and not germane subject
or matter.
It is true that in Senate amendment No. 191 to the bill, which
came from the Senate, there is a caption ``Title VII,'' which
states ``Excess Profits Tax.'' But in the amendment which the
Senate adopted to the House bill there is no excess-profits tax.
The Chair is compelled to hold under a long line of rulings
that this matter, not being germane if offered to the Senate
amendment it is not germane here. The Chair sustains the point of
order.

Special Rule Waiving Points of Order Against Nongermane House
Amendments Proposed in Joint Statement of Managers

Sec. 27.18 Prior to consideration of a conference report, a special
order was reported from the Committee on Rules waiving points of
order against nongermane House amendments proposed in the joint
statement of managers to be offered to certain numbered Senate
amendments reported from conference in disagreement.

On July 28, 1983,⁽¹⁵⁾ the House agreed to House
Resolution 284, waiving germaneness points of order against certain
House amendments to Senate amendments to H.R. 3069 (supplemental
appropriations for fiscal 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 21478-80, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Jonas M.] Frost [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 284 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 8515]]

H. Res. 284

Resolved, That during the consideration of the amendments
reported from conference in disagreement on the bill (H.R.
3069) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1983, and for other purposes, all points
of order under clause 7 of rule XVI are hereby waived against
the proposed House amendments printed on the following pages of
the joint statement of managers accompanying the conference
report, to the following numbered Senate amendments reported
from conference in disagreement: on pages 9 through 10, to
number 1; on page 11, to number 8; on page 35, to number 83; on
page 45, to number 119; on page 48, to numbers 128 through 132;
on page 56, to number 164; on page 57, to number 168; and on
page 67, to number 231. . . .

Mr. Frost: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has reported
House Resolution 284 to provide for the orderly and expeditious
disposition of the conference report on the fiscal year 1983
supplemental appropriation and its amendments in disagreement. The
rule specifically waives points of order on proposed House
amendments to certain amendments in disagreement. The rule waives
clause 7 of Rule XVI, the germaneness rule, against 12 specified
amendments to the Senate amendments reported from the conference in
disagreement.
This unusual procedure is necessary in order that the House
might consider these 12 amendments on their merit, for otherwise,
it would be possible for any one Member of the House to raise a
point of order against consideration of each of these amendments
and would thereby preclude the House the opportunity to come to a
decision on these amendments. The waivers granted in the rule in no
way change the normal procedure under which conference reports of
the Appropriations Committee are considered, and as is customary,
the conference report will be considered in the House under the
hour rule. Once it has been adopted, the manager of the conference
agreement, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, Mr. Whitten, will then bring up each of the 105
amendments in disagreement which will be considered and subject to
a vote. In the 12 specific instances where waivers have been
granted in the special order reported by the Committee on Rules,
the waiver will enable each amendment to be called up, debated and
voted on without a point of order being raised and sustained. Each
of the amendments in disagreement is allowed 1 hour of debate,
equally divided and each is subject to a rollcall vote. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The Speaker Pro Tempore [Mr. Dennis E. Eckart, of Ohio]: The
question is on ordering the previous question. . . .
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Thomas of California) there were--ayes 161, noes 63.
Mr. [William M.] Thomas of California: Mr. Speaker, I demand a
recorded vote. . . .
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes
267, noes

[[Page 8516]]

138, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 27. . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.

Senate Prohibition on Use of Funds in Appropriation Bill--House
Amendment Adding Nongermane Authorization

Sec. 27.19 While a point of order against a motion to amend a Senate
legislative amendment to a general appropriation bill reported from
conference in disagreement will not lie merely because the proposed
House amendment adds legislation, the amendment must be germane to
the Senate amendment; thus, to a Senate amendment prohibiting use
of funds in a general appropriation bill for only one basing mode
for the MX Missile, a motion in the House to recede and concur with
an amendment adding to that prohibition an authorization of
appropriations for research and development of another weapons
system (PARCS) was ruled out of order as not germane.

During consideration of H.R. 5359 ⁽¹⁶⁾ in the House on
Dec. 12, 1979,⁽¹⁷⁾ the Speaker sustained a point of order in
the circumstances described above. The amendment in disagreement and
the point of order thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal 1980.
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 35520, 35521, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: ⁽¹⁸⁾ The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 56: Page 29, line 7, insert: None of
the funds appropriated under this paragraph to continue
development of the MX Missile may be used in a fashion which
would commit the United States to only one basing mode for the
MX missile system.

Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Addabbo moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 56 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter inserted by said amendment, insert: . . .
In addition to any other funds authorized to be
appropriated under this heading, there is hereby authorized to
be appropriated during fiscal year 1980 an additional amount of
$5,000,000 only for research and development on the Perimeter
Acquisition Radar Attack Characterization System (PARCS). . . .

Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order against the motion offered by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Addab

[[Page 8517]]

bo) for the reason that this calls for an authorization. The
amendment calls for an authorization in an appropriation bill.
. . . Mr. Speaker, the amendment is not germane, and I would
point out for the edification of the Chair that the authorization
for the PARCS radar was rejected by both the Committee on Armed
Services of the House and the permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House, which are the authorizing committees for
this particular weapons system. . . .
Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, I hate to find
myself at odds with my subcommittee chairman, but I do not believe
that I can concede the point of order.
This is a point of order raised against an amendment brought
back in disagreement. It is not a point of order raised to a bill,
and my understanding of the rules is that a point of order would
not lie to an amendment brought back in disagreement.
The Speaker: The Chair will rule that the germaneness point of
order is well taken. It is very obvious that the motion is not
germane as it relates to the Senate amendment 56, and the Chair
sustains the point of order.

Amendment Affecting Funds in Other Acts

Sec. 27.20 To a Senate amendment prohibiting the use of funds
appropriated for a fiscal year for a specified purpose, a proposed
House amendment prohibiting the use of funds appropriated by ``this
or any prior Act'' for a different unrelated purpose is not
germane.

The proceedings of June 30, 1987, relating to H.R. 1827,
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1987, are discussed in section
27.4, supra.

Sec. 27.21 To a Senate amendment reducing the amount and restricting
the availability of a certain appropriation in the bill, a House
amendment proposing (1) to make a portion of the appropriation
available for a specified purpose notwithstanding any other
provision of law and (2) to prohibit the use of funds appropriated
in the bill or in any other act for another specified purpose was
held not germane.

On Sept. 30, 1988,⁽¹⁹⁾ during proceedings relating to
H.R. 4781, the defense appropriations bill, a motion was made that the
House recede from its disagreement to a Senate amendment, and concur
therein with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 134 Cong. Rec. 27147, 27148, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate amendment No. 23: Page 9, line 24, strike out
``$21,890,400,000'' and insert ``$21,817,327,000 of which
$1,549,883,000 shall not become available for obligation until
July 1, 1989, and shall be available only for

[[Page 8518]]

civilian personnel compensation and benefits''.

