[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]
[D. Amendments Imposing Qualifications or Restrictions]
[§ 31. Amendment Postponing Effectiveness of Legislation Pending Contingency]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 8615-8682]
CHAPTER 28
Amendments and the Germaneness Rule
D. AMENDMENTS IMPOSING QUALIFICATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS
Sec. 31.--Amendment Postponing Effectiveness of Legislation Pending
Contingency
The precedents indicate that an authorization may be made
contingent on a future event; but the event must be related to the
subject matter before the House.(13) Therefore, it is
frequently stated that an amendment that delays the effectiveness of
proposed legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not germane.
As an example, it has been held that, to a bill authorizing an
appropriation of funds, an amendment holding the authorization in
abeyance pending an unrelated contingency is not
germane.(14) And an amendment making the implementation
[[Page 8616]]
of federal legislation contingent upon the enactment of state
legislation is not germane.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See, for example, Sec. 31.32, infra.
14. See Sec. 35.8, infra.
15. See Sec. 31.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where an amendment seeks to adopt as a measure of the availability
of certain authorizations contained in the bill a condition that is
logically relevant and objectively discernible, the amendment does not
present an unrelated contingency and is germane.(16)
Accordingly, an amendment that conditions the obligation or expenditure
of funds authorized in the bill by adopting as a measure of their
availability the expenditure during the fiscal year of a comparable
percentage of funds authorized by other acts is germane as long as the
amendment does not directly affect the use of other
funds.(17) And an amendment to an authorization bill that
conditions the expenditure of funds covered by the bill by restricting
their availability during months in which there is an increase in the
public debt may be germane as long as the amendment does not directly
affect other provisions of law or impose contingencies predicated upon
other unrelated actions of Congress.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 31.16, infra.
17. See Sec. 31.17, infra. See also, generally, Sec. 34 (restrictions
on use or availability of funds), infra.
18. See Sec. 34.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An amendment imposing on the availability of funds to carry out a
certain activity a conditional restriction that merely requires
observation of similar activities of another country, which similar
conduct already constitutes the policy basis for the pending funding of
that activity, may be germane as a related contingency.(19)
But it is not germane to make the effectiveness of an authorization
contingent upon an unrelated determination involving issues within the
jurisdiction of agencies and committees outside the purview of the
pending bill.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 31.15, infra.
20. See Sec. 31.27, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensing of Nuclear Waste Storage Facility
Sec. 31.1 An amendment making the effectiveness of a bill contingent
upon actions of agencies not involved in the administration of the
affected program, and expanding the scope of the bill to include
grants of authority beyond those contained therein, is not germane;
thus, to a bill granting authority to the Administrator of the
Bonneville Power Administration relating to the use and con
[[Page 8617]]
servation of electric power, including the acquisition of power, an
amendment prohibiting the Administrator from acquiring any resource
derived from a new nuclear generating facility until the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has licensed the operation of a permanent
nuclear waste storage facility was held not germane, because it
imposed an unrelated contingency involving nuclear licensing
authority for all government and privately owned storage facilities
on a national basis, and was not solely related to the purchase and
transmission of power in the Northwest region.
On Nov. 14, 1980,(1) during consideration of the Pacific
Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (2) in
the Committee of the Whole, a point of order was sustained against the
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 126 Cong. Rec. 29615-17, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
2. S. 885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. AuCoin: On page 69, after line 17,
insert:
(n)(1)) The Administrator may not acquire any resource
derived from a new nuclear generating facility until such time
as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has licensed the operation
of a permanent storage facility for high level nuclear waste
and spent fuel from commercial nuclear generating facilities.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``new nuclear
generating facility'' shall not include any nuclear generating
facility for which a construction permit was issued by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the date of enactment of
this Act. . . .
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the bill
before us establishes a planning council. It provides for a
planning council. It provides for a program for conservation and
for a fish and wildlife program. It provides for the sale of power.
It provides for the establishing of rates, and it provides for the
acquisition of resources to produce power.
Nowhere in the bill does the bill deal with atomic energy as
such or with the storage of either spent nuclear fuels or nuclear
wastes. The amendment would add a condition to the bill prohibiting
the BPA from acquiring any resource derived from nuclear generation
until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses operation of a
permanent storage facility for nuclear wastes and spent fuel.
That I believe would be the addition of a national program for
dealing with spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste to be added to a
regional program to be administered by the BPA. This would impose
burdens on an agency entirely different from those which are either
set up in the bill, which be your State and regional planning
councils, or the
[[Page 8618]]
Bonneville Power Authority. In other words, the agency which would
do this, under law, would be the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
which is an agency not anywhere mentioned in the bill.
Essentially, the proposal is an attempt, indirectly, to amend
the Atomic Energy Act and to deal with the question of spent fuel
and nuclear waste on a nation-wide basis as opposed to simply
dealing with the question of power management as is provided in the
bill; and I call to the attention of the Chair that the bill is
regional in character; the amendment is national in character; the
bill deals with power management. The amendment deals with nuclear
waste, its storage and the establishment of a nationwide program
for the storage and so forth of nuclear waste.
I would point out the language of the amendment says:
The Administrator may not acquire any resource derived from
a new nuclear fuel generating facility--
This is not a nuclear fuel generating facility which would be
present within the Bonneville Power Authority service area, but it
is sufficiently general to cover any nuclear generating facility in
the United States.
Then it goes on and it says:
Until such time as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--
Which is not mentioned in the legislation--
has licensed the operation of a permanent storage facility for
high-level nuclear waste and spent fuel from commercial nuclear
generating facilities.
These nuclear generating facilities are not within the
Bonneville Power market area but are anywhere in the United States.
And it could include those in the Northeast, the Southeast, the
Southwest, in Alaska, or in Hawaii--none of them within the area
served. The amendment is much more broad than the bill and deals
with quite different matters.
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair controls the time. Does the
gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on the point of order? . . .
Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to speak on
the point of order, to reinforce the position of the gentleman from
Michigan.
There is an electrical power generation in-tie between the
Southwestern part of the United States, that is, California, Utah,
and Arizona, and that area, and the Northwestern part of the United
States. This bill has an impact on the Northwest. Some of the power
generated in that Southwestern in-tie is of a nuclear sort, and so
the impact of this attempted amendment would be to impact, as the
gentleman from Michigan points to, the generation of power in other
parts of the United States and, therefore, I think is inappropriate
from the standpoint of its germaneness, for that reason. . . .
Mr. AuCoin: . . . [N]o one can rationally argue that the whole
cycle of activities that is involved in nuclear power operation and
construction can be separated out and considered alone. The storage
of radioactive waste from the nuclear plants is just as much a
part, an intrinsic part, of the whole process as the construction
of the
[[Page 8619]]
plant. It is a part of the same procedure, the whole life cycle of
the plants, and, therefore, cannot be excluded and separated out,
and it cannot be held that, somehow, that is not germane to the
construction of plants, because the construction produces the
result, that result, being waste. That waste has to be dealt with.
. . .
. . . [T]he amendment poses no contingency upon the House
because existing law gives the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
licensing and regulatory authority pursuant to chapters 6, 7, 8,
and 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Among those powers are the
licensing and regulatory authorities to operate facilities used
primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level radioactive
waste resulting from activities licensed under the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954.
So no additional act of Congress is necessary, nor does this
amendment require any additional act of Congress, because of the
authorities already granted to the NRC. And my amendment simply
says that, until that authority is used, either on the agency's own
part or by further direction from the Congress, no additional
nuclear powerplants will be constructed in the Pacific Northwest. .
. .
Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the point of order and to say that, under the terms of
the amendment, there is additional responsibility placed on the NRC
and the agencies within the province of this bill. By his own
words, the author of the amendment has said that NRC has that
authority, but under his amendment they will cease to have the
authority to license and regulate. They will be told, ``You cannot
license any nuclear powerplant unless you have got a permanent
storage for the waste.'' And, therefore, I submit that it does
provide for additional duties and, therefore, would be nongermane
to the bill. . . .
Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my friend from Texas, the
subcommittee chairman, for whom I have a great deal of respect,
has, I think, confused, momentarily, the difference between an
amendment that would force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
take an action as opposed to imposing on the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission a new responsibility.
There is no new responsibility being imposed on the agency by
this amendment. It does require action by the agency under the
authority already granted to it by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
I would state to the Chair and to my friend, the gentleman from
Texas, that the authority already existing exists under Public Law
93-438, title II. And for that reason I do not believe his argument
stands.
The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon would impose a contingency which is not
solely related to the issue of purchase and transmission of power
in the Northwest region and which addresses potentially new NRC
licensing authority for all Government and privately owned storage
facilities on a national basis.
The Chair would cite, specifically, chapter 28 of Deschler's
Procedure, section 24.15:
[[Page 8620]]
An amendment delaying the effectiveness of a bill pending
the enactment of other legislation and requiring actions by
committees and agencies not involved in the administration of
the program affected by the bill was ruled out as not germane.
On that basis, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of
order.
Restitution by President Nixon to United States Government
Sec. 31.2 While it may be in order on a general appropriation bill to
delay the availability of certain funds therein until a nonfederal
recipient meets certain qualifications so long as the contingency
does not impose new duties on federal officials or directly change
existing law, the contingency must be related to the funds being
withheld and cannot affect other funds in the bill which are not
related to that factual situation; thus, to a general appropriation
bill containing funds not only for certain allowances for former
President Nixon, but also for other departments and agencies, an
amendment delaying the availability of all funds in the bill until
Nixon has made restitution of a designated amount to the United
States government was held to be not germane where that contingency
was not related to the availability of other funds in the bill.
In the proceedings of Oct. 2, 1974,(4) relating to
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1975,(5) the points
of order made against the amendment in question were largely based on
the contention that the amendment constituted legislation on an
appropriation bill. Most points of order against amendments delaying
the availability of funds pending an unrelated contingency are based on
the issue of germaneness, and in the Chair's ruling it appeared that
the defect in the amendment was that its scope was so broad as to
affect funds in the bill other than those to which the limitation was
directly related--in other words, that the amendment was not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 120 Cong. Rec. 33620, 33621, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
5. H.R. 16900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. James V. Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. James V. Stanton: On page 14, line
5 after the period insert:
``Sec. 203. No funds shall be available for expenditure
under this act until such time as Richard M. Nixon has made
restitution to the United States Government in the amount of
$92,298.03 as previously determined
[[Page 8621]]
by the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation on page 201
of its report dated April 3, 1974.''. . .
Mr. [Tom] Steed [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment.
This amendment would impose some duty upon an agency of
Government in this bill. The Internal Revenue Service is the only
agency that can collect taxes. This obviously would require duties
not now required by law. It is obviously legislation in an
appropriation bill, and therefore it is subject to a point of
order. . . .
The Chairman: (6) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has examined the amendment. . . . It merely delays
the availability of certain funds here appropriated until a certain
state of facts exist.
It does not impose any duty upon a Federal official, in the
opinion of the Chair. The only duty it imposes by its terms, would
be upon President Nixon, who is no longer a Federal official. . . .
Under the precedents and under the rules that the Chair has
been able to examine, the Chair is of the opinion that this
amendment might be in order.
If the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) wants to be heard on
the point of order, the Chair will withhold his final ruling. . . .
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: . . . The Chair is undoubtedly
correct, that this does not impose additional duties under the
standards set out in various cases. However, the objection of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), as I understand it, is that this
does not impose additional duties but creates substantive law. It
establishes a liability in effect on the President of the United
States, which liability does not exist by any judicial
determination unless this action is taken by this body.
Mr. Chairman, what we are in effect doing is passing a special
bill with respect to liability of the President of the United
States for an amount of money that has only been determined by a
committee of this House and not by a court. If we pass this, we are
in effect saying that until he pays a certain amount of money,
which we say he owes by virtue of passing a law today, he will not
receive money that he would otherwise receive.
I find this a very, very extensive legislative determination,
one which I would have doubts about on constitutional grounds, even
if it were brought up as a separate piece of legislation.
I understand that the question of constitutionality is not
before the Chair with respect to a point of order, but I merely
point that out in emphasizing the great substantive effect of this
amendment. . . .
Mr. [Charles S.] Gubser [of California]: . . . [T]he word
``restitution,'' if I understand the English language correctly . .
. would imply that the funds were held by Richard Nixon illegally.
Therefore if we . . . allow this amendment to stand, we are clearly
creating what should be a judicial decision, and we are giving it
legislative sanction, and it is therefore legislation on an
appropriation bill. Therefore I think the point of order should be
sustained. . . .
[[Page 8622]]
Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, this amendment says ``no funds in this
act'', and that means if this amendment is adopted unless former
President Nixon paid this amount of money the whole bill is dead.
If that does not constitute legislation on an appropriation bill I
do not know what does.
The Chairman: The Chair must observe that the Chair is not in a
position to rule as suggested by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Eckhardt) on a question of constitutionality. The gentleman's point
may quite well be valid, but the Chair is not in a position to rule
on constitutionality, nor is the Chair in a position to rule upon
the validity of the commentary offered as to whether or not the
Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation may or may not have
established this precise figure as being owed. . . .
The Chair is . . . impressed by the most recent comment made by
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) wherein the gentleman from
Oklahoma points out that by the terms of the amendment itself funds
under the entire act and not just funds for the former President,
would be inhibited. Let the Chair read the amendment.
No funds shall be available for expenditure under this act
until such time as Richard M. Nixon has made restitution.
The Chair is persuaded that the availability of some of the
funds in the act for other purposes will be based upon an unrelated
contingency, and the Chair is prepared to state on the basis of the
additional argument made since his preliminary determination that
he has changed his opinion regarding the scope and effect of the
amendment and sustains the point of order.
Approval of Foreign Assistance in National Referendum
Sec. 31.3 To a bill amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
providing new authorizations and policy declarations, an amendment
to prohibit use of any funds available until further assistance
under the act had been approved in a national referendum was held
to be not germane.
The proceedings of Aug. 22, 1963,(7) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See 109 Cong. Rec. 15608, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. (ruling by Chairman
Wilbur D. Mills [Ark.] as to amendment offered by Mr. Dole to
H.R. 7885 [Committee on Foreign Affairs], the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dole: Page 19, after line 16,
insert the following:
``Sec. 310. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
`` `Sec. 648. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
or any other Act, none of the funds available to carry out the
provisions of this Act, shall be expended until the following
question be submitted to qualified electors in a National
Referendum.
[[Page 8623]]
`` `Shall the United States continue the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, or any amendments thereto, subsequent to June 30,
1964?
`` `A majority of eligible voters voting affirmatively
shall be necessary before the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
and any amendments thereto, shall be operative. The cost of
said referendum shall be paid by proceeds from the sale of
surplus property under control of the Agency for International
Development.' ''
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against the amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the foreign aid
bill.
Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Kansas will state the
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that all points of order
have been waived on this bill?
The Chairman: Under the rule, all points of order are waived as
to the text of the bill, as reported by the committee. Points of
order are not waived as to amendments that might be offered to the
bill. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Dole] offers an amendment to the
bill which the Chair has had an opportunity to read and analyze.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan] makes the point of
order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to
the bill before the Committee. The Chair is of the opinion that the
amendment is not germane to the bill.
The point of order is sustained.
Approval of Construction of Naval Vessels in National Referendum
Sec. 31.4 To a bill authorizing the construction of certain naval
vessels, an amendment providing that the act not become effective
until confirmed in a nationwide referendum conducted according to
rules prescribed by the Secretary of State was held not germane.
In the 75th Congress, during proceedings related to a naval
authorization bill,(8) an amendment as described above was
offered by Mr. Harry Sauthoff, of Wisconsin.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. H.R. 9218 (Committee on Naval Affairs).
9. See 83 Cong. Rec. 3704, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 18, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, made a point of order against the
amendment as not being germane to the bill under consideration. The
Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Wisconsin offers an amendment at the end of
the bill providing that before this measure
[[Page 8624]]
shall become effective a Nation-wide referendum shall be held, and
then the amendment proceeds to set forth how such referendum shall
be held and states that it shall be subject to such rules and
regulations as the Secretary of State shall prescribe as necessary
or appropriate in providing for such referendum.