Mr. [William V.] Chappell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽²⁰⁾ The Clerk will
designate the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. G. V. Montgomery (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Chappell moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 23 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert the
following: ``$21,721,673,000 of which $1,500,000 shall be
available only for repair and maintenance of Decker Field,
Utah: Provided That $26,000,000 shall be available only for the
operation of the SR-71 Base in the Pacific area and,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, these funds shall
be available for obligation and expenditure for this purpose:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this
or any other Act may be obligated or expended for the purpose
of disestablishing or reducing the Air Force SR-71 survivable
airborne reconnaissance capability for the Far East and Middle
East Theatres from the level of such capability available on
October 1, 1987''. . . .

Mr. [Dick] Cheney [of Wyoming]: Mr. Speaker, with respect to
the Senate amendment numbered 23, I make the point of order that
the amendment to the Senate amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida is not germane to the Senate amendment as required by
clause 7 of House rule XVI. The amendment waives the application of
any other law--including the requirements of the Intelligence
Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989, which was signed by the
President on September 29, and section 502 of the National Security
Act of 1947, as amended. It also seeks to limit the obligation and
expenditure of funds in other appropriations acts. For both those
reasons, the amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment. . .
.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: For the reasons given by the gentleman
from Wyoming, the point of order is sustained against the motion.

Parliamentarian's Note: Where an amendment revises an aggregate
figure in a bill, an amendment to that amendment addressing other
accounts within that aggregate figure may be germane; similarly, the
fact that the amendment in the first degree addresses one account
within the aggregate figure that it proposes to revise does not affect
the germaneness of an amendment in the second degree addressing other
accounts within that aggregate figure, because the proposal to revise
the aggregate figure potentially opens to germane amendment all
accounts within that figure.

Limitation on Particular Use of Funds--Amendment Limiting Other Funds

Sec. 27.22 To a proposition limiting the use of funds in a bill for a
particular purpose, an amendment limiting the use of funds in other
Acts

[[Page 8519]]

and for a purpose more general in scope is not germane; thus, to a
Senate amendment to an appropriation bill reported from conference
in disagreement, striking out a House provision prohibiting the use
of funds in the bill for a designated Outer Continental Shelf lease
sale in California, a House amendment prohibiting the use of funds
in the bill or in any other Act for that lease sale and other
California lease sales was conceded to be nongermane as more
general in scope.

On Oct. 5, 1983,⁽¹⁾ during consideration of the
Department of the Interior appropriations for fiscal 1984 (H.R. 3363)
in the House, a point of order was conceded and sustained in the
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 129 Cong. Rec. 27319, 27320, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽²⁾ The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The amendment reads as follows:

Senate amendment No. 95: Page 38, strike out all after line
21 over to and including line 15 on page 40.

Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 95 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by
said amendment, amended to read as follows:
Sec. 113. (a) No funds in this or any other act may be
expended by the Department of the Interior for the lease or
sale of lands within the Department of the Interior Southern
California Planning area described in (1) through (4) below. No
funds may be expended for lease or sale of lands within the
area described in (1) through (4) so long as adjacent State
Tidelands continue to be designated as State Oil and Gas
Leasing Sanctuary pursuant to Sec. 6871.1 et seq. of the
California Public Resources Code . . .
(1) An area of the Department of the Interior Southern
California Planning Area off the coastline of the State of
California Oil and Gas Leasing Sanctuary as described by Sec.
6871.1 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code in
effect September 29, 1983. . . .
(4) An area within the boundaries of the Santa Barbara
Channel Ecological Preserve and Buffer Zone, as defined by
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Public
Land Order 4587. . . .
(b) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the
Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands in
OCS Lease Sale #80 which lie within an area located off the
coastline of the State of California Oil and Gas Leasing
Sanctuary as defined by Sec. 6871.1 et seq. California Public
Resources Code in effect September 29, 1983. . . .
(c) Until January 1, 1985, no funds may be expended by the
Department of the Interior for the lease or sale of lands
within the Department of the

[[Page 8520]]

Interior Southern California Planning area, as defined in
section 2(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1331(a)), located in the Pacific Ocean off the coastline
of Santa Monica Bay, State of California, which lies within a
line on the California (Lambert) Plane Coordinate System. . . .
(f) In OCS Lease Sale 80, lease or sale of lands affecting
the responsibilities of the Department of Defense shall be with
the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. . . .

Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order against Senate amendment No. 95, the point of order
being that under rule XVI, clause 7, the provisions are not
germane.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained. .

Amendment Changing Amount of Appropriation

Sec. 27.23 In amending a Senate amendment which appropriates a specific
sum for a given purpose, the House is not confined within the
limits of the amount set by the original bill and that set by the
Senate amendment; but the amendment to the Senate amendment must be
germane.

In the 76th Congress, following disposition of a conference report
on an agriculture appropriations bill,⁽³⁾ the following
Senate amendment was reported from conference in disagreement:
⁽⁴⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. H.R. 8202 (Committee on Appropriations).
4. 86 Cong. Rec. 6184, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 15, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment No. 110: On page 93, after line 13, insert:

Loans: For loans in accordance with sections 3, 4, and 5,
and the purchase of property in accordance with section 7 of
the Rural Electrification Act of May 20, 1936, as amended (7
U.S.C. 901-914), $40,000,000, which sum shall be borrowed from
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. . . .

The following motion was made:

Mr. Cannon of Missouri moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 110 and agree to
the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum of
$40,000,000 named in said amendment insert ``$100,000,000.''

A point of order was made as follows: ⁽⁵⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Id. at p. 6185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point
of order that this amount exceeds the amount carried in the Senate
amendment and is not in order at this time.

Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, stated:

Mr. Speaker, the only requirement is that it be germane, and
this is certainly germane to the Senate amendment to which it is
offered. . . .

[[Page 8521]]

The Speaker ⁽⁶⁾ ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . The Chair cites section 3189, of Cannon's Precedents,
volume 8:

In amending a Senate amendment the House is not confined
within the limits of amount set by the original bill and the
Senate amendment.
The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Appropriation for One Year--Change in Permanent Law

Sec. 27.24 To a Senate amendment pertaining only to an appropriation
amount for an agency for one year, an amendment not only changing
that figure but also adding language having the effect of permanent
law is not germane; thus, to a Senate amendment, reported from
conference in disagreement, only striking the fiscal year 1984
appropriation for the Congressional Research Service and inserting
in lieu thereof a new figure, an amendment proposed in a motion to
recede and concur with an amendment, permanently amending the
Legislative Reorganization Act to require the Congressional
Research Service to submit budget estimates for inclusion in the
United States Budget, was conceded to be not germane and was ruled
out on a point of order.