In the first place, such a proposal may not be within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Naval Affairs. Nowhere in the bill
is the Secretary of State or the Department of State referred to in
any way, nor does any provision of the bill relate to that
Department or its head.
A mere postponement of the effective date of an act for one
reason or another might be germane, if nothing further was required
to be done affirmatively. See Hinds Precedents, section 3030. But
particularly because of the part of this amendment which refers to
the Secretary of State, the Chair rules that the amendment is not
germane and therefore sustains the point of order.
Enactment of State or Federal Legislation
Sec. 31.5 To a bill authorizing funds for construction of atomic energy
facilities in various parts of the nation, an amendment making the
initiation of any such project contingent upon the enactment of
federal or state fair housing measures was held to be not germane.
In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill
(11) authorizing appropriations for the Atomic Energy
Commission, the following amendment was offered: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 10918 (Committee on Atomic Energy).
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 17921, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: On page 4, after line 18, add a
new subsection (d), as follows:
(d) The Commission is authorized to start the projects set
forth in subsection 101(b) contingent upon the enactment of
Federal or State fair housing measures which insure that
employees of said facilities not be denied equal housing on
grounds of religion or race.
A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: [The amendment] is not
germane. It attempts to legislate restrictions on an authorization
bill not provided by the rules of the House. It has already been
voted upon.
In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated, as follows:
Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the
amendment is similar in nature to the limitation set forth in
section 102 of the bill. There it is provided that--
The Commission is authorized to start any project set forth
in subsections 101(b) (1), (2), (3), and (4) only if the
currently estimated cost
[[Page 8625]]
of that project does not exceed by more than 25 per centum the
estimated cost set forth for that project. . . .
. . . [The amendment] parallels the limitations the bill itself
sets forth on other aspects of the project.
The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. James A. Burke (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment goes beyond the
legislation, which is Federal legislation, and would require State
legislation. Therefore, the point of order is well taken.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Subsequent Specific Authorization for Testing of Antisatellite Weapon
Sec. 31.6 To a provision authorizing funds for one fiscal year, an
amendment restricting the availability of funds appropriated
pursuant thereto contingent upon enactment of subsequent specific
authorization is germane; thus, to a bill authorizing funds for Air
Force research and development, an amendment prohibiting use of
those funds for certain tests until subsequent law authorizing such
tests is enacted was held to be a germane condition.
During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for
fiscal 1984 (14) in the Committee of the Whole on July 21,
1983,(15) the Chair overruled a point of order against the
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 2969.
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 20198, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (16) The Clerk will report
the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Seiberling: Page 14, after line
10, insert the following new subsection:
(c) None of the amount appropriated pursuant to the
authorization in section 201 for the Air Force may be used for
flight testing of an antisatellite weapon until such testing is
specifically authorized by law enacted after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a
point of order on the amendment as being nongermane, as I
understand it.
This amendment refers to a prior-year authorization on the
matter under consideration in terms of the title II authorization
for fiscal year 1984. At least I have been so instructed. . . .
Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, this
amendment only deals with the authorization in section 201. It does
not deal with authorizations in prior years.
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this is not the amendment
the gentleman had coming up the last time just prior to the recess.
Is that correct? . . .
[[Page 8626]]
Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I had originally put in an
amendment on June 8 which did what the gentleman says, but this one
was corrected so as to avoid that problem. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . . The amendment . . . does apply
to this year only and to the authorization in the bill, and the
point of order does not lie.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Seiberling amendment had originally
included restrictions on funds authorized in prior years but was
redrafted to apply only to the funds in the bill, so that it was
germane.
Enactment of Legislation; Action by Committees and Agencies Other Than
Those Involved in Administration of Program Affected by Bill
Sec. 31.7 An amendment delaying the effectiveness of a bill pending the
enactment of other legislation and requiring actions by committees
and agencies not involved in the administration of the program
affected by the bill was ruled out as not germane.
On Feb. 7, 1973,(17) a bill (18) was under
consideration which had been reported from the Committee on Agriculture
directing the Secretary of Agriculture to expend all sums appropriated
for the Rural Environmental Assistance Program. An amendment was
offered seeking to delay the effectiveness of the bill until (1)
Congress enacts legislation increasing the statutory ceiling on the
public debt limit or legislation raising revenue by the amount of
spending in the bill; or (2) the Comptroller General reports that such
expenditures, together with all other outlays during that fiscal year,
will not exceed revenue and debt limit totals. The amendment was held
to be not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See 119 Cong. Rec. 3708, 3709, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., discussed in
Sec. 31.14, infra.
18. H.R. 2107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enactment of Oil Windfall Profit Tax
Sec. 31.8 An amendment delaying the availability of an appropriation
pending an unrelated contingency is not germane to an appropriation
bill; thus, to a joint resolution appropriating funds to the
Community Services Administration for emergency fuel assistance, an
amendment prohibiting any of such funds from being obligated before
the date of enactment of any law imposing an oil windfall profit
tax was held to be not germane.
[[Page 8627]]
On Oct. 25, 1979,(19) during consideration of House
Joint Resolution 430 in the House, the Speaker Pro Tempore
(20) sustained a point of order against the following
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 29639, 29640, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Giaimo: Page 3, after line 3,
insert the following new sentence: ``None of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be obligated before the date of
the enactment of any Federal law imposing a windfall profit tax
on producers of domestic crude oil.''. . .
Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, the
amendment before us violates the rules of the House, inasmuch as it
is not germane under clause 7, rule XVI.
The amendment clearly goes beyond the bill and, in fact,
addresses an entirely separate piece of legislation that is not
referred to in any manner in House Joint Resolution 430.
I urge the point of order be sustained.
We have ample precedents, Mr. Speaker, of similar situations
which clearly show that an amendment delaying the operation of
proposed legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not
germane. I cite Deschler's Procedure 28.4, Mr. Speaker. . . .
Mr. Giaimo: . . . The amendment which I am offering here
addresses itself to this legislation. It is simply a limitation and
says none of the funds appropriated can be obligated before the
date of enactment of any Federal law imposing a windfall profit
tax.
That is a simple limitation, which I think is not subject to a
point of order. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair has examined several precedents and would like to
point to chapter 28, section 4.11 of Deschler's [Procedure]:
To a bill extending and amending laws relating to housing
and the renewal of urban communities, an amendment providing
that no funds could be appropriated or withdrawn from the
Treasury for the purposes of the bill until enactment of
legislation raising additional revenue, was held not to be
germane.
The Chair sustains the point of order of the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Natcher).
Passage of Tax Measures
Sec. 31.9 To a bill to provide for a National Security Training Corps,
an amendment was held to be not germane which provided that, ``This
act shall be effective on the same day that a tax bill becomes
effective'' imposing a specified tax on corporations engaged in
manufacturing war materials.
[[Page 8628]]
The Chairman,(1) in making the above ruling, summarized
the parliamentary situation as follows: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
2. 98 Cong. Rec. 1839, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 4, 1952. The
proceedings related to the National Security Training Corps
Act, H.R. 5904 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Montana (3) has offered an
amendment which has been reported. The gentleman from Georgia
(4) makes a point of order against the amendment on the
ground it is not germane to the pending amendment or the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Mr. Mike Mansfield.
4. Mr. Carl Vinson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has examined the amendment with some degree of care
and invites attention to the fact that it provides:
This act shall be effective on the same day that a tax bill
becomes effective, which will tax all corporations 100 percent
of all profits and earnings of such corporations engaged in the
manufacture of war materials or any other service connected
with the defense effort and/or the National Security Training
Corps Act of 1952.
The Chair invites attention to the fact that this amendment
provides for the effective date of the pending bill to be
contingent upon an entirely unrelated subject, a subject which
would not be under the jurisdiction of the committee that reported
the pending bill, but would be under the jurisdiction of another
standing committee of the House.
The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is clearly not
germane to the pending amendment or the bill and, therefore,
sustains the point of order.
Enactment of Legislation Raising Revenue
Sec. 31.10 To that section of a joint resolution subjecting all Reserve
and retired personnel who are ordered into active military service
to those laws and regulations applicable to personnel ordered into
service generally, an amendment providing that provisions of the
joint resolution shall remain inoperative, ``until Congress shall
have provided revenue by taxation and shall have authorized and
made appropriations therefor,'' was held not germane.
In the 76th Congress, a joint resolution (5) was under
consideration which authorized the President to order Reserve and
retired personnel of the Army into active military service and which
stated in part: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. S.J. Res. 286 (Committee on Military Affairs).
6. See 86 Cong. Rec. 10436, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 15, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 2. All National Guard, Reserve, and retired personnel
ordered into the active military service of the United States under
the foregoing special au
[[Page 8629]]
thority, shall . . . be subject to the respective laws and
regulations relating to enlistments, reenlistments . . . rights . .
. and discharge of such personnel in such service to the same
extent in all particulars as if they had been ordered into such
service under existing general statutory authorizations.
The following amendment was offered: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Id. at p. 10437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Frederick C.] Smith [of Ohio]: On
page 2, line 16, after ``authorization'', strike out the period,
insert a comma, and the following: ``Provided, That unless and
until Congress shall have provided revenue by taxation and shall
have authorized and made appropriations therefor the provisions of
this section and of this joint resolution shall remain
inoperative.''
Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, having made a point of order
against the amendment, the Chairman (8) ruled as follows:
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Clifton A. Woodrum (Va.).
9. 86 Cong. Rec. 10438, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Aug. 15, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . [T]he amendment undertakes to bring in unrelated matters
and makes the effectiveness of the joint resolution determine upon
the happening of unrelated contingencies. The amendment would
therefore be subject to the point of order, and the Chair sustains
the point of order.
Sec. 31.11 To a bill extending and amending laws relating to the
improvement of housing and urban communities, an amendment
providing that no funds could be appropriated or withdrawn from the
Treasury for the purposes of the bill until the enactment of
legislation raising additional revenue, was held to be not germane.
During consideration of the Housing Act of 1959,(10) the
following amendment was offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. S. 57 (Committee on Banking and Currency).
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 8840, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 21, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Ellis Y.] Berry [of South Dakota]: On
page 175, following line 21, add a new section 515 as follows:
No amounts may be appropriated, or withdrawn from the
Treasury of the United States, pursuant to the authority
contained in this Act, or any of the amendments made by it,
until legislation has been enacted providing sufficient revenue
to equal, or exceed, the amounts by which the total of such
appropriations, and the amounts authorized to be withdrawn from
the Treasury, exceed the amounts requested for such purposes in
the budget submitted to the Congress by the President on
January 19, 1959.
The following exchange (12) concerned a point of order
raised against the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 8841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, in connection
with the
[[Page 8630]]
point of order which I raised to this amendment, I point out that
the amendment is not germane to the bill because it seeks to make
the bill a revenue raising bill rather than a strictly housing
bill.
The Chairman: (13) . . . The Chair is constrained to
feel that this amendment is not germane because it requires the
enactment of other legislation in order to make the action taken
here effective. This requires action not only by another committee
of the Congress but also by the executive branch of the Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.
Certification by President or Congress as to Enactment of Tax
Legislation
Sec. 31.12 Where the effectiveness of a pending amendment, relating to
the decontrol of oil prices, was made contingent upon a
presidential certification that certain tax legislation had been
enacted, an amendment to such amendment which substituted
congressional certification (by concurrent resolution not
constituting a change in the rules) for presidential certification
as to enactment of the tax legislation, was held to be germane.
On July 18, 1975,(14) during consideration of the Energy
Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 (15) in the
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Robert Krueger, of Texas, offered an
amendment as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 23525, 23526, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H.R. 7014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Krueger: Strike out all from
beginning of line four, page 214 to end of line 3, page 223
(section 301 of the Committee substitute) and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
crude oil price regulation
Sec. 301. (a) The Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of
1973 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
section:
``Sec. 8. (a) For the purposes of this section:
``(1) The term `crude oil' means a mixture of hydrocarbons
that existed in liquid phase in underground reservoirs and
remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after passing through
surface separating facilities. . . .
``(b) Except as provided in subsections (e) and (d), no
price ceiling shall apply to any first sale by a producer of
domestic crude oil from a property. . . .
``(d)(1) The provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of
section 8 shall not take effect unless the President finds that
there is in effect (A) an inflation minimization tax consonant
with the purposes of this section applicable to sales from a
property, from which domestic crude oil was produced and sold
in one or more of the months of May through Decem
[[Page 8631]]
ber 1972, in volume amounts greater than the production volume
subject to a ceiling price under subsection (c), but less than
the base period control volume, and (B) a production
maximization tax consonant with the purposes of this section
applicable to sales of domestic crude oil from any stripper
well lease or from a property from which domestic crude oil was
not produced and sold in one or more of the months of May
through December 1972, or with respect to amounts produced and
sold in any month in excess of the base period control volume
(in the case of a property from which domestic oil was produced
and sold in one or more of the months of May through December
1972). . . .''
On July 22, 1975,(16) when the Committee of the Whole
resumed consideration of the bill, Mr. James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas,
offered the following amendment to the amendment and the proceedings
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 23995-97, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Wright to the amendment offered by
Mr. Krueger: Strike Subsection (d) of the new Section 8 added
to the Emergency Petroleum Act of 1973 and insert in lieu
thereof a new Subsection (d) as follows: ``The provisions of
(b) and (c) shall not take effect unless the Congress finds and
so declares by concurrent resolution that there is in effect a
tax which couples a redistribution of tax receipts mechanism to
substantially mitigate the effect of increased energy costs on
consumers with an excise tax or other tax applicable to sales
of crude oil from a property: Provided that such tax shall
provide an incentive for the production of new domestic crude
oil.''. . .
Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I press my point
of order at this time.
The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state his
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that, No. 1,
this amendment is not germane to the Krueger amendment; and No. 2,
that this amendment, if added to the Krueger amendment, creates an
extensively and fundamentally different principle not covered by
the exception to the rules.
Mr. Chairman, I cite primarily from page 415 of Deschler's
Procedure, section 36.9, which reads:
The fact that a resolution providing for the consideration
of a bill specifically waives points of order against a
particular amendment is not determinative of the issue of the
germaneness of other, similar amendments.
There is reference to 106 Congressional Record 5655, 86th
Congress, 2d session, March 14, 1960.
I should like to point out to the Chair how widely divergent
this amendment is from the original Krueger amendment. The original
Krueger amendment had some appeal to the committee because it did a
very specific thing: It said that in providing that there is what
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) always called a specific
recycling process with respect to the taxes collected under the
windfall profits tax, that specific recycling
[[Page 8632]]
process constituted the sending of the application, as I recall, of
half the receipts to low- and middle-income brackets and the rest
to a division of cities and others, the exact details of which I do
not recall.
Then if this contingency occurred and it was a contingency
based on a clearly and specifically defined action to become law,
then and then only would the windfall profits tax provisions be in
effect. Otherwise the bill would fall back to essentially the
provisions of an extension of the existing Allocation Act. . . .
The effect of this amendment is something extremely different,
and it is something that I feel sure we members of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce would have appeared before the
Committee on Rules and strenuously objected to, because the
amendment would simply say that we will put this pricing mechanism
into effect and we will leave open to the absolute unrestrained
determination of another committee what the tax structure would be.
In effect the result of that would be a complete reneging by
the committee setting the price and a movement from a specific
contingency to a complete delegation of authority to define that
contingency to another committee. . . .
Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: . . . I would just like to
say that the resolution under which the committee considers this
proposal today, House Resolution 599, on page 2, line 10, sets
forth as follows:
It shall be in order to consider, without the intervention
of any point of order, the text of an amendment which is
identical to the text of Section 301 of H.R. 7014 as introduced
and which was placed in the Congressional Record of Monday,
July 14, 1975, by Representative Robert Krueger.
I think that the rule specifically indicates what would be in
order would be the Krueger amendment and not amendments to the
Krueger amendment.
For example, I do not believe that it would have been in order,
under this rule, for the Committee on Ways and Means windfall
profits section to have been introduced as an amendment to the
Krueger amendment. . . .
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: . . . Mr. Chairman, the
amendment has within it the two factors which are also contained in
the basic Krueger amendment: first, a modification, as any
amendment would, of the finding or the method by which a finding
can be made of what an appropriate tax is; and second, a
description of what an appropriate tax is that can be found, so
that the basic provisions of the Krueger amendment can be put into
effect; that is, the decontrol process.
The Committee on Rules properly, I think, made in order the
Krueger amendment for decontrol, and . . . hinged that decontrol on
a suitable tax and the finding of a suitable tax.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright)
merely modifies that process.
The question of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce to write this into its legislation was raised
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) in his comments on the
point of order.
It seems to me that it is the prerogative of the Committee on
Rules to com
[[Page 8633]]
bine legislation, to see that legislation is brought to the floor
in tandem, so that it might be combined on the floor by the
committee, in its wisdom, and in this case, specifically made in
order by rule.
The prospect was that the job of the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce, the jurisdictional job, decontrol, would
proceed on the basis of a finding of a suitable tax and it left the
establishment or the enactment of that tax to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Nothing in the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Wright) changes the basic thrust of the rule granted by the
Committee on Rules in that regard, and it occurs to me that the
amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) is perfectly
appropriate and germane. It does, in fact, as any amendment would,
modify the situation; but it leaves to the full committee, the
Committee of the Whole, the job of making that modification, in its
wisdom. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
Although a great many matters have been discussed in connection
with the point of order, the Chair proposes to rule only very
narrowly.
The question is whether the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Wright) offered to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) is germane as within the
limitations of the precedents with regard to its scope.
The Chair finds, basically on the arguments made by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) that it is germane, and within the
scope of the type of ``windfall profits tax'' defined by the
Krueger amendment, although the description of the tax is somewhat
less precise than the definition in the Krueger amendment. The fact
that Congress, in the Wright amendment, rather than the President,
as in the Krueger amendment must make the finding of enactment of
the tax does not render the amendment not germane. Therefore the
Chair overrules the various points of order and finds the amendment
in order.
Tax on Corporations Engaged in Manufacturing War Materials
Sec. 31.13 To an amendment providing that no person shall be inducted
prior to 90 days after the date of enactment of the Selective
Service Act, an amendment proposing that the act be effective on
the same day that a certain tax on corporations engaged in
manufacturing war materials becomes effective was held not germane.
In the 80th Congress, during consideration of the Selective Service
Act of 1948,(18) the following amendment was offered:
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 6401 (Committee on Armed Services).
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 8503, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Mansfield to the amendment offered by
Mr.
[[Page 8634]]
Andrews of New York: Strike out all of section 23 and insert:
``This act shall be effective on the same day that a tax bill
becomes effective which will tax all corporations 100 percent of
all profits and earnings in excess of the average annual profits
and earnings of such corporations engaged in the manufacture of war
materials or any other service connected with the war effort and/or
the Selective Service Act of 1948.''
Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, having raised the point of
order that the amendment was not germane to the bill, Mr. Mike
Mansfield, of Montana, responded:
Mr. Chairman, I submit that this amendment is germane to this
particular proposal because like the Andrews amendment it sets a
beginning date as to the time when this law should go into
operation.
The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair calls attention to the fact that the amendment as
presented would strike out all of section 23. This section is not
now under consideration and for that reason a motion to strike it
out would not be in order at this time.
The Chair may also say, however, as to the point raised by the
gentleman from New York that the amendment proposes to make the
effectiveness of this act contingent upon an unrelated matter and
therefore would not be germane to the pending amendment.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Enactment of Legislation Increasing Debt Limit or Raising Revenue
Sec. 31.14 To a bill reported from the Committee on Agriculture
directing the Secretary of Agriculture to expend all sums
appropriated for the Rural Environmental Assistance Program, an
amendment delaying the effectiveness of the bill until (1) Congress
enacts legislation increasing the statutory ceiling on the public
debt limit or legislation raising revenue by the amount of spending
in the bill; or (2) the Comptroller General reports that such
expenditures, together with all other outlays during that fiscal
year, will not exceed revenue and debt limit totals was held not
germane.
In the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 7, 1973,(1) during
consideration of a bill (2) as described above, the
following amendment was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 3708, 3709, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
2. H.R. 2107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: After line 11, add the
following:
[[Page 8635]]
``Sec. 2. This Act shall not take effect until such time as
one of the following events occur: (1) the enactment of
legislation increasing the statutory ceiling on the public debt
by an amount at least equal to the amount of outlay mandated
herein; (2) the enactment of legislation which will produce a
first-year increase in revenue at least equal to the amount of
spending; or (3) the Comptroller General of the United States
makes a determination and so reports to the Speaker of the
House and the President of the Senate, that the expenditure of
funds provided herein, together with all other outlays expected
to occur during fiscal 1973, will not exceed the total of
revenue and authorized public debt for fiscal 1973.''
Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point
of order on the amendment. . . . [I]t is not germane to H.R. 2107.
H.R. 2107 amends Section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and
Domestic Allotment Act, and the amendment in no manner deals with
the fundamental purpose of this legislation which simply requires
the expenditure of funds lawfully appropriated by the Congress. In
addition, Mr. Chairman, the amendment would require action by a
number of other agencies of the U.S. Government which are not
considered and not included in the bill before us, and, therefore,
it is not germane to the bill before us. . . .
Mr. Findley: . . . As I understood the argument of the chairman
of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Poage), it was that this involved unrelated actions. I think
in substance that was his argument in support of his point that the
amendment is not germane. I would like to argue to the contrary,
that the bill before us is so far-reaching in its scope that the
items which are in my amendment are indeed closely related. They
can hardly be considered as isolated and separate propositions.
First of all, the bill does not involve just the REAP program.
It involves the U.S. Treasury. It mandates spending. Therefore the
Treasury balance of money is vitally important and closely related
to this question.
It involves the appropriation of money. It would seek to
mandate the spending of money which had been authorized by an act
of appropriation of the Congress. In that connection it may well be
that some of the Members of this body have not examined the wording
which is in an appropriation bill preamble, and I would like to
read that at this point. I cite this typical language from the
Appropriation Act of the 92d Congress:
That the following sums are appropriated out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated . . .
That is any money in the Treasury. Well, what does money in the
Treasury consist of? It consists of revenue from taxes. It consists
of revenue from borrowings. Therefore revenue as well as the public
debt ceiling have to be considered an integral part of the
legislation we are considering this afternoon. . . .
This is not the first time that the Chair has ruled favorably
on an amendment of the same nature that is now before the Chair. On
January 8, 1964, I offered an amendment to an authorization bill--
and I point out that
[[Page 8636]]
it was an authorization bill. This language appears in the
Congressional Record, volume 110, part 1, page 144, 88th Congress,
second session.(3) The language of the amendment that I
offered at that time read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 31.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authorization for an appropriation contained in this
Act shall not be effective until such time as the receipts of
the Government for the preceding fiscal year have exceeded the
expenditures of the Government for such year, as determined by
the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
So, if there is an unrelated section or item involved in the
issue before the Chair at this time, there certainly was on that
occasion also.
On that occasion, when I offered the amendment and the Clerk
had finished his reading, Mr. Jones of Alabama stated:
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment, because it would restrict the appropriation to be
made available under the terms of Section 8, starting on line
22, page 3.
The Chairman responded:
In the interest of being expeditious, the Chair rules that
the point of order is not well taken, because the amendment
involves a limitation on an appropriation.
That bill, like the bill before us, was an authorization bill,
not an appropriation bill, when the Chair saw fit to rule in favor
of my amendment, citing that it did amount to a limitation of
appropriation. In effect, the amendment now before the Chair is a
limitation on appropriations.
Based on that ruling, as well as the general argument I made on
the constitutional basis, I do ask the Chair to overrule the point
of order.
Mr. Poage: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes his presentation
upon the assumption that his amendment somehow is a limitation on
an appropriation. The bill before us has nothing to do with an
appropriation. It does not involve an appropriation. It simply says
what the Secretary is to do with the money that has already been
appropriated and how he shall carry out the program. . . .
The Chairman: (4) The Chair has had occasion to
study this problem, and is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from Texas makes the point of order that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Findley) is
not germane to the bill H.R. 2107. The amendment would delay the
effectiveness of the bill until Congress enacts legislation
increasing the statutory ceiling on the public debt limit--or
legislation raising revenue by the amount of spending in the bill--
or until the Comptroller General determines and reports to the
Congress that the expenditure of funds in the bill, together with
all other outlays during fiscal 1973, will not exceed the total of
revenue and authorized public debt for fiscal 1973.
To a bill authorizing an expenditure of certain funds, an
amendment postponing the effectiveness of that authorization
pending the enactment of legislation raising revenue has been held
not germane.
The statement made by the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole on
[[Page 8637]]
the occasion of that earlier ruling is applicable here. Chairman
Walter of Pennsylvania then said:
This amendment is not germane because it requires the
enactment of other legislation in order to make the action
taken here effective. This requires action not only by another
committee of the Congress but also by the executive branch of
government.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois would
certainly require the ascertainment of facts and the exercise of
duties by government officials and committees and agencies not
included within the present bill.
The Chair has also examined several precedents in Cannon's
Precedents of the House of Representatives, including those found
in sections 3035 and 3037 of volume VIII. In both of those
decisions, amendments delaying the operation of proposed
legislation pending the completion of other legislative action was
ruled out as not germane.
The Chair further distinguishes this from the situation that
the gentleman from Illinois referred to in the earlier case
involving House Joint Resolution 871 and the ruling by Chairman
Rains, of Alabama, in the 88th Congress. There the amendment did
involve a limitation but required nothing further to be done by
another committee of this body.
The Chair holds that the pending amendment is not germane to
the bill and sustains the point of order.
Determination as to Soviet Union's Limitation of Weapons Systems
Sec. 31.15 While an amendment may not be germane which conditions the
availability of an authorization upon an unrelated contingency
involving issues and agencies beyond the jurisdiction of the
reporting committee, a contingency may be related if merely
requiring observation of the conduct of another country, where such
conduct is already contemplated as a factor affecting the policy
basis for the authorization; thus, to an amendment to a military
procurement authorization bill reducing a line-item amount for Air
Force missiles and prohibiting use of funds in that title for the
MX missile program, an amendment reducing instead the same line-
item authorization by a different amount and also stating a policy
with respect to the use of those funds for the unilateral
cancellation of the MX system, authorizing the funds at a
subsequent time during the fiscal year if the President determines
that the Soviet Union is not controlling and limiting similar
weapons systems, was held germane as an alternative limitation
imposing a conditional restriction which was
[[Page 8638]]
not based upon an unrelated contingency.
On May 16, 1984,(5) during consideration of H.R. 5167
(6) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a
point of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 130 Cong. Rec. 12504-06, 12509-11, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
6. The Military Procurement Authorization for fiscal 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
authorization of appropriations, air force
Sec. 103. (a)(1) Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 1985 for procurement for the Air Force as follows:
. . .
For missiles, $8,664,600,000. . . .
Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bennett: Page 10, line 19, strike
out ``$8,664,600,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$5,942,700,000''.
At the end of title I (page 15, after line 5), add the
following new section:
mx missile procurement
Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to
authorizations of appropriations in this title may be used for
the MX missile program. . . .
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Price to the amendment offered by
Mr. Bennett: Strike out the amount proposed by the amendment to
be inserted on page 10, line 19, and insert in lieu thereof
``$7,756,600,000''.
Strike out the section proposed by the amendment to be
inserted at the end of title I and insert in lieu thereof the
following:
policy concerning acquisition of additional mx missiles
Sec. . (a) It is the policy of Congress not to take any
action that would reward the Soviet Union through the
unilateral cancellation by the United States of the MX
strategic nuclear missile weapon system for which funds are
authorized in this title while the Soviet Union continues to
act in a manner indicating that it is unwilling to take actions
to further the control and limitation of similar types of
strategic nuclear missile weapon systems.
(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (3), funds appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
103(a) for procurement of missiles for the Air Force may be
used to acquire not more than 15 additional MX missiles, but no
funds may be obligated for the acquisition of such missiles
until April 1, 1985.
(2) Immediately after April 1, 1985, the President shall
determine whether the Soviet Union is acting, as of April 1,
1985, in a manner indicating that it is willing to take actions
to further the control and limitation of types of strategic
nuclear missile weapon systems similar to the MX strategic
missile weapons system authorized for the Air Force by this
title and shall immediately transmit written notification of
that determination to Congress.
(3)(A) If the President's determination under paragraph (2)
is that the Soviet Union is not acting in such a
[[Page 8639]]
manner, the amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 103(a) for the acquisition of 15
additional MX missiles may be obligated, but only if the
President also determines, and includes in the written
notification to Congress under paragraph (2), that--
(i) the obligation of such funds is in the national
interest; and
(ii) as of April 1, 1985, the United States is willing to
act to further the control and limitation on the MX strategic
nuclear missile weapon system authorized for the Air Force by
this title.
(B) If the President's determination under paragraph (2) is
that the Soviet Union is acting in such a manner, none of the
amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 103(a) for the acquisition of 15
additional MX missiles may be obligated. . . .
Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the Price amendment on the grounds that its scope is
broader than that of the primary amendment, title 1, and therefore
is not germane to the primary amendment.
The Price amendment would condition MX missile procurement
authorization on a Presidential determination. The exact nature and
notification of this action is not specified in the amendment; it
is open to various interpretations. A number of those
interpretations have been brought out on the floor in the colloquy
which just preceded my point of order stated by the gentleman from
Washington State.
That interpretation is that the MX procurement authorization
would be contingent upon a Presidential report or certification
regarding arms control negotiations. This, is in fact the
interpretation, as I have indicated it, Members who support the
amendment have built into the legislative history just set forth.
Since arms control negotiations involve agencies not charged
with procurement of the MX missile, nor with procurement of any
weapons, the Price amendment is not germane to the primary
amendment according to Deschler's Precedents, chapter 28, section
24, point 23, based on a ruling made February 22, 1978.
The amendment is also inconsistent with rulings made in similar
cases on July 8, 1981, and July 9, 1981. . . .
Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, the language of
the amendment says that the President shall determine whether the
Soviet Union is acting, as of April 1, 1985, in a manner indicating
that it is willing to take actions to further the control and
limitation of types of strategic nuclear missile weapons systems.
It does not mention negotiations. The amendment itself is in line
with other types of amendments that we have had, and it is a
general finding by the President, and I believe it is within the
rules of the House. . . .
Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: Mr. Chairman, in the colloquy I
just had with the gentleman from the State of Washington, he
answered the question that this amendment is contingent upon arms
control negotiations. I ask that specifically because on July 8,
1981, I presented an amendment to the floor on Pershing II's that
was ruled out of order as stated and that amendment on Pershing
II's held the dollars for the expenditure for the de
[[Page 8640]]
ployment until the President has certified that Congress of the
United States has forwarded to the Soviet Union initial proposals
for arms control negotiations. Essentially the same thing.
That amendment was ruled out of order, the amendment made by
this gentleman, was ruled out of order, and part of the reason that
it was ruled out of order as stated was the Chair would further
point out that the arms control negotiations fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and not within
the jurisdiction of the committee reporting this bill, and thereby
out of order. . . .
Mr. Aspin: The difference is of course that the gentleman from
Washington's amendment that he referred to, did mention arms
control negotiations in his amendment. The amendment which the
chairman of the committee, Mr. Price, has put forward does not
mention arms control negotiations in his amendment. . . .
Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, I am looking at page 2, and on page
2, lines 5 and 6, it states, lines 4, 5, and 6, it states, ``. . .
acting in a manner indicating that it is willing to take actions to
further the control and limitations of types of strategic missile
weapons systems similar to the MX.''
Mr. Chairman, my point is this: One cannot define a missile
system that is similar to the MX. The amendment does not define it.
As this debate has already brought out, it is subject to a great
difference of opinion on the floor of the House. I make the point,
Mr. Chairman, my point of order is, therefore, that the amendment
is broader in scope than that of the MX because it necessarily
brings into play questions of missile systems beyond the MX. It is
only the MX that is in dispute and subject to debate at this point.
So I renew my point of order. . . .