During consideration of the Legislative Branch Appropriations for
fiscal 1984 ⁽⁷⁾ in the House on June 29, 1983,⁽⁸⁾
Speaker Pro Tempore Abraham Kazen, Jr., of Texas, sustained a point of
order in the circumstances described above. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. H.R. 3135.
8. 129 Cong. Rec. 18129, 18130, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

[[Page 8522]]

approval, the budget estimates of the Congressional Research
Service for inclusion in the Budget of the United States
Government.''. . .

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

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

Moreover, in the same section:

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

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

Striking Funds for Fisheries Program--House Amendment Permanently
Amending Authorizing Law

Sec. 27.25 To a Senate amendment to an appropriation bill reported from
conference in disagreement, striking funds for a certain fisheries
program, a House amendment permanently amending the authorizing law
to provide authority for funding for a state ineligible under
existing law was conceded not to be germane and was ruled out on a
point of order.

An example of the principle that, to a proposition affecting funds
for a program for one fiscal year, an amendment permanently amending
the authorizing law relating to eligibility for funding in any fiscal
year is more general in scope and is not germane, may be found in the
proceedings of the House on Oct. 5, 1983,⁽⁹⁾ during
consideration of the Department of the Interior appropriations for
fiscal 1984 (H.R. 3363):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 129 Cong. Rec. 27313, 27314, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 8523]]

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽¹⁰⁾ The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The amendment reads as follows:

Senate amendment No. 16: Page 10, lines 10 and 11, strike
out ``; and for expenses necessary to carry out the Anadromous
Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-757f)''.

Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate numbered 16 and concur therein
with an amendment, as follows: Restore the matter stricken by
said amendment, amended to read as follows: ``; $4,000,000, to
remain available until expended, for expenses necessary to
carry out the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 757a-
757f), of which $500,000 shall be made available to the State
of Idaho without regard to the limitation as stated in 16
U.S.C. 757e and without regard to the Federal cost sharing
provisions in 16 U.S.C. 757a-757f: Provided That 16 U.S.C. 757e
is amended by adding the following new sentence: `The State of
Idaho shall be eligible on an equal standing with other states
for Federal funding for purposes authorized by sections 757a to
757f of this title.''. . .

Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: . . . My point of order is
pursuant to clause 7 of rule XVI, the provisions of which indicate
that [the amendment] is not germane.
Mr. Speaker, I make this point of order for two reasons, if the
Speaker would want me to be heard at this time.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.

Raising Ceiling on Number of District of Columbia Employees for Fiscal
Year--Amendment Affecting Permanent Law Regarding Hiring
Preferences

Sec. 27.26 To a Senate amendment raising a ceiling on the number of
employees of the District of Columbia government during the fiscal
year funded by the bill, a House amendment proposing also to
address in permanent law a hiring preference system for such
employees was held not germane.

The proceedings of Oct. 11, 1989, relating to H.R. 3026, District
of Columbia appropriations for fiscal 1990, are discussed in Sec. 24.5,
supra.

Condition Unrelated to That Imposed by Senate Amendment

Sec. 27.27 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill
prohibiting the availability of funds in any Act for salaries and
expenses for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for
Enforcement and Operations

[[Page 8524]]

after a date certain unless Congress enacts authorizing legislation
for the Customs Service, a proposed House amendment restricting
availability of funds in that bill for the same office unless
specific categories of products, determined to have been produced
by slave or convict labor in the Soviet Union unless the
Commissioner of Customs is provided with evidence to the contrary,
are barred from customs entry into the United States was conceded
to be not germane as a condition totally unrelated to that
contained in the Senate amendment.

On Nov. 7, 1985,⁽¹¹⁾ during consideration of H.R. 3036
⁽¹²⁾ in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a
point of order against an amendment, thereby holding that to a
proposition conditioning the availability of funds upon the enactment
of an authorizing statute for an enforcing agency, a substitute
proposal conditioning the availability of some of those funds upon a
prohibition of certain imports into the United States was not germane,
as establishing a contingency unrelated to that contained in the
proposition to which offered. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 131 Cong. Rec. 30984, 30985, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. The Department of the Treasury and Postal Service Appropriations,
fiscal 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽¹³⁾ The Clerk will
designate the first amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 14, after ``Annex''
insert ``: Provided further, That none of the funds contained
in this or any other Act shall be available for the salaries
and expenses for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury for Enforcement and Operations, after March 1, 1986,
unless United States Customs Service authorizing legislation is
passed by the Congress.''

Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Roybal moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter proposed said amendment, insert the following:
``Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be available for the salaries and expenses of the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and
Operations if any of the following products of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption in the customs territory of the
United States after December 31, 1985, unless the Commissioner
of Customs is

[[Page 8525]]

provided with sufficient information pursuant to 19 CFR 12.43
attesting to the fact that the products have not been produced,
manufactured, or mined (in whole or in part) by forced labor,
convict labor, or indentured labor under penal sanctions:
``(1) gold ore,
``(2) agricultural machinery. . . .
``(8) any other product that the Commissioner of Customs
determines to have been produced, manufactured, or mined (in
whole or in part) by forced labor, convict labor, or indentured
labor under penal sanctions: Provided further, That none of the
funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to hinder or
impede the Commissioner of Customs in making determinations
under subsection (8) of the preceding proviso'. . . .

Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order that the amendment is not germane to the Senate amendment
numbered 3 under clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House.
Senate amendment numbered 3 provides that no funds shall be
available for salaries and expenses for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement and Operations after
March 1, 1986, unless Congress passes authorizing legislation for
the U.S. Customs Service.
The proposed substitute amendment, on the other hand, prohibits
funding of that office unless seven specific categories of products
and other categories determined by the Commissioner of Customs to
be produced by slave or convict labor in the Soviet Union are
barred entry into the United States after December 31.
The amendment clearly raises new issues and involves subject
matter quite different from the Senate amendment. It also
constitutes legislation specifically to prohibit certain imports
within the jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
Mr. Roybal: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of
order at this particular point, and I just would like to state that
the original Senate amendment provided that none of the funds
contained in this or any other act shall be available unless the
U.S. Customs Service authorizing legislation is passed by the
Congress. . . .
This provision is more restrictive than the amendment in the
Senate bill in that, No. 1, it limits the prohibition of funds to
those made available by this act only and it does not apply to any
other act.
No. 2, the language included in the amendment could
appropriately be included in the authorizing legislation designated
in the Senate amendment. It, therefore, does not address any
additional topic, question, issue, or proposition not committed to
committee or conference because the Customs authorizing legislation
could contain all of the provisions included in the amendment.
It is the committee's position that the primary purpose of this
provision is not to change the scope of existing law. The purpose
of this amendment is to compel the U.S. Customs Service to enforce
existing laws.
I would like to put the administration on notice that we expect
them to start enforcing the law.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman concedes the point of
order,

[[Page 8526]]

and the point of order of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Frenzel] is sustained.