Mr. [William B.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, the
amendment is clearly germane and does not exceed the scope of the
original bill. It does not introduce a new and different subject
than that in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Bennett). Both amendments deal with the procurement of MX
missiles. The amendment differs only in degree. The amendment
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price), does place
additional conditions on the release of funds for the procurement
of MX missiles, but does not introduce any new or additional
subject, and is therefore clearly germane.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida contains a
provision providing, ``None of the funds in this title'' may be
used for the MX missile program.
It should be noted that there are other provisions in title I
of this bill regarding international treaty obligations. Section
105, for instance, deals with our international obligations with
NATO countries. Section 107 of this bill also contains provisions
extending certain authorities to the President under the Arms
Export Control Act.
So I think neither in enlarging the scope nor on the question
of germaneness would a point of order lie. . . .
Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: . . . Obviously the
intention of this is that the President would assess the Soviet
behavior in negotiations. As a matter of fact, although the magic
[[Page 8641]]
word ``negotiations'' is not mentioned, that really makes it an
issue on all fours with the point of the gentleman from Wisconsin
and the gentleman from Washington.
Simply not mentioning negotiations when you describe a process
that can only be assessed through negotiations clearly seems to
make it the case. If the gentleman is really saying that the
President should assess this important decision without regard to
negotiations from the Soviet Union, then the amendment makes even
less sense than I thought it did. . . .
The Chairman: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair feels the arguments made, to sustain the point of
order, are much broader than the Chair would interpret the
amendment. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
reduces the line-item authorization for Air Force missiles and also
adds a section at the end of title I prohibiting the use of any
funds authorized in title I for fiscal year 1985 for the
procurement of the MX missile.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, in lieu
of a prohibition on the use of the authorized funds in fiscal year
1985 for the procurement of any MX missiles, would instead reduce
the same line-item authorizations for Air Force missiles by a
lesser amount and would add a different section at the end of title
I stating a policy with respect to the use of fiscal year 1985
authorized funds in title I for the unilateral cancellation of the
MX system, while the Soviet Union continues to be unwilling to take
actions to control and limit similar strategic missile weapons
systems.
In effect, the amendment would authorize fiscal year 1985 funds
for the procurement of not more than 15 MX missiles after April 1,
1985, if the President determines that the Soviet Union is not
acting in a manner to control similar systems.
In the opinion of the Chair, the issue of the availability of
any funds in fiscal year 1985 for MX procurement presented by the
original amendment permits as an alternative approach a conditional
restriction on the availability of those same funds dependent upon
Presidential determination of procurement of similar systems by the
Soviet Union.
It is certainly a related issue to condition of the
availability of the funds in the bill upon observed conduct on the
part of the Soviet Union with respect to a similar weapons system,
and the Chair overrules the point of order.
Government Receipts in Excess of Expenditures
Sec. 31.16 Where an amendment seeks to adopt as a measure of the
availability of certain authorizations contained in the bill a
condition that is logically relevant and objectively discernible,
the amendment does not present an unrelated contingency and is
germane.
In the 88th Congress, a proposition was under consideration
(8)
[[Page 8642]]
to rename the National Cultural Center as the John F. Kennedy Center
for the Performing Arts and to authorize an appropriation for such
center. An amendment providing that the authorization not be effective
until the receipts of the government exceed its expenditures was held
to be germane: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See H.J. Res. 871 (Committee on Public Works).
9. 110 Cong. Rec. 144, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 8, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Page 4,
line 4, add a new paragraph to read as follows: ``The authorization
for an appropriation contained in this Act shall not be effective
until such time as the receipts of the Government for the preceding
fiscal year have exceeded the expenditures of the Government for
such year, as determined by the Director of the Bureau of the
Budget.''
A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
Mr. [Robert E.] Jones of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I make a point
of order against the amendment, because it would restrict the
appropriation to be made available under the terms of section 8,
starting on line 22, page 3.
The Chairman,(10) in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Albert Rains (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interest of being expeditious, the Chair rules that the
point of order is not well taken, because the amendment involves a
limitation on an appropriation.
Determination as to Expenditures Under Other Acts
Sec. 31.17 An amendment to an authorization bill which conditions the
obligation or expenditure of funds therein by adopting as a measure
of their availability the expenditure during that fiscal year of a
comparable percentage of funds authorized by other Acts is germane
so long as the amendment does not directly affect the use of other
funds; thus, to a bill authorizing foreign economic and military
assistance, an amendment providing that the percentage of funds
obligated or expended pursuant to that Act at any time during
fiscal 1974 shall not be more than 10% greater than percentages
expended under certain other programs authorized by Congress was
held to impose a germane limitation on the availability of funds
authorized in the bill which did not directly affect the operation
of other government programs.
During consideration of the Mutual Development and Cooperation Act
of 1973 (11) in the Committee of the Whole on July 26,
[[Page 8643]]
1973,(12) the Chair overruled a point of order against the
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H.R. 9360.
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 26210, 26211, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Danielson: On page 53, after line
23, insert the following new section:
equitable expenditure of funds
Sec. 30. (a) Unless the Congress shall provide otherwise in
language expressly made applicable to this section, at any time
during the fiscal year 1974, the amount obligated or expended
pursuant to this Act for any program or activity authorized by
this Act, expressed as a percentage of the amount appropriated
by law for purposes of such program or activity, shall not be
more than 10 percentage points greater than the amount
obligated or expended at that time for any other program or
activity authorized by Act of Congress, expressed as a
percentage of the amount appropriated by law for purposes of
such other program or activity for the fiscal year 1974.
(b) For purposes of this section, the term ``other program
or activity'' shall include any program or activity
administered by or under the direction of the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of
Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of
Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Veterans' Administration. . . .
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
insist on a point of order. . . .
(T)his bill deals solely with authorizations for appropriations
for foreign aid. The amendment of the gentleman covers many
programs of agencies: The Department of Agriculture, the Department
of Commerce, the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Veteran's
Administration. It goes far afield from the present legislation,
and therefore I insist on my point of order.
The Chairman: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Melvin Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair has examined the amendment, and observes that the
amendment does not directly affect the obligation or expenditure of
funds under other Government programs. Rather, the percentages
obligated or expended under other programs merely serve as a
measure or limit of percentages which can be obligated or expended
under programs in the pending bill. For this reason, the Chair
feels that the amendment is a germane restriction on the
availability of funds authorized in the pending bill, and the Chair
overrules the point of order.
Determination as to Balance of Trade in Automotive Products
Sec. 31.18 An amendment delaying operation of a proposed enactment
pending an ascer
[[Page 8644]]
tainment of a fact is germane when the fact to be ascertained
relates solely to the subject matter of the bill; thus, to a bill
requiring that a certain percentage of automobiles sold in the
United States be manufactured domestically, and imposing an import
restriction for automobiles on any person violating that
requirement, an amendment waiving the requirement for the products
of one country if the balance of trade with such country in
automotive products bears a certain relationship with the overall
trade deficit with that country, was held germane, as a contingency
relating to the same subject matter as the bill.
During consideration of the Fair Practices in Automotive Products
Act (14) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled
a point of order in the circumstances described above. he proceedings
of Dec. 15, 1982,(15) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H.R. 5133.
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 30958-60, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Schumer: Page 11, line 5, strike
out ``It'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``Except as provided in
paragraph (5), it''.
Page 13, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(5) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any
vehicle manufacturer of Japan with respect to any model year if
the United States deficit in the balance of trade in automotive
products with Japan for the four calendar quarters most closely
corresponding to model year 1982 is not greater as a percentage
of the deficit in goods and services with Japan (as calculated
on the basis of the Balance of Goods and Services published by
the Department of Commerce) for the four calendar quarters most
closely corresponding to such model year than [certain
specified percentages].
Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
make a point of order against the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer) on the ground that it goes
beyond the purposes of H.R. 5133 and is thus not germane.
The gentleman's amendment attempts to address trade matters
that are not addressed by the bill before us. The bill that is
before us seeks to address domestic car content requirements.
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would
make the enforcement provisions of the bill contingent upon a
determination of the balance of trade in automotive products versus
the relative balance of payments of other goods and services, and
when we bring in the other goods and services, I maintain that that
goes far beyond the scope of the legislation.
It also places additional responsibilities on the Secretary of
Transportation on trade issues which are not within his authority.
In previous rulings, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
House on
[[Page 8645]]
the State of the Union has . . . ruled that an amendment changing
the statement of policy contained in a bill is not in order if its
effect is to fundamentally change the purpose of the bill. That is
found in Deschler's Precedents, chapter 28, section 4.16.
So, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order that the
amendment goes beyond the purposes of H.R. 5133, that it is not
germane and, therefore, is out of order. . . .
Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I support the
point of order that has been claimed by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Broyhill).
It is quite clear that the amendment has been redrawn in an
attempt to fit our rule XVI, clause 7. That is the rule of
germaneness. It is also quite clear, as demonstrated by the
gentleman from North Carolina, that it does not succeed.
The bill that is before us, H.R. 5133, is a bill that refers
only to domestic manufacture within the United States. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Schumer)
seeks to impose a regimen against exports based on a measure of
automotive imports which is beyond all normal competence of the
Secretary of Commerce, who is the only individual noted in H.R.
5133.
In addition, there would have to be a determination of the
total scope of our balance of trade with the country of Japan. The
denominator of the gentleman's fraction is the total balance of
trade between our country and Japan. . . . [The amendment] goes far
beyond the intent of the original bill, which deals with domestic
manufacture, and gets into the whole field of trade, which is
beyond the jurisdiction of the committee that is bringing us this
bill. . . .
Mr. [Charles E.] Schumer [of New York]: If I might respond to
the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the amendment was drawn to relate
to the narrow area of automobiles and automobile content as well as
automobile trade. The bill before us deals with automobile trade.
Just to look at one point, page 4 deals with vehicles
manufactured by a vehicle manufacturer in the United States and
exported from the United States. That is clause 1.
Clause 2 also deals with vehicles manufactured in the United
States and exported from the United States.
Furthermore, what we were told in terms of germaneness was that
what we had to deal with was automobiles and the fraction that we
used deals with automobiles making it clearly germane.
The gentleman form North Carolina, the gentleman from
Minnesota, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania might have an
argument if, if this bill dealt with or this amendment specifically
related to general trade. But it does not. It relates to automobile
trade.
Furthermore, I might say the gentlemen in objection to this
have said this amendment has an effect on trade. So does the bill.
What is the debate we have been listening to for the last 2
hours? Authority for the issue of germaneness is not the effect
that the amendment would have but specifically are the words of the
amendment germane to the bill.
[[Page 8646]]
The bill deals with automobiles and automobile manufacturing.
The amendment deals with automobiles and automobile manufacturing,
but here in this country and for export and, therefore, I would
argue that the amendment is indeed germane. . . .
Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the
germaneness rule is the purpose and the basis of the point of
order.
First of all, the amendment must be germane to the bill. I
would observe that there are a number of tests.
The first which has been referred to is the question of
committee jurisdiction. Here we have an amendment which relates to
trade, balance of trade, figures relative to trade, and a question
relative to suspension of imports.
Clearly that kind of an amendment would have compelled this
legislation to have been referred to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
because it deals with Interstate Commerce.
The amendment must also be germane to the committee substitute.
It fails again on the basis of this test.
The question then is: Does the amendment meet any of the other
tests and I submit to the Chair that it does not.
The amendment does not relate as required under section 3 of
title XXVIII of Deschler's, does not relate to the subject under
consideration.
The subject under consideration relates to interstate commerce.
The amendment relates to international commerce. Clearly the
subject matter is different and the amendment again fails.
There is yet another test and that is the fundamental purpose
of the amendment test under section 5. Obviously again the
fundamental purpose of the amendment must relate to the fundamental
purpose of the proposition to which it is offered.
The fundamental purpose of the committee substitute is to
establish standards for the trade in interstate commerce of
automobiles and automobile parts. Here it is clear that the
amendment again relates to international trade and it requires a
series of findings which are nowhere found wherein a series of
calculations dependent on international trade and deficits, none of
which are mentioned anywhere in the legislation.
Last of all, the amendment fails the requirements of section 6
of Deschler's wherein the test is does it accomplish the result of
the basic legislation by the same or similar means. Here it is very
clear that under the bill the evil to be dealt with is the
difficulty with regard to jobs and it is dealt with through the
interstate commerce powers of the Constitution and of the Congress.
The amendment would deal with the problem of international
trade by relating automobile sales to international trade deficits
of the United States, two very distinct and different matters. . .
.
Mr. Schumer: . . . [A]s I understand it . . . it is the words
of the bill, not its effect or anything else that relates to
germaneness.
Let me keep reading words of the bill to show that the bill
deals not just
[[Page 8647]]
with interstate commerce but with international commerce. . . .
Throughout the bill . . . are arguments, words, discussions
that relate not just to automobiles domestically within the United
States but automobiles exported.
Furthermore, the bill is explicit. It sets different
classifications for automobile parts that are manufactured within
the United States as opposed to automobile parts that are
manufactured outside of the United States.
To say that the bill only deals with what happens within the
United States is incorrect. The bill deals with what happens within
and without. Albeit related to automobiles, the amendment deals
with what happens within and without but related to autos as well.
. . .
The Chairman: (16) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the general rule of germaneness, the test of an amendment
is whether there is a relationship to the subject matter of the
bill.
This bill requires a certain percentage of domestic content in
the automobiles that are sold in this country.
The amendment provides that that requirement is not applicable
during periods when the balance of trade in automotive products
bears a certain relationship to overall trade; therefore, the
amendment is confined to the subject of trade in automotive
products and is not an unrelated contingency involving the overall
balance of trade.
In Cannon (VIII, 3029) an amendment delaying operation of a
proposed enactment pending an ascertainment of a fact is germane
when that fact to be ascertained relates solely to the subject
matter of the bill.
In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment conditions the
implementation of the domestic content requirement upon a certain
test, a certain factual situation.
It relates to the general subject matter of the bill, imposes a
germane condition, and, therefore, the point of order is overruled.
Determination and Report by President on Ownership of Gold in Vietnam
Sec. 31.19 An amendment delaying the operation of proposed legislation
pending an unrelated contingency is not germane; thus, an amendment
to a substitute postponing the effective date of the granting of
humanitarian and evacuation assistance to South Vietnam refugees
until the President determines and reports to Congress on the
ownership of gold sought to be removed from Cambodia and South
Vietnam was held to be not germane.
On Apr. 23, 1975,(17) during consideration of H.R. 6096
(the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act) in the
Committee of the Whole, Chairman
[[Page 8648]]
Otis G. Pike, of New York, sustained a point of order against the
following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 11511, 11512, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John L.] Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment to the substitute amendment for the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. John L. Burton to the amendment
offered by Mr. Eckhardt as a substitute for the amendment in
the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Edgar: At the end add
a new section:
``This Act shall become effective when the President
determines and reports to Congress whether the 16 tons of gold
that Lon Nol and former President Thieu tried to send to
Switzerland was American property or their own personal
gold.''. . .
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I raise
a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute. . . .
Mr. John L. Burton: . . . It is an amendment that sets an
active triggering date for the legislation. It is no more different
than saying that it shall take effect on a certain date. We are
just saying in this amendment that we are setting this date for the
determination whether or not that 16 tons of gold with American
money is just a limitation on the executive power of the bill.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. A similar situation
arose in the 93d Congress on a bill authorizing military assistance
to Israel and funds to be used in an emergency force when an
amendment was offered postponing the availability of those funds
until the President certified the existence of a designated level
of energy supplies. (Deschler's, chapter 28, section 24.18).
The amendment in question is not germane to the purposes of the
substitute and the point of order is sustained.
Certification That Bill Will Have Positive Effect on Employment Levels
Sec. 31.20 To a bill requiring that a certain percentage of automobiles
sold in the United States be manufactured domestically, imposing an
import restriction on any person violating that requirement, and
separately requiring a study of the impact of implementation of the
bill on the automobile industry and on the exportation of other
goods and services from the United States, an amendment delaying
the effectiveness of the entire bill contingent upon a
certification that the bill will have a net positive effect on the
total domestic employment levels was held to be nongermane as a
condition referring to the entire range of employment in the
economy and therefore encompassing factors beyond the scope of the
bill.