Rescinding Agency's Funds for Research on Seat Belts and Passive
Restraints--Amendment Imposing Conditions on Availability of All
Funds for Agency

Sec. 27.28 To a proposition rescinding an agency's funds for research
and education on the subject of motor vehicle seat belts and
passive restraints, an amendment conditioning the availability of
all of that agency's funds on certain findings with respect to
state compliance with federal standards for mandatory seat belt use
was conceded to be not germane, in that it affected regulatory
operations and was not confined to research and education funds.

During consideration of H.R. 2577 ⁽¹⁴⁾ in the House on
July 31, 1985,⁽¹⁵⁾ a point of order against a motion to
recede and concur with an amendment to the pending proposition was
conceded and therefore sustained. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 131 Cong. Rec. 21832-34, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Supplemental Appropriations, fiscal 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽¹⁶⁾ The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The amendment reads as follows:

Senate amendment No. 262: Page 75, lines 14 and 15, strike
out ``$7,500,000 or so much thereof as may be available on May
2, 1985'' and insert ``$2,000,000''. . . .

Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 262 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert the
following: ``no funds shall be obligated until the Secretary
has made a complete, definitive and binding ruling on the
compliance of each state mandatory safety belt use law that has
been enacted as of the date of this act with the minimum
criteria set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
208. . . .

Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order regarding amendment No. 262. The point of order is
that that amendment is nongermane to the Senate amendment and so is
violative of the rules of the House relative to this point.
Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi
concedes the point of order. The point of order, therefore, is
sustained.

[[Page 8527]]

Rescinding Funds for B-1 Bomber--Amendment To Delay Effectiveness of
Rescission Pending Ratification of Salt II Treaty

Sec. 27.29 The amendment proposed in a motion to concur in a Senate
amendment with an amendment must be germane to the Senate
amendment; thus, to a Senate amendment to a general appropriation
bill rescinding funds for continued construction and development of
the B-1 bomber program, an amendment proposed in a motion to concur
therein with an amendment, to delay the effectiveness of the
rescission until after either House of Congress so approves and
until after ratification by the Senate of a Salt II treaty, was
ruled out as a nongermane unrelated contingency, since the
condition involved actions by agencies and authorities not charged
with administration of the B-1 bomber program, and the Salt II
negotiations involved a broad range of arms control issues not
necessarily related to the B-1 bomber program.

During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 9375
(supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1978), the Speaker
sustained a point of order in the circumstances described above. The
proceedings in the House on Feb. 22, 1978,⁽¹⁷⁾ were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 4072-74, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Dornan moves to concur in the amendment of the Senate
numbered 43 with an amendment as follows:
``Provisions of the Senate amendment No. 43 to H.R. 9375
shall not take effect unless either House of Congress enacts a
resolution to the effect and in any case not before a period of
90 days following ratification of a SALT II treaty by the
Senate.''. . .

Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point
of order that this is legislation not germane to the issue before
us.
I make the point of order that involved in the SALT talks are a
wide variety of issues, like the level of forces, the deployment of
forces, the types and number of warheads, and so forth. It does not
relate to the B-1 mission. The B-1 here is not a part of the SALT
talk agreements. . . .
Mr. Dornan: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is in order. It is a
limitation. . . .
Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think the gentleman from Texas has made a proper point of order.
The question of

[[Page 8528]]

legislation on an appropriation bill is not applicable at this
point to an amendment adopted by the other body. The question of
introducing new material is not in order, either. The amendment of
the gentleman from California simply sets a future time when the
effectiveness of the amendment of the other body will take place
after ratification of the SALT agreement. It is a contingency and a
limitation as to a future time, but I think the amendment is in
order. . . .

Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, with further reference to the point of
order, the matter involved is that the proposed amendment is not
germane to the issues involved before the House at this time. It is
extraneous. It is not germane. . . .
Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the point I was making earlier in
support of the amendment being in order is that there are ample
precedents in the House to support a limitation as to a future time
which is contingent upon action of either House or both Houses of
Congress. This amendment simply delays the effect of the amendment
of the other body to a time contingent upon the other body's
action.
That has been upheld by the Chair on many occasions to be a
proper limitation. I would add that the issue of the continuance of
the B-1 bomber is certainly directly related to the outcome of the
SALT talks and is, in my view, fully germane.
Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a further point.
It is true we can have limitations in an amendment, but not on
an extraneous and totally different issue. The SALT issue is not
related to the B-1 bomber rescission before the House and pending
at this time. It is an unrelated matter and not germane. It is not
subject to the limitation issue that has been set forth.
Mr. Dornan: Mr. Speaker, it will be noted in my amendment that
it is only the action of either body, without concurrence of the
other, that would implement this amendment No. 43 to H.R. 9375.
That way, one House, either the Senate or the House, can make this
decision at a time certain after that particular House or both
Houses and the American people are assured that we do have a secure
defense replacement for this manned bomber.
The Speaker: ⁽¹⁸⁾ The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) makes a point of order
against the motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dornan) on the grounds that it proposes to concur in the Senate
amendment with a nongermane amendment.
Senate amendment No. 43 would rescind the appropriation for the
B-1 bomber program. The motion offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dornan) would amend the Senate amendment to
condition the effectiveness of the rescission on the approval of
the SALT II treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union.
It is well established that is not in order to amend a proposition
to delay the effectiveness of the legislation pending an unrelated
contingency, such as actions within the responsibility of other
agencies or authorities not specifically involved in the
administration of the pending proposition.

[[Page 8529]]

While it is apparent to the Chair that continued development
and construction of the B-1 bomber may as a matter of national
policy be related to the progress and conclusion of the SALT II
negotiations, it does not appear to the Chair that there is a
sufficient nexus between the two issues to permit as germane the
requirement that the denial of funding for the bomber program hinge
upon the actions of the Departments of State, and their
negotiators, for the United States as well as another country, and
upon the action of the U.S. Senate in ratifying any agreement which
may be reached. The Chair would also note that the issues under
consideration in the SALT II negotiations go far beyond the issue
of the construction of the B-1 bomber, and that the amendment would
therefore condition its construction on the conclusion and approval
of deliberations on other and unrelated arms control issues.
The point of order is well taken, and the Chair sustains the
point of order.

Allocation of Funds for Defense Construction--Amendment To Restore
Facilities Destroyed by Natural Disasters

Sec. 27.30 To a Senate amendment in disagreement which sought to
establish certain priorities in the allocation of funds for
construction projects related to defense, an amendment relating to
restoration of facilities destroyed by acts of God was held not
germane.

The following proceedings in the 78th Congress took place during
consideration of the First Defense Appropriations Bill of
1945,⁽¹⁹⁾ and Senate amendments thereto in
disagreement:⁽²⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H.R. 5587 (Committee on Appropriations).
20. See the proceedings at 90 Cong. Rec. 9611, 9612, 78th Cong. 2d
Sess., Dec. 16, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: ⁽¹⁾ The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 17: Page 13, line 7, insert the following:
``Provided further, That in making allocations out of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph for construction projects
priority shall be given to emergency projects involving an
estimated cost to the Federal Government of less than
$250,000.''

Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate
No. 17 and concur therein.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
preferential motion to concur with an amendment.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Case: On page 13, amendment No.
17, lines 7 to 11, Mr. Case moves to concur in the Senate
amendment [No. 17] with an amendment striking out the period,
inserting a semicolon and

[[Page 8530]]

the following language: ``Provided further, That the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for
restoration of community facilities destroyed by hurricane or
other public disaster where the ability of the local community
to restore or repair the facilities has been impaired by
meeting demands created by the war.'' . . .

Mr. Cannon: . . . I make a point of order. . . .
Mr. Speaker, this is entirely new matter. The proposition
before us is restricted specifically to situations growing out of
the war. Here is a proposition which has no relation to the war; it
is extraneous matter and is not in order. . . .
Mr. Case: Mr. Speaker, I would like to observe that the last
part of the language which I have offered conditions the action
proposed upon the repairing of community facilities where the
ability of the community has been impaired by meeting demands
created by the war. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair . . . cannot see anything in the
amendment . . . except an act of God; therefore the Chair thinks
that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of order.
. . .
Mr. Case: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that in ruling upon
questions of this sort where they involve securing an agreement
between the two bodies of the Congress considerable latitude is
allowed for the purpose of reaching an agreement in the interest of
comity and that the ordinary rules of germaneness do not apply
strictly?
The Speaker: The Chair would differ with the gentleman on that.
The Chair does not think that conferees on the part of the House
and the Senate could set aside the rule of germaneness.

General Amendment to Specific Proposition: Senate Amendment Providing
for Vessel for One State Maritime Academy--Amendment Regarding
Vessels for All State Maritime Academies

Sec. 27.31 To a Senate amendment providing for a training vessel for
one state maritime academy, a proposed House amendment relating to
training vessels for all state maritime academies was held not
germane as more general in scope.

During consideration of H.R. 1827 (supplemental appropriations for
fiscal 1987) in the House on June 30, 1987,⁽²⁾ it was
demonstrated that a specific proposition may not be amended by a
proposition more general in scope when a point of order against the
following motion was conceded and sustained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 133 Cong. Rec. 18297, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 33: Page 8, after line 21, insert:

operations and training

Funds appropriated under this head in Public Law 98-396 for
a

[[Page 8531]]

training vessel for the State University of New York Maritime
College shall be available for acquisition, preconversion and
conversion costs of such vessel.

Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽³⁾ The Clerk will
designate the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Dan Glickman (Kan.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text of the motion is as follows:

Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 33 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert
the following:
Funds appropriated under this head in Public Law 98-396 for
a training vessel for the State University of New York Maritime
College shall be available for acquisition, preconversion and
conversion costs of such vessel: Provided, That prior to the
obligation of such funds and prior to the obligation of
unobligated funds appropriated under this head for state
maritime academies in Public Law 99-500 and Public Law 99-591,
except for obligations necessary to complete current shipyard
work and voyages in progress, all state maritime academies
furnished a training vessel shall agree to such sharing of
training vessels as shall be arranged by the Maritime
Administration: Provided further, That the Maritime
Administration shall submit its final plans for such a ship-
sharing arrangement to the state maritime academies by October
1, 1987. . . .

Mr. [Gerry E.] Studds [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order against the motion on the ground that the amendment
that it purports to add to the Senate amendment is not germane to
said amendment. The Senate amendment deals solely with the New York
State Maritime Academy. The amendment proposed on the part of the
House to the Senate amendment deals with the full range of all the
state maritime academies and as such is beyond the scope of the
Senate amendment and is not germane thereto. . . .
Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I concede the point of
order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman concedes the point of
order.
The point of order is sustained.

Restrictions on Funds for Legal Services Corporation--Amendment Making
Other Provisions of Law Applicable to Corporation

Sec. 27.32 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill
subjecting funds for the Legal Services Corporation to a
comprehensive series of restrictions on its activities for that
fiscal year and reconstituting its board of directors, a proposed
amendment also applying to that corporation ``with respect to the
use of funds in the bill'' certain substantive provisions of
Federal criminal and civil law not otherwise applicable to it was
held not germane.

The proceedings of Oct. 26, 1989, relating to the conference

[[Page 8532]]

report on H.R. 2991, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990, are discussed
in Sec. 34.37, infra.

Sec. 27.33 To a Senate amendment striking from a general appropriation
bill language earmarking the availability of funds therein, a House
amendment not only reinserting the appropriation as so earmarked
but also authorizing that program was conceded to be not germane.

On Nov. 15, 1989,⁽⁴⁾ during consideration of the
Department of Defense Appropriations for fiscal 1990 ⁽⁵⁾ in
the House, a point of order was conceded and sustained against the
amendment described above, demonstrating that an authorization for a
program is not germane to an appropriation earmarking for that program.
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 135 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
5. H.R. 3072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽⁶⁾ The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Ted Weiss (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 27: Page 10, line 3, strike out all
after ``law'' down to and including ``Mission'' in line 9.

Mr. [John P.] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Murtha moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 27, and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter stricken by said amendment, insert ``Provided, That
notwithstanding Section 502 of the National Security Act of
1947, Section 136 of the Department of Defense Authorization
Act for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 (H.R. 2461) or any other
provision of law heretofore or hereafter enacted, neither the
SR-71 nor the classified program referred to in Section 136 of
the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years
1990 and 1991 (H.R. 2461) shall be terminated and that both the
SR-71 and the classified system are hereby authorized: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
appropriations included in this Act for personnel, operation
and maintenance, procurement, or research and development for
the SR-71, the classified system referred to in Section 136 of
the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years
1990 and 1991 (H.R. 2461) or any other classified airborne
reconnaissance system are hereby authorized: Provided further,
That operation of the SR-71 aircraft shall be transferred to
the Air National Guard no later than July 1, 1990: Provided
further, That of the amount appropriated, $175,000,000 shall be
solely for expenses associated with the SR-71 program, of
which, $100,000,000 shall be transferred to Operation and
Maintenance, Air National Guard: Provided further, That
$130,000,000 is hereby authorized in addition to any other
authorization for airborne reconnaissance programs and that of
the amount appropriated, $130,000,000 shall be transferred to
Research, De

[[Page 8533]]

velopment, Test and Evaluation, Defense Agencies 1990/1991 to
be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and
for the same time period as the appropriation to which
transferred. . . .

Mr. [Anthony C.] Beilenson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make
the point of order that the motion from the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] is not in order because it violates
clause 7 of rule XVI because it proposes a nongermane amendment to
the proposed amendment.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania
want to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. Murtha: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and
sustained.