During consideration of the Fair Practices and Procedures in Auto
[[Page 8649]]
motive Products Act of 1983 (18) in the Committee of the
Whole on Nov. 2 and 3, 1983,(19) the Chair sustained a point
of order against the amendment described above. The proceedings were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 1234.
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 30527, 30775-77, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sec. 8. general effectiveness and impact study.
(a) Continuing Study.--Beginning not later than one year
after enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Federal
Trade Commission, in consultation with the heads of other
interested Federal agencies and with the Advisory Council,
shall conduct a continuing study of the adequacy of the actions
taken to implement and enforce the provisions of sections 5, 6,
and 7, and the extent to which such provisions and their
implementation and enforcement--
(1) are achieving, or will achieve, the purpose of this
Act; and
(2) are affecting in any way--
(A) retail prices to consumers in the United States of new
motor vehicles sold and distributed in interstate commerce. . .
.
(D) the United States balance of trade in automotive
products.
(E) employment at ports in the United States where
automotive products are regularly entered into the United
States for sale and distribution in interstate commerce . . .
and
(G) the exportation of agricultural commodities and
products from the United States, and the exportation of goods,
industrial and other products, and services from the United
States.
In order to ensure that the continuing study required by this
section is balanced and comprehensive, the Secretary and the
Federal Trade Commission shall identify and consider all other
factors that are relevant to an understanding of, or have an effect
on, the matters required to be studied under this subsection,
including, but not limited to, governmental policies and practices
affecting such matters. . . .
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment. . . .
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: At the end of the bill add
the following new section:
Sec. 11. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act,
none of the provisions of this Act shall take effect until the
Department of Labor, in consultation with the Department of
Commerce and other appropriate federal agencies, prepares an
affirmative employment impact statement and certifies that the
net effect of implementation of this Act will have a positive
impact on total domestic employment levels.
(b) Such statement shall include an analysis of:
(1) The immediate impact on levels of total private
employment
(2) The long term economic effects of enactment of the
bill; and
(3) The extent and nature of any new employment
opportunities created by the implementation of this Act. . . .
Mr. [Dennis E.] Eckart [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1234, as
introduced and reported, relates to the sales in interstate
commerce of vehicles and parts and the distribution in commerce of
those parts. Its purpose is to encourage production of automotive
products and parts in the United States for sale, and regulates and
deals with the
[[Page 8650]]
movement within interstate commerce in the United States of those
parts.
In order for an amendment to this bill to be in order it must
meet the fundamental purposes test and thus meet the germaneness
test. It must not only have the same end as the matter that is
sought to be amended, but it must also contemplate a method of
achieving that end that is closely related and allied to the method
encompassed in the bill or the substitute.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not
consistent with the fundamental purpose test and I would cite for
the purposes of the record that an amendment to accomplish a
similar purpose by an unrelated method not contemplated by the bill
is not germane.
I would reference the Chair to the 113th Congressional Record,
page 21849 of the 90th Congress, 1st session; 116th Congressional
Record, page 28165 of the 91st Congress, 2d session; 121st
Congressional Record, page 18695 of the 94th Congress, 1st session.
The first purpose of this amendment, I would point out to the
Chair, is not intended to limit the content of the autos sold in
interstate commerce in the United States. That is the fundamental
purpose of this legislation.
The amendment proffered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
deviates dramatically from the fundamental purpose; therefore,
fails the precedents under the precedents and history of the House.
Therefore, the amendment is not germane and should be ruled out of
order. . . .
Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, the bill we have before us has in
section 8 a ``general effectiveness and impact study.''
In section 8 of that bill it is a macroeconomic study which is
mandated by the legislation itself. It is a macroeconomic study
that not only goes to the automobile industry but as section (G)
under part (2) of that section says, it related to ``the
exportation of agricultural commodities and products from the
United States, and the exportation of goods, industrial and other
products, and services from the United States.''
In other words, the bill in mandating that study mandates a
macroeconomic study.
In the case of my amendment, my amendment is also a study. It
asks for a study preimplementation. It is a study which also is a
macroeconomic study not unlike that which would be an ongoing part
of the legislation.
So, therefore, my amendment is entirely germane to the sections
of the bill and to the general nature of the bill in question.
In addition, I would say that this is a bill, which the purpose
of the act is to prevent or remedy serious injury to domestic
manufacturers and workers. My amendment is simply a study to assure
that that kind of a mandate would be met by the legislation in
question. So therefore, since the reservation against my amendment
has been raised on the point of germaneness, I would submit that
the amendment that I have offered is entirely germane, given the
language contained already in the bill in section 8. . . .
Mr. Eckart: . . . I would point out to the Chair that in
reading the gentleman's amendment it prohibits the legislation from
going into effect under
[[Page 8651]]
the gentleman's amendment. The section that he references in the
legislation is of an advisory, consultory nature only and therefore
the fundamental purpose of section 8 which he quotes is to provide
advice to the Congress and to the administration, is not related to
the fundamental purpose of this amendment which seeks to abrogate
the legislation and in which it states clearly, shall not take
effect until and after these conditions precedent have taken place.
It fails the fundamental purpose and therefore is not germane.
. . .
Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I
want to emphasize a point that my friend from Ohio (Mr. Eckart)
made that there is a contingency in this amendment, the whole act
does not take effect until a nongermane condition is met and,
therefore, the amendment is not germane and the point of order
should be sustained.
The Chairman: (20) Are there further arguments on
the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the
point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basic subject matter of the bill before the House, as
stated in the findings of the bill on page 14, relates to domestic
workers producing automotive products, referring to automobile
products, and therefore limits it to that category of domestic
employment.
The amendment in question refers to the entire range of
employment in the U.S. economy and therefore conditions the bill in
a manner far beyond the basic subject matter of the bill.
The amendment would make it conditional, that the bill would
not be implemented until there was a study relating to the overall
impact within the entire economy.
Were it limited simply to a study, that the Chair feels would
be germane. But having expanded it beyond that, making it a
condition precedent as well as relating to a study of the
employment in the entire U.S. economy, it is the Chair's view that
it is not germane as an unrelated contingency and, therefore, the
Chair sustains the point of order.
Proclamation Concerning Foreign Nation's Trade Policy
Sec. 31.21 To a bill requiring that a certain percentage of automobiles
sold in the United States be manufactured domestically, and
imposing an import restriction for automobiles on any person
violating that requirement, an amendment waiving the applicability
of domestic content ratios with respect to a foreign nation where
the President has issued a proclamation stating that that nation is
not imposing unfair restrictions against the entry of any United
States product into its domestic market was held nongermane as an
unrelated contingency affecting trade issues beyond those issues
addressed in the bill.
During consideration of the Fair Practices and Procedures in Auto
[[Page 8652]]
mobile Products Act of 1983 (1) in the Committee of the
Whole on Nov. 2, 1983, (2) the Chair sustained a point of
order against the amendment described above, demonstrating that an
amendment making the effectiveness of a bill contingent on an unrelated
event or determination is not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. H.R. 1234.
2. 129 Cong. Rec. 30525-27, 30541, 30542, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of the remainder of the bill, H.R. 1234, is as
follows:
sec. 2. congressional findings, purpose, and disclaimers.
(a) Findings.--The Congress hereby finds that automotive
products are being imported into the United States for sale and
distribution in interstate commerce in such increased
quantities and under such conditions as to cause, or threaten
to cause, serious injury to the domestic manufacturers of like
or directly competitive automotive products sold and
distributed in interstate commerce, and to the domestic workers
producing such products.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to prevent or
remedy the serious injury described in subsection (a) to such
domestic manufacturers and workers for such time, as determined
by subsequent Act of Congress, as may be necessary by
encouraging the production in the United States of automotive
products which are sold and distributed in interstate commerce.
(c) Congressional Disclaimers.--It is the intent of
Congress that this Act shall not be deemed to modify or amend
the terms or conditions of any international treaty,
convention, or agreement that may be applicable to automotive
products entered for sale and distribution in interstate
commerce and to which the United States, on the date of the
enactment of this Act, is a party, including, but not limited
to, the terms or conditions of any such treaty, convention, or
agreement which provide for the resolution of conflicts between
the parties thereto. Nothing in this Act shall be construed (1)
to confer jurisdiction upon any court of the Unied States to
consider and resolve such conflicts, or (2) to alter or amend
any law existing on the date of enactment of this Act which may
confer such jurisdiction in such courts. . . .
sec. 5. domestic content ratios for model year 1985 and
thereafter.
(a) Ratios.--In order to carry out the purpose of this Act,
for each model year beginning after January 1, 1984, the
minimum domestic content ratio for a vehicle manufacturer shall
not be less than the higher of--
(1) the domestic content ratio achieved by the vehicle
manufacturer in model year 1984 reduce by 10 per centum; or
(2) the applicable minimum content ratio specified in the
following table: . . .
Mr. [Dan] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman: On page 27, after line
10, insert the following new subsection:
``(c) Inapplicability of Ratios in the Case of Presidential
Proclamation.--Ratios determined under this section shall have
no effect with regard to a nation in the event that the
President issues a proclamation not less than ninety days
before the first day of the model year stating that that nation
is not imposing unfair restrictions against the entry of
[[Page 8653]]
United States products into its domestic market.''. . .
Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, this
amendment makes ineffective the content provisions of H.R. 1234
with regard to a nation if the President issues a proclamation that
such nation is not imposing unfair restrictions of any kind against
entry of U.S. products, not just automobiles, into the domestic
market. The amendment to be in order must be germane to the
committee substitute. The substitute relates to an injury suffered
by the domestic auto industry and its workers due to auto imports
sold in interstate commerce in the United States and establishes a
content level for the sale of autos in such commerce.
It is not a general trade bill. It does not relate to other
U.S. products, such as beef, citrus, baseball bats, high technology
products--which in fact Japan does exclude.
The purpose of the substitute is to remedy the injury with
respect to automobiles.
The amendment's purpose is to halt the content level on a
nation by nation basis, contingent on the President finding that
each nation is not imposing unfair restrictions on any kind of
other product, be it citrus, beef, or whatever.
To be germane, the amendment must meet the fundamental purpose
test. This amendment does not.
Also, it must not contain an unrelated contingency, as noted by
the chairman on December 15, 1982, at page H 9879, concerning H.R.
5133. This amendment does contain such a contingency.
The amendment is not confined to trade in autos. It covers a
broad range of products. It does not relate to the general subject
matter of the substitute.
And, therefore, I urge the point of order be sustained.
Mr. Glickman: Mr. Chairman, I will do my best to try to argue
with that extraordinarily good defense of the gentleman's point of
order.
Mr. Chairman, I think, one, the bill might make reference to
things in a generic concept outside of automobiles, but the
ramification of this bill would definitely affect other sectors of
the economy. And, therefore, I think that the amendment is germane
on that ground.
The bill was referred to the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee
because of trade implications. Hence, changes to address those
issues should be allowed on the floor as well.
The amendment would not alter any other statutes and it merely
adds flexibility in implementing quotas. I would add that under the
committee bill the President has significant responsibilities in
that bill. And this amendment merely adds some additional
responsibilities to the President. . . .
Mr. Chairman, while it is true that on its face the purpose of
this bill is to remedy automobile ratios and quotas, I think that
the intent of the bill, judging from all of its proponents, is to
slap some of our trading partners with respect to all products that
are involved in trade and, therefore, I think that the intent of
the amendment is germane.
The Chairman: (3) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8654]]
The bill that is before the Committee deals with domestic
content with regard to automobiles. It does not deal with broader
trade issues that affect all other products.
The amendment that the gentleman from Kansas has introduced in
its language provides:
Ratios determined under this section shall have no effect
with regard to a nation in the event that the President issues
a proclamation not less than 90 days before the first day of
the model year stating that that nation is not imposing unfair
restrictions against the entry of U.S. products into its
domestic market.
It is the position of the Chair that that opens it up to all
products and, therefore, extends it beyond the subject matter that
is contained within the bill.
In addition to that, the Chair would cite the precedent of the
House that an amendment is not germane if it makes the
effectiveness of a bill contingent upon an unrelated event or
determination.
It is for those reasons that the Chair sustains the point of
order.
Assistance to Israel--Presidential Certification as to Availability of
Energy Supplies
Sec. 31.22 An amendment making the effectiveness of a bill contingent
upon an unrelated event or determination is not germane; thus, to a
bill authorizing military assistance to Israel and funds for the
United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, an amendment
postponing the availability of funds to Israel until the President
certifies the existence of a designated level of energy supplies
for the United States is not germane.
During consideration of H.R. 11088 (4) in the Committee
of the Whole on Dec. 11, 1973,(5) a point of order was
raised and sustained against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. A bill providing for emergency military assistance to Israel and
Cambodia.
5. 119 Cong. Rec. 40837, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: Page 4, after line 10, add
the following:
``Sec. 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
none of the funds authorized to be appropriated under section 2
of this Act shall be available for use as provided in this Act
until the President determines and certifies to the Congress,
in writing, that current energy supplies available for use to
meet current energy needs of the United States have been
restored to the level of such supplies so available on October
5, 1973.''. . .
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Chairman,
I make a point of order against the amendment in that it deals with
a subject
[[Page 8655]]
that is not germane to the bill. As a matter of fact, it deals with
an energy crisis in an emergency situation. . . .
The Chairman: (6) The Chair sustains the point of
order because the amendment would make the authority contained in
the bill dependent on an unrelated contingency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. John M. Murphy (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination as to Lifting by Soviet Union of Restrictions on
Emigration
Sec. 31.23 An amendment delaying the operation of proposed legislation
pending an unrelated contingency is not germane; accordingly, to a
bill amending the United Nations Participation Act by making
inapplicable thereto the provisions of a section of the Strategic
and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, thereby reimposing the
United Nations embargo on the importation of Rhodesian chrome, an
amendment permitting the continued importation of such chrome so
long as chrome is imported from the Soviet Union unless the
President determines that the Soviet Union has lifted the
restrictions against the emigration of its citizens, thus delaying
the operation of the proposed legislation pending an unrelated
contingency, was held to be not germane.
During consideration of H.R. 1287 in the Committee of the Whole on
Sept. 25, 1975,(7) the Chair sustained a point of order in
the circumstances described above. The pending language of the bill and
the amendment offered thereto were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 121 Cong. Rec. 30226, 30227, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
section 5(a) of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
(22 U.S.C. 287c(a)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new sentence: ``section 10 of the Strategic and
Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (60 Stat. 596; 50 U.S.C.
98-98h) shall not apply to prohibitions or regulations
established under the authority of this section.''. . . .
Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Derwinski: Page 2, line 2,
immediately after ``section'' and before the first period
insert the following: ``; except that this section shall not
apply with respect to the importation into the United States of
chromium of Southern Rhodesian origin so long as chromium is
imported into the United States from the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, unless the President determines that the
gov
[[Page 8656]]
ernment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--
``(1) grants its citizens the right or opportunity to
emigrate;
``(2) does not impose more than a nominal tax on emigration
or on the visas or other documents required for emigration, for
any purpose or cause whatsoever; and
``(3) does not impose more than a nominal tax, levy, fine,
or other charge on any citizen as a consequence of the desire
of such citizen to emigrate to the country of his choice.''
Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment. . . .
Mr. Chairman, this amendment as offere Illinois, in my
judgment, is not germane under rule XVI, clause 7. It is
introducing a subject which is different from the one dealt with in
the bill and would change the scope of the bill considerably.
The bill itself simply allows the President to promulgate
prohibition and regulations under United Nations Participation Act
to give effect to its decisions. This introduces wholly extraneous
matter that has nothing to do with the United Nations Participation
Act or acts of the United Nations Security Council or the subject
of the bill. . . .
Mr. Derwinski: . . . May I point out to the Chairman that
section 2 of the bill was added in the subcommittee, and that in
and of itself, section 2 addresses itself to subject matter
considerably beyond the scope of the original bill.
It in effect introduces substantial technical requirements that
go far beyond the issue of the United Nations Participation Act.
Mr. Chairman, there are numerous precedents in the House,
whereby once an amendment has been accepted that substantially
enlarges the scope of the bill, further amendments so doing are in
order.