Philippine War Damage Commission--House Amendment to Enlarge
Application of Senate Prohibition on Use of Funds

Sec. 27.34 Where a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill
sought, in part, to prohibit the use of specified funds as
compensation of certain services of former employees of the
Philippine War Damage Commission performed in connection with
payment of Philippine war damage claims, a proposed House amendment
thereto enlarging the class of persons ineligible for such
compensation was held to be not germane.

On May 14, 1963, during consideration of Senate amendments in
disagreement on a general appropriation bill, a Senate amendment was
read which related to Philippine war damage claims and which sought to
change existing law by designating the Republic of the Philippines as
payee in lieu of individual claimants, and by requiring the Republic to
give assurances:

That no part of [the appropriated sums would] be directly or
indirectly paid to any former Commissioner or employee of the
Philippine War Damage Commission as compensation for services
rendered as attorney or agent in connection with any such
claim.⁽⁷⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 109 Cong. Rec. 8505, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 14, 1963
(proceedings relating to H.R. 5517 [Committee on
Appropriations], making supplemental appropriations for fiscal
1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A motion to recede and concur was offered with an amendment
continuing the existing method of payment to individual claimants
through the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and providing that:

[N]o part of such appropriation shall be used . . . for payment
to any former Commissioner or employee of the Philippine War Damage
Commission, or to

[[Page 8534]]

any corporation, association, firm or other individual or party
whatsoever, as compensation for services rendered as attorney or
agent in connection with any such claim. . . .
Provided, That any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States . . . who accepts . . . any . . . compensation . . .
for services in furtherance of a claim . . . shall be fined . . .
or imprisoned. . . .⁽⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Id. at p. 8506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A point of order was made by Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New York, who
stated:

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the amendment is not germane in that
it adds language to the Senate amendment setting forth penalties in
violation of the criminal code of the United States. . . .

Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, in defending the amendment, stated:

[Y]ou are dealing here with a single subject matter. You have
not changed the subject matter. You have merely tightened it up by
inserting a penal provision, and I think it is germane.

The Speaker,⁽⁹⁾ in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The amendment offered brings in an additional class other than
provided in the Senate amendment. The language reads ``or to any
corporation, association, firm or other individual or party
whatsoever'' and so forth, and provides criminal penalties.
The Chair feels that with respect to the additional class for
criminal penalties the point of order is well taken, and the Chair
sustains the point of order.

Travel Allowances: Payments From Senate Contingent Fund--House
Contingent Fund

Sec. 27.35 To a Senate amendment providing for payment, from the Senate
contingent fund, of certain additional travel expenses incurred by
Senate employees, an amendment providing additional travel
allowances to Members of the House from the House contingent fund
was held not germane.

The following proceedings took place on Mar. 29, 1961:
⁽¹⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 5275, 5277, 5278, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent for the immediate consideration of the conference report on
the bill (H.R. 5188) making supplemental appropriations for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes. . . .
The Speaker: ⁽¹¹⁾ The Clerk will report the next
amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read as follows:
Senate Amendment No. 66: Page 24, line 12, insert:

Administrative Provision

The contingent fund of the Senate is hereafter made
available for the

[[Page 8535]]

payment of mileage, to be computed at 10 cents per mile [for
certain travel undertaken], by employees in each Senator's
office in any fiscal year. . . .

Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Thomas moves that the House recede from its disagreement to
the amendment of the Senate numbered 66 and concur therein with an
amendment, as follows: In addition to the matter proposed by said
amendment, add, at the end thereof, the following:

House of Representatives

contingent fund

The contingent fund of the House is hereafter made
available for the payment of mileage, to be computed at ten
cents per mile [for certain travel by Members] . . . in
addition to mileage otherwise provided by law.

Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of
order against the amendment on the ground that the amendment is in
violation of rule XVI, clause 7, of the rules of the House. The
amendment is not germane because it deals with an entirely
different class of people. . . .
Mr. Thomas: . . . This deals with travel by Members of the two
bodies and is directly affected by the same general subject matter.
The Speaker: Senate amendment No. 66 deals entirely with
employees of the Senate. The amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas brings in Members of the House. Therefore the Chair must
hold that the point of order is well taken.
The Chair sustains the point of order.

Availability of Senate Contingent Funds for Art and Historical Items in
Capitol--Availability of House Unexpended Balances for Other
Purposes

Sec. 27.36 To a Senate amendment relating to availability of the Senate
contingent fund for art and historical items in the Capitol
buildings, a proposed House amendment relating also to the
availability of House unexpended balances for those or other
purposes authorized by law, or required to implement specified
House resolutions (such as those relating to ``mass franked
mailings'') was conceded to be not germane.

During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 4404
⁽¹²⁾ in the House on May 24, 1990,⁽¹³⁾ a point of
order against the amendment described above was conceded and sustained,
demonstrating that an individual proposition may not be amended by
another individual proposition more general in scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations.
13. 136 Cong. Rec. p. --, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 8536]]

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽¹⁴⁾ The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Douglas H. Bosco (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 171: Page 24, after line 9, insert:
Sec. 317. (a) Effective with the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1990, and each fiscal year thereafter, any
unexpended and unobligated funds in the appropriation account
for the ``Secretary of the Senate'' within the contingent fund
of the Senate which have not been withdrawn in accordance with
the paragraph under the heading ``General Provisions'' of
Chapter XI of the Third Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1957 (2
U.S.C. 102a), shall be available for expenses incurred, without
regard to the fiscal year in which incurred, for the
conservation, restoration, and replication or replacement, in
whole or in part, of items of art, fine art, and historical
items within the Senate wing of the United States Capitol, any
Senate Office Building, or within any room, corridor, or other
space therein. . . .

Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
reserve a point of order on the motion.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Fazio moves that the House recede and concur in the
amendment of the Senate numbered 171, with an amendment, as
follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment,
insert the following:
Sec. 316. (a) Effective with the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1990, and each fiscal year thereafter, subject to
the approval of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate,
any unexpended and unobligated funds in the appropriation
account for the ``Secretary of the Senate'' within the
contingent fund of the Senate in the case of the Senate and,
subject to the approval of the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives, any unexpended and unobligated
funds in any appropriation account disbursed by the Clerk of
the House in the case of the House of Representatives, which
have not been withdrawn in accordance with the paragraph under
the heading ``General Provisions'' of Chapter XI of the Third
Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1957 (2 U.S.C. 102a), shall be
available for the expenses incurred, without regard to the
fiscal year in which incurred, for the conservation,
restoration, and replication or replacement, in whole or in
part, of items of art, fine art, and historical items within
the Senate wing of the United States Capitol, any Senate Office
Building, or any room, corridor, or other space therein in the
case of the Senate and for the conservation, restoration, and
replication or replacement, in whole or in part, of items of
art, fine art, and historical items within the House wing of
the United States Capitol, any House Office Building, or any
room, corridor, or other space therein or for other purposes as
authorized by law in the case of the House of Representatives.
. . .
(d) The Committee on House Administration and the Committee
on Rules, by July 15, 1990, shall use such unexpended funds as
necessary to study and report to the House of Representatives
the feasibility of implementing the provisions of H. Res. 386
and H. Res. 387. . . .

Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, reserving my point of order, I make a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .

[[Page 8537]]

Is the motion offered by the gentleman the motion that was
presented, that was printed, in the joint statement of the
managers?
Mr. Fazio: If the gentleman will yield, no, this has been
modified slightly to include some language which would allow for a
study and report to the House of Representatives on the feasibility
of implementing provisions of House Resolution 386 and House
Resolution 387 which are legislation introduced by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Michel) to consider a new method of handling congressional frank
mail. We felt those measures had sufficient validity that we ought
to ask the Committee on House Administration as well as the
Committee on Rules to review those bills and report back by July 15
on the feasibility of implementing them.
I would urge that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte)
not insist on his point of order, because I think this is
legislation that modifies and enhances the basic motion that I have
made.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Conte) insist on his point of order?
Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, yes, I do. The motion is not protected
against points of order under the rule. The motion contains
reference to funds of the House of Representatives. The Senate
amendment pertains only to matters of the Senate. Further, the
motion makes reference to a study by the Committee on House
Administration in two House resolutions, none of which are
mentioned in the Senate amendment. These items and the motion are
clearly nongermane to the Senate amendment, and the motion is,
therefore, subject to a point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from California
(Mr. Fazio) wish to be heard on this point of order?
Mr. Fazio: Mr. Speaker, I must regretfully concede the point of
order. I do so very regretfully, because I think this was an effort
to reach out to the minority and meet them halfway on what is
obviously a very contentious issue.
If we are not allowed to do that tonight, I would have to
concede.
Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the statement of the
gentleman from California. I am not objecting to the study under
the gentleman's new motion. The House fund is not protected, and I
object to the fund, the slush fund, and that is what we want to
knock out, and it should be knocked out.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and
sustained.

Legislative Amendment on Appropriation Bill: Senate Office Extension--
House Amendment Reducing Funding Ceiling for Extension and
Containing Related Specifications

Sec. 27.37 A Senate amendment containing legislation reported from
conference in disagreement may be amended by a germane amendment

[[Page 8538]]

even though the proposed amendment is also legislative; thus, to a
Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement on the
Energy and Water Appropriations bill, appropriating funds for a
Senate office building extension, providing a funding ceiling on
such extension, and providing for the transfer of personnel and
equipment to such extension upon completion, a proposed House
amendment making a reduced appropriation for construction of such
extension with a reduced funding ceiling, and providing that such
extension upon completion meet all personnel needs currently
satisfied by the buildings presently used for Senate office space,
was held germane.

On Aug. 1, 1979,⁽¹⁵⁾ during consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 4388 in the House, the Speaker overruled a
point of order in the circumstances described above. The proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 22002, 22007, 22008, 22010, 22011, 96th Cong. 1st
Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 37: Page 32, line 21, insert:
Sec. 502. There is appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for an additional amount
for ``Construction of an Extension to the New Senate Office
Building'' $57,480,700, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the amount of $142,627,700 shall constitute a
ceiling on the total cost for construction of the Extension to
the New Senate Office Building: Provided further, That, it is
the will of the Senate that upon completion of the Hart Senate
Office Building, the Committee on Rules and Administration
shall provide for the expeditious removal of personnel,
equipment, and furnishings from the buildings known as the
Carroll Arms, the Senate Courts, the Plaza Hotel, and the
Capitol Hill Apartments and that said buildings shall remain
unoccupied by the Senate until demolished: Provided further,
That the Architect of the Capitol shall, within six months of
the vacating of the buildings known as the Carroll Arms, the
Senate Courts, the Plaza Hotel, and the Capitol Hill
Apartments, submit to the Senate Committee on Appropriations
estimates of the cost of razing and demolishing said buildings
together with recommendations for future use, renovation, or
demolition of the building known as the Immigration Building.

Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bevill moves to recede in the amendment of the Senate
No. 37 and concur therein with an amendment as follows in lieu
of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert:
Sec. 502. There is appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for an additional amount
for ``Construction of an Extension to the New Senate

[[Page 8539]]

Office Building'' $52,583,400 toward finishing such building
and to remain available until expended: Provided, That the
amount of $137,730,400 shall constitute a ceiling on the total
cost for construction of the Extension to the New Senate Office
Building.

It is further provided, That such building and office space
therein upon completion shall meet all needs for personnel
presently supplied by the Carroll Arms, the Senate Courts, the
Plaza Hotel, the Capitol Hill Apartments and such building
shall be vacated.

Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order. . . .
Mr. Speaker, this amendment offered at this time would not have
been in order had it been offered to the bill as originally before
the House. The bill is an appropriation bill and this constitutes
legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
Mr. Bevill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out this is merely a
change of the report language that is in the appropriation bill and
it is germane and it is a part of the bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽¹⁶⁾ The Chair is prepared
to rule. The Chair would like to state that the only requirement of
the amendment in the motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama
is that it be germane to the Senate amendment. The language is
quite clearly germane to the Senate amendment No. 37 and,
therefore, the motion is in order and the point of order is
overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Census of Agriculture by Director of Census--House Amendment To
Prohibit Other Agencies From Collecting Agricultural Information

Sec. 27.38 To a Senate amendment in disagreement providing for a census
of agriculture by the Director of Census, a motion to concur in the
amendment with an amendment proposing that no other bureau or
agency make such census or collect agricultural information, was
held not germane.

In the 78th Congress, during consideration of the State, Justice
and Commerce Appropriation Bill, 1945,⁽¹⁷⁾ a Senate
amendment in disagreement was reported as follows: ⁽¹⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H.R. 4204 (Committee on Appropriations).
18. 90 Cong. Rec. 6049, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment No. 10: On page 59 of the
bill after line 3 insert:

Census of agriculture: For all expenses necessary for
preparing for, taking, compiling, and publishing the
quinquennial Census of Agriculture of the United States,
including the employment by the Director, at rates to be fixed
by him, of personnel at the seat of government and elsewhere
without regard to the civil-service and classification laws;
books of reference, newspapers, and

[[Page 8540]]

periodicals; construction of tabulating machines; purchase,
maintenance, repair, and operation of motor-propelled
passenger-carrying vehicles; travel expenses, including
expenses of attendance at meetings concerned with the
collection of statistics, when incurred on the written
authority of the Secretary; printing and binding; $7,250,000,
to be available until December 31, 1946, and to be consolidated
with the appropriation ``Census of Agriculture'' contained in
the First Supplemental National Defense Appropriation Act,
1944.

Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House recede and concur.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Kerr moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate No. 10 and agree to the same.