Section 2, obviously, has been ruled germane, has been judged
germane. It substantially expands the scope of the measure before
us, goes far beyond the mere amendments to the United Nations
Participation Act and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, logically, I
believe, my amendment would be in order. . . .
Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I would
further point out in support of the argument of the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) that this is in effect an amendment to
section 10 of the Stockpile Act.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Derwinski) only goes to that basis, so undoubtedly his amendment
would be in order. . . .
Mr. Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the
argument of the gentleman from Illinois.
Section 2 deals with the United Nations Participation Act and
so does section 1. Neither are in any sense related to the subject
matter which the gentleman has sought to introduce in his
amendment. The gentleman is introducing a whole new subject which
has no relevance or germaneness to the basic thrust of the bill.
The Chairman: (8) The Chairman is prepared to rule
on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the argument made by the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr.
[[Page 8657]]
Fraser) when he last stood, the Chair would also point out that
while it was necessary to obtain from the Committee on Rules a rule
waiving points of order on that particular committee amendment
which would indicate that it might not be germane in the first
instance, and in any event, the committee amendment has not been
adopted and is not part of the bill.
The Chair would also point out that the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) has this effect: The
effectiveness of the bill itself, the working of the bill itself,
is contingent upon certain things happening. And in the case of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski),
those contingencies in the amendment are wholly unrelated to the
substance of the bill.
As authority, the Chair would point to Deschler's Procedure in
the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 28, section 24, on page
395, the section being entitled ``Amendment Postponing
Effectiveness of Legislation Pending Contingency.''
In section 24.10, in the instance of an amendment ``To a bill
authorizing appropriations for the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, an amendment delaying the effectiveness of the
authorization until the Soviet Union `ceases to supply military
articles to our enemy in Vietnam,' was ruled out as not germane.''
Also, in section 24.11, an amendment ``To a bill authorizing
funds for foreign assistance, an amendment making such aid to any
nation in Latin America contingent upon the enactment of tax reform
measures by that nation was ruled out as not germane.''
In view of this, the Chair sustains the point of order.
Certification as to Impact of Grain Sales on Soviet Preparedness
Sec. 31.24 To a title of a bill authorizing the procurement, research
and development of certain military missile systems for one fiscl
year, broadened by amendment to restrict deployment beyond that
fiscal year of one system pending tests and reports to Congress, an
amendment permanently making expenditure of any funds for that
missile system contingent upon certification made by the Secretary
of Defense with respect to the impact of United States grain sales
on Soviet military preparedness was held to be not germane being an
unrelated contingency involving agricultural exports.
During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for
fiscal 1984 (9) in the Committee of the Whole on July 21,
1983,(10) the Chair, in sustaining a point of order against
the amendment described above, reiterated
[[Page 8658]]
the principle that it is not germane to make the authorization of funds
in a bill contingent upon unrelated events or policy determinations.
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. H.R. 2969.
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 20050, 20184, 20189, 20190, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 301. In addition to the amount authorized to be
appropriated in section 103 for procurement of missiles for the
Air Force, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Air Force for fiscal year 1984 for procurement of missiles the
sum of $2,557,800,000 to be available only for the MX missile
program.
research, development, test, and evaluation for mx missile and
small mobile missile systems
Sec. 302 (a) In addition to the amount authorized to be
appropriated in section 201 for research, development, test,
and evaluation for the Air Force, there is hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Air Force for fiscal year 1984 for
research, development, test, and evaluation for the land-based
strategic ballistic missile modernization program--
(1) $1,980,389,000 to be available only for research,
development, test, and evaluation for the MX missile program .
. .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) Are there amendments
to title III?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Price: Page 16, after line 18, insert
the following new section:
limitation on expenditure of funds
Sec. 303. (a) None of the funds authorized by clause (2) of
section 302(a) may be obligated or expended for research,
development, test, or evaluation for an intercontinental-range
mobile ballistic missile that would weigh more than 33,000
pounds or that would carry more than a single warhead.
(b) The Secretary of Defense may not deploy more than 10 MX
missiles until--
(1) demonstration of subsystems and testing of components
of the small mobile intercontinental ballistic missile system
(including missile guidance and propulsion subsystems) have
occurred . . .
(c) The Secretary of Defense may not deploy more than 40 MX
missiles until--
(1) the major elements (including the guidance and control
subsystems) of a mobile missile weighing less than 33,000
pounds as a part of an intercontinental ballistic missile
system have been flight tested. . . .
(d)(1) Not later than January 15 of each year from 1984
through 1988, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives a report--
(A) on the progress being made with respect to the
development and deployment of the MX missile system.
The amendment offered by Mr. Price was agreed to.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 20187, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Weaver: At the end of title III,
add the following new section:
[[Page 8659]]
limitation on mx program
Sec. 303. No funds may be expended for the MX missile
program during any fiscal year during which United States grain
suppliers make sales of grain to the Soviet Union, except that
the preceding limitation shall not apply during any fiscal year
if the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the sale
of grain to the Soviet Union by United States grain suppliers
during that year will not assist the Soviet Union in preparing,
maintaining, or providing for its armed forces. . . .
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: . . . I make a point of order
that the amendment is not germane to title III . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair rules that the amendment is not germane to--title
III. Although title III was originally a 1-year authorization, it
has been amended by the Price amendment to go beyond fiscal year
1984.
The amendment of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver) would
be a permanent change in the law making the MX program conditional
upon an unrelated contingency involving agricultural exports. Under
the precedents the amendment is not germane and the Chair sustains
the point of order of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price).
Report to Congress on Costs of Program
Sec. 31.25 To a section of a bill reported from the Committee on
International Relations authorizing appropriations for humanitarian
and evacuation assistance to war refugees in South Vietnam, an
amendment making that authorization contingent upon a report to
Congress on the costs of a portion of the evacuation program, but
not requiring the implementation of any new program within the
jurisdiction of another committee was held germane as a related
contingency.
During consideration of H.R. 6096 in the Committee of the Whole, a
point of order was raised against an amendment offered by Mr. Glenn M.
Anderson, of California. The proceedings of Apr. 23,
1975,(13) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 11529, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Anderson of California: On page 1,
line 5, after ``Sec. 2.'' insert the following:
Upon the conclusion of a report prepared by the Secretary
of State, after consultation with the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare and the Attorney General, and submitted
to Congress within forty-eight hours of enactment of this Act,
estimating the costs for the relocation, housing, feeding and
medical care of those persons eligible for evacuation under
Sec. 4(d) of this Act over a five-year period . . .
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against the amendment. . . .
[T]his bill before us is for evacuation only. It does not deal
with relocation of
[[Page 8660]]
any people to be evacuated. The amendment goes far beyond the
limits of the bill, and is certainly not germane. . . .
Mr. Anderson of California: . . . Mr. Chairman, my amendment
does not deal with relocation either. It is merely an extension of
the present bill. It has nothing new except for some facts which we
ought to have before voting on this bill. It says that upon
conclusion of the report prepared by the Secretary of State within
48 hours estimating the cost, this act will be acted upon.
It does nothing new. It just says that within 48 hours the
Congress and the people of the United States should know how much
it is going to cost them; how many of these people are going to be
brought in. It adds no additional responsibilities.
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: . . . Mr. Chairman, in
the purpose of the bill it says that it is to authorize funds for
humanitarian assistance and evacuation programs. The reason the
gentleman from California is concerned is because the County of Los
Angeles has been notified that they must receive these people
coming from Vietnam. They are not just American citizens, but South
Vietnamese people.
They do not have the funds to take care of the medical care,
the feeding and all the rest. Of course, this is part of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the Chair that this bill is for the
evacuation programs of Vietnam, and it will be a problem for
Hawaii, California and all parts on the west coast.
The Chairman: (14) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment offered by the gentleman from California does not
create any new program. It does not establish any unrelated
contingency, nor does it disrupt any program called for in the
basic bill. It simply is a request for a report on the costs of a
part of the evacuation program in the opinion of the Chair, and is
germane to the pending section.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Treaty Initiatives Toward Arms Control
Sec. 31.26 It is not germane to make the effectiveness of an
authorization contingent upon an unrelated determination involving
agencies and the jurisdiction of committees not within the purview
of the authorization bill; thus, to a title of a bill authorizing
appropriations for procurement of military weapons, an amendment
prohibiting the use of those funds for procurement of a certain
weapon until the President certifies to Congress that he has taken
certain treaty initiatives toward arms control was held to be not
germane.
On July 8, 1981,(15) during consideration of the
Department of
[[Page 8661]]
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1982 (16) in the
Committee of the Whole, the Chair sustained a point of order against
the amendment described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 127 Cong. Rec. 15008, 15010, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H.R. 3519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
authorization of appropriations
Sec. 101. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 1982 for the use of the Armed Forces of the
United States for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval
vessels, tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons
in amounts as follows: . . .
missiles
For missiles: for the Army, $2,745,800,000; for the Navy
$2,484,800,000; for the Marine Corps, $223,024,000; for the Air
Force, $4,593,246,000. . . .
Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lowry of Washington: At the end of
title I (page 5, after line 23), add the following new section:
limitation on procurement of pershing ii missiles and ground-
launched cruise missiles
Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in section 101 for missiles for
the Army may be obligated or expended for procurement of
Pershing II missiles, and none of the funds appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in such section
for missiles for the Air Force may be obligated or expended for
procurement of ground-launched cruise missiles, until the
President has certified to the Congress that the United States
has forwarded to the Soviet Union initial proposals for
limitations on theater nuclear force (TNF) weapons in Europe
within the framework of strategic arms limitation talks (SALT).
Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment as being a violation of rule
16 regarding germaneness. That rule requires that instructions,
qualifications, and limitations must be germane to the provisions
of the bill.
It is my contention that the condition here stated in the
pending amendment is totally unrelated to the provisions of the
bill and in fact lies within the jurisdiction of another committee,
namely, whether the United States has or has not forwarded to the
Soviet Union initial proposals for limitation on theater nuclear
force weapons in Europe within the framework of the strategic arms
limitation talks. That has no bearing whatsoever on the authority
or the responsibility of the Armed Services Committee or this
pending legislation. . . .
Mr. Lowry of Washington: . . . Mr. Chairman, I believe this
amendment is in order. To say that there is not a process on this
House floor in which we can hold contingent this Nation's
commitments to arms limitations, contingent upon expenditure that
we are making for armament allows us no place on which to make the
statement that is very necessary in this world as to our position
commitment to arms limitations talks contingent as a dual process
as agreed in 1979 with NATO for the modernization of our nuclear
forces there.
[[Page 8662]]
So I would ask that this amendment be held in order, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New York makes a point of order against the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington on the grounds
it is not germane to title I of the bill.
The amendment would condition the use of funds authorized in
section 101 for the Pershing missile on a certification by the
President that certain U.S. proposals have been made in the SALT
negotiations relative to weapons in Europe.
It is not germane to make the effectiveness of a bill or
authorization contingent upon an unrelated event or determination.
As stated in Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, section 24.25, to a
provision rescinding funds for the B-1 bomber, an amendment to
delay the effectiveness of the rescission until ratification of a
SALT II Treaty was held not germane on February 22, 1978. Since the
condition involved actions by agencies and authorities not charged
with administration of the B-1 bomber program, and since the SALT
II negotiations involved a broad range of arms control issues not
necessarily related to the B-1 program.
The Chair would further point out that arms control
negotiations fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and not within the jurisdiction of the committee
reporting this bill, and that nothing in title I addresses such
negotiations.
For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec. 31.27 It is not germane to make the effectiveness of an
authorization contingent upon an unrelated determination involving
issues within the jurisdiction of agencies and committees outside
the purview of the pending bill; thus, to a title of a bill
authorizing appropriations for research on and development of
military weapons, an amendment prohibiting the use of those funds
for development of a certain weapon until the President resumes
treaty initiatives toward arms control was held to be not germane.
During consideration of the Department of Defense Authorization for
fiscal year 1982 (18) in the Committee of the Whole on July
9, 1981,(19) the Chair sustained a point of order against
the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 3519.
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 15218, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Bedell: After section 203 insert the
following new section:
limitation on funds for mx missile
Sec. 204. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated
by section 201 may be obligated or expended for the full-scale
development
[[Page 8663]]
of an operational basing mode for the MX missile until the
President--
(1) has completed his review of previous strategic arms
limitation (SALT) negotiations;
(2) is prepared to resume strategic arms limitation
negotiations with the Soviet Union, one of the principal aims
of such negotiations being to establish a limit on the number
of intercontinental ballistic missile launchers and deployable
warheads available to both sides; and
(3) formally transmitted to the Soviet Union his desire to
resume such negotiations.
Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Madam Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment. . . .
It is a violation of House rule 16 regarding germaneness. That
rule requires instructions, qualifications, and limitations to be
germane to the provisions of the bill.
It is my contention that the condition here is totally
unrelated to the provisions of the bill and in fact lies within the
jurisdiction of another committee. . . .
Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: . . . Madam Chairman, I am not
a specialist on rules, but it would appear to me very clearly that
for us to say that we are not going to spend money on a system
which would not be of value unless something else happens is
perfectly germane and perfectly proper for us to do.
We do it in our small business disaster loans when we say small
business disaster loans will not be made unless the Governor of the
State declares there has been a disaster therein.
We do the same thing in regard to disaster payments for
agriculture when we say that the people will not be eligible unless
Federal crop insurance is there.
It appears to me that we have clearly pointed out in the debate
that we have had that without SALT II it is at least questionable
as to whether MX makes any sense at all, and if we do have rules in
the House which say that we cannot have amendments which say that
we will not spend money on something that is going to be valueless
unless something occurs, if we have amendments that say that we
cannot make the spending contingent upon that action which would be
necessary to make the expenditure of any value, then I submit that
we had better look at the rules of the House. . . .
The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) . . . [T]he Chair is
prepared to rule on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment makes use of funds for the MX missile dependent
upon certain actions by the President relative to the SALT
negotiations. Since arms control issues are within the jurisdiction
of the Foreign Affairs Committee and not the Armed Services
Committee, and for same reasons stated by the Chair yesterday, in
sustaining a point of order against the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington, the Chair sustains the point of order of
the gentleman from Illinois.
Ratification of Salt II Treaty
Sec. 31.28 To a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill
rescinding funds for
[[Page 8664]]
continued construction and development of the B-1 bomber program,
an amendment proposed in a motion to concur therein with an
amendment, to delay the effectiveness of the rescission until after
either House of Congress so approves and until after ratification
by the Senate of a Salt II treaty, was ruled out as an unrelated
contingency, since it was not germane in that the condition
involved actions by agencies and authorities not charged with
administration of the B-1 bomber program, and the Salt II
negotiations involved a broad range of arms control issues not
necessarily related to the B-1 bomber program.
The proceedings of Feb. 22, 1978, relating to consideration of the
conference report on H.R. 9375 (supplemental appropriations for fiscal
year 1978) are discussed in Sec. 27.29, supra.
Compliance With Treaties
Sec. 31.29 To a bill providing for foreign economic assistance and
relating in a general way to agreements between this nation and
other nations, an amendment intended to enforce compliance with
provisions of treaties was held germane.
In the 81st Congress, during consideration of a bill (1)
to provide foreign economic assistance, the following amendment was
offered: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. H.R. 7797 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 4427, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 30, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Page
11 . . . after line 18 insert the following:
(k)(1) Treaties between the United States and nations
assisted hereunder . . . shall remain in full force unless
renegotiated. . . .
(2) None of the local currencies required by section
115(b)(6) of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as amended,
to be deposited in local currency accounts, shall be made
available for expenditure by any recipient country so long as
any dependent area of such a country fails to comply with any
treaty between the United States and the said dependent area.
(3) After July 1950, no assistance herein contemplated
shall be used to promote recovery in the French protectorate of
Morocco except during such time as the Secretary of State shall
certify to the Administrator that the protectorate is complying
with its treaties with the United States. . . .
A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: . . . (The amendment) deals
with matters entirely foreign to this bill and is not germane
either to the bill before us or the title to which it is offered.
[[Page 8665]]
The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill itself is very broad, relating to bilateral and
multilateral agreements between this Nation and other nations. The
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, therefore,
dealing with a subject matter thereunder is, in the opinion of the
Chair, germane to the bill.