Mr. [Robert F.] Jones [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a
division of the question.
The Speaker: ⁽¹⁹⁾ The gentleman may have that. The
question is divisible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question is on the motion that the House recede from its
disagreement to the Senate amendment.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Jones moves that the House recede from its disagreement
to the amendment of the Senate No. 10 and agree to the same
with an amendment as follows: At the end of the Senate
amendment insert ``Provided, That no other bureau . . . of the
Federal Government shall collect agricultural information . . .
for a period of 2 years from the date of this act without a
specific appropriation. . . .''

Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, made the point of order that the
Jones amendment was not germane to the provisions of the Senate
amendment. Mr. Jones stated in reply: ⁽²⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 6050, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment is a limitation upon this
provision in the Senate amendment and a limitation upon an
appropriation bill. It limits the scope of what it may be used for
and limits who may use the information.

The following argument was also made in support of the Jones
amendment:

Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me
that the amendment is clearly germane in that in providing for a
census of agriculture it is clearly in order to provide by
amendment that no other census of agriculture or the gathering of
information of that same type shall be permitted in any other
place. . . .

The Speaker, in ruling on the point of order, stated:

The Senate amendment provides for a specific amount of money
for a specific purpose. The motion offered by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Jones) is clearly not a limitation on the expenditure of
money or on the action of the Department in taking a census;
therefore, the Chair sustains the point of

[[Page 8541]]

order in that the motion is not germane.

Feasibility Study of Land Transfer in State--House Amendment Waiving
Law Affecting Environmental Liabilities in Another State

Sec. 27.39 To a Senate amendment proposing a feasibility study of a
certain land transfer in one State, a House amendment waiving
existing law concerning certain environmental liabilities in
another State was conceded to be nongermane

During consideration of the Department of Defense Appropriations
for fiscal 1990 ⁽¹⁾ in the House on Nov. 15,
1989,⁽²⁾ a point of order was conceded and sustained against
an amendment as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. H.R. 3072.
2. 135 Cong. Rec. p.--, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽³⁾ The Clerk will
designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Senate amendment No. 243: Page 79, after line 4, insert:
Sec. 9114. Feasibility Study of Land Transfer for Use as a
Correctional Facility.--(a)(1) The Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the United States Attorney General, shall
conduct a study of the feasibility of selling or otherwise
transferring to the Commonwealth of Virginia, subdivisions
thereof, or any combination of subdivisions thereof, a parcel
of land approximately 100 acres not more than 100 miles from
the southern boundary of Arlington County, from the military
installations within Virginia which encompass land that may be
suitable for use by the Commonwealth of Virginia, subdivisions
thereof, or any combination of subdivisions thereof, as a site
for medium security correctional facility for persons sentenced
in the courts of Virginia or in the United States District
Court in Virginia. . . .

Mr. [John P.] Murtha [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.

The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Murtha moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 243, and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
matter inserted by said amendment, insert:
Sec. 9121. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1301
and 1341 of title 31 of the United States Code, or section 3732
of the Revised Statutes, or Section 119 of the Super Fund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, the Secretary of
the Army may have the authority to hold harmless and indemnify
the Coolbaugh Township and/or its duly created and authorized
authority or authorities or other properly designated body or
bodies, located in Monroe County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter
``Township'') for certain liabilities to third persons not
compensated by insurance or otherwise for loss of or damage to
property, death, or bodily injury, including the expenses of
litigation or settlement arising out of the Township's
performance of remedial activities for

[[Page 8542]]

the Army: Provided, That--(1) such liabilities were caused
solely by hazardous substances, as that term is defined at
section 9601(14) of title 42 of the United States Code, that
were released by the Army, or its authorized agents and
employees. . . .

Mr. [Richard] Ray [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of
order against the manager's motion, pursuant to clause 7 of rule
16. That clause requires that in the consideration of Senate
amendments to a House bill, an amendment must be germane to the
particular amendment to which it is offered.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, the proposed House amendment to
Senate amendment 243 is not germane because it relates to a
different subject than the Senate amendment and indirectly amends
existing law by waiving the application of certain statutes to the
authority of the Secretary of the Army in a particular case. On
these bases, Mr. Speaker, the House amendment is not germane.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania
wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. Murtha: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is conceded and
sustained.

Senate Amendment Restricting Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Arizona
Lands--House Amendment Restricting Creation of Historic Sites

Sec. 27.40 To a Senate amendment reported in disagreement, which
provided that jurisdiction over Arizona lands should not be
transferred to the Secretary of Interior except by act of Congress,
an amendment providing that no national monument or historic site
be created except by act of Congress was held not germane.

On June 19, 1941, in proceedings relating to an Interior Department
appropriation bill,⁽⁴⁾ several Senate amendments to the bill
were reported in disagreement. Mr. Jed Johnson, of Oklahoma, offered an
amendment to one such Senate amendment, as described above. A point of
order was then raised, as follows: ⁽⁵⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. H.R. 4590 (Committee on Appropriations).
5. 87 Cong. Rec. 5374, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [James M.] Fitzpatrick [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
point of order against the amendment; first, it is not germane to
Senate amendment No. 152 . . . .

Mr. Johnson having conceded the point of order, the Speaker
⁽⁶⁾ sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 8543]]

Senate Amendment Striking Language Prohibiting Payments to Named
Individuals--House Amendment To Prohibit Payment From Government
Funds to Class of Persons

Sec. 27.41 To a Senate amendment which struck from an appropriation
bill language prohibiting the payment of compensation to three
named individuals, an amendment providing that it shall be unlawful
to pay, from government funds, individuals who have engaged in
subversive activities, was held not germane.

On June 8, 1943, the House was considering Senate amendments to an
appropriation bill.⁽⁷⁾ During consideration of one such
amendment, Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, moved that the House recede and
concur in the amendment, with an amendment as described
above.⁽⁸⁾ Responding to a point of order made by Mr.
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, Mr. Hobbs stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. H.R. 2714, Urgent Deficiency Appropriations, 1943 (Committee on
Appropriations).
8. See the motion reported at 89 Cong. Rec. 5511, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[The amendment] is germane because it deals with the same
identical subject matter which is covered by the Kerr
amendment.⁽⁹⁾ The Kerr amendment deals, it is true, with
only three named persons, but this sets up the same standard, only
more rigorous, which was sought to be set up in the Kerr amendment.
. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The Kerr amendment was that stricken by the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . The Kerr amendment differs from this substitute, insofar
as germaneness is concerned, only in this: It named three men as
the objects of its legislative wrath, whereas my substitute sets up
a standard by which the eligibility of all in an indicated class
must be judged. . . .

The Speaker,⁽¹⁰⁾ in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The provision of the Senate amendment that the gentleman seeks
to amend by his motion very definitely applies to three individuals
and no more. The motion of the gentleman from Alabama would cover
numberless people if numberless people came under the provisions of
his motion. The language of the bill is specific. The language of
the motion of the gentleman from Alabama is general. The Chair
must, therefore, hold that the motion is not germane, and sustain
the point of order.