Settlement of Hostilities in Vietnam
Sec. 31.30 To a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an
amendment holding in abeyance, ``until 90 days after the final
settlement of hostilities . . . in Vietnam,'' all foreign
assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act, was held to be not
germane.
In the 90th Congress, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1967
(4) was under consideration which stated in part:
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. H.R. 12048 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
5. 113 Cong. Rec. 24002, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 24, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V--Eligibility of Certain Participants in Future Foreign Aid
Programs
Sec. 502. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever
any individual, firm, or entity . . . participating in any aid
transaction financed with funds made available under the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, has been found by the Inspector
General, Foreign Assistance, to have . . . engaged in bribery or
other illegal or fraudulent payments or credits in connection with
such transaction, such individual, firm, or entity shall not be
permitted to participate in any program or operation financed under
such Act.
The following proceedings related to an amendment offered by Mr.
Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana:
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Waggonner:
On page 46, line 5, add a new section numbered 503 to read:
``Sec. 503. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all
funds except for those countries in this hemisphere, and those
who render us assistance in Vietnam, authorized or appropriated
under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, shall be
held in abeyance until 90 days after the final settlement of
hostilities and the fighting in Vietnam.''
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I
reserve a point of order against the amendment.
Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Waggonner: The chairman of the full committee having
reserved a point of order, it leaves to me the right to speak to
the merits of this amend
[[Page 8666]]
ment and later to speak to the point of order, does it not?
The Chairman: That is correct. . . .
Mr. Waggonner: . . . I do not believe that the Chair can justly
say that this is not germane because, Mr. Chairman, this bill
already restricts the eligibility requirements for certain
participants and this amendment makes exception of those who are in
this hemisphere and those who are going to help us in Vietnam. . .
. This Congress can place any limitation on assistance they choose.
We have done it already on several occasions tonight.
The Chairman: . . . The amendment offered by the gentleman from
Louisiana would delay the operation of this proposed legislation
for an unrelated contingency.
The Chair would like to refer to section 3037 of Cannon's
Precedents of the House of Representatives, volume 8, to the
effect:
An amendment delaying operation of proposed legislation
pending an unrelated contingency was held not to be germane. .
. .
The Chair . . . sustains the point of order.
Consent of Congress Required for Evacuation of Persons to Any State
Sec. 31.31 To a bill dealing with the evacuation of certain
individuals, an amendment prohibiting their evacuation to any of
the states of the United States without the consent of Congress,
was held to relate to the evacuation process, not to immigration
policy, and was therefore germane.
During consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation
Assistance Act (7) in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 23,
1975,(8) the Chair overruled a point of order against the
following amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. H.R. 6096.
8. 121 Cong. Rec. 11546, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Bob] Casey [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Casey: Page 3, after line 3,
insert (e) none of the ``other foreign nationals'' referred to
in paragraph (d) shall be evacuated to any of the States of the
United States, without the express consent of Congress. . . .
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against the amendment in that the amendment is not
germane. It deals with the immigration policy, and would change the
standards on immigration. . . .
Mr. Casey: . . . Mr. Chairman, this amendment would change no
standards on immigration except that the classified people under
paragraph (d) of section 4 which says that--
. . . none of the other foreign nationals referred to in
paragraph (d) shall be evacuated to any of the States of the
United States without the express consent of the Congress.
It is certainly germane, because it has to do with the
evacuation of these people under section (d) of section 4.
[[Page 8667]]
The Chairman: (9) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The language of the amendment does not limit the operation of
the bill. It pertains strictly to the evacuation process. It does
not mention immigration policy. It simply says that persons in a
certain category of evacuees contained in the bill cannot be
evacuated to any of the States of the United States without the
consent of the Congress. Therefore the amendment is germane, and
the point of order is not sustained.
Cessation of Soviet Aid to Vietnam
Sec. 31.32 To a bill authorizing appropriations for the Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency, an amendment delaying the effectiveness of
the authorization until the Soviet Union ``ceases to supply
military articles to our enemy in Vietnam,'' was held to be not
germane.
In the 90th Congress, during consideration of a bill
(10) amending the Arms Control and Disarmament
Act,(11) the following amendment was offered:
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 14940 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
11. See 114 Cong. Rec. 5414, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 6, 1968.
12. Id. at p. 5426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: On the first page, line 7,
strike out the period and insert in lieu thereof the following:
``and at the end of such second sentence strike out the period and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
`: Provided, That the authorization for appropriations contained in
this Act shall not be effective until such time as the Soviet
Union, which is the United States' co-sponsor of the draft treaty
on non-proliferation (negotiated for the United States by the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency), ceases to supply military articles
to our enemy in Vietnam, as determined by the President of the
United States.' ''
A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make
a point of order against the amendment. It is not germane and
contains matter not covered by the present act under discussion.
Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, stated in response:
I call the attention of the Chair to the Congressional Record,
volume 110, part 1, page 144. On that date the House was
considering an authorization bill. In connection with that
authorization I offered an amendment which read as follows:
The authorization for an appropriation contained in this
Act shall not be effective until such time as the receipts of
the Government for the preceding fiscal year have exceeded the
expenditures of the Government for such year, as determined by
the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
On that occasion the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Jones) made a
point of
[[Page 8668]]
order against the amendment, and the Chair ruled that the point of
order was not well taken.
The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard H. Fulton (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this legislation today is it authorizes an
appropriation of $33 million to finance the operation of the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency for a 3-year period. The purpose of
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois would delay
the use of any appropriated funds pending an unrelated contingency.
Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.
The following exchange ensued:
Mr. Findley: Will the Chair hear me further on that point?
The Chairman: The Chair has already ruled.
Parliamentarian's Note: The precedent cited by Mr. Findley,
discussed at Sec. 31.16, supra, supported the view that where an
amendment seeks to adopt as a measure of the availability of certain
authorizations contained in the bill a condition that is logically
relevant and objectively discernible, the amendment does not present an
unrelated contingency and is germane. Thus, for example, although it is
not germane to make the effectiveness of an authorization contingent
upon an unrelated determination involving issues within the
jurisdiction of agencies and committees outside the purview of the
pending bill,(14) it has been held that an amendment
imposing on the availability of funds to carry out a certain activity a
conditional restriction that merely requires observation of similar
activities of another country, which similar conduct already
constitutes the policy basis for the pending funding of that activity,
may be germane as a related contingency.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 31.27, supra.
15. See Sec. 31.15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security Assistance to South Korea--Testimony by Korean Ambassador as
to Gifts to House Members
Sec. 31.33 To a foreign aid security assistance bill authorizing the
transfer of defense articles to South Korea, and amended to impose
foreign policy conditions on the furnishing of security assistance
to other designated nations, an amendment prohibiting the use of
authorities in the bill to furnish defense articles to South Korea
until its former ambassador testifies before a House committee
investigating whether Members or employees have been influenced in
their legislative duties by receiving gifts
[[Page 8669]]
from that nation, was held germane as a contingency that was
related to authorities and other contingencies contained in the
bill.
On Aug. 2, 1978,(16) during consideration of H.R. 12514
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair overruled a point of order
against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 23932, 23933, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jacobs: Page 19, immediately after
line 22, insert the following new section:
testimony of kim dong jo
Sec. 24. Until such time as the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct of the House of Representatives announces that
Kim Dong Jo, the former Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to
the United States, has given testimony to that Committee in the
investigation it is conducting pursuant to H. Res. 252 of the
Ninety-fifth Congress--
(1) no funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may
be used to provide assistance for the Republic of Korea; and
(2) the authority granted by section 19 of this Act may not
be exercised. . . .
Mr. [Robert J.] Lagomarsino [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
say the amendment is out of order under clause 7, rule XVI, as
being nongermane to the bill and outside of the scope of the bill.
It is outside the scope of the bill, because the bill relates to
military assistance.
Further, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote clause 28, section
24.9 from Deschler's Procedure:
To a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an
amendment holding in abeyance, ``until 90 days after the final
settlement of hostilities . . . in Vietnam,'' all foreign
assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act, was ruled out as
not germane.
Further, in that same clause, section 24.11:
To a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an
amendment making such aid to any nation in Latin America
contingent upon the enactment of tax reform measures by that
nation was ruled out as not germane.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that to time the sanctions of this
amendment to such a time as Kim Dong Jo testifies is similar to and
right on all fours with the sections I have just read. . . .
Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, the language of the amendment deals
with nothing more by its own terms than the contents of the instant
legislation, No. 1 and No. 2, the amendment clearly is a related
contingency with respect to and on all four corners with the funds
authorized by this legislation.
The Chairman: (17) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from California (Mr. Lagomarsino) makes a point
of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Jacobs) on the point that it is beyond the scope of
the committee bill. The Chair would
[[Page 8670]]
like to point out that the committee bill does relate to military
assistance, which this amendment directs itself to. Had the
amendment been offered earlier in the reading, before the funds for
South Korea were before the committee and prior to the adoption of
the various amendments in the Committee of the Whole, including the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) which
placed a condition upon funds being authorized under this act, then
the point of order might have been viewed differently. However, the
contingency expressed in the amendment does relate to the
relationship between this country and the South Korean Government
and specifically to the point of information relating to future
furnishing of U.S. military assistance to that nation, so that the
Chair is constrained to overrule the point of order.
Measures by Foreign Governments To Control Drug Traffic
Sec. 31.34 To that section in a military procurement bill limiting
funds available to United States Armed Forces for the support of
Vietnamese forces and local forces in Laos and Thailand, an
amendment was held to be not germane which prohibited the use of
funds ``if the President determines that [the respective
governments have] failed to take appropriate steps to prevent
narcotic drugs'' produced in those countries from entering the
United States, and which authorized the President to utilize
federal agencies and facilities to assist those governments in such
efforts.
In the 92d Congress, during consideration of a bill (18)
comprising a military procurement authorization for fiscal 1972, an
amendment was offered (19) as described above. A point of
order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H.R. 8687 (Committee on Armed Services).
19. 117 Cong. Rec. 20589, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [F. Edward] Hebert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the proposed language as not germane to the
bill. It refers to a subject not included in the bill, the matter
of narcotic drugs, which is under the jurisdiction of another
committee.
The Chairman,(20) in ruling on the point of order,
stated: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
1. 117 Cong. Rec. 20590, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 17, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject of narcotic drugs is not elsewhere introduced in
the pending bill, and the Chair notes that the amendment would
bring into contemplation agencies and departments of the Government
other than those in
[[Page 8671]]
volved in the normal administration of the funds authorized by this
bill. It would give the President authority and responsibilities
which he does not have under existing law.
The Chair has examined a precedent of the 90th Congress,
rendered when an amendment was offered to the foreign assistance
authorization bill for fiscal 1967. That amendment provided that
assistance to certain nations should be curtailed until the
President determined and reported to the Congress that those
countries have established tax reform measures.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole on that occasion,
Mr. Price of Illinois, ruled that the amendment was not germane.
Record, page 23977, August 24, 1967.
The Chair holds that the amendment introduces agencies and
concepts not appearing otherwise in the pending bill, rendering the
amendment not germane.
Use of Inactive Gold Fund
Sec. 31.35 To a bill extending certain excise taxes levied under two
specific statutes, an amendment providing that the bill shall be
inoperative ``until the inactive gold fund of the United States
Treasury is used to defray expenditures'' was held to be not
germane.
In the 75th Congress, a bill (2) was under consideration
providing for extension of certain excise taxes. An amendment was
offered (3) by Mr. Martin Dies, Jr., of Texas, who
stated,(4) by way of explaining the amendment and responding
to a point of order: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. H.J. Res. 375 (Committee on Ways and Means).
3. 81 Cong. Rec. 5620, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1937.
4. Id. at p. 5621.
5. The point of order that the amendment was not germane to the bill
had been raised by Mr. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, the proposed act seeks to extend the tax
provisions for a period of 2 years. All this proposed amendment
seeks to do is say that the act shall not be operative until
certain conditions occur. The amendment does not seek to force the
Treasury to utilize gold but is simply the exercise of an undoubted
prerogative on the part of Congress to say that until certain
conditions happen the act shall not be operative. . . .
The Chairman,(6) sustaining the point of order, cited
the principle that, ``An amendment delaying operation of proposed
legislation pending an unrelated contingency is not germane,'' and,
further, that, ``A different subject from that under consideration may
not be proposed under the guise of a limitation.'' The following
amendment was then offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Page 1,
line 12, after the period, insert ``Provided how
[[Page 8672]]
ever, That the taxes herein imposed shall not be levied or
collected until the Secretary of the Treasury has utilized for
currency purposes all the inactive, unpledged, and unallocated gold
owned and held by the United States Treasury.''
Mr. Cooper having again raised a point of order against the
amendment, the Chairman ruled as follows:
In addition to the authorities cited by the Chair in the former
ruling, the Chair calls attention to sections 3033 and 3034 of
volume 8 of Cannon's Precedents, the first holding that an
amendment is not necessarily germane because presented in the form
of a limitation, and the second holding that it is not in order to
propose by way of limitation propositions on subjects different
from that under consideration.
The pending resolution has to do with providing revenue,
whereas the amendment has to do with the use of gold for currency
purposes.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Contributions to International Monetary Fund Contingent on Change in
Monetary Policy
Sec. 31.36 To a bill authorizing federal financial contributions to
international lending institutions, an amendment making that
contribution contingent upon enactment of a change in federal
monetary policy having domestic implications and involving agencies
beyond the scope of the bill is not germane; thus, to a bill
authorizing United States contributions to international financial
institutions and dealing with United States monetary policy as it
relates to international lending, amendments directing the
Secretary of the Treasury to establish a par value for the dollar
in gold, and making United States contributions to the
International Monetary Fund contingent upon that change in monetary
policy was held to be not germane, because affecting domestic
monetary policy issues beyond the scope of the bill.
During consideration of the International Recovery and Financial
Stability Act (7) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 3,
1983,(8) the Chair sustained points of order in the
circumstances described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. H.R. 2957.
8. 129 Cong. Rec. 22663, 22664, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
[[Page 8673]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 19, line 16,
insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 40.''
Page 19, after line 20, insert the following:
``(b)(1) Not later than eighteen months after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall establish a par value for the dollar in gold and
thereafter shall redeem in gold at such price all Federal
Reserve notes which are presented to the Secretary for
redemption.
``(2) Subsection (a) shall not take effect until the date
on which the Secretary of the Treasury transmits a notice to
both Houses of the Congress specifying that the Secretary has
complied with the provisions of paragraph (1).''. . . .
Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I
raise a point of order against the amendment on the ground that it
affects matters beyond the scope of the legislation and is
therefore not germane.
The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to take certain
actions regarding the IMF international lending institutions, and
affects lending by U.S. banks.
The amendment requires the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem
gold for Federal Reserve notes. This, in return, would require the
Federal Reserve to manage the money supply with an eye toward
keeping the market and dollar-convertible gold prices equal. Such a
policy would be an abrupt shift from managing the money supply to
maximize U.S. employment and price stability, as is now required by
the Federal Reserve Act. Neither of these topics--the Secretary's
responsibilities with respect to the value of gold, nor the
monetary policy duties of the Federal Reserve--are covered by the
legislation.
Thus, the amendment would require the Secretary of the Treasury
and the Federal Reserve to take actions beyond the scope of the
bill and far different in character than those required in the
bill. I ask the Chair to rule the amendment out of order.
The Chairman: (9) Does the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dannemeyer) seek to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Dannemeyer: Yes; I do, Mr. Chairman.
1. Deschler's Procedure, Chapter 28 Sec. 14.4: ``The rule
on germaneness does not require that an amendment offered as a
separate section be germane to the preceding section of the
bill, but it is sufficient that it is germane to the subject
matter of the bill as a whole.''
2. Chapter 28 Sec. 14.14: (Parliamentarian's Note) ``The
general rule that an amendment must be germane to the portion
of the bill to which offered is limited by the proposition that
an amendment in the form of a new section or paragraph need not
necessarily be germane to the section or paragraph immediately
preceding it.'' (8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2932, 2935).
3. Chapter 28 Sec. 14.10: ``An amendment in the form of a
new section need not necessarily be germane to the preceding
section of the bill, it being sufficient, where the bill
contains diverse subjects, that the amendment relate to the
bill as a whole.''
And the final point:
4. Deschler's Procedure, Chapter 27 Sec. 27.14: ``To a bill
continuing au
[[Page 8674]]
thority under existing law to make contributions to an
international financial organization and authorizing
appropriations for those contributions, an amendment adding a
further restriction on the use of U.S. contributions to those
already contained in that law is germane.''
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the point
of order is not well taken.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair agrees with the gentleman from Rhode Island that the
matter covered by this amendment goes well beyond the scope of this
bill and deals with the responsibilities of the Secretary of the
Treasury in managing monetary policy of this country and also goes
to the question of the powers of the Federal Reserve Board.
For that reason, the point of order is sustained. The amendment
is not in order.
Mr. Dannemeyer then offered another amendment, as follows:
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer: Page 19, line 16,
insert ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 40.''
Page 19, after line 20, insert the following:
``(b)(1) Not later than eighteen months after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall establish a par value for the dollar in gold.
``(2) Subsection (a) shall not take effect until the date
on which the Secretary of the Treasury transmits a notice to
both Houses of the Congress specifying that the Secretary has
complied with the provisions of paragraph (1).''. . .
Mr. St Germain: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against
the amendment on the ground that it affects matters beyond the
scope of the legislation and is therefore not germane.
The bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to take certain
actions regarding the IMF, international lending institutions and
affects lending by U.S. banks.
The amendment requires the Secretary of the Treasury to
establish a par value for the dollar in gold. In order to do this
the Secretary would have to take some action in the gold market to
defend this action, such as agreeing to sell gold at its par value.
This, in turn, would require the Federal Reserve to manage the
money supply with an eye toward keeping the market and dollar-
convertible gold prices equal. Such a policy would be an abrupt
shift from managing the money supply to maximize U.S. employment
and price stability, as is now required by the Federal Reserve Act.
Neither of these topics--the Secretary's responsibilities with
respect to the value of gold, nor the monetary policy duties of the
Federal Reserve--are covered by the legislation.
Thus, the amendment would require the Secretary of the Treasury
and the Federal Reserve to take actions beyond the scope of the
bill and far different in character than those required in the
bill. I ask the Chair to rule the amendment out of order. . . .
Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . The distinction between this amendment
and the one that this Member from California previously offered is
very simple. I have deleted from the amendment that is now pending
before the committee the paragraph or the clause that says:
[[Page 8675]]
``and thereafter shall redeem in gold at such price all Federal
Reserve notes which are presented to the Secretary for
redemption.''
That clause is gone.
It is the opinion of this Member from California that the
deletion of that clause will eliminate the impediment which caused
the Chair to previously rule that the point of order to the
previous amendment should be and was sustained.
And the points of authority I would like to cite on behalf of
that position are consistent with the points and authorities that I
cited with respect to the previous point of order on that
amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair would rule that the distinctions between this
amendment and the one previously offered are minor distinctions and
that the reasoning advanced by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
St Germain) on the point of order against the previous amendment
also holds true for this amendment.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in
order.
Tax Reform in Foreign Nation
Sec. 31.37 To a bill authorizing funds for foreign assistance, an
amendment making such aid to any nation in Latin America contingent
upon the enactment of tax reform measures by that nation was held
to be not germane.
In the 90th Congress, during consideration of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1967,(10) the following amendment was
offered: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H.R. 12048 (Committee on Foreign Affairs).
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 23977, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 24, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Ellis Y.] Berry [of South Dakota]: On
page 37, after line 24, insert the following:
(5) At the end of section 620 add the following new
subsection:
``(s) After December 31, 1967, no further assistance shall
be furnished under this Act to any country in Latin America
until the President determines and reports to the Congress that
the recipient country has established and implemented an
equitable and effective system of tax collection with respect
to taxes on real and personal property.''
Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, raised the point of order
that the amendment was not germane. Contending that the point of order
was not well taken, Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, stated:
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 23978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, title I, chapter 2, section 208, is entitled
``Self-Help Criteria.'' It says:
In determining whether and to what extent the United States
should furnish development assistance to a country under this
chapter the President shall take into account--
(a) the extent to which the country is taking such measures
as may be appropriate to its needs and capabilities to increase
food production. . . .
[[Page 8676]]
. . . Section 208 describes in great detail the self-
determination criteria which are required of these countries before
they will receive foreign assistance, so it is beyond comprehension
to me that when we require in one part of this bill very specific
self-help criteria on the part of those who receive assistance that
we would be willing to ignore it in every other area. . . .
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe the point of order is out of
order. This is simply an additional requirement to become eligible
for aid.
The Chairman,(13) in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . [T]he amendment would delay the operation of the proposed
legislation pending an unrelated contingency. Under a previous
precedent of the House to be found in Cannon's Precedents, volume
VIII, section 3037, a similar amendment was held not to be germane.
The present occupant of the chair, following that precedent,
sustains the point of order.
Bill Authorizing Radio Broadcasting to Cuba--Enactment of Law
Authorizing Broadcasts to South Africa
Sec. 31.38 To a bill authorizing funds for one purpose, an amendment
delaying the effectiveness of that authorization contingent upon
Congressional action on an unrelated subject is not germane; thus,
to a bill authorizing appropriations for radio broadcasting to
Cuba, an amendment prohibiting use of those funds until the
President proposes and Congress enacts a separate law authorizing
radio broadcasts to South Africa for purposes of imparting
information concerning conditions in that country was held to be
not germane.
During consideration of H.R. 5427 in the Committee of the Whole on
Aug. 10, 1987,(14) Chairman William R. Ratchford, of
Connecticut, sustained a point of order against the following
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 20256, 20257, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Mickey] Leland [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Leland: Page 6, after line 17,
insert the following:
``(2) The funds authorized in paragraph (1) shall not be
appropriated by the Congress unless the President proposes and
the Congress enacts legislation, subsequent to the enactment of
the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, which authorizes the Board
to provide accurate information to the people of South Africa
(through the use of radio broadcasting) regarding the existence
of apartheid and oppression in South Africa.''. . . .
Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I do insist
on the point
[[Page 8677]]
of order as being in violation under clause 7, rule XVI, as
nongermane and has nothing to do with the subject matter of the
bill. . . .
Mr. Leland: . . . Mr. Chairman, the amendment is germane for
two reasons which I will explain.
H.R. 5427 contains two basic proposals, neither of which are
specifically related to Cuba.
First, that the foreign policy of the United States seeks to
guarantee the human rights of all persons as defined by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in particular article 19
of that declaration. Article 19 says that it is the right of all
persons to ``seek, receive, and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.'' That this is the
purpose of the bill is clearly stated in section 2 of H.R. 5427.
Second, that the Board for International Broadcasting (BIB), to
carry out that purpose of our foreign policy, is authorized to
``provide for the open communication of information and ideas
through the use of radio broadcasting.'' This is clearly stated in
section 3 of H.R. 5427, which is the operative clause of the bill.
It is the BIB which is being instructed to carry out this part of
our foreign policy.
My amendment is perfectly consistent with the operative clause
of the bill (section 3), and with the broader foreign policy goals
of the bill. Surely it is not the intention of the President and of
the gentleman from Florida that article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights applies only to Cuba. . . .
Mr. Fascell: . . . The main purpose of this bill makes an
amendment to the Board for International Broadcasting nothing else
primarily, and the limitation on the policy findings are that it is
to the people of Cuba and radio broadcasting to Cuba, and nothing
else.
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The point of order raised is on the issue of germaneness and
the Chair is persuaded that in spite of the strong arguments from
the gentleman from Florida, the amendment, as offered, is not
germane.
Let the Chair cite from precedents specifically to a bill
authorizing appropriation of funds, an amendment holding the
authorization in abeyance pending an unrelated contingency is not
germane.
This particular germaneness precedent in the 96th Congress
related to the issue of whether or not there could be a condition
on fuel assistance, that condition being awaiting the action of the
passage of a windfall profit tax. In effect, tonight what the
gentleman is attempting to do is condition funding of broadcasting
to Cuba, on an unrelated contingency, which is broadcasting to
South Africa and, therefore, the Chair is prepared to sustain the
point of order as raised by the gentleman from Florida.
--Congressional Consideration of Balanced Budget Amendment to
Constitution
Sec. 31.39 It is not germane as an amendment to render a measure
contingent upon an unrelated Congressional action; thus, to a bill
author
[[Page 8678]]
izing appropriations for radio broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment
prohibiting use of those funds until Congress has considered a
constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget was held to be
nongermane, imposing an unrelated contingency requiring separate
Congressional action on another subject.
On Aug. 10, 1982,(15) during consideration of H.R. 5427
in the Committee of the Whole, Chairman William R. Ratchford, of
Connecticut, sustained a point of order against the following
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 20250, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 8, after line 12,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 13. No funds appropriated or authorized under this act
shall be expended in violation of section 7 of Public Law 95-
435 or until both Houses of the United States Congress have
considered an amendment to the United States Constitution
mandating a balanced federal budget.
Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a
point of order against the amendment. . . . (T)he amendment is
clearly not germane. . . .
Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is entirely
germane. All it is, is a limitation of funding under the bill. It
simply says that the program could go ahead and be authorized but
that the funding must be limited under the provisions of Public Law
94-435. So I think that this is an entirely appropriate limitation
of funding. It does not in any way become nongermane to the bill. .
. .
The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair has examined the amendment. The amendment clearly
imposes a contingency, the contingency being further action by the
Congress of the United States on another subject and, therefore, in
violation of House precedents.
The Chair rules that the amendment is not in order.
Completion of Committee Investigations
Sec. 31.40 To a bill providing in part for marketing quotas for feed
grains, an amendment proposing that provisions of the bill remain
inoperative pending completion of certain committee investigations
of alleged mismanagement of agricultural programs was held to be
germane.
In the 87th Congress, during consideration of the Food and
Agricultural Bill of 1962,(16) the fol
[[Page 8679]]
lowing amendment was offered: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H.R. 11222 (Committee on Agriculture).
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 11373, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Page 15,
line 17, immediately preceding the word ``subtitle B'' insert the
following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all the
provisions of this title IV shall remain inoperative until the
completion of the investigation of the Billie Sol Estes case by
the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the House
Committee on Government Operations and the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on
Government Operations and both such committees have filed the
reports and recommendations on such investigation with the
House of Representatives and the Senate respectively.
A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
Mr. [Ross] Bass [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment. It is not germane to the bill and
deals with the activities of other departments and does not come
within the purview of this bill.
The Chairman (18) summarily overruled the point of
order without explanation and without rebuttal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: This ruling was improperly decided since
nothing in the pending title of the bill involved congressional
investigations or conditions, and since the contingency in the
amendment required reports by committees not involved with the pending
bill.
Removal of Secretary of State
Sec. 31.41 To the Selective Training and Service Act, an amendment
providing that not more than one person may be inducted into the
Armed Services under the provisions of the act so long as the
President ``retains Dean Acheson as Secretary of State'' was held
to be not germane.
The above ruling by Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, was made
with respect to an amendment offered (19) by Mr. Ben F.
Jensen, of Iowa, to a bill (20) comprising amendments to the
Universal Military Training and Service Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 97 Cong. Rec. 3904, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1951.
20. S. 1-1951 (Committee on Armed Services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal of Commissioner of Education
Sec. 31.42 To a bill authorizing funds for elementary and secondary
education, an amendment providing that no funds shall be expended
[[Page 8680]]
thereunder ``so long as the present . . . Commissioner of Education
occupies that office'' was held to be germane.
In the 89th Congress, during consideration of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1966,(1) an amendment was offered
(2) as described above. A point of order was raised against
the amendment, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. H.R. 13161 (Committee on Education and Labor).
2. 112 Cong. Rec. 25583, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 6, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: . . . The amendment is not
germane, because we are undertaking to invade the authority of the
executive branch of this Government. The executive branch of this
Government has the appointive power, not the legislative branch.
Therefore, this amendment or proposal contravenes the law and
Constitution, and it is not germane.
In defending the amendment, the proponent, Mr. Albert W. Watson, of
South Carolina, stated:
Certainly it is not uncommon . . . for the Congress to restrict
the executive in the administration or implementation of pieces of
legislation. . . . We are not attempting to remove the
[Commissioner]. It would be up to the President to determine
whether to do so or not.
The Chairman,(3) in ruling on the point of order,
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is germane to
the bill, and overrules the point of order.
Restoration of Postal Service
Sec. 31.43 To a bill proposing to readjust postal rates, an amendment
which would postpone the effective date of the provisions of the
act until the restoration of postal service curtailed by previous
orders of the Postmaster General was held not germane.
On Sept. 19, 1951, during consideration of a bill (4) to
readjust postal rates, an amendment was offered as follows:
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. H.R. 2982 (Committee on Post Office and Civil Service).
5. 97 Cong. Rec. 11681, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. Javits to the committee amendment: On
page 26, line 8, strike out the period and insert a semicolon and
the following: ``Provided however, That the rates provided for in
this act shall not take effect until the restoration of delivery
and other essential postal services curtailed by the order of the
Postmaster General, dated April 18, 1950.''
A point of order was raised against the amendment, as follows:
Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point
[[Page 8681]]
of order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane
to the bill. The bill says nothing about deliveries. It only
applies to postal rates. It is not germane, because in 8 Cannon's
Precedents, section 3037, an amendment delaying operation of the
proposed legislation pending an unrelated contingency was held not
to be germane, and this relates to a very similar situation.
In defense of the amendment, the proponent stated as follows:
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Id. at p. 11682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the
amendment which I have proposed, if adopted, becomes a part of
section 14 of the act against which all points of order have been
waived by the rule which the House adopted.
This section already contains specific contingencies deferring
the time of the effective date of the rate specified hereunder. One
of those contingencies relates to all rates in the act, making them
effective three calendar months following the calendar month in
which enacted. The other relates to a special provision with
relation to second-class-mail rates. I am attempting to defer the
time when all rates specified under the act shall become effective
until certain restoration of delivery and other essential services
under the act. It seems to me that is another limitation upon the
date specified when the rates shall take effect, and is therefore
entirely in order.
The Chairman,(7) in ruling on the point of order stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . The Committee has before it a bill to adjust postal
rates. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits] offers an amendment
which would postpone the effective date of the provisions of the
bill until the restoration of delivery or other essential postal
services curtailed by previous orders of the Postmaster General.
The bill affects rates only. The amendment seeks to affect the
effective date of the provisions of the act by the happening of a
future event.
First, the Chair desires to state with reference to the
question of the rule under which the bill is being considered
waiving points of order, that those points of order waived apply to
the provisions in the bill alone and not to amendments offered from
the floor.
The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray] has referred to the
precedent in volume 8, Cannon's Precedents, section 3037, the
syllabus of which reads:
An amendment delaying operation of the proposed legislation
pending an unrelated contingency was held not to be germane.
The Chair is of the opinion that the pending amendment is not
germane, and sustains the point of order.
Opportunity To Use Milwaukee Port Facilities
Sec. 31.44 To a bill authorizing the Administrator of General Services
to convey a certain parcel of land to the city of Milwaukee, an
amendment proposing that such conveyance not be executed until
Milwaukee declares it will
[[Page 8682]]
provide opportunity for water transportation from other ports to
enter to discharge and take on cargo at its port was held to be not
germane.
In the 84th Congress, a bill (8) was under consideration
to authorize the Administrator of the General Services Administration
to convey certain land to the city of Milwaukee. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman,
of Michigan, offered an amendment as described above.(9) The
following proceedings then took place: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. H.R. 6857 (Committee on Government Operations).
9. 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1955.
10. Id. at pp. 12408, 12409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (11) The gentleman from Michigan is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I make the
point of order that the amendment is not germane.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: It certainly is.
Mr. [Harold R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point
of order that the gentleman from Michigan was recognized before the
point of order was raised.
The Speaker: The gentleman had not begun his remarks. . . .
Mr. Reuss: Mr. Speaker, I renew the point of order on the
ground that the amendment is not germane.
The Speaker: The amendment does apply to a different subject
matter altogether and, therefore, the point of order is sustained.